My idea - re-opening lines in Central England ?

[A0]

Wasn't the station Seaton Junction? It was three way?, just to the west of the viaduct?

One was for the Uppingham branch. Delightful part of the country - am always amazed at the lack of enthusiasm for such branch lines in the modelling world vis-a-vis the hordes of GWR branch line fans.

Same with photos - so few relatively of this area. I don't think I've EVER seen a piccie of a train on the LNW line underneath the viaduct, let alone one with another train simultaneously on the Midland line above.

Not quite - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaton_railway_station it was actually just called Seaton - (Seaton Junc was the one in Devon).

I don't think it was ever linked to the Midland Mainline (which of course the route from Corby - Nottingham was in those days).

It did however send trains to 4 destinations - Leicester and Rugby to the west, Peterborough to the east and Uppingham on the branch. Incredible for somewhere which really is in the middle of nowhere !

 

[PHILIPE]

Not quite - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaton_railway_station it was actually just called Seaton - (Seaton Junc was the one in Devon).

I don't think it was ever linked to the Midland Mainline (which of course the route from Corby - Nottingham was in those days).

It did however send trains to 4 destinations - Leicester and Rugby to the west, Peterborough to the east and Uppingham on the branch. Incredible for somewhere which really is in the middle of nowhere !

Also Stamford

 

[muddythefish]

Using a picture of the M20 when Operation Stack is underway (which is a result of the Channel Tunnel having problems which of course is a RAIL tunnel) is cheap and dishonest, even by your clearly low standards.

The photo was to show land use - as usual you've missed the whole point.

As for the rest of your rant - you've said nothing new or interesting and instead keep on peddling your Stalinist view of how transport policy should be run. That's fine. You keep to your dogmatic views, I'll engage with others who are more open minded, sensible and grow up than you.

Ditto. You've nothing worthwhile to say.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The old route from Nton to Pboro isn't really relevant I don't think, the entire economic geography of the area is so different these days. A Peterborough to Northampton line via the three key Northamptonshire towns is a logical route to follow.

I believe there did use to be a line running Peterborough to Market Harborough, which runs just north of Corby. Just before the line north from Corby dips into a brief tunnel north of a village called Geddington, it crosses this line, which can still be seen on Satellite imagery.

The bonus points are that there is still track leading into Peterborough, which surely would be the most expensive part to have to reconstruct. There appears to be freight usage of the line, but I doubt that would present an insurmountable challenge.

I agree a resurrected Northampton - Wellingborough line, with a rebuilt connection from the Nene valley to the MML at Wellingborough, is more feasible and probably more useful as it would enable a Corby - Kettering - Wellingborough - Northampton service linking most of the county's main towns.

The Nene valley route has been built on extensively in the Thrapston and Oundle areas but there is a way round the obstacles and a link from Peterborough/East Anglia to the Northampton/Daventry area would be useful, particularly for freight.

As an aside, it's always been a surprise why the Nene Valley Railway never extended to Oundle. The trackbed is still there and Oundle station was derelict for many years before it was finally developed for housing in the 1990s. A Peterborough - Oundle tourist railway would have been very attractive and also been useful as a possible commuter line - especially as the A605 is such a poor road.

 

[Camden]

I think you're thinking of a different route, the one I'm looking at doesn't go near Oundle, but is instead much more direct to Corby. It's also not built on, aside from perhaps 4 or 5 farm/light industrial buildings across its entirety. The reconstruction would be from north of Corby, close to Gretton, to just outside Peterborough - approximately 13 miles of track.

The other reconstruction element would then be the short distance between Northampton and Wellingborough. Ironically I think this would be the much more complicated part.

 

[A0]

I think you're thinking of a different route, the one I'm looking at doesn't go near Oundle, but is instead much more direct to Corby. It's also not built on, aside from perhaps 4 or 5 farm/light industrial buildings across its entirety. The reconstruction would be from north of Corby, close to Gretton, to just outside Peterborough - approximately 13 miles of track.

