"Axed rail routes may be reopened under new DfT plans"

[daodao]

Its almost 10 years since ATOC's rail reopening report which proposed 14 lines and 40 stations for reopening. I cant find the original report now but I dont think a single one of those has progressed very far. A classic space filler story which paints DfT in a good light when there is no-one around to rip it apart.

Not entirely true.

Two station re-openings proposed in the ATOC report (2009) have been implemented: Ilkeston and Kenilworth.

There are active proposals for the following line re-openings: Ashington, Portishead, Skelmersdale and Wisbech.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The idea I think is to provide a peak-hour shuttle service from Rawtenstall to the disused bay platform at Bury Bolton Street. Then provide a regular service from Bury Bolton Street to Castleton. Rossendale is the only borough of Greater Manchester not to be served by either Metrolink or a Railway.

The travelling public, as I stated in my posting, already have enough public transport to and from the Bury Interchange from places on this proposed route. Have you ever made a comparison of the existing heritage railway journey prices and those of the local bus services?

 

[daodao]

The idea I think is to provide a peak-hour shuttle service from Rawtenstall to the disused bay platform at Bury Bolton Street. Then provide a regular service from Bury Bolton Street to Castleton. Rossendale is the only borough of Greater Manchester not to be served by either Metrolink or a Railway.

Rossendale is in Lancashire, not Greater Manchester, so TfGM has little interest in developing this route. Unfortunately, the line does not connect with Metrolink at Bury. There would be capacity issues at the sliimmed down Manchester Victoria making it difficult to accommodate extra trains from Heywood and beyond there.

 

[yorksrob]

Rossendale is in Lancashire, not Greater Manchester, so TfGM has little interest in developing this route. Unfortunately, the line does not connect with Metrolink at Bury. There would be capacity issues at the sliimmed down Manchester Victoria making it difficult to accommodate extra trains from Heywood and beyond there.

On the contrary, Heywood could be a useful place to turn back trains from the west, so that they don't have to wait at Vic.

 

[daodao]

Yorksrob stated:

"On the contrary, Heywood could be a useful place to turn back trains from the west, so that they don't have to wait at Vic."

Running commuter trains between Heywood and Rawtenstall on ELR metals is pointless - there is a 25 mph speed limit and there would be no connection points for heavy/light rail services to Manchester city centre.

 

[yorksrob]

Yorksrob stated:

"On the contrary, Heywood could be a useful place to turn back trains from the west, so that they don't have to wait at Vic."

Running commuter trains between Heywood and Rawtenstall on ELR metals is pointless - there is a 25 mph speed limit and there would be no connection points for heavy/light rail services to Manchester city centre.

I was referring to trains from the West continuing through Victoria and terminating at Heywood.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I was referring to trains from the West continuing through Victoria and terminating at Heywood.

How would this then affect the ELR proposal for their proposed line continuation into the Castleton area, where services from Manchester Victoria already call at the existing railway station there? Is that still aspirational?

Heywood railway station before its closure was always well out of the town centre, so passengers leaving there (from your quote above), would then have to catch a bus into Heywood town centre or make the long walk, neither of which are something that prospective rail passengers would look forward to. I am old enough to have travelled by rail from the former bay platforms at Manchester Victoria (platforms 1 - 10) along the route through both the former stations of Heywood and of Broadfield towards the Bury area.

 

[yorksrob]

How would this then affect the ELR proposal for their proposed line continuation into the Castleton area, where services from Manchester Victoria already call at the existing railway station there? Is that still aspirational?

Heywood railway station before its closure was always well out of the town centre, so passengers leaving there (from your quote above), would then have to catch a bus into Heywood town centre or make the long walk, neither of which are something that prospective rail passengers would look forward to. I am old enough to have travelled by rail from the former bay platforms at Manchester Victoria (platforms 1 - 10) along the route through both the former stations of Heywood and of Broadfield towards the Bury area.

If main line services were extended to Heywood, I would have thought that the ELR would just connect to NR services there.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If main line services were extended to Heywood, I would have thought that the ELR would just connect to NR services there.

That still makes the onward journey after such a change at the small heritage station (a little further away from the main road than the now-closed station used to be) an extra time-consuming cross to bear, noting that the frequency of ELR service currently existing and the NR services that will terminate at Heywood.

Where are the proposed Manchester Victoria platforms to cater for such a new service likely to be, noting the existing paths through the four through platforms and the two existing east-facing bay platforms seem to be regularly used on certain West Yorkshire bound services (and even for parking up some Class 185 units) as I recently noticed on a visit into Manchester Victoria rail station in order to catch a Bury-bound tram from the adjacent Manchester Metrolink platforms.

