My idea - re-opening lines in Central England ?

[yorksrob]

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?

Seventy million people trying to get around a small island in cars doesn't seem like a recipe for 'freedom' of choice or anything else. Try walking around South Leeds which is cross crossed by motorways and dual carriageways, or try driving through the Armley gyratory when it rains and see how free you feel.

 

[Grumpy]

[*]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).

[/LIST]

Using your logic then extending EW to Cambridge doesn't make sense. Turning south at Stewartby to serve Luton and St Albans doubles the population served and also includes the draw of Luton Airport. For a much smaller investment

 

[Bald Rick]

Using your logic then extending EW to Cambridge doesn't make sense.

Spot on! Which is why it's not going to happen.

 

[yorksrob]

Spot on! Which is why it's not going to happen.

How can Cambridge "lack the pull of an Oxford or Cambridge" exactly ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

East Midlands Parkway doing so poorly that the shuttle bus to the Airport was withdrawn?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.

East Midlands Parkway and Aylesbury Parkway aren't reopenings. They were opened primarily to serve the motoring component of existing markets more effectively, rather than opening a new market, therefore they're not really comparable.

 

[Bevan Price]

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.

To discourage car use, you would probably need at least 2 policies:

1. Much higher taxes on car licences & petrol.

2. Public transport paid for fully by central taxation, and essentially "free" from needing to buy a ticket for each trip. I don't see that nice Mr Osborne (or any other UK government) implementing that sort of policy - they would fear for their seats at the next election.

 

[Bald Rick]

How can Cambridge "lack the pull of an Oxford or Cambridge" exactly ?

That's not what I meant.

What I meant was that extending EW to Cambridge doesn't make sense. At least not when it is realised what the implications will be. Hence it won't get built.

 

[yorksrob]

That's not what I meant.

What I meant was that extending EW to Cambridge doesn't make sense. At least not when it is realised what the implications will be. Hence it won't get built.

It wouldn't seem to make sense not to extend to Cambridge. I would have thought that the whole idea of the project was to provide new routes between the economic areas of Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Oxford.

 

[edwin_m]

That's not what I meant.

What I meant was that extending EW to Cambridge doesn't make sense. At least not when it is realised what the implications will be. Hence it won't get built.

Do you mean extending new infrastructure to Cambridge, or extending to somewhere like Hitchin from where Cambridge can be reached by existing routes?

 

[A0]

Seventy million people trying to get around a small island in cars doesn't seem like a recipe for 'freedom' of choice or anything else. Try walking around South Leeds which is cross crossed by motorways and dual carriageways, or try driving through the Armley gyratory when it rains and see how free you feel.

But Leeds, like Birmingham, Manchester and London is very different from semi-rural Northants.

Whilst I accept Wikipedia's figures aren't always the most accurate, these are relevant:

Northants - circa 900 square miles with a population of circa 700,000

Leeds (City & Met borough) - circa 215 square miles with a population of circa 770,000.

So an area of less than a quarter of the size has a population of 10% higher.

Tram lines, rail improvements etc in Leeds ought to have a much more compelling business case than a semi-rural rail line running across Northamptonshire.

It's exactly the same reason why the 13 miles of new track for Crossrail makes sense in London, but a similar distance across Northants doesn't.

Surely it isn't that hard to see that?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you mean extending new infrastructure to Cambridge, or extending to somewhere like Hitchin from where Cambridge can be reached by existing routes?

I suspect both - work on the basis rail rebuilding costs about £ 12m / mile (which is what Borders Rail cost - and that was on a trackbed which was largely intact).

So Bedford - Sandy is about 9 miles, so that's going to cost over £ 100m.

Bedford - Hitchin is about 18 miles - so that's heading towards £ 200m.

What does it do for journey times?

The current Stagecoach X5 is timed at 70 mins from Cambridge to Bedford (and runs via St Neots).

Sandy - Cambridge is 48 mins (15 mins Sandy - Hitchin, 33 mins Hitchin - Cambridge).

Even if Bedford - Sandy was averaging 60 mph you're still adding a further 10 mins - so that gets you to 58 mins - only 10 mins quicker than the X5.