I know what you mean - the route you're thinking of joins what is now the Nene Valley at Yarwell Junction and goes nowhere near Oundle (which is about 5 miles to the south)

MuddytheFish is, once again, going off on a tangent of completely unrealistic ideas - in this case why the Nene Valley Railway hasn't extended to Oundle - the reason for this is very simple - it's incredibly expensive to extend heritage railways and the Nene Valley as recently as a year ago was having an appeal to raise funds just to keep the railway running as is.

The other reconstruction element would then be the short distance between Northampton and Wellingborough. Ironically I think this would be the much more complicated part.

It's not difficult - it's virtually impossible. The original route out of Wellingborough has long disappeared under a mix of housing and other developments. The original station on that route was at London Road, roughly where the A509 and A45 intersect. And the approach to Northampton (all around Bedford Road) has also all disappeared as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The photo was to show land use - as usual you've missed the whole point.

A two track railway is hardly comparable to a 3 lane motorway. The motorway has FAR greater capacity.

If you want a more representative example, I suggest you use Google Earth and look at the MML (4 track) next to the M1 (3 lane) at Edgware - you have to 'zoom in', don't rely on the coloured 'line' which Google place as that doesn't show the true width. By my estimation the road is about 1 lane wider than the rail in terms of space taken up (which can be accounted for with the hard-shoulder which is mandatory on motorways). So a non-motorway dual carriageway takes up much less space.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you want a more representative example, I suggest you use Google Earth and look at the MML (4 track) next to the M1 (3 lane) at Edgware - you have to 'zoom in', don't rely on the coloured 'line' which Google place as that doesn't show the true width. By my estimation the road is about 1 lane wider than the rail in terms of space taken up (which can be accounted for with the hard-shoulder which is mandatory on motorways). So a non-motorway dual carriageway takes up much less space.

Alternatively - we can introduce some 'science' into the equation.

A class 165 is (according to Wikipedia) 2800mm wide.
A new Routemaster (again, Wikipedia) is 2500mm wide.
A large saloon car (Audi A8) is 2000mm wide.

So allowing for clearances which are probably about 30% for rail and 20% on the road you're looking at a double track railway (allowing for one track in each direction) being as follows:

Rail
(Clearance 840 + track 2800 + clearance 840 + track 2800 + clearance 840 = 8120mm

Road (Clearance 500 + Road 2500 + Clearance 500 + Road 2500 + Clearance 500) = 7500 mm.

I'm quite happy for someone on these boards who has an engineering background to correct these figures if they know the actuals.

 

[muddythefish]

I think you're thinking of a different route, the one I'm looking at doesn't go near Oundle, but is instead much more direct to Corby. It's also not built on, aside from perhaps 4 or 5 farm/light industrial buildings across its entirety. The reconstruction would be from north of Corby, close to Gretton, to just outside Peterborough - approximately 13 miles of track.

The other reconstruction element would then be the short distance between Northampton and Wellingborough. Ironically I think this would be the much more complicated part.

Yes, a different route but much easier and more direct Corby - Northampton as it would require only reconstruction from the MML at Wellingborough to the old Nene valley line. The railway would have to go under or over the A45 but the cost of reconstruction would not that great and offer a practical public transport alternative compared to AOwen's 1960s nightmare vision of a county covered in tarmac.

MuddytheFish is, once again, going off on a tangent of completely unrealistic ideas - in this case why the Nene Valley Railway hasn't extended to Oundle - the reason for this is very simple - it's incredibly expensive to extend heritage railways and the Nene Valley as recently as a year ago was having an appeal to raise funds just to keep the railway running as is.

The NVR was one of the early preservation schemes and should be much bigger and better than it is but has been overtaken by many other lines through lack of ambition. Extending a heritage railway is perfectly feasible as the GWR, Llangollen and many others railways have shown. Some, such as the Lynton and Barnstaple and Helston schemes, have started from scratch. The NVR could and should have secured the trackbed to Oundle 30 years ago.

