My idea - re-opening lines in Central England ?

[route:oxford]

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.

This is not true. A large emplyer can manipulate a local authority or even national government.

A very good example is RBS at Gogarburn.

The local authority in Edinburgh was set against the world headquarters of RBS to be built on the essentially greenfield site at Gogarburn near Edinburgh Airport.

When RBS simply said... "Ok, we'll move to Glasgow". Suddenly, there was a massive change of heart. New bridges were built and tram stop planned.

Then there is Ireland with its free and easy attitude towards taxation and major corporates.

 

[A0]

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

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

Well said. Why would a petrolhead inhabit this site other than to cause offence?

The problem with all of these comments is that they are taking the same approach that the Corbynites are taking with the more moderate elements of the Labour party.

None those posters seem to be able to comprehend that people who have an interest in railways don't necessarily believe that rebuilding large swathes of the network which were closed 50 years ago is necessarily right or a good thing to do.

So when people, such as me, suggest that such reopenings are fanciful in the extreme, we're routinely derided as 'agitators', 'not enthusiasts' etc etc - the Corbyn left are doing exactly the same by referring to their opponents in their own party as 'Blue Tories' and claiming they clearly aren't socialists.

Yet I'm sure each of the posters I've quoted would like to think they are in the 'mainstream' of opinion, tolerant, and that the wider public would agree with them - yet they NEVER present facts to support their arguments.

If Northampton - Wellingborough as a rail link is such a great idea - why aren't Northants County Council pushing for it ? Simple - because it really doesn't make a lot of sense - however to the posters I've listed above it's because the County Council is tied up in some kind of anti-rail conspiracy.

Ignore the fact NCC pushed for Northampton station to be rebuilt, ignore the fact NCC lobbied extensively for a restoration of services to Corby, ignore the fact NCC is supporting the electrification of the MML to Kettering & Corby. No, none of that's good enough - all because NCC is also supporting road improvements in the county - most of which have widespread support and some of which are still being demanded - such as the link I posted last week.

I think some posters need to take a good, long hard look at what they're proposing and how they're reacting to people they don't agree with. Because I suspect the wider public would be even more turned off by their arguments than those of us who actually have an interest in rail transport.

 

[Camden]

The problem isn't with dissenting opinion. This isn't a campaign site or a political site, it's a discussion forum.

The problem is that at no point is it able to discuss the idea, to throw around ideas and explore the concept without it facing these kinds of "IT WON'T WASH ITS FACE" type comments.

So what if it's fanciful? If it's fanciful, it means that people like you are wasting your time campaigning against it (on a discussion forum).

No one will be taking a long hard look at what is proposed because a) there has been no opportunity to get any ideas to such a point that this is possible due to the above, and b) as a result no one is interested any more. A potentially interesting discussion subject gone up in internet flames. For why.

 

[DarloRich]

The problem isn't with dissenting opinion. This isn't a campaign site or a political site, it's a discussion forum.

The problem is that at no point is it able to discuss the idea, to throw around ideas and explore the concept without it facing these kinds of "IT WON'T WASH ITS FACE" type comments.

So what if it's fanciful? If it's fanciful, it means that people like you are wasting your time campaigning against it (on a discussion forum).

No one will be taking a long hard look at what is proposed because a) there has been no opportunity to get any ideas to such a point that this is possible due to the above, and b) as a result no one is interested any more. A potentially interesting discussion subject gone up in internet flames. For why.

because many of the "points" raised are expressed in a manner which has little connection to the real world and lacks any understanding of how railways are funded or how much such works actually cost.

 

[muddythefish]

The problem isn't with dissenting opinion. This isn't a campaign site or a political site, it's a discussion forum.

The problem is that at no point is it able to discuss the idea, to throw around ideas and explore the concept without it facing these kinds of "IT WON'T WASH ITS FACE" type comments.

So what if it's fanciful? If it's fanciful, it means that people like you are wasting your time campaigning against it (on a discussion forum).

