Potential New Central Pennine Rail Line (Colne-Skipton)

[Ianno87]

Engineering moves on; it's a fact of life. To all intents and purposes this would be a brand new line, one that just happens to utilise a former route. If you need to build a new structure, it's got to be done to current engineering standards. Contractually, the designer must exercise 'reasonable skill and care' (aka follow up to date engineering standards) and all involved have a general duty of care. The desire to save money to improve the case for reopening the line would not be a very satisfactory defence argument when taken to court after some failure.

Also, doing a 'cheaper' enginnering solution for the route almost universally increases the ongoing cost of maintaining the route, reducing its long term economic viability of the route. For example sharper curves = more track wear = more frequent rerailing. So it's a false economy.

 

[yorksrob]

Also, doing a 'cheaper' enginnering solution for the route almost universally increases the ongoing cost of maintaining the route, reducing its long term economic viability of the route. For example sharper curves = more track wear = more frequent rerailing. So it's a false economy.

I'm not sure that's entirely true otherwise we'd be realigning a lot more of our existing secondary routes.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm not sure that's entirely true otherwise we'd be realigning a lot more of our existing secondary routes.

But on existing routes, the infrastructure is already there, so zero capital cost vs non-zero ongoing cost. You wouldn't get payback from the capital investement (which is not necessary if the route is already there).

I'm talking about the marginal extra cost of building a reinstated route to full standards vs building to reduced standards. The difference between these capital figues is offset by reduced ongoing maintenance costs.

 

[yorksrob]

But on existing routes, the infrastructure is already there, so zero capital cost vs non-zero ongoing cost. You wouldn't get payback from the capital investement (which is not necessary if the route is already there).

I'm talking about the marginal extra cost of building a reinstated route to full standards vs building to reduced standards. The difference between these capital figues is offset by reduced ongoing maintenance costs.

For an existing route, you'll have to undertake a major track renewal every fifty years anyway, so presumably realignment would be undertaken at this stage, if the revenue gains really did outweigh the capital cost.

It's all pretty academic if rail is effectively priced out of the market for new reconnections anyway.

 

[The Planner]

Plain line track renewal is done on an ongoing basis, you don't go in and do 10 miles at a time.

 

[Deerfold]

Of course trams have lower standards of signalling, they're frequently line of sight.

And have appropriate speed restrictions?

 

[yorksrob]

And have appropriate speed restrictions?

Didn't stop that one coming off the tracks in Croydon though.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Of course trams have lower standards of signalling, they're frequently line of sight.

But trams are not being proposed for the New Central Pennine Rail Line. Nor for the other re-openings regularly discussed here.

If you look at the big picture we do indeed have something of a ticking time-bomb as regards the Victorian infrastructure we have inherited. Mention has been made of curvature standards but the biggest inherited risk factor comes from the slope angles of earthworks, ie cuttings and embankments, especially as climate change is generating more frequent severe weather events. It is therefore inevitable that any new build, including re-openings, will be to more modern standards and will accordingly occupy a wider footprint thus increasing the notional cost. Unless you really want a national network of trams with far fewer "proper" trains!

 

[yorksrob]

But trams are not being proposed for the New Central Pennine Rail Line. Nor for the other re-openings regularly discussed here.

If you look at the big picture we do indeed have something of a ticking time-bomb as regards the Victorian infrastructure we have inherited. Mention has been made of curvature standards but the biggest inherited risk factor comes from the slope angles of earthworks, ie cuttings and embankments, especially as climate change is generating more frequent severe weather events. It is therefore inevitable that any new build, including re-openings, will be to more modern standards and will accordingly occupy a wider footprint thus increasing the notional cost. Unless you really want a national network of trams with far fewer "proper" trains!

A network of trams (or guided buses) with fewer proper trains is precisely what the current situation is giving us, particularly where it comes to the point that it is far easier to build a less safe, under-engineered tramway than to reopen a route to the standards of the vast majority of the much safer existing national railway network.

Yes, there is a need to future proof lines for climate change. Lets do this on main lines with heavy traffic where the need is pressing, rather than hobbling the extension of the local network.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A network of trams (or guided buses) with fewer proper trains is precisely what the current situation is giving us, particularly where it comes to the point that it is far easier to build a less safe, under-engineered tramway than to reopen a route to the standards of the vast majority of the much safer existing national railway network.

Not sure how you reach that conclusion. Yes some of the "new" tram lines are on former heavy rail routes but they are the exception and in some cases are providing much better use of the infrastructure. Only TfGM seem to think that nearly all local lines should become tramways though the future of the Valley Lines is still somewhat up in the air. For what it's worth the conversion from heavy to light rail with widespread use of tram-trains is not an approach I favour.