A two track railway is hardly comparable to a 3 lane motorway. The motorway has FAR greater capacity.

And a four-track railway is hardly comparable to a single track road. And capacity for what exactly - lines of cars with single occupants, or trains every few minutes with hundreds on board ?

 

[GazUk]

It's not difficult - it's virtually impossible. The original route out of Wellingborough has long disappeared under a mix of housing and other developments. The original station on that route was at London Road, roughly where the A509 and A45 intersect. And the approach to Northampton (all around Bedford Road) has also all disappeared as well.

In this day and age, nothing is impossible is it?-just look at what engineers did with crossrail
So because of that,if "money was not an issue" i guess in theory you could tunnel under the where the old wellingborough London station used to be to get under the where the A45 Crosses the A509,also where the line comes out of Northampton,there is a Big Roundabout which crosses where the line used to run (It ran parallel with Hardingstone Dyke) so because of that i'd say have the route go through the Brackmills Est, then make a new link between that and the Northampton to wellingborugh line- job done

But we know that will never,ever happen- i mean who in the right mind would want to make use of an Existing (Albeit a old,disused and slightly built on) route(s)? It seems the Goverment would rather fund a more Expensive and newer Railway network,one that seems to be still at the Planning stage,and no one knows when or if it will even happen.......

 

[muddythefish]

In this day and age, nothing is impossible is it?-just look at what engineers did with crossrail
...........

It seems the Goverment would rather fund a more Expensive and newer Railway network,one that seems to be still at the Planning stage,and no one knows when or if it will even happen.......

True, if you can build a new railway line from London to Manchester and Leeds, then rebuilding or building a new route for an old railway line for 10 miles or so from Northampton to Wellingborough, and scheme like it, are a doddle. People with their heads in the sand say schemes will never take off because of the apparent obstacles, but all it needs is the political will for them to happen. Money is not an issue; government will always find the funding for policy commitments.

 

[Bald Rick]

True, if you can build a new railway line from London to Manchester and Leeds, then rebuilding or building a new route for an old railway line for 10 miles or so from Northampton to Wellingborough, and scheme like it, are a doddle. People with their heads in the sand say schemes will never take off because of the apparent obstacles, but all it needs is the political will for them to happen. Money is not an issue; government will always find the funding for policy commitments.

Agreed. Although most would argue that the benefits of a line linking the 4 largest metropolitan areas in the country are somewhat greater than the benefits of a line linking the 4th largest town in Northants to its county capital. And therefore it won't become a policy commitment.

 

[muddythefish]

Agreed. Although most would argue that the benefits of a line linking the 4 largest metropolitan areas in the country are somewhat greater than the benefits of a line linking the 4th largest town in Northants to its county capital. And therefore it won't become a policy commitment

There would be wider benefits (see posts earlier in the thread). Policy commitments to embark on rail expansion of course would also have to come at a national level.

 

[Camden]

Agreed. Although most would argue that the benefits of a line linking the 4 largest metropolitan areas in the country are somewhat greater than the benefits of a line linking the 4th largest town in Northants to its county capital. And therefore it won't become a policy commitment.

I would disagree with this. The linkages being spoken about are about changing economic geography, creating links that don't presently exist and enabling hundreds of thousands of people across a three county area to connect to jobs that previously would have been fairly inaccessible at normal levels, including requiring car ownership (a big barrier therefore in terms of youth employment, subsequently having knock on effects where people move away).

The link isn't just Northampton to the three towns, but Northampton to Peterborough through the three towns, plus interchange for Leicester, Nottingham, and vice versa they to Milton Keynes.