No one will be taking a long hard look at what is proposed because a) there has been no opportunity to get any ideas to such a point that this is possible due to the above, and b) as a result no one is interested any more. A potentially interesting discussion subject gone up in internet flames. For why.

Exactly. Northampton - Wellingborough may or may not be feasible, and it certainly won't happen without a government commitment to widespread rail reopenings, but to dismiss it because the county council doesn't appear to be interested (why should it - when it is primarily a statutory provider of roads?), or there's isn't a local campaign for reinstatement, is wrong and defeats the whole point of a discussion forum. The fact remains that Northampton is a fast growing town that is badly served by public transport (particularly rail), its chronic traffic congestion is not going to be solved by covering its green acres with more tarmac and the Nene valley line is one of many secondary lines across the country that, had it survived the Beeching axe, would undoubtedly be very well used today.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Maybe not Central England - but Welwyn to Luton (if not Dunstable) would be a good link today with the development and economic development that has happened since 196x whenit was shut down - even as a basic railway , it would have thrived.

 

[backontrack]

Northampton - Peterborough in its entirely would be very useful now. The population in the Nene valley has soared in the past 20 years.

Yes, there are the towns of Irthlingborough, Thrapston and Oundle. The routes from Northampton to Bedford and from Northampton to Market Harborough didn't serve many sizeable places; the Huntingdon to Kettering line served Raunds as well as Thrapston.

 

[HowardGWR]

I think I would have appreciated just a smidgen of data supporting the Northampton case but I agree with @AOwen that not much at all, was forthcoming.

We know that people on that trajectory between there and Peterborough on the suggested trajectories are using road; (they have to or not travel) but we don't know what are the origin and destination data involved. To get an idea of the possible modal shift plus the release of unsatisfied travel desire for those not able to use road, we need some survey data. I think that people who would wish to promote rail would do well to expand on any anecdotal impressions by carrying out a few surveys at bus stations and service areas, or ask their local Councils to do a few.

 

[richieb1971]

There is a big difference between people who think for today and people who think for tomorrow. Railways are a great asset to our country and the more of them the better. We cannot just assume the world needs more cars and roads. Building today means preserving the land for rail usage. How many railways have we lost or pathways lost because of house building and new infrastructure. Wouldn't EWR have an easier job building Bedford to Cambridge if the old lines were still available to use? What if 10 mins after the land between 2 points is secured for infrastructure the government finally agrees its a good idea to build a railway along that path?

The problem with this forum and its members is that people come here full of enthusiasm and expect like minded people to join in the enthusiasm. Even though there is 0.0000001% chance of any new railway happening due to a post on this forum, we still believe or want to believe in our cloud 9 heads that its good and possible. Then comes the fire brigade and forum police like most on here who don't understand enthusiasm, they only understand economics, reality, get on their high horses and fall just short of calling their fellow forum members dumb arses and clueless. I bet its these types of people who tell their kids that Father Christmas is a lie and watch their kids cry themselves to sleep.:roll:

There is nothing wrong with wishful thinking. There is nothing wrong with imagining something that was lost could be again. And there certainly isn't anything wrong with building something. This country spends Trillions on pounds on absolute BS. Yet a railway costing a few hundred millions is totally taboo and off the table. This country is slacking, arguably in total decline and is need of enthusiasm. This country prints money for fun.. So no matter how much something costs, its just a printing machine away. If America wanted something, they would start the print machines rolling, getting people to work. And if we had the skills and resources to spare we should be building all day long.

Not to mention there is too many people unemployed sitting on their butts doing sweet FA in this country.

Rant over.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Rubbish - a single carriageway road is only fractionally larger than a single track railway - as can be seen anywhere an old line has been re-used as a road. Just because the gap between the rails is only 4' 8 1/2", doesn't mean the area used by the railway line is.

By 'single-track' do you actually mean 'two tracks, one for each direction' (Your comment about the gap between the rails suggests it is).

