Study to re-open line from High Wycombe to Bourne End

[KingDaveRa]

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/new...nitive_answer__to_train_plan/#comments-anchor

A £100,000 study on the possibility of reopening the railway line between Bourne End and High Wycombe will finally give residents a “definitive answer” on the long-running issue, councillors say.

Reopening the old line – which has been closed since 1970 - was once again raised at a cabinet meeting at Wycombe District Council on Monday night, with Cllr David Johncock announcing that money has been set aside for a new high-level feasibility study.

If the study – which will be funded through £50,000 of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) money in 2017/18 and the same again in 2018/19 - gives the new line the go-ahead, it is hoped that it will link Aylesbury with Maidenhead.

Cllr Julia Langley, who represents The Wooburns, said the study should finally lay the issue – which has been rumbling on for decades – “to rest” for the sake of residents near railway line.

She said: “This has been going around for a number of years now and I'm satisfied that I am hearing some constructive way forward. I just hope that once the feasibility study is done and if it is not a positive outcome, we owe it to the residents to be really honest with them.

“A lot of residents are concerned about their properties and what impact this may have on them, but at the same time, they realise that making travel backwards and forwards to work and business is equally important.

“But I think it has to be put to rest at some point in time.”

Council leader Katrina Wood agreed with cllr Langley, saying the study will “give us a definitive answer whichever way.”

The line closed in 1970 when more than 2,000 stations were shut down following a report by Dr Richard Beeching which recommended the closure of hundreds of branch lines.

Answering cllr Langley’s concerns, cllr Johncock agreed that the issue cannot keep going “forever and a day.”

He said: “The most recent studies have been looking at light railways which was ruled out and we are not proposing to do that again.

“We will be proposing to look at heavy rail – in other words, being able to link Aylesbury all the way through to Maidenhead and pick up with Crossrail.

“If that does not prove to be a viable option, then that will be it – we have to draw a line under it. We can’t, as you say, keep this going forever and a day. We need some certainty and that is what I hope the feasibility study will allow us to do.”

I believe parts of the route were built on. But never say never. It'd make for an interesting new route.

 

[mr_jrt]

Personally, I want to see that route reinstated but the wording there makes me fear this is just the council looking for permission to close down any future hopes so they can develop whatever's left of the alignment.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I believe parts of the route were built on.

Also there would need to be two level crossings across busy roads just north of Bourne End station. Although if you had to demolish the industrial estate as well, that might make room for a road bridge.

I don't suppose there was ever so much demand from Wooburn Green and Loudwater that couldn't be met either by buses or by using Wycombe, Beaconsfield or Bourne End as railheads. A strategic link between Maidenhead and Milton Keynes via High Wycombe, Princes Risborough and Aylesbury might make a certain sense.

 

[59CosG95]

Also there would need to be two level crossings across busy roads just north of Bourne End station. Although if you had to demolish the industrial estate as well, that might make room for a road bridge.

I don't suppose there was ever so much demand from Wooburn Green and Loudwater that couldn't be met either by buses or by using Wycombe, Beaconsfield or Bourne End as railheads. A strategic link between Maidenhead and Milton Keynes via High Wycombe, Princes Risborough and Aylesbury might make a certain sense.

I certainly wouldn't be averse to such a link being implemented. The single track between Princes Risboro' and Aylesbury, Aylesbury and Vale Pkwy, and thence north to EWR would also need to be doubled in most probabilities.

 

[bramling]

Also there would need to be two level crossings across busy roads just north of Bourne End station. Although if you had to demolish the industrial estate as well, that might make room for a road bridge.

I don't suppose there was ever so much demand from Wooburn Green and Loudwater that couldn't be met either by buses or by using Wycombe, Beaconsfield or Bourne End as railheads. A strategic link between Maidenhead and Milton Keynes via High Wycombe, Princes Risborough and Aylesbury might make a certain sense.

Spot on analysis I think.