In terms of comparing it to a line linking the 4 largest metropolitan areas in the country, it's by no means certain that the line spoken about will reach Sheffield, arguably the most disconnected of all the four areas spoken about, however even there it has frequent services to Leeds. As for the other cities, there are five decent trains each hour between Manchester and Leeds already, and two between Manchester and Liverpool (plus a few other services). There is no indication that building a new line will offer any value for money at all, despite the sizes of the areas involved, because it doesn't appear to be bringing anything new to the party except making the journeys a bit faster (and probably more expensive to boot).

I would also say that the argument put forward above is little more than an inverse of the complaints put forward about London getting everything due to size.

An estimated cost of in the region of eight billion pounds just to tunnel between Manchester and Leeds, cities already strongly connected, I think this would lose out in terms of official benefit structure versus the much more modest, yet potentially much more transformative, project being spoken about here.

 

[A0]

I would disagree with this. The linkages being spoken about are about changing economic geography, creating links that don't presently exist and enabling hundreds of thousands of people across a three county area to connect to jobs that previously would have been fairly inaccessible at normal levels, including requiring car ownership (a big barrier therefore in terms of youth employment, subsequently having knock on effects where people move away).

The link isn't just Northampton to the three towns, but Northampton to Peterborough through the three towns, plus interchange for Leicester, Nottingham, and vice versa they to Milton Keynes.

But we already have some of the links in place - and some will be strengthened with EWR.

So - Milton Keynes to Nottingham or Leicester can already be done with only one change (Nuneaton or Tamworth). And improvements to EWR will offer the via Bedford option.

Same goes for Northampton (though it's now two changes for either since the Trent Valley services were re-directed via Weedon).

This leaves Peterborough as the 'unconnected' place, but I think people are overestimating Peterborough's importance - both Leicester and Nottingham are places of over 300,000 people. Peterborough is less than 200,000. It has fewer large employers and people commuting from Peterborough are generally heading towards London.

You're also wrong with this statement "enabling hundreds of thousands of people across a three county area to connect to jobs that previously would have been fairly inaccessible at normal levels" because that assumes you have 000s of thousands of people who currently DON'T have transport for these - and that's not the case.

If you take the UK - there are 61m people of whom about 38m are working age so about 60%.

Northamptonshire is 700k people (the main beneficiary of this suggestion). Assume the UK average applies you're looking at 400,000 people.

You've then got to work out how many people either (i) can't drive or (ii) would change how they commute - at the most that's likely to be 20 % which gives you 80,000 people. And that's assuming all of those want to travel on that route (which is highly unlikely).

So your 'hundreds of thousands' really is less than a hundred thousand in reality.

Unless of course you can come up with other figures with some logic behind them.

 

[Camden]

I appreciate you don't think it's worthwhile, that's your view.

However, adding the five towns/cities together that's over 750,000 people who don't have fast, frequent, always-on, available-to-all connectivity between them - for the sake of two pretty short stretches of track that would probably be there today if today's rail infrastructure reflected present day geography.

And the present "importance" of Peterborough is completely in-line with its disconnection from the urbanities around it. All the more reason to build, not less.

This, fundamentally, is one for the imaginative and ambitious, for those able to see growth opportunities. Socially, the links are justifiable in the likely transformative effects they would have, and I suspect they would be economically successful too.

 

[The Planner]

But if these opportunities for growth and connection are really there, why arent more people pushing for it? Irrespective of if the council is more roads focussed, if business and others start pushing for it then momentum normally gets going. It is still chicken and egg, no one will commit to it if there is no guarantee that growth or expansion is going to happen, if a big employer turned round and said we will come to your town if that link is built, great, but are they?

 

[A0]

The NVR was one of the early preservation schemes and should be much bigger and better than it is but has been overtaken by many other lines through lack of ambition. Extending a heritage railway is perfectly feasible as the GWR, Llangollen and many others railways have shown. Some, such as the Lynton and Barnstaple and Helston schemes, have started from scratch. The NVR could and should have secured the trackbed to Oundle 30 years ago.

*Sigh* when will you start using some basic facts and investigation before posting your comments?

