Re-opening of rail routes

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just crayonista silliness. Few if, any, will happen unless local councils and business pony up. Money is short and so we need to see cast iron, gold dipped and platinum coated business cases for any such proposals backed by serious local authority, community and commons level support.

Good to see someone who realises the current economic facts of life that Britain actually faces.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I heard on the news this morning that one of the proposed projects was a new motorway link between Oxford and Cambridge.

That really made me chuckle thinking of the Yes Minister episode where they talk about some of the first Motorways that were built were between London and Oxford and Cambridge so that ministers could visit their old collages.

On a more serious point would such a motorway have any implications for the East West rail link.

Yes I was wondering about that too.

 

[yorksrob]

Chancellor will reportedly be putting aside £15bn for infrastructure schemes as an economic stimulus to help combat Brexit. The requirement however is that they be quick wins, shovel ready and with a good economic return on investment. Those requirements will however favour road and mean the majority of rail schemes will be excluded as only ones that are already at an advanced stage of design will be deployable without extensive design/consultation time. The rail schemes likely to benefit therefore will be small and quick things like stations, bottlenecks or mid sized schemes already at GRIP 3 stage (like for example Skelmersdale branch).

"Surprise surprise", another slew of pointless road schemes on the way.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I suppose Tavistock is as near to "shovel ready" as you're going to get, along with possibly Wisbech. If we don't get something out of this it will confirm my worst suspicions.

 

[40907]

Presumably the "Woodhead" route between Sheffield and Manchester has dropped off the radar, despite having the expensive work already in being, ie the modern Woodhead tunnel, apparently only requires National Grid to move their cables into the old tunnel, and a route that would provide welcome additional capacity trans-Pennine, given that the Hope Valley route is near to capacity.
Likewise I guess Matlock-Bakewell and onward towards Manchester is not up for consideration.

40907

 

[glbotu]

The Blyth and Tyne doesn't even need shovels..........

Additionally, it has a ridiculous BCR, something like 5.4 the last time they did the calculation. This would be for an hourly 156 or something, with an extra in the peak. The project literally needs stations building. The biggest work, I believe, would be a re-build of Northumberland Park. Also, to those suggesting Metro to Ashington, note that that would be about double the distance to Sunderland. Not really suitable for Metro operation.

 

[A0]

It is the Bicester to the M1 Option B route for the Expressway that mostly parallels the rail corridor but since they have been careful to only publish schematic diagrams rather than anything more detailed, exactly how closely is not defined. M1-Cambridge is stated to be largely an improvement to the current route, with some offline upgrades.

Which on its own would be helpful as currently the connections from Milton Keynes westward to the M40 corridor are very poor.

Yes, EWR will help that, but it does need either the A421 or A422 improving as well.

As for much of the CBR's proposals, as others have said, unless they are suggesting schemes which have local authority support they're wasting their time.

Too many proposals are the pipe-dream of one or two individuals who have little or no concept of what makes for a sensible scheme.

 

[47802]

Which on its own would be helpful as currently the connections from Milton Keynes westward to the M40 corridor are very poor.

Yes, EWR will help that, but it does need either the A421 or A422 improving as well.

As for much of the CBR's proposals, as others have said, unless they are suggesting schemes which have local authority support they're wasting their time.

Too many proposals are the pipe-dream of one or two individuals who have little or no concept of what makes for a sensible scheme.

Where's the like button!

Anybody who travels about the country a lot by road will know that some of our Motorways and Major roads struggle to cope off peak never mind in the peak, so there has to be a balance between road and rail investment.

 

[pitdiver]

Yes, but far more likely at the western end - most of the route between the M1 and Cambridge is already at the suggested standard (Cambourne to the A1 is the only part east of the M1 that isn't, and that is mostly 'open-country' except in the vicinity of St. Neots, so shouldn't be too difficult to dual). So I don't see that much scope for sharing a corridor on that stretch since there is not likely to be much new road route to share (and most of the recently suggested eastern section E-W rail routes take a more southerly path than the A421/A428 anyway).

As a regular user of that route on our way to Norfolk I understand that a new rd is planned from the Black Cat Roundabout to Caxton Gibbet Roundabout. a more direct route. This new route won't go any where near the old A428 am I right.

