Reverse Beeching: Just saying...

[Masbroughlad]

If the equations used by Beeching meant closed lines, should they not mean we lay new lines now? Demand is massively up.

Discuss! (And politicians wake up).

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the equations used by Beeching meant closed lines, should they not mean we lay new lines now?

The difficulty of doing so is that the country is much more built up than it was when the railways first came about.

The other answer is that we indeed are doing - though mostly in the form of urban tramways and light rail - it is no coincidence that these are the areas of highest demand.

 

[RepTCTC]

*dons Devil's Advocate hat*

Or alternatively, if the objective of Beeching was to stop the railways from hemorrhaging public money, shouldn't the bulk of the existing network be shut and converted into trunk roads into city centres? After all, rail is still very much a minority mode of transport that loses money hand over fist, and the chances of it ever doing anything else are precisely zero, so why not complete the job?

 

[simonw]

If the equations used by Beeching meant closed lines, should they not mean we lay new lines now? Demand is massively up.

Discuss! (And politicians wake up).

Demand is massively up in some areas and in most of those there is heavy investment.

In other areas demand is not massively up, look up the thread about usage at Hull as an example.

 

[Howardh]

Rip the rails up and use the trackbed as bus-only fast lanes where the buses can leave the track and go directly into town centres!!

Actually something like that could happen where lines have been Beeched and built over in places; buses could be run along what's left of the old rail and simply leave the track and return after the obstruction. Bolton - Bury springs to mind!

Of course, there's the cost in tarmacing the bed, rebuilding tunnels or bridges, building access roads, buying new vehicles....but those that are against the cost of HS2 could argue that the money should be spent on fast bus schemes on the old tracks. At least one area near me has done that to a degree...Leigh/Tyldsley/East Lancs.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Those bus schemes are not as good as a railway.
The Cambridgeshire & Luton busways have had enough problems.
The HS2 money could buy alot of cheap Parry People Mover tramways or reopened branches which I think will have a higher benefit for the "Northern Powerhouse" economy if that was the aim of HS2. There's already 3 fast mainlines from the North to London, a 4th faster one duplicating the current lines is hardly goung to transform anything other than the white elephant areas near the stations.

As far as I'm concerned all towns on the 2009 ATOC report need reconnecting now, there's so many benefits a rail connection can bring to towns and cities like Louth, Portishead, Ashington, Fleetwood, Skelmersdale, Ripon, Coalville etc which currently suffer from a lack of transport opportunities.
Beaching Cuts need reversing in almost all areas.

 

[simonw]

Those bus schemes are not as good as a railway.
The Cambridgeshire & Luton busways have had enough problems.
The HS2 money could buy alot of cheap Parry People Mover tramways or reopened branches which I think will have a higher benefit for the "Northern Powerhouse" economy if that was the aim of HS2. There's already 3 fast mainlines from the North to London, a 4th faster one duplicating the current lines is hardly goung to transform anything other than the white elephant areas near the stations.

As far as I'm concerned all towns on the 2009 ATOC report need reconnecting now, there's so many benefits a rail connection can bring to towns and cities like Louth, Portishead, Ashington, Fleetwood, Skelmersdale, Ripon, Coalville etc which currently suffer from a lack of transport opportunities.
Beaching Cuts need reversing in almost all areas.

Care to quote some cost benefit analysis to support your assertions?

 

[JamesRowden]

*dons Devil's Advocate hat*

Or alternatively, if the objective of Beeching was to stop the railways from hemorrhaging public money, shouldn't the bulk of the existing network be shut and converted into trunk roads into city centres? After all, rail is still very much a minority mode of transport that loses money hand over fist, and the chances of it ever doing anything else are precisely zero, so why not complete the job?

Congestion.

Parking.

 

[RepTCTC]

Congestion.

Parking.

The basic premise of the thread was that Beeching's calculations with respect to traffic over closed lines are now "wrong" due to current potential demand, and that re-opened lines would now operate without making an ungodly loss. I see no reason why they shouldn't, if re-opened, continue to lose to money in much the same way as the rest of the network does, so therefore if we're going to do anything based on what Beeching was aiming to achieve (no subsidies for rail), we ought to shut the lot.

It wasn't a serious suggestion.

 

[kelv]

Rip the rails up and use the trackbed as bus-only fast lanes where the buses can leave the track and go directly into town centres!!

Actually something like that could happen where lines have been Beeched and built over in places; buses could be run along what's left of the old rail and simply leave the track and return after the obstruction. Bolton - Bury springs to mind!