Right - Let's start with the Llangollen's recent extension - 2 miles which has cost them £ 1m - so it costs about £ 500k / mile to extend a heritage railway.

Yarwell - Oundle is about 7 miles - so such a project will *easily* cost over £ 3m.

This statement in particular "The NVR could and should have secured the trackbed to Oundle 30 years ago." is utter bollocks and shows how little you know about the NVR and how it came into being. The NVR didn't OWN any of it's trackbed at its inception - instead it based what rolling stock it owned at the British Sugar site in Peterborough. The only way it obtained a running line was as follows:

"In 1974, the Peterborough Development Corporation (PDC) bought the Nene Valley line between Longville and Yarwell Junctions and it began leasing it to the PRS to operate the railway – a major milestone in the society's history."

Source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nene_Valley_Railway)

The NVR was by the late 70s running a 6 mile heritage line - a significant achievement. But was doing it wholly volunteer labour and on a shoestring.

They then, rightly, focused on extending into Peterborough itself - though their terminus is some way from the city centre.

The big problem they have is they are not in a 'natural' tourist area - the only other heritage line of any scale which I can think of that has a similar issue is the GCR. All the others, particularly of those early pioneers benefited from being in or close to other major tourist areas - NYMR in North Yorks national park, WSR - Minehead a seaside tourist destination, Severn Valley Railway - Bridgnorth & Ironbridge, Swanage - Swanage & Corfe Castle, Bluebell - Sheffield Park & South Downs and so on.

Peterborough doesn't compare to any of those on any objective level. Oundle isn't a tourist destination full stop - it's a small, quite pretty, market town. That's it. It's no more a tourist destination than Wellingborough. It's certainly not comparable to Stamford (a short distance away) because Stamford has Burghley House.

The L&B is not a fair comparison in any way - the costs of building and running narrow gauge are FAR less than standard gauge. Once again they're in a major tourist area so benefit from passing trade.

The NVR has survived, largely because it's so close to the country park which the PDC developed as part of developing Peterborough - but as the number of heritage railways has mushroomed in the last 30 years the NVR has lost some of its early attraction to the enthusiast market - somewhat unfairly. So it has become more reliant on the family market and targets many of its events accordingly.

They are currently appealing for funds to overhaul one of the line's stars - Thomas - which will cost over £ 150,000 - if they're having to appeal for that, the chances of raising £ 5m to extend to Oundle (before you even factor in the running costs) seems more than a tad unlikely.

And a four-track railway is hardly comparable to a single track road. And capacity for what exactly - lines of cars with single occupants, or trains every few minutes with hundreds on board ?

I didn't compare a 4 track railway with a single track road. I compared a 4 track railway (MML) with a motorway (M1) and pointed out what the likely dimensions for a 2 track railway were against a single carriageway road - which is an entirely reasonable comparison.

 

[Camden]

But if these opportunities for growth and connection are really there, why arent more people pushing for it? Irrespective of if the council is more roads focussed, if business and others start pushing for it then momentum normally gets going. It is still chicken and egg, no one will commit to it if there is no guarantee that growth or expansion is going to happen, if a big employer turned round and said we will come to your town if that link is built, great, but are they?

Not everywhere has dynamic metropolitan bodies pressing for these things or paid to come up with such ideas. Vast areas of the UK are effectively simply administrated by administrators, improvements are incremental and more about keeping things ticking over. If there are any regeneration plans, they tend to be small scale, based on singular locations.

I don't know what you'd call an all encompassing TfL style transport body to cover this wide area, but I do know that it doesn't exist.

Your last statement is either glib or not knowledgeable about the factors that go into business location/relocation. No employer says that to anywhere, they simply go where they're attracted to. And good quality existing linkages are key to that decision.

 

[A0]

I appreciate you don't think it's worthwhile, that's your view.

