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

[yorksrob]

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.

Salford to Wigan could be amply improved by longer trains. We are just finding excuses to put off serving new markets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Salford to Wigan could be amply improved by longer trains. We are just finding excuses to put off serving new markets.

Salford to Wigan via Atherton would be better as a Merseyrail style operation with fast-acceleration EMUs operating regular-interval all stations services at least every 15 minutes plus significant station improvements. That leaves the Bolton line for regional expresses (Southport etc) and IC, though I suppose Moses Gate etc will still have a bitty service as a result. The sensible thing to do with the Kirkby branch is to run Merseyrail through into Wallgate bay.

Of course those regional expresses should be of a sensible length too (min 4x20m).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

A quick check on the 163 bus timetable shows that, while it is very frequent, the journey time from Heywood to Piccadilly Gardens is about 52 minute off-peak rising to about 1 hour 10-15 minutes peak. If line was reopened, we can surmise the journey to Victoria on the train would be about 15-18 minutes (comparable to Manchester-Rochdale trains). I rather suspect that a fair few people would be happy to make a 10-15 minute walk, or even get a connecting bus if one is available, in order to get that kind of time saving. (Although rather more importantly, the train would have the potential to attract people who currently drive rather than face an hour on a bus).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A quick check on the 163 bus timetable shows that, while it is very frequent, the journey time from Heywood to Piccadilly Gardens is about 52 minute off-peak rising to about 1 hour 10-15 minutes peak. If line was reopened, we can surmise the journey to Victoria on the train would be about 15-18 minutes (comparable to Manchester-Rochdale trains). I rather suspect that a fair few people would be happy to make a 10-15 minute walk, or even get a connecting bus if one is available, in order to get that kind of time saving. (Although rather more importantly, the train would have the potential to attract people who currently drive rather than face an hour on a bus).

Here we have the comparison of the frequency of the rail service from this new aspirational rail service of Heywood to Manchester to consider against other available transport modes. I should imagine the rail service will not be more than an hourly one at best and the existing stations between there and Manchester, Mills Hill and Moston already have rail service provision that no-one seems to call for improvements upon. What would be the expected rail passenger footfall from Heywood and how much would rail receipts cover the rail unit service annual costs?

Can I revisit the halcyon days of the website discussion on "The Todmorden Chord" when the rail enthusiast community were at pains to say that the new rail service along the Copy Pit line to the Burnley area would take less time from Burnley Manchester Road station (a station similar to Heywood in being quite a distance away from the town centre) to Manchester and would cause existing users of the X43 Witch Way bus service to change over to rail travel, despite the fact that those buses ran every 15 minutes. Events, as time has since proved, showed the fallacy of that that particular rail aspiration and yet another fleet of those modern double-deck bus services that use the motorway for much of the said route have since been added to the service and seem as well patronised as ever.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A quick check on the 163 bus timetable shows that, while it is very frequent, the journey time from Heywood to Piccadilly Gardens is about 52 minute off-peak rising to about 1 hour 10-15 minutes peak. If line was reopened, we can surmise the journey to Victoria on the train would be about 15-18 minutes (comparable to Manchester-Rochdale trains). I rather suspect that a fair few people would be happy to make a 10-15 minute walk, or even get a connecting bus if one is available, in order to get that kind of time saving. (Although rather more importantly, the train would have the potential to attract people who currently drive rather than face an hour on a bus).

You come up against the usual question about convenience in terms of where the train terminates against the extent to which the bus penetrates the city centre. For anyone living close to Heywood station (it's not in a residential area) the train would probably be better. On the other hand it is unlikely to ever run as frequently as the bus. And attracting current car drivers may need suitable parking facilities: is this a realistic possibility at Heywood?

 

[The Ham]

You come up against the usual question about convenience in terms of where the train terminates against the extent to which the bus penetrates the city centre. For anyone living close to Heywood station (it's not in a residential area) the train would probably be better. On the other hand it is unlikely to ever run as frequently as the bus. And attracting current car drivers may need suitable parking facilities: is this a realistic possibility at Heywood?

I live in an area where there's not a lot of housing within a few hundred metres of a station, however most of the settlement is within 1 mile and a LOT of people walk to the station (10-20 minute walk)

Add in some decent cycle parking along with plusbus tickets and the range of the distance people are willing to travel by other modes increases.

Of course there's nothing saying that a) the station had to remain where it is or b) there couldn't be an additional station provided to increase the catchment area (an extra 3-4 minutes of journey time is likely to result in little change to the numbers from the existing station but could attract a lot more people to the service).

Given on this occasion the suggestion is to increase capacity at a central city station, the cost of running the extra services and the infrastructure should be compared against the cost of providing a similar capacity improvements. It also means that increasing frequencies (say 2-4tph) is more to do with improving capacity at the city center station than it is to do with providing a service.

Of course there's always the possibility that given that the station isn't in an area that is residential that you could attract people to travel by train to their place of employment.

The other thing to bear in mind is the potential for improved rail services to other locations in route, or even the possibility to remove calls to minor stations from existing services by switching them to the new services.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The other thing to bear in mind is the potential for improved rail services to other locations in route, or even the possibility to remove calls to minor stations from existing services by switching them to the new services.