Taking the Hitchin option - you'll be looking at 25 mins Bedford - Hitchin and 33 mins Hitchin - Cambridge - again 58 mins).

I suspect that's why BaldRick is sceptical about the eastern section of EWR being built - and I'm inclined to agree with him on that basis.

I believe the 'old' route beyond Sandy to Cambridge isn't re-usable - though any journey time saving that might offer would be more than off-set by the fact it serves absolutely nowhere of any significance between Cambridge & Sandy.

 

[yorksrob]

I think missing out Cambridge from the EW project would be lunacy, given that not only is it a major pull in itself, but it's also the gateway to the rest of East Anglia. As a project, it seems to have the positive components that many posters suggest that most reopening suggestions lack.

I agree AOwn that this could be achieved by taking the old MML to Hitchen and using the flyover to the Royston line, however Bald Rick seemed to be suggesting no new infrastructure and no link to Cambridge.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In terms of travel times, given roughly similar times for bus and train, I don't think the bus is seen as an equal alternative to the train, so I don't think even express buses can be taken as indicative of demand.

It's exactly the same reason why the 13 miles of new track for Crossrail makes sense in London, but a similar distance across Northants doesn't.

Surely it isn't that hard to see that?

We need to go back to the spirit of Col Stephenson and find a more cost effective way of building local railways (as I mentioned in the North Lakes thread, although I'm more familiar with that part of the country than Northamptonshire.

As a pedestrian, I've come to see the nuisance factor of a motorcentric society far more than its benefits.

 

[HowardGWR]

I accept the 'semi rural' point that @AOwen makes and I do wonder whether, when E-W takes over Bletchley to Bedford, whether it would not be sensible to close the stations between, and I do wonder about the benefit of keeping Islip as a station on the bit already rebuilt. Taking @YorksRob's point about the strategic nature of the E-W link, unless the locals can still be accommodated between the new service, then perhaps only the main stations should remain, unless they perform an interchange function (like possibly Sandy or Hitchin).

Given @Bald Rick's view, I wonder if he would mind having his local station being closed and out of the way of these new strategic services?

 

[yorksrob]

I accept the 'semi rural' point that @AOwen makes and I do wonder whether, when E-W takes over Bletchley to Bedford, whether it would not be sensible to close the stations between, and I do wonder about the benefit of keeping Islip as a station on the bit already rebuilt. Taking @YorksRob's point about the strategic nature of the E-W link, unless the locals can still be accommodated between the new service, then perhaps only the main stations should remain, unless they perform an interchange function (like possibly Sandy or Hitchin).

Given @Bald Rick's view, I wonder if he would mind having his local station being closed and out of the way of these new strategic services?

I'm not sure I accept that local stations between Oxford and Bedford have to be sacrificed for the new strategic service. Doncaster - Leeds and Leeds - Church Fenton are both extremely important strategic double track routes carrying several express trains an hour. There is absolutely no prospect of the busy local stations on these routes being sacrificed.

 

[GazUk]

I think the impression i am getting from this thread is that Bigger is always better, a lot of people seem to be thinking along those lines as it were,numbers and figures always ruin someone's idea's don't they???
And i was going to make reference to Northampton being a big town,having quite a lot of warehouse's and businesses (with a lot of people commuting to that region to work) along the chord of the Northampton to Wellingborough line,but if i try to justify it someone will (no doubt) come and shoot me down in flames like it has been done....

Anyway, it seems that Northampton will never be connected Via rail to the rest of the core towns in Northamptonshire.

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.



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.

Well said there backontrack!

 

[A0]

We need to go back to the spirit of Col Stephenson and find a more cost effective way of building local railways (as I mentioned in the North Lakes thread, although I'm more familiar with that part of the country than Northamptonshire.

Good luck with that - Holman Stephens' lines tended to be ramshackle at best using very old rolling stock and often had dubious reliability and safety.

The unions and various posters on here are already raising all sorts of complaints about the Vivarail D trains - yet that's exactly the sort of solution which might drive costs down.