However, adding the five towns/cities together that's over 750,000 people who don't have fast, frequent, always-on, available-to-all connectivity between them - for the sake of two pretty short stretches of track that would probably be there today if today's rail infrastructure reflected present day geography.

And the present "importance" of Peterborough is completely in-line with its disconnection from the urbanities around it. All the more reason to build, not less.

This, fundamentally, is one for the imaginative and ambitious, for those able to see growth opportunities. Socially, the links are justifiable in the likely transformative effects they would have, and I suspect they would be economically successful too.

It could serve 60 million people but UNLESS there is a reasonable chance of a high % age of those people using it - then it's worthless.

I've stuck my neck out and shown you what I reckon really is the likely usage figures - show me where they're wrong. Come up with some other figures which demonstrate why it's such a good idea and how viable it is, rather than just peddling meaningless statements such as this "Socially, the links are justifiable in the likely transformative effects they would have"

And whilst you're at it - perhaps you could also address ThePlanner's entirely valid point "But if these opportunities for growth and connection are really there, why arent more people pushing for it?"

You and Muddythefish are not a representative sample of people in the area - frankly it's a bit like the ridiculous campaign of three old women who have too much time on their hands that are still bleating on about Northampton Boro Council's sale of the Sekhemka statue.....

 

[Camden]

I am not a representative sample of any people in any area and I never claimed to be. I'm also not "campaigning", just trying to have a half interesting conversation exploring a half interesting idea. Heaven forbid.

I already have addressed the point raised by "The Planner", I don't think there's any point in my trying to respond to your points. I find your insulting comment about "too much time on their hands" rather ironic - you don't have any interest in exploring this topic, yet here you are putting lengthy posts.

No-one is forcing you to write on this forum. If the idea offends you, you are more than entitled to walk away.

 

[HowardGWR]

Is there a similar railway that connects a bunch of larger market towns like Northampton, Wellingborough and Peterborough, that exists today, and which it would be unthinkable if someone proposed closing? If so, then I think @Muddy could have a case for a similar line to be (re) opened. It would need to be sold that way I think.

In my neck of the woods I could propose as an example, Weymouth to Bath which continues further of course, to Bristol and the West Midlands. Perhaps that could be the answer. Instead of strange circular services, perhaps extending such a line by making the services on it extend to the cities in the north or east, one could get pax who appreciate the lack of a need to change trains? In my example, to be able to reach Bristol or Gloucester in one hit from a smaller place like Dorchester, must be a selling point. Otherwise the line could have simply have been a branch from Westbury to Weymouth, which is more or less how it started out.

 

[Camden]

Is there a similar railway that connects...

I think the difficulty with this logic is Beeching, plus how difficult it is to actually get railway lines re-opened in the UK for paperwork reasons.

We have seen there have been instances where lines are re-opened, where Beeching went too far. Add in a dollop of un-even population growth and I think you do have a case in Northants.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there a similar railway that connects a bunch of larger market towns like Northampton, Wellingborough and Peterborough, that exists today, and which it would be unthinkable if someone proposed closing? If so, then I think @Muddy could have a case for a similar line to be (re) opened. It would need to be sold that way I think.

There are plenty. And without exception, they lose money, unless they carry on to London.

The case to be sold therefore becomes 'spend a lot of money up front in order to lose money', which is pretty difficult for any funder to swallow. Unless there are significant socio-economic benefits that a) outweigh the up front and ongoing losses, and b) cannot be gained by doing something else that costs less.

Successful new / reopened lines are always predicated on these socio-economic benefits, and this usually means significant construction of houses and businesses on the line of the route. EWR being the best example.

 

[A0]

There are plenty. And without exception, they lose money, unless they carry on to London.

The case to be sold therefore becomes 'spend a lot of money up front in order to lose money', which is pretty difficult for any funder to swallow. Unless there are significant socio-economic benefits that a) outweigh the up front and ongoing losses, and b) cannot be gained by doing something else that costs less.