It's not entirely a fair comparison because a railway (with one track for each direction) has a far greater passengers-per-hour capacity than a road with one carriageway in each direction. (Though obviously, whether that capacity is actually used depends on the location of the railway). I would guess the most you're plausibly going to get reasonably free-flowing on a road is a thousand or so cars per hour - and that will only be possible if the road widens massively at junctions. (On the other hand, a 12 car train can fit that many people in one train!)

 

[The Planner]

You would need to set some sort of ground rules for a comparison though? What sort of road, what sort of railway, whats the headway, what sort of train, how many are in a car, is the train full etc.. I would have said 1000vph on a 2 lane road is being a bit conservative?

I have plucked one out of thin air from DfT traffic counts, being the A46 in Warwickshire between the M40 and Alcester and that comes up with about 1700vph in 2014.

 

[A0]

By 'single-track' do you actually mean 'two tracks, one for each direction' (Your comment about the gap between the rails suggests it is).

Correct - sorry for the ambiguity

It's not entirely a fair comparison because a railway (with one track for each direction) has a far greater passengers-per-hour capacity than a road with one carriageway in each direction.

Not sure I agree - whilst you can run a 10 carriage train, the challenge you then run is signalling and speed - which inherently reduces capacity.

On a quieter line if you used a 153 or 156 as a benchmark a 153 seats about 70 people (roughly the same as a single double-deck bus), yet the double deck takes up much less space and is arguable more flexible. Even if you moved to a 156 you're looking at 150 people - so 2 or 3 double deck buses, 4 single decks (assuming 40 seater) or 150 cars (if every car only has 1 person). In terms of space used, the cars take the most BUT the density of their use means over an hour it could be as little as one car every 20-30 seconds (i.e. 3 cars a minute * 60 = 180 cars). Whereas the train is 150 people in one go.

(Though obviously, whether that capacity is actually used depends on the location of the railway). I would guess the most you're plausibly going to get reasonably free-flowing on a road is a thousand or so cars per hour - and that will only be possible if the road widens massively at junctions. (On the other hand, a 12 car train can fit that many people in one train!)

But a 12 car train is London commuter or Intercity standard - whereas the kind of lines being talked about in this thread would struggle to justify an hourly 156.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You would need to set some sort of ground rules for a comparison though?

Yes - agree 100% (finally some sense )

What sort of road, what sort of railway, whats the headway, what sort of train, how many are in a car, is the train full etc.. I would have said 1000vph on a 2 lane road is being a bit conservative?

I have plucked one out of thin air from DfT traffic counts, being the A46 in Warwickshire between the M40 and Alcester and that comes up with about 1700vph in 2014.

And the other element is where are those cars going to and from - the issue with saying 'just rebuild the railway' is that only reconnects two points. If people aren't travelling to Alcester from the M40, but are actually using it as part of a longer journey then you need to understand ALL of those flows to make a meaningful assessment of whether reinstating the rail line will address that.

For Borders rail it was much simpler given that Edinburgh (a key destination) is at one end of the A7.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, there are the towns of Irthlingborough, Thrapston and Oundle. The routes from Northampton to Bedford and from Northampton to Market Harborough didn't serve many sizeable places; the Huntingdon to Kettering line served Raunds as well as Thrapston.

I think you're overestimating both the size and importance of these places. Populations (courtesy of Wikipedia) as follows:

Irthlingborough 8.5k
Thrapston 6.2k
Oundle 5.7k
Raunds 8.6k

Of the 'key' places on the other routes you mention:

Northampton - Harborough - Brixworth 5.1k

Northampton - Bedford
Turvey 1.3k
Olney 6.4k

 

[billio]

Yes, there are the towns of Irthlingborough, Thrapston and Oundle. The routes from Northampton to Bedford and from Northampton to Market Harborough didn't serve many sizeable places; the Huntingdon to Kettering line served Raunds as well as Thrapston.

The purpose of the Market Harborough to Northampton line is not to serve any intermediate places (although one village might be justify a station) but to provide a significantly faster rail link between places such as Nottingham, Loughborough, Leicester, Market Harborough to Northampton, Milton Keynes and places south and west of there.