With population and congestion increasing to almost intolerable levels in parts of the south-east, there is probably a case of sorts for many of these inter-town links, particularly those where the route mileage to be rebuilt is fairly low and it makes a connexion between different parts of the network. I always think Hatfield to St Albans Abbey would be another useful such route.

 

[Quakkerillo]

Looking at the route itself:
(1) Princes Gate would have to be closed in High Wycombe, and all traffic would either have to go via Healey avenue, or open up the south-eastern exit to Coopers Rise and Pinion Road.
(2) No clue how they're getting through Willow Court, or it must be with an extra curve to cut through Bassetbury lane before rejoining the original route.
You could try to branch off later from High Wycombe but I also don't really see a feasible option there.

High-Wycombe to Maidenhead looks to be a relatively okay route in itself, although I think if you were to combine this as a through link from Maidenhead all the way to Aylesbury (and EWR) you could have an even better option.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Spot on analysis I think.

With population and congestion increasing to almost intolerable levels in parts of the south-east, there is probably a case of sorts for many of these inter-town links, particularly those where the route mileage to be rebuilt is fairly low and it makes a connexion between different parts of the network. I always think Hatfield to St Albans Abbey would be another useful such route.

It'll never catch on. Next thing, someone will be suggesting a line from somewhere like Sandy via Beford - Bletchley (where you could build a fly-over across the LNW)-Oxford - you could even divert freight that way too, away from London

Or even (Milton Keynes) - Leighton Buzzard - Dunstable - Luton - Luton Airport. Nah, the BCR would never be strong enough.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Personally, I want to see that route reinstated but the wording there makes me fear this is just the council looking for permission to close down any future hopes so they can develop whatever's left of the alignment.

I got the same feeling. :cry:

 

[D365]

I certainly wouldn't be averse to such a link being implemented. The single track between Princes Risboro' and Aylesbury, Aylesbury and Vale Pkwy, and thence north to EWR would also need to be doubled in most probabilities.

Is that not happening anyway as part of EWR?

 

[70014IronDuke]

Is that not happening anyway as part of EWR?

Yes. Well, sort of (if it every happens east of Bedford, and if it is routed via Sandy - I can never seem to keep up with the latest announcements as to the preferred routes. Personally, i doubt it will ever go, the costs just seem to go up and up, but if it does, I doubt it will be via Sandy). But for passenger, primarily, not freight (as per the 1955? plan).

Apols (and to get back on topic) what I should have said is this should be sorted out first, before adding on Bourne End to High Wycombe. Not that I wouldn't want to see the latter happen, just I wonder if without E-W rail done first it could ever work.

 

[Pinza-C55]

It's curious how much negativity there is on this site to the idea of reopening closed railways. I walked this line in 1982 and I have looked at it on Google Earth and I have to say it has been very developed and would cost a huge amount to reopen.
However the principle of reopening a relatively short branch line which would connect two fairly affluent towns is a good one in my opinion.
I would like to bet that given the success of the Borders Line, the trains on this line would be heavily used.
If the cost of the feasibility study is being spent simply to allow more development though, that would be a disgraceful waste of taxpayer's money.

 

[HWLad]

As someone who lives in the area, I would be very (pleasantly) surprised if this ever gains enough traction and money to actually have shovels in the ground.

If one were to go through Loudwater, Bourne End and High Wycombe, you would see how much land would need to be repurchased, at a large cost to the developer in South Buckinghamshire might I add, in order to get any sort of alignment between Bourne End and High Wycombe. This is unlikely to be offset by the benefits of having a Maidenhead - Milton Keynes service, particularly as it is unlikely to attract any money from central government as it's benefits are mostly only going to be seen in that localised region. I also don't see freight being a large benefit of such as project given EWR under contruction to the north and the Acton-Northolt Line to the South that this line would duplicate.

 

[coppercapped]

Also there would need to be two level crossings across busy roads just north of Bourne End station. Although if you had to demolish the industrial estate as well, that might make room for a road bridge.