Of course, there's the cost in tarmacing the bed, rebuilding tunnels or bridges, building access roads, buying new vehicles....but those that are against the cost of HS2 could argue that the money should be spent on fast bus schemes on the old tracks. At least one area near me has done that to a degree...Leigh/Tyldsley/East Lancs.

the Leigh Guided Busway that has firstly been a right pain during construction (I realise most large scale projects are) and most deem to not really be something they wanted, the local population would much rather have had a rail link in the town. It remains to be seen how much it will get used but 1 side of the town will probably head to Atherton for the train & the other to N-le-W, a station at Kenyon with a good bus link & Parking was the preference of the majority in the town over the guided busway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
the tram was originally supposed to come to Leigh as well by the way, Manchester bid for the 2000 Olympics and Pennington Flash was to be a venue & the former Bickershaw Colliery Site the Aquatics centre, both served by the Manchester Metrolink

 

[NSEFAN]

The basic premise of the thread was that Beeching's calculations with respect to traffic over closed lines are now "wrong" due to current potential demand, and that re-opened lines would now operate without making an ungodly loss. I see no reason why they shouldn't, if re-opened, continue to lose to money in much the same way as the rest of the network does, so therefore if we're going to do anything based on what Beeching was aiming to achieve (no subsidies for rail), we ought to shut the lot.

If you only consider (operating cost + subsidy) vs (farebox revenue), then the railway is never going to look like very good value for money. The only lines which just about pay for themselves are some intercity and commuter routes. If you consider however the additional economic activity facilitated by the railway, and the increased tax revenues that go with it, I would expect a lot of lines do infact pay for themselves in the grand scheme of things.

Of course, in Beeching's time the car-owning population was a lot lower, therefore it made sense to focus on road development. Nowadays there are a lot of scenarios were extending existing services and reopening stations makes sense in order to ease road congestion and reduce journey times, both of which help the economy.

The problem now is that both the sheer cost of doing anything on the railway and its fragmented nature mean it takes ages to get anything done, let alone opening a new line. I note that the Portishead reopening is delayed because a lack of resources, and efforts being focused on the GWML upgrade, for example:
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Openin...delayed-year/story-28570892-detail/story.html

 

[JamesRowden]

The basic premise of the thread was that Beeching's calculations with respect to traffic over closed lines are now "wrong" due to current potential demand, and that re-opened lines would now operate without making an ungodly loss. I see no reason why they shouldn't, if re-opened, continue to lose to money in much the same way as the rest of the network does, so therefore if we're going to do anything based on what Beeching was aiming to achieve (no subsidies for rail), we ought to shut the lot.

It wasn't a serious suggestion.

I was making the point that one needs to consider the cost of longer journeys, running a car, providing parking and potentially purchasing a car, unless one can convert the majority of people to bus-use (which would still have additional costs of its own).

 

[backontrack]

The basic premise of the thread was that Beeching's calculations with respect to traffic over closed lines are now "wrong" due to current potential demand, and that re-opened lines would now operate without making an ungodly loss. I see no reason why they shouldn't, if re-opened, continue to lose to money in much the same way as the rest of the network does, so therefore if we're going to do anything based on what Beeching was aiming to achieve (no subsidies for rail), we ought to shut the lot.

It wasn't a serious suggestion.

Emissions. Do you want to kill the earth?

Railways are staying. End of.

 

[Bevan Price]

Rip the rails up and use the trackbed as bus-only fast lanes where the buses can leave the track and go directly into town centres!!

Actually something like that could happen where lines have been Beeched and built over in places; buses could be run along what's left of the old rail and simply leave the track and return after the obstruction. Bolton - Bury springs to mind!

Of course, there's the cost in tarmacing the bed, rebuilding tunnels or bridges, building access roads, buying new vehicles....but those that are against the cost of HS2 could argue that the money should be spent on fast bus schemes on the old tracks. At least one area near me has done that to a degree...Leigh/Tyldsley/East Lancs.

Buses have a place in transport policy, but long distance bus services will never be attractive as rail. Misguided bus routes are a waste of money in my opinion. One of the promises made for the Leigh Misguided Busway is that it will be possible to get from Leigh to Manchester in about 50 minutes.

What they don't publicise is that over 100 years ago, you could do the journey by train in about half that time (albeit not many times per day, due to the poor, irregular timetable.) And the busway section is at the "quiet" end of the route. On the busier sections into Salford & Manchester, buses have to use ordinary roads, plagued by hordes of traffic lights, and many miles of multi-lane carriageway on which a control-freak council has imposed 40 mph limits.

One day, someone will see sense, and Leigh may regain a railway. However, removal of the misguided busway will make that more expensive than it need have been.