 

[Cowley]

"Surprise surprise", another slew of pointless road schemes on the way.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I suppose Tavistock is as near to "shovel ready" as you're going to get, along with possibly Wisbech. If we don't get something out of this it will confirm my worst suspicions.

Britain at the moment reminds me of a few houses I've worked on where there's so much to do just to maintain and repair what's there already that you feel you'll never get anywhere, let alone have the money to start putting new extensions and kitchens in.
I'd suggest that we all move to a country that has already had the work done like Norway.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Where's the like button!

Anybody who travels about the country a lot by road will know that some of our Motorways and Major roads struggle to cope off peak never mind in the peak, so there has to be a balance between road and rail investment.

The difference between that and rail being that if you improve capacity on those roads, you rarely actually solve anything - invariably, you simply induce a mode-shift to people driving which fills up the capacity and creates a new pinch point a few miles down the road. It's the easiest thing in the world to think, oh this road is struggling to cope, let's build a new one/make it wider/etc. But there's a huge amount of academic research that's been done that demonstrates quite simply that - if your aim is to relieve congestion - adding new road capacity almost never works. It's not just bad for the environment, it's plain bad economics.

On the other hand, improving rail usually really does improve things - because it causes a mode shift from cars and road (which is inherently a very low capacity form of transport) to rail (which is inherently a very high capacity form of transport).

 

[8H]

The difference between that and rail being that if you improve capacity on those roads, you rarely actually solve anything - invariably, you simply induce a mode-shift to people driving which fills up the capacity and creates a new pinch point a few miles down the road. It's the easiest thing in the world to think, oh this road is struggling to cope, let's build a new one/make it wider/etc. But there's a huge amount of academic research that's been done that demonstrates quite simply that - if your aim is to relieve congestion - adding new road capacity almost never works. It's not just bad for the environment, it's plain bad economics.

On the other hand, improving rail usually really does improve things - because it causes a mode shift from cars and road (which is inherently a very low capacity form of transport) to rail (which is inherently a very high capacity form of transport).

Applause?????? you need to think beyond the endless mindless use of the motor car!

 

[A0]

Applause�� you need to think beyond the endless mindless use of the motor car!

And rail is only a, very small, part of the solution - see this:

To force mode change from rail to road, you need to read this article.

http://www.railway-technical.com/statistics.shtml

And most telling is this: "Almost everyone thinks transferring traffic from road to rail is a good idea. It will reduce road congestion and carbon emissions, they say. BUT, in reality, it's not as easy as that. If just 2% of road traffic transferred to rail, rail capacity would have to increase by 25%. "

So to achieve even a small 'mode' shift will cost many hundreds of millions if not billions of pounds. And that's for a marginal change.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Where's the like button!

Anybody who travels about the country a lot by road will know that some of our Motorways and Major roads struggle to cope off peak never mind in the peak, so there has to be a balance between road and rail investment.

Trust me - around here you're in the minority holding such views.

There are no shortage of posters who rather than wanting to 'Like' my posts probably wanted to get me banned for not slavishly wanting rail improvements at the total expense of roads, regardless of the fact I use both depending on what I'm doing and where I'm going.

 

[Eagle i-Thrust]

Presumably the "Woodhead" route between Sheffield and Manchester has dropped off the radar, despite having the expensive work already in being, ie the modern Woodhead tunnel, apparently only requires National Grid to move their cables into the old tunnel, and a route that would provide welcome additional capacity trans-Pennine, given that the Hope Valley route is near to capacity.
Likewise I guess Matlock-Bakewell and onward towards Manchester is not up for consideration.

40907

No chance, the National Grid have only recently finished installing new cables in the 1953 tunnel to replace the life-expired cables in the Victorian tunnels I very much doubt they will be in any kind of hurry to install new cables again in the Victorian tunnels which according to them "the condition of the Victorian tunnels has continued to deteriorate and they would require considerable civil engineering works at substantial additional cost to be made safe for long-term use for any purpose.
".

The government refused to intervene when National Grid announced their plans and their position at the time was if the line was to re-open a new tunnel would need to be bored, I suspect if the line was ever going to be re-opened they would fill-in the Victorian tunnels and re-bore it into a single tunnel.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

Extending Robin Hood line north....... where to?