Building 'heavy' rail to 'light rail' standards is a bit of a no-go in that it results in lower line-speeds and hence, slow journey times.

Frankly, if anyone came along suggesting a Stephens type solution seriously it would be all over the media and these boards, mostly being decried as a terrible idea with poor safety and standards.

 

[DarloRich]

I accept the 'semi rural' point that @AOwen makes and I do wonder whether, when E-W takes over Bletchley to Bedford, whether it would not be sensible to close the stations between, and I do wonder about the benefit of keeping Islip as a station on the bit already rebuilt. Taking @YorksRob's point about the strategic nature of the E-W link, unless the locals can still be accommodated between the new service, then perhaps only the main stations should remain, unless they perform an interchange function (like possibly Sandy or Hitchin).

Given @Bald Rick's view, I wonder if he would mind having his local station being closed and out of the way of these new strategic services?

Only 2 stations on the Marston Vale line will be served by East - West Trains: Woburn Sands and Ridgmont so should have little impact on service provision.

The current hourly stopper will continue to serve the other stations .

 

[mr_jrt]

One thing I would have preferred with the Chiltern project is that given everything was rebuilt that they had (re)built the 3 stations as island platforms with space (or even just having the platforms wide enough for 4 tracks) so loops could be built later, enabling non-stop services to overtake.

This couldn't cheaply happen on Bletchley to Bedford as the railway is still open, but would be a good solution for maximising freight and express paths there as well, IMHO.

 

[yorksrob]

Good luck with that - Holman Stephens' lines tended to be it'sackle at best using very old rolling stock and often had dubious reliability and safety.

The unions and various posters on here are already raising all sorts of complaints about the Vivarail D trains - yet that's exactly the sort of solution which might drive costs down.

Building 'heavy' rail to 'light rail' standards is a bit of a no-go in that it results in lower line-speeds and hence, slow journey times.

Frankly, if anyone came along suggesting a Stephens type solution seriously it would be all over the media and these boards, mostly being decried as a terrible idea with poor safety and standards.

Well, one of Col Stephen's lines between Bere Alston and Gunnislake is still very much a part of the National passenger network today, so that one seems to have slipped through the net.

I really don't see a problem with reusing track which might no longer be suitable for 125 mph InterCity operation, but would otherwise be suitable for rural services. We perhaps need to suspend our fear of level crossings, since on slower rural routes it's usually quite rare for the train to come off worse. Signalling, there are plenty of routes now with less intensive forms of signalling. These could be used quite safety for extensions such as the one discussed in the North Lakes thread. Even dieselised tube trains could have a part.

The key is that such routes aren't isolated from the rest of the network.

 

[The Planner]

One thing I would have preferred with the Chiltern project is that given everything was rebuilt that they didn't (re)build the 3 stations as island platforms with space (or even just having the platforms wide enough for 4 tracks) so loops could be built later, enabling non-stop services to overtake.

Which stations? I assume you mean Beaconsfield as one, not sure of the other two.

 

[HWLad]

Which stations? I assume you mean Beaconsfield as one, not sure of the other two.

I'm assuming the poster meant Bicester Village, Islip and Oxford Parkway to have been built with provision for the loops.

Having said that, I don't see how it is necessary to have these loops. The Chiltern Mainline itself has not got loops in convenient places to put them in such as Beaconsfield and in fact has had development on the loop trackbed at Bicester North and Denham.

Also, Oxford Parkway and Bicester Town are relatively major destinations so we can expect most passenger services to call at these stations therefore not needing loops.

 

[backontrack]

I think the impression i am getting from this thread is that Bigger is always better, a lot of people seem to be thinking along those lines as it were,numbers and figures always ruin someone's idea's don't they???
And i was going to make reference to Northampton being a big town,having quite a lot of warehouse's and businesses (with a lot of people commuting to that region to work) along the chord of the Northampton to Wellingborough line,but if i try to justify it someone will (no doubt) come and shoot me down in flames like it has been done....

Anyway, it seems that Northampton will never be connected Via rail to the rest of the core towns in Northamptonshire.

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.

Well said there backontrack!

Thanks!