 

[Bletchleyite]

the Leigh Guided Busway that has firstly been a right pain during construction (I realise most large scale projects are) and most deem to not really be something they wanted, the local population would much rather have had a rail link in the town. It remains to be seen how much it will get used but 1 side of the town will probably head to Atherton for the train & the other to N-le-W, a station at Kenyon with a good bus link & Parking was the preference of the majority in the town over the guided busway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
the tram was originally supposed to come to Leigh as well by the way, Manchester bid for the 2000 Olympics and Pennington Flash was to be a venue & the former Bickershaw Colliery Site the Aquatics centre, both served by the Manchester Metrolink

To me Leigh makes no sense as a bus - unlike Cambridgeshire there is an existing light rail network crying out for an extension.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Care to quote some cost benefit analysis to support your assertions?

"The government's latest business case for the HS2 high-speed rail link has slightly lowered the amount of benefit it predicts relative to the cost.The expected benefit-cost ratio (BRC) has fallen from £2.50 to £2.30 in benefits for every pound spent.That fall is mainly due to a £10bn rise in the scheme's projected £42.6bn cost, which was added earlier this year." From:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24721214

I can only find PDF format articles with Parry People Mover BCR mentions, but there's a Railfuture one with 3.21. PPM Ltd and other tram schemes are better value for money, cheaper vehicles, and more passengers per mile of track, reduction in traffic along main routes.
It's my opinion.

But what do think is better?
1, HS2 which will harm places like Leicester economically (look up the report which was initially hidden), downgrade WCML, ECML & MML services, based on outdated timesavings for some lines, destroy ancient woodland, demolish hundreds of homes, if like HS1 will be more costly than normal trains, and upcoming Maglevs and Hyperloop technologies will make it seam slow by the time it's finished.
Or...
Circa £50bn worth of tramways, which I imagine could fund trams for Leeds, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle, London, Hull, Cardiff, Preston, Belfast, Bristol. (Assuming £5bn tramway networks).
Surely that would be fairer for the UK as a whole and would benefit all these places more than a Highspeed link?

 

[kelv]

Wigan will become a place thats on a par with Singapore in the financial world and everyone will leave London & set up shop there for cheaper rents.

so Wigan Council would have you believe, more worryingly though its something that they seem to believe themselves.

 

[yorksrob]

Wigan will become a place thats on a par with Singapore in the financial world and everyone will leave London & set up shop there for cheaper rents.

so Wigan Council would have you believe, more worryingly though its something that they seem to believe themselves.

I'm not sure what exactly that observation has to do with public transport developments in the area.

As a current regular traveller to Leigh, I certainly won't be catching a bus all the way from Manchester, busway or no busway.

 

[kelv]

I'm not sure what exactly that observation has to do with public transport developments in the area.

As a current regular traveller to Leigh, I certainly won't be catching a bus all the way from Manchester, busway or no busway.

someone mentioned HS2, i meant to quote it in the post tbh

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If the equations used by Beeching meant closed lines, should they not mean we lay new lines now? Demand is massively up.

Discuss! (And politicians wake up).

I am sure that a Treasury spokesman would give you chapter and verse as to why this will not happen.

 

[radamfi]

Whereas there had been a boom in rail usage, per capita driving has been static or falling for about 15 years:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457752/nts2014-01.pdf

 

[underbank]

I was making the point that one needs to consider the cost of longer journeys, running a car, providing parking and potentially purchasing a car, unless one can convert the majority of people to bus-use (which would still have additional costs of its own).

But most people (especially outside the major cities) already own a car, so it's only the extra, or marginal, cost of the journey that the average person will take into account. I.e. the fuel and parking of a journey compared with the public transport cost. In my case, for example, the bus fare to travel 5 miles to the nearest town centre is about 4 times the cost of the fuel and the car park, so it's a no brainer to drive and have the convenience rather than take a bus or train and be subject to restrictive timetables.

 

[JamesRowden]

But most people (especially outside the major cities) already own a car, so it's only the extra, or marginal, cost of the journey that the average person will take into account. I.e. the fuel and parking of a journey compared with the public transport cost. In my case, for example, the bus fare to travel 5 miles to the nearest town centre is about 4 times the cost of the fuel and the car park, so it's a no brainer to drive and have the convenience rather than take a bus or train and be subject to restrictive timetables.

Using a car in congested areas slows everyone else down. An annual bus pass for Reading is just 600 pounds. If more people use the bus services, the bus services become faster, more frequent, operate later and have a greater variety of routes at no extra cost per journey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also, running allows one to combine transport with one's personal health and fitness (and it's fun).

 

[fowler9]

People who think that public transport is a waste of their money should think about what would happen if everyone where they work had to drive in.