 

[deltic]

Not entirely true.

Two station re-openings proposed in the ATOC report (2009) have been implemented: Ilkeston and Kenilworth.

There are active proposals for the following line re-openings: Ashington, Portishead, Skelmersdale and Wisbech.

I may be wrong but wasn’t Kenilworth reopening already approved when ATOC report published? As regards active proposals for line reopening hasn’t the Portishead line scheme gone backwards in the sense works were undertaken to allow it to happen but now there are no firm proposals to progress it?

 

[yorksrob]

That still makes the onward journey after such a change at the small heritage station (a little further away from the main road than the now-closed station used to be) an extra time-consuming cross to bear, noting that the frequency of ELR service currently existing and the NR services that will terminate at Heywood.

Where are the proposed Manchester Victoria platforms to cater for such a new service likely to be, noting the existing paths through the four through platforms and the two existing east-facing bay platforms seem to be regularly used on certain West Yorkshire bound services (and even for parking up some Class 185 units) as I recently noticed on a visit into Manchester Victoria rail station in order to catch a Bury-bound tram from the adjacent Manchester Metrolink platforms.

The service would be of use primarily for residents of Heywood. Bury residents already have access to Mannchester via Crumpsall.

As I mentioned earlier, services from the West that currently terminate at Vic could be extended East, freeing up capacity at Victoria.

 

[Ianno87]

I was referring to trains from the West continuing through Victoria and terminating at Heywood.

That's really not a bad idea at all.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The service would be of use primarily for residents of Heywood. Bury residents already have access to Mannchester via Crumpsall. As I mentioned earlier, services from the West that currently terminate at Vic could be extended East, freeing up capacity at Victoria.

As I stated previously, Heywood station is situated well outside the town centre and either an onward bus or a long walk would be required to access the town core area.

Is it not the case that services from that direction can be catered for at the relatively new bay platform that was opened at Rochdale, only a short distance past the junction that leaves the line prior to Castleton to access Heywood. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it had been proposed that both Rochdale and Stalybridge now have terminal bay platforms that enable trains from the west to pass through Manchester Victoria without blocking those through lines there?

 

[MarkyT]

As I stated previously, Heywood station is situated well outside the town centre and either an onward bus or a long walk would be required to access the town core area.

Is it not the case that services from that direction can be catered for at the relatively new bay platform that was opened at Rochdale, only a short distance past the junction that leaves the line prior to Castleton to access Heywood. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it had been proposed that both Rochdale and Stalybridge now have terminal bay platforms that enable trains from the west to pass through Manchester Victoria without blocking those through lines there?

Heywood is not that badly situated, only about 0.5km from the notional centre, which is actually closer than Rochdale station is situated relative to it's respective town centre (albeit without the handy tram link!). As primarily a 'collector' for commuters and shoppers heading from the Heywood area going towards Manchester and beyond it could work well as an additional terminus for trains going through Victoria if the Rochdale turnback is full as others claim. There's land in the vicinity for car parking and a 10 minute daytime frequency bus route stopping nearby that connects the town centre for those who can't or don't wish to walk. An independent single track and platform on the south side of the former double track alignment could be established next to the ELR, although a solution to ELR run-round is needed with the new terminal road using the space occupied by the existing loop. That might best be tackled by extending the ELR to a new station at Castleton at the north end of the yard, by the junction, a short walk from the NR station.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That might best be tackled by extending the ELR to a new station at Castleton at the north end of the yard, by the junction, a short walk from the NR station.

I did raise that same matter in one of my earlier postings, but no-one responded to it, until you did above.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Heywood is not that badly situated, only about 0.5km from the notional centre, which is actually closer than Rochdale station is situated relative to it's respective town centre (albeit without the handy tram link!). As primarily a 'collector' for commuters and shoppers heading from the Heywood area going towards Manchester and beyond it could work well as an additional terminus for trains going through Victoria if the Rochdale turnback is full as others claim. There's land in the vicinity for car parking and a 10 minute daytime frequency bus route stopping nearby that connects the town centre for those who can't or don't wish to walk.

To make it an attractive travel proposal that people will feel drawn to in the numbers that go with financial viability, you need a rail-served service frequency of the type that users on the 163 Bury to Manchester bus service know that already affords, which in its routing takes in Middleton (another Metrolink-free area), en route to Manchester. There is a recognised travel pattern between the two towns of Middleton and Heywood, with the Langley estate in Middleton and the Darn Hill estate in Heywood (situated on the opposite side of Heywood to the railway station) that is already served by the 163 bus high-frequency service.