I don't suppose there was ever so much demand from Wooburn Green and Loudwater that couldn't be met either by buses or by using Wycombe, Beaconsfield or Bourne End as railheads. A strategic link between Maidenhead and Milton Keynes via High Wycombe, Princes Risborough and Aylesbury might make a certain sense.

I agree. But i would think bigger! If the Western Approach(TM) to Heathrow from the GW becomes reality I would suggest that such a service be started back from (or terminate at) Heathrow. This would also mean that Slough would be added to the potential sources of traffic.

 

[The Ham]

I agree. But i would think bigger! If the Western Approach(TM) to Heathrow from the GW becomes reality I would suggest that such a service be started back from (or terminate at) Heathrow. This would also mean that Slough would be added to the potential sources of traffic.

It would also mean that there could be a reasonable amount of through passengers from MK to Heathrow.

It could even have through traffic from south of Heathrow (if the Southern Approach is built) providing links to the SWML. As there is some doubt as to whether trains from the south should extend beyond Heathrow on car of disruption, well if the services run into MK that becomes less of a concern but still allows people to change at Slough to get to Paddington.

 

[mr_jrt]

It would also mean that there could be a reasonable amount of through passengers from MK to Heathrow.

It could even have through traffic from south of Heathrow (if the Southern Approach is built) providing links to the SWML. As there is some doubt as to whether trains from the south should extend beyond Heathrow on car of disruption, well if the services run into MK that becomes less of a concern but still allows people to change at Slough to get to Paddington.

As is the convention, I have to ask - would MK<=>Heathrow traffic be best served by this link, or by an WCML (or indeed, Chiltern!) interchange with Crossrail at Willesden Junction/OOC?

Personally I think the country needs many more orbital links, but I suspect when distances are great a trip up and down a pair of radial lines will win out unless you price the orbital appropriately to attract traffic - and that makes the BCR lower. Given that, I suspect terminating at Maidenhead to maximise paths on the relief lines would be the only thing on the cards as the alternative of a new Reading-facing curve (because I suspect most longer-distance (i.e. MK) traffic would actually end up being primarily Reading-bound) and a new Maidenhead station on said route would never wash its face financially (though you could always reverse in the bay instead).

 

[dviner]

Also there would need to be two level crossings across busy roads just north of Bourne End station. Although if you had to demolish the industrial estate as well, that might make room for a road bridge.

Actually - that might kill two birds with one stone.

Flatten Bourne End station and the industrial estate on the north side of Boston Drive, have a steep rise in track level after coming over the river bridge, and rebuild the station on the bridge crossing Station road (a la Blackfriars, but over a road rather than a river).

That way you get away from the issues with fouling the Marlow branch points with units longer than 2 carriages by moving them further away, so you can electrify the Bourne End and Marlow branches!

 

[Andyjs247]

As is the convention, I have to ask - would MK<=>Heathrow traffic be best served by this link, or by an WCML (or indeed, Chiltern!) interchange with Crossrail at Willesden Junction/OOC?

Personally I think the country needs many more orbital links, but I suspect when distances are great a trip up and down a pair of radial lines will win out unless you price the orbital appropriately to attract traffic - and that makes the BCR lower. Given that, I suspect terminating at Maidenhead to maximise paths on the relief lines would be the only thing on the cards as the alternative of a new Reading-facing curve (because I suspect most longer-distance (i.e. MK) traffic would actually end up being primarily Reading-bound) and a new Maidenhead station on said route would never wash its face financially (though you could always reverse in the bay instead).

MK is going to be linked to Reading by EWR though. And the Aylesbury Vale terminators from Marylebone (via Princes Risborough) are due to be extended to MK with EWR. Whilst you could potentially have a direct service to Aylesbury and MK from Maidenhead it would be in addition to that already promised to Marylebone. But I'm not sure the capacity exists; thinking of the extra conflicts that would exist at High Wycombe/Princes Risborough and the single line from there to Aylesbury.