Yes, there is a need to future proof lines for climate change. Lets do this on main lines with heavy traffic where the need is pressing, rather than hobbling the extension of the local network.

Again, is this really happening? Surely all parts of the network which may be vulnerable need protection through suitable upgrades. Otherwise there may be no choice but to convert local lines to tramways. Why do you think extensions to local heavy rail networks should be exempt from current engineering standards?

 

[yorksrob]

Not sure how you reach that conclusion. Yes some of the "new" tram lines are on former heavy rail routes but they are the exception and in some cases are providing much better use of the infrastructure. Only TfGM seem to think that nearly all local lines should become tramways though the future of the Valley Lines is still somewhat up in the air. For what it's worth the conversion from heavy to light rail with widespread use of tram-trains is not an approach I favour.

We're not discussing the conversion of existing lines to tramways. We're talking about the reopening (or lack of) traditional railway routes. The new tramlines on former heavy rail routes are the exception to what exactly ? cycleways ? busways ? Certainly not rail reopenings which, with a few exceptions are unaffordable.

Again, is this really happening? Surely all parts of the network which may be vulnerable need protection through suitable upgrades. Otherwise there may be no choice but to convert local lines to tramways. Why do you think extensions to local heavy rail networks should be exempt from current engineering standards?

And why would you convert to local lines to tramways since these presumably wouldn't have protection anyway ?

 

[Bevan Price]

I think that closing Colne - Skipton was a mistake, but now that it has gone, I regrettably think that the cost of rebuilding the line would be hard to justify. The total population in the area is probably too low to attract enough passengers. Moreover, the former tracbed at Foulridge is now covered by housing, which would need to be purchased & removed.

In retrospect, it is a pity that the line from Accrington to Bury & Clifton Jn was also closed - that was probably the shortest route between Colne / Burnley / Accrington and Manchester, although it was difficult to work, with the 1 in 40 bank to Baxenden just south of Accrington.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I've often thought that what's needed is a a modern day version of a "light railway order" to allow existing formations to be reused, particularly where those extensions are unlikely to become high speed main lines.

That is very much the problem in my opinion. If such gold plating isn't required on an existing route, it shouldn't be needed on an equivalent reopened one.

These two points of yours are pretty much answered by the next two, also yours:

It's all pretty academic if rail is effectively priced out of the market for new reconnections anyway.

We're talking about the reopening (or lack of) traditional railway routes. ...rail reopenings which, with a few exceptions are unaffordable.

The bottom line is that railways are expensive undertakings and need decent volume to justify their cost. Almost all the re-openings that we discuss on here are missing that vital ingredient: the prospect of plenty of additional passengers on the network. Like it or not to re-open a closed line that has long since been ripped up is just as expensive as to create a completely new route, if not more so due to the constraints imposed by Victorian standards of route alignment. It should be no surprise that new high-speed lines, despite their high initial costs, are being approved when local re-openings like Colne-Skipton are getting nowhere. The issue is not that such re-openings are too expensive (they cost what they cost for good reason), it's that what amounts to a new build is not an appropriate use for public funds. What's really missing is the ability to provide proper co-ordination between bus and train thanks to the joys of a deregulated bus industry.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Didn't stop that one coming off the tracks in Croydon though.

Was there not a human element of disregard of speed restrictions involved in that incident?

 

[yorksrob]

These two points of yours are pretty much answered by the next two, also yours:





The bottom line is that railways are expensive undertakings and need decent volume to justify their cost. Almost all the re-openings that we discuss on here are missing that vital ingredient: the prospect of plenty of additional passengers on the network. Like it or not to re-open a closed line that has long since been ripped up is just as expensive as to create a completely new route, if not more so due to the constraints imposed by Victorian standards of route alignment. It should be no surprise that new high-speed lines, despite their high initial costs, are being approved when local re-openings like Colne-Skipton are getting nowhere. The issue is not that such re-openings are too expensive (they cost what they cost for good reason), it's that what amounts to a new build is not an appropriate use for public funds. What's really missing is the ability to provide proper co-ordination between bus and train thanks to the joys of a deregulated bus industry.

No, the last two points highlighted are a direct consequence of the first two points highlighted.

Yes, a railway is comparatively expensive, however there is absolutely no reason why a lower speed/density local route should have to be engineered to the same degree as a high intensity, high speed main line, any more than a tramway should have to be engineered to the same extent as a local heavy rail route.

Similarly there should be no reason why a reopened local route should have to be engineered differently from the vast majority of the existing local network.

Railways are not by their nature 'too expensive'. We choose to make them so.

 

[yorksrob]

Was there not a human element of disregard of speed restrictions involved in that incident?