Successful new / reopened lines are always predicated on these socio-economic benefits, and this usually means significant construction of houses and businesses on the line of the route. EWR being the best example.

Not solely London - I'd also include the other capitals and probably Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds in that as well. But otherwise I agree completely with your post.

And here's the rub - EWR in terms of the improvement between Bedford and Bletchley will, potentially give MK the improved link to the MML which then opens up the connections to Leicester, Corby and Kettering.

At which point the Northampton - Wellingborough line makes even less sense, since a route which serves much of the same purpose will be operating about 20 miles further south.

Peterborough remains out on a limb, but either the eastern section of EWR will provide the connectivity onto the ECML (either at Sandy or Hitchin depending on the final decision) or through a south - east curve at Manton Junc (which is about 200 yards of track, so in the scheme of things would cost very little).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the difficulty with this logic is Beeching, plus how difficult it is to actually get railway lines re-opened in the UK for paperwork reasons.

We have seen there have been instances where lines are re-opened, where Beeching went too far. Add in a dollop of un-even population growth and I think you do have a case in Northants.

If you look at the Beeching reopenings, the vast majority haven't required many miles of reconstruction of a completely dead route - instead it's usually been resurrecting routes which had been retained for freight.

Borders Railway is the big exception, but that's addressing a totally different need in that places such as Hawick and Galashiels were put many miles away from the nearest rail connection when that was closed. And the connection is to Edinburgh - a far more important place than either Northampton or Peterborough.

Places like Thrapston and Irthlingborough are only a couple of miles from Kettering or Wellingborough which always maintained a half-decent service (which has improved immeasurably since privatisation).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is there a similar railway that connects a bunch of larger market towns like Northampton, Wellingborough and Peterborough, that exists today, and which it would be unthinkable if someone proposed closing?

Closing railways or even stations nowadays is politically impossible. Even when there would appear to be a complete justification for the closure. Instead you simply end up with the 'parliamentary' situation of one train a week.

In many cases the recent closures have been because something else is happening and there is a more than adequate alternative - e.g. Farringdon - Moorgate or some of the recent station re-sites.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not solely London - I'd also include the other capitals and probably Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds in that as well. But otherwise I agree completely with your post.

Sorry, but the Birmingham, Leeds, Cardiff, Manchester and Edinburgh (and Glasgow) commuter networks all lose money. Even the London 'inner' commuter services lose money. Although they are clearly very good for their respective cities economies in other ways.

Very roughly, unless it is at least an hourly service, and longer than 5 coaches (on average through the day), and travels more than 30 miles, it loses money. Even for services that meet these conditions, it's not a guarantee of profit.

 

[HowardGWR]

Sorry, but the Birmingham, Leeds, Cardiff, Manchester and Edinburgh (and Glasgow) commuter networks all lose money. Even the London 'inner' commuter services lose money. Although they are clearly very good for their respective cities economies in other ways.

Very roughly, unless it is at least an hourly service, and longer than 5 coaches (on average through the day), and travels more than 30 miles, it loses money. Even for services that meet these conditions, it's not a guarantee of profit.

BCR (or COBA or TUBA, etc) has nothing to do with P and L, as I am sure you are aware. The benefits accruing from public expenditure do not have to go to those stumping up the cash for the investment (usually the local or general taxpayer).

I don't know if there is a BCR type need, incorporating wider benefits, for a line between Northampton and Wellingborough but it could be that someone does. There is also the element of environmental and social benefit which is not at the moment incorporated in quite so sophisticated a way as money benefits (usually time savings). In the end, a value judgement has to be made by politicians and the above techniques are just a guide and also a crude way of measuring one proposal against another.

 

[Bevan Price]

One could argue forever the rights & wrongs of the Marples-Beeching closures. A sad fact is that many of the lines mentioned were easy targets. To attract lots of passengers all day, you need a regular flow of users - mainly workers, shoppers plus a contribution from schools traffic. Sadly, most of the lines had slow, irregular trains, often at times of little use to potential users.