 

[KingDaveRa]

But I'm not sure the capacity exists; thinking of the extra conflicts that would exist at High Wycombe/Princes Risborough and the single line from there to Aylesbury.

As discussed in another thread, the line between Aylesbury and Risboro isn't likely to be upgraded as part of the EWR project now. The line from Wycombe to Risboro is pretty busy these days, so it'd probably take some pretty inventive scheduling to make it work!

It's also worth remembering this is nothing more than the council looking at if it's possible. They could say yes, but nothing will likely come of it. Although if it could somehow be included into the third runway works of Heathrow, I think it'd suddenly become a more useful piece of infrastructure.

 

[Bald Rick]

I always think Hatfield to St Albans Abbey would be another useful such route.

It looks like it should be, but it wouldn't.

A fair proportion of the existing bus traffic on the route is going to or from the Uni, Oaklands college or Loreto College, all of which are directly on the bus route, but would not be so close to a station. Another fair proportion is going to or from St Albans City station, for which Abbey is no use. Aside from students and pensioners (who get the bus free), there are not many Albanistas who need to get to Hatfield by public transport. The employment in Hatfield is spread out in various business parks which the railway could not easily serve. Sometimes bus is best, and the traffic really isn't that bad, even at 0830 in the morning.

It would also cost a lot of money - as a former single track line, with most of it in Hatfield and a good stretch in St Albans under housing, plus every existing bridge would need rebuilding, with at least two new ones required where they have long since disappeared or never existed in the first place.

Besides, it would ruin my pleasant walk to the station each morning.

 

[mr_jrt]

It looks like it should be, but it wouldn't.

I suspect in a larger scheme it might, but what you do in St. Albans would be key to whether it succeeded or not.

When I've mused on this before years ago I came to the conclusion that if you moved St. Albans City station south to London Road and built a new interchange there with the orbital route then it would be infinitely more useful as you would be able to offer direct trains to both Watford and Hatfield, giving two traffic generators in both directions. The obvious difficult issue you would have is that I can't see any alternative to reversing at Abbey station, which isn't ideal, really. There's also the not inconsequential issue of how much of the line is lost through Hatfield, but where there's a will there's a way, I guess.

Moving the City station out of that bend means you can ease the curvature a bit on the fast lines through the existing site, which should (could?) increase speeds there, and you also improve access to City station by road, especially from the south. It'd not be much further to the central area than at present, and if you're concerned about disadvantaging passengers from north of the current station, the extra distance means a new station in north St. Albans becomes viable.

...and having a station on London Road means that if you so desired, you could fit another paid of terminal tracks there from a extension of the goods lines at Hendon (you'd never get them to the current constrained station site), meaning the metro service between St. Albans and West Hampstead could be segregated (perhaps operated by LO?), leaving Thameslink free to run all their services fast between St. Albans and West Hampstead, improving capacity via a fast uniform stopping pattern. Incredibly unlikely, but depends on how much desire there is to wring even more capacity out of the southern MML.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Looking at the old route on Google Earth there's way to much stuff that's been built on the old trackbed already. If they are going to do anything they should compulsory purchase the properties in Donkey Lane, west of the current Marlow-Bourne End section, then have a curve directly linking the two sections to eliminate the reversing (if possible have a straight section for a platform)

 

[glbotu]

If there's even a sliver of a chance of re-opening that alignment, it would probably be as a "Buckinghamshire tramway". A major high street extends from Bourne End, it would allow you to build into High Wycombe and through it, and mean a relevant service for the smaller towns along the way. As opposed to a lot of tram suggestions, this one wouldn't take away from any service (given that the branch is losing its Paddington service) and doesn't require complex tram-training because it wouldn't need to interact with freight.

Solved.........

(but yeah, no-one's going to build heavy rail between the two).