There was, as I understand it aggravated by the lack of train protection and tighter curvature permitted in tram systems.

 

[edwin_m]

There was, as I understand it aggravated by the lack of train protection and tighter curvature permitted in tram systems.

The tight curve at the Croydon accident site allowed a disused railway that bypassed Croydon to be re-used as a tramway to serve the centre of Croydon where people actually wanted to go. Without the tight curves and other engineering features of tramways this route would still be disused and Wimbledon to West Croydon would still have had a 456 every hour or so instead of a busy tram every few minutes. All those tram passengers would be on the roads or not travelling at all.

For Colne-Skipton and other re-openings use of some elements of tram operation might allow, for instance, tighter curvature and steeper gradients to bypass sections where the route has been built over and flat crossings to replace missing bridges (better braking and other features mean a tram is safer than a train when crossing a highway). I'm not familiar with the route so can't say how useful these features would be in making it easier to re-open, or indeed whether re-opening is justified. However I think through running at least beyond Colne would be essential for success, and this would mean either sticking to heavy rail standards for the new route or obtaining a sub-fleet of vehicles that could run on the national network and also cope with whatever tramway features the new route had.

 

[Deerfold]

Didn't stop that one coming off the tracks in Croydon though.

I'm confused. Are you arguing that trains should have lower engineering standards because trams have or that the standards for trams should be brought up to those of trains?

 

[quantinghome]

Railways are not by their nature 'too expensive'. We choose to make them so.

OK, so can you provide details of the particular elements of engineering in a railway rebuild/reopening scheme that you think could offer the greatest cost savings?

 

[yorksrob]

The tight curve at the Croydon accident site allowed a disused railway that bypassed Croydon to be re-used as a tramway to serve the centre of Croydon where people actually wanted to go. Without the tight curves and other engineering features of tramways this route would still be disused and Wimbledon to West Croydon would still have had a 456 every hour or so instead of a busy tram every few minutes. All those tram passengers would be on the roads or not travelling at all.

For Colne-Skipton and other re-openings use of some elements of tram operation might allow, for instance, tighter curvature and steeper gradients to bypass sections where the route has been built over and flat crossings to replace missing bridges (better braking and other features mean a tram is safer than a train when crossing a highway). I'm not familiar with the route so can't say how useful these features would be in making it easier to re-open, or indeed whether re-opening is justified. However I think through running at least beyond Colne would be essential for success, and this would mean either sticking to heavy rail standards for the new route or obtaining a sub-fleet of vehicles that could run on the national network and also cope with whatever tramway features the new route had.

But if people just want to go from Colne or Nelson towards the Aire Valley and Leeds they might not need all these sharp curves etc. The existing route would be perfectly fine, yet they are prevented from it.

 

[yorksrob]

The tight curve at the Croydon accident site allowed a disused railway that bypassed Croydon to be re-used as a tramway to serve the centre of Croydon where people actually wanted to go. Without the tight curves and other engineering features of tramways this route would still be disused and Wimbledon to West Croydon would still have had a 456 every hour or so instead of a busy tram every few minutes. All those tram passengers would be on the roads or not travelling at all.

For Colne-Skipton and other re-openings use of some elements of tram operation might allow, for instance, tighter curvature and steeper gradients to bypass sections where the route has been built over and flat crossings to replace missing bridges (better braking and other features mean a tram is safer than a train when crossing a highway). I'm not familiar with the route so can't say how useful these features would be in making it easier to re-open, or indeed whether re-opening is justified. However I think through running at least beyond Colne would be essential for success, and this would mean either sticking to heavy rail standards for the new route or obtaining a sub-fleet of vehicles that could run on the national network and also cope with whatever tramway features the new route had.

I'm confused. Are you arguing that trains should have lower engineering standards because trams have or that the standards for trams should be brought up to those of trains?

My point is that if you built a railway on an existing steam era alignment with basic signalling, it would still be considerably safer than a tram, even without massive reengineering of the alignment, embankments etc. Yet the basic railway reopening is effectively disallowed whilst the tram can go ahead !

 

[yorksrob]

OK, so can you provide details of the particular elements of engineering in a railway rebuild/reopening scheme that you think could offer the greatest cost savings?

Basically anything which overengineers the railway in comparison to an existing local railway today.

Others will be better qualified to provide the detail.

 

[edwin_m]

But if people just want to go from Colne or Nelson towards the Aire Valley and Leeds they might not need all these sharp curves etc. The existing route would be perfectly fine, yet they are prevented from it.

This thread mentions houses on the line at Foulridge and the bypass blocking the formation just before the junction at Skipton. Those are the sorts of problems that might be easier to get round (literally) with more severe curves and gradients.