A fast service on this route would take traffic off the North - South road network.

 

[Grumpy]

The purpose of the Market Harborough to Northampton line is not to serve any intermediate places (although one village might be justify a station) but to provide a significantly faster rail link between places such as Nottingham, Loughborough, Leicester, Market Harborough to Northampton, Milton Keynes and places south and west of there.

.

Most of which could be achieved, as suggested earlier, without building any new track, but simply running via Nuneaton.
If you want to lay some new track then perhaps a west to south link, south of Stewartby. This would be cheaper and allow through running from the significant population centres(and Luton airport) at the southern end of the MML towards Milton Keynes and beyond.

 

[The Planner]

Stewartby chord was being seriously looked at I thought? Not sure if its as part of E-W or seperate.

 

[A0]

Stewartby chord was being seriously looked at I thought? Not sure if its as part of E-W or seperate.

I would assume more for freight than passenger use though?

It was being touted (again on these boards) as a way to build EWR together with a new cross-country line from Luton to Stevenage - but that idea's been knocked on the head by EWR with the two routes for the eastern section that are being considered either (i) re-using the existing route to Sandy then a new curve to allow the Cambridge branch to be joined from the north or (ii) resurrecting the old Bedford - Hitchin line.

I can't see anyone suggesting Thameslink services be diverted across the Bedford - Bletchley line and onto MK & Northampton. Quite apart from the capacity constraints on the MML south and the loss of services to Bedford it would result in, the journey time to MK from London would be ridiculous when compared with the WCML journey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Most of which could be achieved, as suggested earlier, without building any new track, but simply running via Nuneaton.

Quite correct - currently a journey from MKC - Leicester is timed as 90 mins, though that involves a 30 min wait for a connection.

So the journey could easily be done in 60 mins using existing infrastructure.

Given MKC - Northampton is about 20 mins, Harborough - Leicester is about 15 mins that's 35 mins. The old railway from Northampton - Harborough is about 15 miles - so even if you were able to run at an AVERAGE of 60mph (not as easy as you think) you'd still be at 50 mins. So 10 mins quicker but would need about 15 miles of new line to be built.........

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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

That seems unlikely to me. Provided conditions are good, I'd guess a motorway can typically sustain a vehicle every few seconds in each lane. Say 1000 vehicles per hour in each lane, so 3000 per hour total. In practice, most of these will be private cars with one person in them, so you're probably not talking much more than 4K people/hour.

In contrast, a railway carriage can easily fit over 100 seats. 40 carriages an hour and you're probably at the capacity a 3-lane motorway can realistically sustain. I can think of lines in London with only 1 track in each direction (thereby occupying far less land than a 3-lane motorway requires) that have many more carriages per hour than that.

 

[muddythefish]

There is a big difference between people who think for today and people who think for tomorrow. Railways are a great asset to our country and the more of them the better. We cannot just assume the world needs more cars and roads. Building today means preserving the land for rail usage. How many railways have we lost or pathways lost because of house building and new infrastructure. Wouldn't EWR have an easier job building Bedford to Cambridge if the old lines were still available to use? What if 10 mins after the land between 2 points is secured for infrastructure the government finally agrees its a good idea to build a railway along that path?

The problem with this forum and its members is that people come here full of enthusiasm and expect like minded people to join in the enthusiasm. Even though there is 0.0000001% chance of any new railway happening due to a post on this forum, we still believe or want to believe in our cloud 9 heads that its good and possible. Then comes the fire brigade and forum police like most on here who don't understand enthusiasm, they only understand economics, reality, get on their high horses and fall just short of calling their fellow forum members dumb arses and clueless. I bet its these types of people who tell their kids that Father Christmas is a lie and watch their kids cry themselves to sleep.:roll:

There is nothing wrong with wishful thinking. There is nothing wrong with imagining something that was lost could be again. And there certainly isn't anything wrong with building something. This country spends Trillions on pounds on absolute BS. Yet a railway costing a few hundred millions is totally taboo and off the table. This country is slacking, arguably in total decline and is need of enthusiasm. This country prints money for fun.. So no matter how much something costs, its just a printing machine away. If America wanted something, they would start the print machines rolling, getting people to work. And if we had the skills and resources to spare we should be building all day long.