Sheffield. Changing at both Worksop and Sheffield to get to Mansfield is a pain. Too many railway services terminate at or near county boundaries for political/funding reasons (Adwick, Kirkby, Ormskirk, Ellesmere Port, Knottingley, etc etc)

 

[40907]

Eagle-I-Thrust:

Thanks for the clarification about Woodhead.

Another missed opportunity.

40907

 

[furnessvale]

No chance, the National Grid have only recently finished installing new cables in the 1953 tunnel to replace the life-expired cables in the Victorian tunnels I very much doubt they will be in any kind of hurry to install new cables again in the Victorian tunnels which according to them "the condition of the Victorian tunnels has continued to deteriorate and they would require considerable civil engineering works at substantial additional cost to be made safe for long-term use for any purpose.
".

The government refused to intervene when National Grid announced their plans and their position at the time was if the line was to re-open a new tunnel would need to be bored, I suspect if the line was ever going to be re-opened they would fill-in the Victorian tunnels and re-bore it into a single tunnel.

Farnworth on steroids!

 

[A0]

Sheffield. Changing at both Worksop and Sheffield to get to Mansfield is a pain. Too many railway services terminate at or near county boundaries for political/funding reasons (Adwick, Kirkby, Ormskirk, Ellesmere Port, Knottingley, etc etc)

It would require a reversal at Worksop to achieve that, as well as presumably the capacity at Sheffield station - which I'm not sure exists.

Also, not clear where you're trying to get to Mansfield from with your comment, since Mansfield is in Notts and the service links it to Nottingham.

 

[yorksrob]

Britain at the moment reminds me of a few houses I've worked on where there's so much to do just to maintain and repair what's there already that you feel you'll never get anywhere, let alone have the money to start putting new extensions and kitchens in.
I'd suggest that we all move to a country that has already had the work done like Norway.

Alas, I'm told by people who've visited that the booze is far too expensive !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

so there has to be a balance between road and rail investment.

Good, let's spend a third of these billions on railway reopening's and the rest on road schemes.

 

[Dr_Paul]

It's a mixture - but don't think it's built over. Some of this is the South Staffordshire railway. The Lichfield to Burton part is still used to access three rivers depot and for XC diversions but it is single line only.

I have just looked at various maps and aerial photography of the area, and it does seem a bit odd to me that the line between Walsall and Brownhills has been removed, leaving a stump down from Lichfield (to a depot perhaps, it just seem to peter out), whereas it would make a useful line for northbound freight from Bescot and other places around Birmingham. The trackbed seems to be intact. It makes me wonder why it was removed in the first place.

Similarly, the mothballed line up from Stourbridge through Dudley to Walsall would appear to be a useful line that would enable freight to avoid Birmingham.

 

[adrock1976]

I believe that Stourbridge - Dudley - Wednesbury section is an aspiration of West Midlands PTE to expand the tram network.

I am also aware that the Stourbridge Line Users Group have suggested a track for freight and the other track possibly for trams, but this was a while ago now and I am unsure if the tram suggestion has been shelved.

Perhaps Old Hill Bank could confirm if that is the case or not?

Of note, the Stourbridge - Dudley section was part of the Oxford, Worcester, 7 Wolverhampton Railway (GWR), and the Dudley - Lichfield section was the South Staffordshire Railway (L&NWR). I believe it was once possible to go either route to Birmingham many moons ago.

 

[HowardGWR]

Alas, I'm told by people who've visited (Norway) that the booze is far too expensive !

Probably how they got all the work done in time!

 

[Bald Rick]

The difference between that and rail being that if you improve capacity on those roads, you rarely actually solve anything - invariably, you simply induce a mode-shift to people driving which fills up the capacity and creates a new pinch point a few miles down the road. It's the easiest thing in the world to think, oh this road is struggling to cope, let's build a new one/make it wider/etc. But there's a huge amount of academic research that's been done that demonstrates quite simply that - if your aim is to relieve congestion - adding new road capacity almost never works. It's not just bad for the environment, it's plain bad economics.

On the other hand, improving rail usually really does improve things - because it causes a mode shift from cars and road (which is inherently a very low capacity form of transport) to rail (which is inherently a very high capacity form of transport).