Using that final part of your quote above in relation to the earlier discussions on the aspirational Heywood to Manchester Victoria service and vice-versa, how well do you think that people already using both Moston and Mills Hill railway stations would view being only on a Manchester Victoria to Heywood service and vice-versa, when at present some existing passengers travel to Rochdale and places onward from there?

 

[yorksrob]

Can I revisit the halcyon days of the website discussion on "The Todmorden Chord" when the rail enthusiast community were at pains to say that the new rail service along the Copy Pit line to the Burnley area would take less time from Burnley Manchester Road station (a station similar to Heywood in being quite a distance away from the town centre) to Manchester and would cause existing users of the X43 Witch Way bus service to change over to rail travel, despite the fact that those buses ran every 15 minutes. Events, as time has since proved, showed the fallacy of that that particular rail aspiration and yet another fleet of those modern double-deck bus services that use the motorway for much of the said route have since been added to the service and seem as well patronised as ever.

And yet the trains on the Tod curve seem to be doing just fine as well, which reinforces my point that for a town the size of Heywood, train and bus can, and should co-exist.

 

[deltic08]

But there isnt room for 43 coal trains every 24 hours. Honestly. There isnt.

But there was! What has changed?

 

[oglord]

The Severn Bridges only went free because of pressure from Wales. The other bridges and tunnels wholly in England remain rip-off.

Entirely untrue - they became free because the time stipulated for collection of tolls ran out (at the beginning of 2018). In actual fact tolling went on for nearly a year longer than it should have.

All of the above is not about money, it is about attitude. Scotland and Wales have a more constructive, long term benefit outlook. England only sees the short term, the cost of everything, to the exclusion of all other factors.

Again untrue - in order to justify its existence the Welsh Assembly does vote-winning things that look good on paper (such as free prescriptions) but then starves local government of money, forcing them to axe services and increase council tax beyond the cap that exists in England. They invest in looney schemes such as buying the money-pit Rhoose Airport, and the motor-racing circuit on top of a mountain in Ebbw Vale that stood a snowflake's chance of hell of ever being built. They procrastinate for 18 years about building the M4 relief road. They reopen the Ebbw Vale to Newport railway but instead send it to Cardiff. None of this is long-term thinking.

 

[DarloRich]

But there was! What has changed?

A cessation of imports via hunterstan and an almost complete cessation of coal traffic from ayrshire to Yorkshire power stations.

It is also worth noting that while there might have been 43 trains pathed they did not run every day

 

[yorksrob]

Again untrue - in order to justify its existence the Welsh Assembly does vote-winning things that look good on paper (such as free prescriptions) but then starves local government of money, forcing them to axe services and increase council tax beyond the cap that exists in England. They invest in looney schemes such as buying the money-pit Rhoose Airport, and the motor-racing circuit on top of a mountain in Ebbw Vale that stood a snowflake's chance of hell of ever being built. They procrastinate for 18 years about building the M4 relief road. They reopen the Ebbw Vale to Newport railway but instead send it to Cardiff. None of this is long-term thinking.

That's as opposed to the Government in England, which doesn't bother with any vote-winning schemes and then starves local Government of funding anyway !

 

[yorksrob]

On the subject of "getting on with it", I read in Rail 867 that the Portishead proposal is fully formed and is now stalling due to increased costs.

This would be an ideal opportunity for DfT to put its money where its mouth is and put some funding towards it. I notice that the former member of Bristol C.C. responsible for connectivity has called for the DfT to "step up" particularly as it has apparently said that it wants to progress other projects in the area, now that electrification has been cut back.

P.S. Given that this thread is concerning a Government announcement, shouldn't it be in the infrastructure section ?

 

[nickleics]

This would be an ideal opportunity for DfT to put its money where its mouth is and put some funding towards it.

Using this logic, the DfT should step in and sort out the funding for the Metropolitan Line Extension (MLX) to Watford Junction. If I understand correctly, the extra trains required and purchased and in operation - we're just missing the actual construction of the route.

 

[yorksrob]

Using this logic, the DfT should step in and sort out the funding for the Metropolitan Line Extension (MLX) to Watford Junction. If I understand correctly, the extra trains required and purchased and in operation - we're just missing the actual construction of the route.

True to an extent - although to be fair, the Watford area isn't lacking rail links at the moment, so I personally wouldn't prioritise it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

True to an extent - although to be fair, the Watford area isn't lacking rail links at the moment, so I personally wouldn't prioritise it.

On the other hand, Watford and surrounding areas do have a massively bigger population than Portishead and surrounding areas. Watford's rail links N-S are pretty good, but East-West rail links are much worse. Personally I would regard both of them as very good candidates for DfT money, since as I understand it both are essentially shovel-ready and simply lacking finance. But if I had to choose between them... I'd imagine the Met extension would benefit far more people than the Portishead line.

 

[yorksrob]

On the other hand, Watford and surrounding areas do have a massively bigger population than Portishead and surrounding areas. Watford's rail links N-S are pretty good, but East-West rail links are much worse. Personally I would regard both of them as very good candidates for DfT money, since as I understand it both are essentially shovel-ready and simply lacking finance. But if I had to choose between them... I'd imagine the Met extension would benefit far more people than the Portishead line.

I suppose my view would be that although Portishead might benefit a smaller population area (although as a resort, it might potentially benefit a lot more people travelling inwards to it than its population might suggest), the benefit to those people would be much greater due to previously not having had a rail link.