 

[Wolfie]

I really don't see a problem with reusing track which might no longer be suitable for 125 mph InterCity operation, but would otherwise be suitable for rural services.

That might have been feasible back in the days of short track lengths and bolted tracks. Just how reusable is CWR?

We perhaps need to suspend our fear of level crossings, since on slower rural routes it's usually quite rare for the train to come off worse.

The concern isn't the train in general. Any casualties, whether pedestrian and/or motor vehicles are increasingly regarded as less acceptable. In the old days there were manned crossings, they will never reappear due to the sheer cost implications.

Signalling, there are plenty of routes now with less intensive forms of signalling. These could be used quite safety for extensions such as the one discussed in the North Lakes thread.

That's great in theory. Just wait for the first accident and the media outcry over the "inadequate, outdated signalling", not to mention the litigation and probable Public Inquiry.....

 

[Trog]

That might have been feasible back in the days of short track lengths and bolted tracks. Just how reusable is CWR?

Easy enough to do if you have the right kit and the will to do it. The trouble is that the right plant is often in short supply, and by the time you have picked up the old CWR, and got it ready for reuse it is not much cheaper than new rail anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

The concern isn't the train in general. Any casualties, whether pedestrian and/or motor vehicles are increasingly regarded as less acceptable. In the old days there were manned crossings, they will never reappear due to the sheer cost implications.



That's great in theory. Just wait for the first accident and the media outcry over the "inadequate, outdated signalling", not to mention the litigation and probable Public Inquiry.....

Well, level crossing issues might be a problem, but with regard to "outdated signalling", how is that any different to the parts of the network that have it now ? The Whitby branch has a very basic form of signalling, yet is deemed safe for the public to use (not to mention lots of un-barriered level crossings)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Easy enough to do if you have the right kit and the will to do it. The trouble is that the right plant is often in short supply, and by the time you have picked up the old CWR, and got it ready for reuse it is not much cheaper than new rail anyway.

Well, you'd have to pick up the old rail anyway.

Perhaps with more of a commitment to reopenings, the kit might become more viable.

 

[mr_jrt]

I'm assuming the poster meant Bicester Village, Islip and Oxford Parkway to have been built with provision for the loops.

Having said that, I don't see how it is necessary to have these loops. The Chiltern Mainline itself has not got loops in convenient places to put them in such as Beaconsfield and in fact has had development on the loop trackbed at Bicester North and Denham.

Also, Oxford Parkway and Bicester Town are relatively major destinations so we can expect most passenger services to call at these stations therefore not needing loops.

Indeed, I changed the way I phrased the post halfway through and having read it back it's a bit muddled. Sorry!

What I had in mind was not for Chiltern, but for EWR and the eventual freight and express services. The freight will obviously not stop and the expresses will probably serve Bicester Village, and at absolute best Oxford Parkway as well. If it's to become a major trunk route you don't want to create bottlenecks on a freshly-built new railway with plenty of space around the stations...for now.

 

[The Planner]

It is capable of 3 minute headways on a 100mph railway, it would need a serious amount of trains before it gets difficult.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given @Bald Rick's view, I wonder if he would mind having his local station being closed and out of the way of these new strategic services?

I didn't advocate closing any stations.

But as you ask, my local station happens to be the busiest on the MML between Sheffield and London, so it wouldn't just be me that's a little miffed.

However, there is a disused line near me that would provide a very handy link to nearby towns on an East West axis, and would no doubt would be well used. Do I want it reopened?

No. And I say that as a career railwayman, trained in railway operations and front line customer service (ie not a bean counter).

There are far better things for this country to be spending money on. Personally, I would much rather it was spent on, for example, better education provision for disabled children - which in my county is simply appalling.

Or building more affordable homes so that people round here can actually have a half decent place to live.

Or better social care for young people with mental health problems; one of whom died not 500 metres from my front door a few weeks ago because he wasn't given the help he needed. The list goes on.

Transport is essential to keep this country effective and competitive. Rail is a key part of that. But it is not the only part, and neither is it the solution to every transport challenge. It is also rather expensive, which is why every single pound has to be spent effectively. So we all need to get real, understand what the benefits of new railways and stations really are (as I have done, having opened a few myself), and put energy and passion behind those that really matter, and will really make a difference to our country.