I'm sorry but that is a rather slanted view of things. There are countless road schemes that have reduced congestion; for example removing the at grade junctions in the A1 from Peterborough to Doncaster. Equally, there are plenty of rail schemes that have not caused notable modal shift from road, for example almost all rail schemes in London (simply because the roads are so poor anyway).

It is also true to say that new roads generate traffic, but then so do new railways.

 

[DarloRich]

Good to see someone who realises the current economic facts of life that Britain actually faces.

and potentially set to get worse post departure from the EU

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No chance, the National Grid have only recently finished installing new cables. The government refused to intervene when National Grid announced their plans and their position at the time was if the line was to re-open a new tunnel would need to be bored, I suspect if the line was ever going to be re-opened they would fill-in the Victorian tunnels and re-bore it into a single tunnel.

That sounds like a most lucrative contract awaiting any materials supplier to supply the correct amount of materials to fulfil that particular task...

 

[DarloRich]

The Blyth and Tyne doesn't even need shovels..........

Additionally, it has a ridiculous BCR, something like 5.4 the last time they did the calculation. This would be for an hourly 156 or something, with an extra in the peak. The project literally needs stations building. The biggest work, I believe, would be a re-build of Northumberland Park. Also, to those suggesting Metro to Ashington, note that that would be about double the distance to Sunderland. Not really suitable for Metro operation.

of course it does! It needs track improvements, better signalling and new stations

See http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=99892&page=62

The £27m announced is to fund a detailed study into the project, so it's at an earlier stage than the Bedford-Cambridge part of the E-W rail project. In any case it's not a new motorway being suggested, it's upgrading existing roads to sub-motorway standard.

How much do people think £27m will buy in relation to a new road between Oxford & Cambridge.

 

[6Gman]

Extending Robin Hood line north....... where to?

Stranraer?




(I'll get my coat.)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm sorry but that is a rather slanted view of things. There are countless road schemes that have reduced congestion; for example removing the at grade junctions in the A1 from Peterborough to Doncaster.

Sure, plenty of road schemes will reduce congestion on the exact roads that are being improved (or by-passed). But I'm talking about the overall picture. How much extra congestion on other roads is caused by those road schemes? As an example, the particular example that sparked this sub-discussion - the proposal to upgrade roads from Oxford to Cambridge will in all probability reduce congestion along the upgraded roads. But that will come at a cost of more congestion in, for example, Cambridge itself, resulting from the induced traffic. My reading of the research that's been done suggests that overall, when you take feeder roads into account, not just the roads being improved, then you find it's rare to get a net reduction in congestion. (Though obviously you need to consider each individual situation on its own merits).

Equally, there are plenty of rail schemes that have not caused notable modal shift from road, for example almost all rail schemes in London (simply because the roads are so poor anyway).

There would be some truth in that.

It is also true to say that new roads generate traffic, but then so do new railways.

Agreed - and indeed that is one of the reasons why you build or improve railways. But the difference is that induced traffic on railways doesn't harm other people to anything like the same extent as induced road traffic does.

 

[Andyjs247]

Or £27M could just about stretch to refurbish about 60 rooms in one's palace! To do the whole job is going to be £369M! Just saying.

 

[muddythefish]

I'm sorry but that is a rather slanted view of things. There are countless road schemes that have reduced congestion; for example removing the at grade junctions in the A1 from Peterborough to Doncaster. Equally, there are plenty of rail schemes that have not caused notable modal shift from road, for example almost all rail schemes in London (simply because the roads are so poor anyway).

It is also true to say that new roads generate traffic, but then so do new railways.

Have you used the M25 on the sections that were widened to 4 lanes? They're chock a block, and congestion is as bad as ever, at a cost of many billions of pounds. Expanding the roads system doesn't work, is a waste of money and is outdated thinking. We need fresh thinking on managing wat we have and expanding the alternatives - which in many cases don't exist.

 

[adrock1976]

Or £27M could just about stretch to refurbish about 60 rooms in one's palace! To do the whole job is going to be £369M! Just saying.

Perhaps a good case to slap a Bedroom Tax on it?

After all, the mantra from former Prime Minister David Cameron and the Chancellor (Gideon) George Osborne was that "We are all in it together".