Not to mention there is too many people unemployed sitting on their butts doing sweet FA in this country.

Rant over.

Nothing wrong with a rant, especially when it hits the nail on the head.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, there are the towns of Irthlingborough, Thrapston and Oundle. The routes from Northampton to Bedford and from Northampton to Market Harborough didn't serve many sizeable places; the Huntingdon to Kettering line served Raunds as well as Thrapston.

In addition to those towns, the revived Nene valley line would serve Wellingborough (pop 70,000 plus), Rushden and Higham Ferrers (35,000 plus), with Northampton and Peterborough (both 150,000 plus) at either end.

 

[richieb1971]

The trick isn't to build the railway. Its convincing drivers that once its built that its a better alternative. To do that, you need a whole new way of thinking. Trains need to be able to go to local places, at speed and there needs to be a localized form of transport that is able to take you nearer to your home place.

If all that was to occur, yes it would incur a huge deficit. But our country would be amazing and leading the charge on anti car travel. And thats the UK/England I want to see. I also believe these little railways are the first step of that journey to that utopia I imagine.

 

[edwin_m]

The trick isn't to build the railway. Its convincing drivers that once its built that its a better alternative. To do that, you need a whole new way of thinking. Trains need to be able to go to local places, at speed and there needs to be a localized form of transport that is able to take you nearer to your home place.

If all that was to occur, yes it would incur a huge deficit. But our country would be amazing and leading the charge on anti car travel. And thats the UK/England I want to see. I also believe these little railways are the first step of that journey to that utopia I imagine.

It's called Switzerland.

 

[DarloRich]

There is a big difference between people who think for today and people who think for tomorrow. Railways are a great asset to our country and the more of them the better. We cannot just assume the world needs more cars and roads. Building today means preserving the land for rail usage. How many railways have we lost or pathways lost because of house building and new infrastructure. Wouldn't EWR have an easier job building Bedford to Cambridge if the old lines were still available to use? What if 10 mins after the land between 2 points is secured for infrastructure the government finally agrees its a good idea to build a railway along that path?

The problem with this forum and its members is that people come here full of enthusiasm and expect like minded people to join in the enthusiasm. Even though there is 0.0000001% chance of any new railway happening due to a post on this forum, we still believe or want to believe in our cloud 9 heads that its good and possible. Then comes the fire brigade and forum police like most on here who don't understand enthusiasm, they only understand economics, reality, get on their high horses and fall just short of calling their fellow forum members dumb arses and clueless. I bet its these types of people who tell their kids that Father Christmas is a lie and watch their kids cry themselves to sleep.:roll:

There is nothing wrong with wishful thinking. There is nothing wrong with imagining something that was lost could be again. And there certainly isn't anything wrong with building something. This country spends Trillions on pounds on absolute BS. Yet a railway costing a few hundred millions is totally taboo and off the table. This country is slacking, arguably in total decline and is need of enthusiasm. This country prints money for fun.. So no matter how much something costs, its just a printing machine away. If America wanted something, they would start the print machines rolling, getting people to work. And if we had the skills and resources to spare we should be building all day long.

Not to mention there is too many people unemployed sitting on their butts doing sweet FA in this country.

Rant over.

Nothing wrong with a rant, especially when it hits the nail on the head.

Except it doesn't. It misses nail, wall, house, street and town!

For many of you the words economics and funding seem to be words without meaning and a problem for other people! There is nothing wrong with enthusiasm but it has to be tempered by what is actually feasible and possible rather than simply spouting crackpot ideas based on fripperies.

A basic understanding (or even a willingness to learn) about how big capital projects are assessed and funded would be of immeasurable benefit in making points or posts actually carry some weight.