What type of rail units are proposed to be used on this aspirational Heywood to Manchester train service and where will the service terminate when it reaches Manchester Victoria station?

Heywood is fortunate to have bus connections to the Bury bus and tram terminus and also bus connections to the Rochdale Town Centre tram terminus that is immediately adjacent to the bus station.

 

[LUYMun]

If the British railway network needs to be expanded, heritage railways should give in some space for commuting purposes (such as electrification and upgraded signalling), or they should run timetables and rolling stock fit for commuters.

 

[yorksrob]

As I stated previously, Heywood station is situated well outside the town centre and either an onward bus or a long walk would be required to access the town core area.

Is it not the case that services from that direction can be catered for at the relatively new bay platform that was opened at Rochdale, only a short distance past the junction that leaves the line prior to Castleton to access Heywood. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it had been proposed that both Rochdale and Stalybridge now have terminal bay platforms that enable trains from the west to pass through Manchester Victoria without blocking those through lines there?

And if you look at the map, you will find that the railway through Heywood is surrounded by the built up area, therefore plenty of opportunity for people commuting to Manchester. Much less rigmarole than getting a bus to Bury then getting the tram.

 

[6Gman]

If the British railway network needs to be expanded, heritage railways should give in some space for commuting purposes (such as electrification and upgraded signalling), or they should run timetables and rolling stock fit for commuters.

I would suggest very few heritage railways would meet any worthwhile commuting need.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

And if you look at the map, you will find that the railway through Heywood is surrounded by the built up area, therefore plenty of opportunity for people commuting to Manchester. Much less rigmarole than getting a bus to Bury then getting the tram.

The frequency of bus services running directly between Heywood and Manchester (which happen to come from Bury) is such that any rail service would only be attractive to those living in the immediate vicinity of the station. Like it or not within metropolitan areas the bus is sometimes a better public transport solution than the train.

 

[yorksrob]

The frequency of bus services running directly between Heywood and Manchester (which happen to come from Bury) is such that any rail service would only be attractive to those living in the immediate vicinity of the station. Like it or not within metropolitan areas the bus is sometimes a better public transport solution than the train.

This is incorrect as we know that there are plenty of people who would choose a train but not a bus. TfG has sensibly concluded that traditional un-guided bus is not enough on its own to provide a suitable service to large urban areas in Greater Manchester.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

This is incorrect as we know that there are plenty of people who would choose a train but not a bus. TfG has sensibly concluded that traditional un-guided bus is not enough on its own to provide a suitable service to large urban areas in Greater Manchester.

And equally there are plenty of people who are perfectly happy to use a bus service if it is convenient. The logic of your last sentence is that many urban bus services should be scrapped and replaced with something else, clearly nonsense. The real issue is the way that the quality of bus operations has been steadily eroded and undermined, particularly by de-regulation and more recently by austerity-inspired spending cuts. But that does not make buses an unsuitable method for providing public transport per se. Just that the political desire to have bus services provided on an almost purely commercial basis makes the viability of higher quality bus services less likely.

In terms of the wider context of this thread there are some re-openings which would be both expensive and damage the provision of public transport for intermediate communities which are not large enough in themselves to justify a railway station especially under the current rules and funding of bus services. The idea that some of the Beeching closures would be amply ameliorated by replacement bus services failed due to the lack of a suitable legislative and funding framework. But that is part of an even bigger issue regarding the general attitude to mobility in this country.

 

[HaggisBotherer]

If the British railway network needs to be expanded, heritage railways should give in some space for commuting purposes (such as electrification and upgraded signalling), or they should run timetables and rolling stock fit for commuters.

Otherwise known as the 'community railway' idea... which in all the years that preserved railways have existed has been suggested by many, tried by a few and succeeded in by precisely 0.

It's already been proved to be a non-starter on more than one occasion, yet still rose-tinted enthusiasts that believe the mantra 'If It's A Railway, It Must Automatically Be A Good Thing' harp on about it.

 

[yorksrob]

And equally there are plenty of people who are perfectly happy to use a bus service if it is convenient. The logic of your last sentence is that many urban bus services should be scrapped and replaced with something else, clearly nonsense. The real issue is the way that the quality of bus operations has been steadily eroded and undermined, particularly by de-regulation and more recently by austerity-inspired spending cuts. But that does not make buses an unsuitable method for providing public transport per se. Just that the political desire to have bus services provided on an almost purely commercial basis makes the viability of higher quality bus services less likely.