*resigns from all discussion on reopenings*

 

[richieb1971]

If money is in the health budget, the education budget and the transport budget I would prefer the transport budget to be spent on railways and not mental health issues or education.

Lets say in 10 years time roads are at capacity and the idea of building new railways becomes a reality. I will still be posting here pointing to post 1-100 on this thread stating that I was right all along. It takes NR about 20 years to lay rail judging by other programs they have going. Rail is also considered a last resort so if it is the cure to any problems we will have to live with those problems for a long time before anything gets done about it.

Would prefer rail to be built now. Because in 10-20 years time there will be less places to put rail and the car situation isn't getting any better.

At the very least, we should be securing track bed that already exists.. for a "just in case" scenario.

 

[A0]

If money is in the health budget, the education budget and the transport budget I would prefer the transport budget to be spent on railways and not mental health issues or education.

That's a rather selfish approach - your interest is in railways hence you'd prefer the cash to be spent there. Others who have direct experience of mental health issues probably feel quite differently.

Lets say in 10 years time roads are at capacity and the idea of building new railways becomes a reality. I will still be posting here pointing to post 1-100 on this thread stating that I was right all along. It takes NR about 20 years to lay rail judging by other programs they have going. Rail is also considered a last resort so if it is the cure to any problems we will have to live with those problems for a long time before anything gets done about it.

Would prefer rail to be built now. Because in 10-20 years time there will be less places to put rail and the car situation isn't getting any better.

The improvements in both road and rail currently in-flight are being done to ensure gridlock DOESN'T happen.

Governments and planners are well aware that it takes a long time to stand up infrastructure improvements. The reason there are more immediate problems was the stupid, ignorant, head-buried-in sand approach pursued by John Prescott when he was in charge of transport, which means for over 10 years peanuts was spent on transport of any kind whilst demand soared - the man was ( and still is) an uneducated moron.

At the very least, we should be securing track bed that already exists.. for a "just in case" scenario.

Happens already for trackbeds which have been identified as likely to be needed - I believe the Leamside line is one such example and there are others.

 

[yorksrob]

If money is in the health budget, the education budget and the transport budget I would prefer the transport budget to be spent on railways and not mental health issues or education.

Quite right. Bald Rick's logic is questionable because it assumes that there aren't better choices to be made, or even efficiencies within the education sector, which should provide the means for such provision, rather than raiding the transport budget.

It would be good if Bald Rick could reveal which East West link he was referring to, then we could make up our own minds whether it should be reopened or not.

 

[A0]

Quite right. Bald Rick's logic is questionable because it assumes that there aren't better choices to be made, or even efficiencies within the education sector, which should provide the means for such provision, rather than raiding the transport budget.

Herein lies the problem with all 'state' spending - everyone has their own pet area which "has" to be protected. Add in a generally inflexible workforce (both at the coalface and at management level) and alot of emotive talk on the media any time funding changes are discussed and you've got a situation which is virtually impossible to manage.

It would be good if Bald Rick could reveal which East West link he was referring to, then we could make up our own minds whether it should be reopened or not.

Whether it's because he doesn't want to or feels he can't update I don't know - however let's look at the basic facts and we can probably sensibly deduce what is meant:

- Bedford - Bletchley exists, is operational and is not under threat of closure, so that remains.

- Claydon - Bletchley, the trackbed exists (albeit mothballed). There are fairly set plans to reinstate this resulting in services from Bedford - Oxford / MK - Reading.

- Beyond Bedford the old routes are long-closed. EWR are looking at two options (via Sandy & via Hitchin).

The question is whether the cost of these is likely to meet any Business Case requirements - that, I suspect is where the issue actually is. The reality is that even the cheapest option isn't going to give much change from £ 150m and doesn't offer a significantly improved journey time against the current X5 coach.

Cambridge - whilst of some significance, isn't as bigger place or draw as some posters on here seem to think - population about 130,000 as compared to >200,000 for both MK and Northampton.