Apart possibly from Northampton, none of the towns in the area can compare with Leicester, Coventry, Birmingham (or London) as destinations for lots of regular "out of town" shoppers. As for journey times - Northampton to Peterborough (43 miles) mostly took over 80 minutes. And the last departure (1963, M-F) from Northampton Castle to Peterborough East was at 17:05. (18:39 on SO), plus a few later short workings to Wellingborough. The only other eastbound though trains were at 07:07, 09:13 and 12:22. So - not a very attractive service - and typical of many other of these lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

BCR (or COBA or TUBA, etc) has nothing to do with P and L, as I am sure you are aware. The benefits accruing from public expenditure do not have to go to those stumping up the cash for the investment (usually the local or general taxpayer).

I am well aware that BCR (Benefit Cost Ratio) has lots to do with P&L, having done quite a few.

One of the key lines in the benefits column of a BCR calc is operating income.

One of the key lines in the costs column is operating costs.

In normal business, operating income - operating cost = operating profit (or loss).

It is a damn sight easier to make a good BCR when operating income > operating costs. Conversely the non revenue benefits have to be much higher if operating costs>operating income. Especially when the costs of reopening the line are also included in the costs column.

 

[Camden]

Not that straightforward in country infrastructure, however, where "Benefits" (wider or direct) are also added to the "Operating Income" before the deductions take place.

In the case of connecting places with rail that don't presently have a connection the "Benefits" can be substantial and far outweigh those assigned to rail projects where a connection already exists.

HS2 as an example. Birmingham to Leeds the "Benefit" is very high at 5.6, far higher than that of the route to Manchester which comparatively struggles in terms of ratio.

 

[richieb1971]

The more you read the more understand that the only reason railways exist in the UK is because they pre-existed the current government legislation and political agenda.

Had it not been the case we would have no railways at all.

The only people enthusiastic about new railway building are the enthusiasts.


If you don't drive because of any reason, you are seriously paying over the odds if your only transport is the train.

Trains work for London because another train takes you to your final destination. That is the only system that really works. I would never take the train unless my work place was 5 mins walk from the station. I only ride trains because I am a rail enthusiast whos final destination is the station I am getting off at.

Its a shame that people who frequent this forum don't share enthusiasm. Your all like a firing squad waiting for the next stray with a big idea to walk in, and bullets start flying ricocheting off the sides of my browser.

 

[deltic08]

Not that straightforward in country infrastructure, however, where "Benefits" (wider or direct) are also added to the "Operating Income" before the deductions take place.

In the case of connecting places with rail that don't presently have a connection the "Benefits" can be substantial and far outweigh those assigned to rail projects where a connection already exists.

HS2 as an example. Birmingham to Leeds the "Benefit" is very high at 5.6, far higher than that of the route to Manchester which comparatively struggles in terms of ratio.

Where does his figure come from? The last I read, BCR for HS2 was 0.4.

 

[Camden]

Where does his figure come from? The last I read, BCR for HS2 was 0.4.

I'm no fan of this badly thought out political vanity project, but 0.4?? I'd love to see where that figure came from?

The 5.6 for Leeds is from some HS2 documents. Not exactly what I would call reliable, and I believe all the HS2 figures have been revised downwards since the documents publication, but it's the official figure as far as I am aware.

@RichieB Yes, I do find the presence on these forums of people who are anti-rail services in some way to be very strange.

Some dress their objections up in talk that usually goes along the lines of "the project must wash its face" (I've heard that particular phrase a few times) giving themselves an air of fiscal responsibility, but it is just thinly veiled code for "I don't want a penny spending on something I don't want to see happen and I'll use any excuse I can lay my hands on to make sure it doesn't".

I think there must just be some sort of Bitterness gene that exists that some people have and others not.

The world and this country would be a miserable old place if it wasn't for ideas and creativity. I'm not sure whether these types would notice, but most would.