 

[bluenoxid]

Basically anything which overengineers the railway in comparison to an existing local railway today.

Others will be better qualified to provide the detail.

Any of the engineers prepared to take up this carelessly discarded gauntlet.

I would dispute the term over engineered.

We face a number of challenges

First of all, you demand rights. The workers demand a reasonable salary and a safe working environment. They expect a reasonable set of working hours, so the construction organisation has to employ more staff. We have to look after stakeholders. No blocking roads to meet the demands of construction.

Everything has to be planned for. Every step from start on site to the train breaking through the banner. These designs must meet all standards, which are constantly under review.

FEA and better ground survey techniques have made things easier but also highlight concerns.

Rail demands a number of standards with strict tolerances. These all need to be met and checked.

Weve had inflation. Just as a Freddo costs more money, so does a concrete pour, railway line and a sign.

I think youre hoping that a tram would be cheaper. It still faces many similar challenges. The reason people step out and confidently use infrastructure is because of the work put in to design and construction.

 

[yorksrob]

The reason people step out and confidently use infrastructure is because of the work put in to design and construction.

Which is as true of the infrastructure built 150 years ago as that built yesterday.

My only argument is that after a check and repairs to ascertain that it is still in good nick, we should be able to use it again (just as we continue to use infrastructure that was never disused).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This thread mentions houses on the line at Foulridge and the bypass blocking the formation just before the junction at Skipton. Those are the sorts of problems that might be easier to get round (literally) with more severe curves and gradients.

Manchester Metrolink has good examples of severe curves in both the Pomona and the former Oldham Werneth approaches.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Which is as true of the infrastructure built 150 years ago as that built yesterday.

But that's exactly the point, it isn't true. The recent quite long closure of the Settle-Carlisle line was entirely due to the failure of Victorian era infrastructure. The landslips adjacent to railway lines across the country which occur with alarming regularity after heavy rainfall are similar examples.

My only argument is that after a check and repairs to ascertain that it is still in good nick, we should be able to use it again (just as we continue to use infrastructure that was never disused).

And there's no guarantee that it will be. If not then you face either a hefty bill to bring it up to scratch or give up. Remember that at least some of the delay and much of the large expense associated with the re-opening of the Todmorden curve was due to the need to undertake a very detailed survey of the embankment on which it sits. And no surprise given that prior to the re-instatement works taking place it resembled a linear forest!

In practice any line that was abandoned more than a few years ago is highly likely to have suffered a degree of degradation which makes the re-use of the original formation either very expensive or possibly unviable. The solution in such cases must inevitably meet modern standards: I do not understand how you can possibly argue that such standards are inappropriate just because they are more expensive than you would like.

 

[edwin_m]

I think where the choice is marginal would be something like clearances at bridges - would an otherwise serviceable bridge be replaced simply because modern standards require extra clearance for a staff walkway? As far as I'm aware, on routes such as Borders they haven't been, though new bridges are built to current standards.

 

[yorksrob]

But that's exactly the point, it isn't true. The recent quite long closure of the Settle-Carlisle line was entirely due to the failure of Victorian era infrastructure. The landslips adjacent to railway lines across the country which occur with alarming regularity after heavy rainfall are similar examples.



And there's no guarantee that it will be. If not then you face either a hefty bill to bring it up to scratch or give up. Remember that at least some of the delay and much of the large expense associated with the re-opening of the Todmorden curve was due to the need to undertake a very detailed survey of the embankment on which it sits. And no surprise given that prior to the re-instatement works taking place it resembled a linear forest!

In practice any line that was abandoned more than a few years ago is highly likely to have suffered a degree of degradation which makes the re-use of the original formation either very expensive or possibly unviable. The solution in such cases must inevitably meet modern standards: I do not understand how you can possibly argue that such standards are inappropriate just because they are more expensive than you would like.

The situation at Eden Brows arose from very specific circumstances. To say that you would not contemplate reopenings unless the whole route is rebuilt in such a way would be more akin to closing the entire network until it can be rebuilt.

Yes there's no guarantee that infrastructure will be in as closed condition, that's why you check it. There's equally no guarantee that it won't be. You shouldn't start from a blanket assumption that it won't be.

 

[snowball]

I think where the choice is marginal would be something like clearances at bridges - would an otherwise serviceable bridge be replaced simply because modern standards require extra clearance for a staff walkway? As far as I'm aware, on routes such as Borders they haven't been, though new bridges are built to current standards.

On the Borders line, where it's single track under old arched bridges, they've slewed it to the middle of the arch. The purpose was to create clearance for future electrification, but presumably it also creates walking routes each side.