In terms of the wider context of this thread there are some re-openings which would be both expensive and damage the provision of public transport for intermediate communities which are not large enough in themselves to justify a railway station especially under the current rules and funding of bus services. The idea that some of the Beeching closures would be amply ameliorated by replacement bus services failed due to the lack of a suitable legislative and funding framework. But that is part of an even bigger issue regarding the general attitude to mobility in this country.

Not at all. I stated that traditional bus services "on their own" are not sufficient to link large urban areas within Greater Manchester. That does not suggest scrapping, it suggests supplementing.

You can rest assured that there will be plenty of Heywood passengers willing to get to the station to get a direct train to Manchester. There will also still be a need for bus routes within the hinterlands.

 

[yorksrob]

Otherwise known as the 'community railway' idea... which in all the years that preserved railways have existed has been suggested by many, tried by a few and succeeded in by precisely 0.

It's already been proved to be a non-starter on more than one occasion, yet still rose-tinted enthusiasts that believe the mantra 'If It's A Railway, It Must Automatically Be A Good Thing' harp on about it.

It could work as a concept, but would probably need an element of subsidy. I have used the K&WVR to visit Haworth, quite apart from the railway. Where it falls down is that the tickets are too expensive and the services end too early in the day. This would need to be overcome for such services to provide a wider transport benefit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The frequency of bus services running directly between Heywood and Manchester (which happen to come from Bury) is such that any rail service would only be attractive to those living in the immediate vicinity of the station. Like it or not within metropolitan areas the bus is sometimes a better public transport solution than the train.

It can be in smaller cities, but it only is in a city the size and with the congestion levels of Manchester because the local rail network (Metrolink aside) is such utter dross.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It can be in smaller cities, but it only is in a city the size and with the congestion levels of Manchester because the local rail network (Metrolink aside) is such utter dross.

Perhaps what we should really be concerned with is not the re-opening of marginal branch-lines but the four-tracking of key routes around our regional cities. A recent small example is (west of) Roby to Huyton Jn. Leeds to Garforth would be incredibly useful. Salford to almost Wigan used to exist. Essentially the limit on improving services around the cities is track capacity given the need to accommodate booming passenger numbers on both short and longer distance services. Then we could create properly segregated S-bahn style services at decent frequencies without slowing down or obstructing the REs/ICs.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Possible Reopenings:

• Feniton-Sidmouth
• Low Moor-Dewsbury
• Laisterdyke
• Armley
• Holbeck
• Skipton-Colne
• Tweedbank-Carlisle
• Leamside
• Middlesborough to Guisborough
• Matlock to Buxton (allowing a direct link between Manchester and Derby)
• Clitheroe to Hellifield
• Fleetwood-Poulton le Fylde
• Amlwch Line
• Levenmouth Line
• St Andrews rail link
• Northampton-Bedford
• Dunfermline-Alloa
• Aberbeeg Line
• Woodhorn-Northumberland Park
• Wakefield to Barnsley via Royston
• Harrogate-Northallerton
• Welshpool-Oswestry
• Stratford-Honeybourne
• Leicester to Burton
• Shirebrook-Ollerton
• Kirkby-in-Ashfield to Langley Mill
• Cambridge-Haverhill
• Bishops Stortford to Baintree
• March-Wisbech
• Kings Lynn-Hunstanton
• York-Beverley
• Oxford-Witney
• Okehampton-Bere Alston
• Totton to Fawley
• Newport-Ryde
• Uckfield-Lewes
• Lichfield-Burton
• Middlewich Line
• Keswick-Penrith
• Penicuik Line
• Larkhall-Stonehouse
• Bishop Auckland to Stanhope
• Whitby-Scarborough via Pickering
• Cirencester to Kemble
• Bude-Okehampton

 

[chorleyjeff]

Both Rawtenstall and Heywood already have good regular bus services into the Bury bus/tram interchange that people from them and the intermediate areas use the existing numerous bus stops serving local district areas already use to access the Bury to Manchester Metrolink service.

I think I understand. The words after interchange seem not necessary. I agree the sentiment that public transport timetables should be integrated despite the difficulties ocaused by privatisation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think I understand. The words after interchange seem not necessary. I agree the sentiment that public transport timetables should be integrated despite the difficulties ocaused by privatisation.

Realistically when you have a tram every 6 minutes in the peak there's no great need to integrate timetables - any connection will be a good one. Metrolink makes this very easy to get right.