 

[A0]

The trick isn't to build the railway. Its convincing drivers that once its built that its a better alternative. To do that, you need a whole new way of thinking. Trains need to be able to go to local places, at speed and there needs to be a localized form of transport that is able to take you nearer to your home place.

If all that was to occur, yes it would incur a huge deficit. But our country would be amazing and leading the charge on anti car travel. And thats the UK/England I want to see. I also believe these little railways are the first step of that journey to that utopia I imagine.

So no room for 'freedom of choice' - instead people should only travel when a timetable dictates to the destinations that the service allows, notwithstanding somebody not being on strike.......

You do realise such thinking went out of fashion in Eastern Europe about 30 years ago?

 

[Philip Elliott]

Whereas your version of 'choice' is car or don't travel...

For people's information, to go via Nuneaton you would need to re-instate the south end crossovers.

 

[A0]

Whereas your version of 'choice' is car or don't travel...

Like certain other posters, you seem to know my views better than I do.

For what it's worth, I don't believe in using draconian measures to try to force individuals to behave in certain ways.

The massive growth in rail usage in the UK hasn't just happened by accident nor through massive disincentives to car users, and it has happened, ironically, in the face of fare increases. People have chosen to change how they travel for their own reasons.

So people are quite capable of making their own minds up - and don't need to be told through the pursuit of Stalinist policies by the likes of you, Muddythefish and various others, thanks.

For people's information, to go via Nuneaton you would need to re-instate the south end crossovers.

In the scheme of things, tuppence, as compared to reinstating either Northampton - Harborough or Northampton - Wellingborough.

 

[richieb1971]

Perhaps my words were a little extreme in the way they have been interpreted. I do not believe in any shape or form that people should give up their cars. We have so many roads its not feasible to suggest that everyone give up their car in favour of a rail based system.

However, there should be a better balance. If my car breaks down, my insurance company gives me another car. But what if my car broke down and I didn't think anything of it because the rail system was good enough to get me exactly where I wanted to go without much of a delay compared to the car.

Before you jump in and say "so you have to wait until your car breaks down before you use the service". No, i'm not saying that. I'm saying that the service you get from your car needs to be closely mirrored in price and practicality by a railway based system. It works for London, so it that model will work anywhere on a smaller scale.

The only way to make a railway based system work in the way I would want is to get a lot of that car money transferred into rail money. Such a system would make the roads better and run more freely. So both parties win.

 

[tbtc]

This is the thread that wouldn’t die – every time someone comes along with some pesky facts, the true believers manage to ignore them, complaining that everyone else doesn’t share their visionary blue sky thinking etc etc. Any advice/ insight from those in the industry seems to go over their heads.

So, here’s a few observations:

• The total service from the cities of Birmingham and Leicester to Peterborough/ Cambridge/ Stansted is... an hourly Turbostar. Despite the population of the West Midlands, the route to Cambridgeshire is only a two/three coach 170.
  
• Northampton is significantly smaller than Birmingham/ Leicester, so would probably attract significantly fewer passengers (to/from Cambridgeshire). Especially if you’re not giving a direct link to Cambridge/ Stansted.
  
• Northampton and Peterborough aren’t big places. Not only that, but they lack the “pull” of Oxford/ Cambridge and the “traffic problems so bad that it’ll be a nightmare to park so people get the train instead” issues that Oxford/ Cambridge have (EW should work because it can link these significant places plus Milton Keynes).
  
• Other “east west” lines (around the WCML/ MML/ ECML) that don’t directly serve London/ Birmingham/ Manchester/ Leeds are fairly infrequent (hourly from 153 Derby to Crewe, hourly 150/153 on the Marston Vale, every forty five minutes on the Abbey branch, hourly 142/153 from Sheffield to Lincoln, roughly hourly Sprinter from Nottingham to Lincoln, hourly 153 on Coventry - Nuneaton); any line that doesn’t serve big cities isn’t going to justify many services (Northampton and Peterborough aren’t going to get more than an hourly DMU between them, at best).
  