 

[coppercapped]

As is the convention, I have to ask - would MK<=>Heathrow traffic be best served by this link, or by an WCML (or indeed, Chiltern!) interchange with Crossrail at Willesden Junction/OOC?

Personally I think the country needs many more orbital links, but I suspect when distances are great a trip up and down a pair of radial lines will win out unless you price the orbital appropriately to attract traffic - and that makes the BCR lower. Given that, I suspect terminating at Maidenhead to maximise paths on the relief lines would be the only thing on the cards as the alternative of a new Reading-facing curve (because I suspect most longer-distance (i.e. MK) traffic would actually end up being primarily Reading-bound) and a new Maidenhead station on said route would never wash its face financially (though you could always reverse in the bay instead).

As for most routes which do not have a large city at each end and so can run practically non-stop between them, the end-to-end flows are probably less important than the sum of all the intermediate flows. So in the case under discussion you are probably quite correct is suggesting the MK-Heathrow flows would be better served via an interchange at Old Oak Common. But the sum of MK-Aylesbury, Maidenhead-Bedford (via a change at Bletchley), Slough-High Wycombe and similar will be considerable. The area is reasonably densely populated, quite affluent (so people have the cash to travel) but the main roads are radial to London and cross-country journeys can be tiresome.

The only practical way for many of these trips is the car so such a reopening would allow rail to enter markets from which it is excluded at the moment. I am aware that something like two thirds of car journeys are less than five miles long, but the ten to thirty mile journeys this service would offer would help to make a dent in road usage.

Most of the track and facilities already exist, it's just(!) the Bourne End to High Wycombe section that needs completion. To my mind it is a similar situation to the Stratford-on-Avon to Honeybourne route. A comparatively short length of rail opens up much longer journey possibilities. To address your final point - I suspect that any MK-Reading flow would elect to go via Oxford as, potentially, this would be the quicker end-to-end route. I see the Bourne End to High Wycombe route as better serving the Maidenhead/Slough area.

 

[Pinza-C55]

Great shot of Loudwater station here

https://www.theguardian.com/public-...d-stations-tracks-and-trains-readers-pictures

 

[A0]

I suspect in a larger scheme it might, but what you do in St. Albans would be key to whether it succeeded or not.

When I've mused on this before years ago I came to the conclusion that if you moved St. Albans City station south to London Road and built a new interchange there with the orbital route then it would be infinitely more useful as you would be able to offer direct trains to both Watford and Hatfield, giving two traffic generators in both directions. The obvious difficult issue you would have is that I can't see any alternative to reversing at Abbey station, which isn't ideal, really. There's also the not inconsequential issue of how much of the line is lost through Hatfield, but where there's a will there's a way, I guess.

Moving the City station out of that bend means you can ease the curvature a bit on the fast lines through the existing site, which should (could?) increase speeds there, and you also improve access to City station by road, especially from the south. It'd not be much further to the central area than at present, and if you're concerned about disadvantaging passengers from north of the current station, the extra distance means a new station in north St. Albans becomes viable.

...and having a station on London Road means that if you so desired, you could fit another paid of terminal tracks there from a extension of the goods lines at Hendon (you'd never get them to the current constrained station site), meaning the metro service between St. Albans and West Hampstead could be segregated (perhaps operated by LO?), leaving Thameslink free to run all their services fast between St. Albans and West Hampstead, improving capacity via a fast uniform stopping pattern. Incredibly unlikely, but depends on how much desire there is to wring even more capacity out of the southern MML.

St Albans is the least of the problems for any reinstatement of the Hatfield - St Albans line, virtually all of the formation is intact - the bigger problem is Hatfield from Ellenbrook eastwards.

Since the railway disappeared (many moons ago) the A1 has been completely rebuilt with the Hatfield tunnel, the Galleria as well is building over the formation near Hatfield town centre.

St Albans - Hatfield will never happen. I'm not sure Bourne End to High Wycombe will either for that matter - trying to stay on topic.