• Circular services don’t work. Forget it. We’ve seen them suggested several times (e.g. Manchester – Rochdale – Burnley – Blackburn – Bolton – Manchester), but they can be filed under “Crayonista”. In the real world, people don’t travel in circles. Circles bring problems of reliability and scheduling. Please, no more...
  
• As Bald Rick says, there’s a point at which a lightly loaded Diesel Multiple Unit is worse for the environment than if every single passenger drove a diesel car. Maybe the lines mentioned above (Derby to Crewe etc) are actually *bad* for the environment? Any new lines should focus on busy routes that can justify services at least every half hour that are at least three/ four coaches long. Heavy rail isn’t the answer to every rural problem
  
• If you look at the facts (rather than fixate on the Alloa/ Ebbw Vale figures and ignore the context for them), the boring truth is that most new stations get roughly the passenger numbers they were projected to (within a reasonable deviation). If the “Midland Mainline” area is the focus of this thread and you believe that “every re-opening was a success” then why was Corby so underwhelming? Why does the Robin Hood line not do better? Why is East Midlands Parkway doing so poorly that the shuttle bus to the Airport was withdrawn? Aylesbury Parkway is in “central England” but not the success it was expected to be. Sorry if that doesn’t fit the “but Ebbw Vale did better than expected” narrative, but facts are a bit more complicated.
  
• Lastly - why not focus on something practical? Like extending the current Birmingham – Leicester “shorts” to Peterborough (if there's such demand to get to Peterborough)? Find an extra DMU so that the Bedford services can run beyond Bletchley to Milton Keynes (before EW electrifies the line)? Put a passing loop on the Abbey line to allow a second EMU to provide a more regular service? Crossovers at Nuneaton (to allow Coventry - Leicester services)? Sorry, is that not visionary enough? Lacks sufficient blue sky thinking? I do apologise...

 

[DarloRich]

This is the thread that wouldn’t die – every time someone comes along with some pesky facts, the true believers manage to ignore them, complaining that everyone else doesn’t share their visionary blue sky thinking etc etc. Any advice/ insight from those in the industry seems to go over their heads.

So, here’s a few observations:

• The total service from the cities of Birmingham and Leicester to Peterborough/ Cambridge/ Stansted is... an hourly Turbostar. Despite the population of the West Midlands, the route to Cambridgeshire is only a two/three coach 170.
  
• Northampton is significantly smaller than Birmingham/ Leicester, so would probably attract significantly fewer passengers (to/from Cambridgeshire). Especially if you’re not giving a direct link to Cambridge/ Stansted.
  
• Northampton and Peterborough aren’t big places. Not only that, but they lack the “pull” of Oxford/ Cambridge and the “traffic problems so bad that it’ll be a nightmare to park so people get the train instead” issues that Oxford/ Cambridge have (EW should work because it can link these significant places plus Milton Keynes).
  
• Other “east west” lines (around the WCML/ MML/ ECML) that don’t directly serve London/ Birmingham/ Manchester/ Leeds are fairly infrequent (hourly from 153 Derby to Crewe, hourly 150/153 on the Marston Vale, every forty five minutes on the Abbey branch, hourly 142/153 from Sheffield to Lincoln, roughly hourly Sprinter from Nottingham to Lincoln, hourly 153 on Coventry - Nuneaton); any line that doesn’t serve big cities isn’t going to justify many services (Northampton and Peterborough aren’t going to get more than an hourly DMU between them, at best).
  
• Circular services don’t work. Forget it. We’ve seen them suggested several times (e.g. Manchester – Rochdale – Burnley – Blackburn – Bolton – Manchester), but they can be filed under “Crayonista”. In the real world, people don’t travel in circles. Circles bring problems of reliability and scheduling. Please, no more...
  
• As Bald Rick says, there’s a point at which a lightly loaded Diesel Multiple Unit is worse for the environment than if every single passenger drove a diesel car. Maybe the lines mentioned above (Derby to Crewe etc) are actually *bad* for the environment? Any new lines should focus on busy routes that can justify services at least every half hour that are at least three/ four coaches long. Heavy rail isn’t the answer to every rural problem
  
• If you look at the facts (rather than fixate on the Alloa/ Ebbw Vale figures and ignore the context for them), the boring truth is that most new stations get roughly the passenger numbers they were projected to (within a reasonable deviation). If the “Midland Mainline” area is the focus of this thread and you believe that “every re-opening was a success” then why was Corby so underwhelming? Why does the Robin Hood line not do better? Why is East Midlands Parkway doing so poorly that the shuttle bus to the Airport was withdrawn? Aylesbury Parkway is in “central England” but not the success it was expected to be. Sorry if that doesn’t fit the “but Ebbw Vale did better than expected” narrative, but facts are a bit more complicated.
  
• Lastly - why not focus on something practical? Like extending the current Birmingham – Leicester “shorts” to Peterborough (if there's such demand to get to Peterborough)? Find an extra DMU so that the Bedford services can run beyond Bletchley to Milton Keynes (before EW electrifies the line)? Put a passing loop on the Abbey line to allow a second EMU to provide a more regular service? Crossovers at Nuneaton (to allow Coventry - Leicester services)? Sorry, is that not visionary enough? Lacks sufficient blue sky thinking? I do apologise...

This thread is no place for logical postings and sensible ideas - begone I command thee!

 

[Bald Rick]

It's called Switzerland.

Ah utopia.

Which still has horrific traffic problems.

It took me an hour to do 10km on the main motorway into Geneva at 0630 one Wednesday morning earlier this year. No accidents, just congestion.

It also took an hour to get out of Geneva at 10 in the morning the week before. But to be fair to them, a dusting of snow had fallen, and they really can't cope with that. Genuinely.

 

[HowardGWR]

Ah utopia.

Which still has horrific traffic problems.

It took me an hour to do 10km on the main motorway into Geneva at 0630 one Wednesday morning earlier this year. No accidents, just congestion.

It also took an hour to get out of Geneva at 10 in the morning the week before. But to be fair to them, a dusting of snow had fallen, and they really can't cope with that. Genuinely.

Perhaps that's planned deterrence of car usage (the stick). However, if the jams remain nevertheless, it just means that the travelling environment (5 yards walk to car, perhaps 50 yards or lift from firm's parking garage to office, own germs being inhaled, own setting of temperature and in car entertainment, etc, etc), makes the daily crawl worthwhile? Steve Norris was famous for this stuff.

 

[backontrack]

A fun fact:

This thread was set up just to ask a question about whether any of the rail lines north/east of Northampton could reopen or not.

Has anyone given thought to re-opening lines in Central England ?.

And then people come in at either extreme of thought, come in and start another argument over such petty and unnecessary terms as 'draconian' and 'crayonista'.

One pet hate of mine is that it is very hard today to have either a moderate or a complex opinion on the internet, or even in today's society where media has influenced so many people. How can there be TV or film without a clear black and white, a positive and a negative? Media has taught us to have simple thoughts. It's there in literature, in film and in TV. Look at current phenomenom (:roll, 'The Hunger Games'. There's a 'good' side and a 'bad' side. Isn't this true of anything?

The truth is that, in real life, anyone can become bad. Anyone can be redeemed. And there doesn't have to be an extreme. We can have views that can be complex, have ambiguity. If you're an author and you want a clear 'right' and 'wrong', don't go down that path. There'll always be people who do things for different motivations, who think they're doing good when they're not, or vice-versa.

We're clever enough to have complex opinions. Even here. This a forum made of (for the most part) clever people. I know we're not as erudite as some of the folks over on 4chan () but we have the ability to have a sensible and mature discussion. Our views can be complicated, they can have ambiguity. We don't have to paint a picture in black and white, we can have a moderate opinion. We're all entitled to one.

Anyway, enough talk, I have English homework to do.