Given the Shapps announcement, which lines would you propose for reopening?

[Unixman]

Surprised no-one has mentioned Stratford to Honeybourne. That has been kicking around as an idea for sometime. I know that there are issues in Stratford where a road widening scheme has encroached on to the trackbed but I understand that there is a mitigation proposal.

 

[Aictos]

If reopening former lines is to go ahead then careful consideration should be used to firstly work out if the proposed scheme has a viable business case then secondly work out how best to make use of any reopening.

Example 1: Skipton to Colne

Although there are advantages to having a though route between the two, redoubling Rose Grove to Colne should be done first to improve the frequency from hourly to half hourly and secondly once that is complete then look into reopening the rest of the line as a twin track to Skipton with the Blackpool South to Colne service being extended to Skipton and no further.

I don’t believe for one minute that a Blackpool to Leeds via Skipton is needed but simply extending the Colne service to Skipton would do far more then dreaming about Leeds.

Example 2: March to Wisbech

Now this has been discussed a number of times and I think a simple shuttle between the two connecting with other services at March would be feasible using for example a 2 car Class 150.

Nothing fancy just a basic branch line using a bay platform at March with the first and last train of the day coming from Cambridge.

I welcome constructive feedback but I think simple schemes will have a better business case then those schemes which think big but don’t actually have a firm grip on reality eg BML2

 

[HSTEd]

The advantage of that idea was not so much that it was more direct from Nottingham to Peterborough, as that it would get cross-country trains off the ECML between Grantham and Peterborough, especially the 2-track section through Stoke tunnel. The intermediate population served might be larger as well (I haven't checked the figures).

It would cost far less to just add additional tracks the few kilometres to Grantham station.

If done during a resignalling you could shift from paired by direction to paired by use between Grantham and Peterborough, so the trains going towards Nottingham would remain on the west side of the line throughout.

Its an 800m shallow tunnel, 800m of two track and then 6km of additional track to Grantham station.
You might want another platform where the freight lines are west of the station but still.

Probably more useful and less expensive than a random reopening.

 

[Neen Sollars]

Surprised no-one has mentioned Stratford to Honeybourne. That has been kicking around as an idea for sometime. I know that there are issues in Stratford where a road widening scheme has encroached on to the trackbed but I understand that there is a mitigation proposal.

Link from Honeybourne to Stratford on Avon back on the radar recently see the excellent prospectus laid before Parliament recently regarding the North Cotswold Line there is a thread somewhere. Honeybourne to Cheltenham a non runner I think, cuttings and embankments unstable, no access into Cheltenham now.

 

[Aictos]

It would cost far less to just add additional tracks the few kilometres to Grantham station.

If done during a resignalling you could shift from paired by direction to paired by use between Grantham and Peterborough, so the trains going towards Nottingham would remain on the west side of the line throughout.

Its an 800m shallow tunnel, 800m of two track and then 6km of additional track to Grantham station.
You might want another platform where the freight lines are west of the station but still.

Probably more useful and less expensive than a random reopening.

The EMR services don’t clash with other services towards Grantham but they can do towards Peterborough as they need to crossover from the Up Slow to access Platforms 4 to 7 which gives access towards Ely etc...

Why not put in a flyover in the Tallington area allowing Up Slow services to access the Stamford lines with bidirectional signalling on the Down Slow between Tallington and Helpston Junction?

Or the other option is to drop the Grantham call and go via Stamford with Grantham being reduced to a diversionary route?

 

[HSTEd]

The EMR services don’t clash with other services towards Grantham but they can do towards Peterborough as they need to crossover from the Up Slow to access Platforms 4 to 7 which gives access towards Ely etc...

They clash by virtue of chugging along the two and three track section at only 90mph before slaloming across to Platform 4 at Grantham.

Why not put in a flyover in the Tallington area allowing Up Slow services to access the Stamford lines with bidirectional signalling on the Down Slow between Tallington and Helpston Junction?

I'm not sure that will come out much cheaper than a 2 track cutting then the extra ~8 track-km to implement four lines all the way to Grantham.

Or the other option is to drop the Grantham call and go via Stamford with Grantham being reduced to a diversionary route?

Grantham people might complain about losing their second train to Nottingham, so that might have to be replaced.

And Grantham has a much larger population than Stamford.

 

[R G NOW.]

What about the Bristol to Portishead line. This has been talked about, but do not know when it will reopen. I understand the project had some money, just needing another 35 thousand to get started. Please could someone clear this up as my mind is partly blank.

 

[bramling]

They clash by virtue of chugging along the two and three track section at only 90mph before slaloming across to Platform 4 at Grantham.

I'm not sure that will come out much cheaper than a 2 track cutting then the extra ~8 track-km to implement four lines all the way to Grantham.

Grantham people might complain about losing their second train to Nottingham, so that might have to be replaced.

And Grantham has a much larger population than Stamford.

I think it would be tolerable providing a replacement service was provided from Grantham to Nottingham.

 

[faltskog36abba]

What is the likelihood of the Rawtenstall to Manchester line being used in the peaks?. Its absolutely horrendous the traffic in the morning on the M66- It also has a knock on effect when the traffic hits the local roads in Whitefield heading to Manchester. It takes me 1hour to travel from Radcliffe to Prestwich a distance of 4 miles -Due to the amount of cars on the motorway which I have to pass. Its now a heritage line so surely there could be room for some commuter trains -If money was available to renew track/signals etc, It would also connect people on to the ELR.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Investment in the railways is always good news but I agree with some of the posts that say we cant just reopen lines for nostalgia.

This money must be used to serve a purpose; to help alleviate congestion on the roads, stimulate growth and/or provide resilience or a better service to those that already exist.

For example in West Yorkshire, where im most familiar, reopening the line to Wetherby would help cut congestion into Leeds and stimulate growth in east Leeds. On the other side of the coin, assuming a route such as KWVR was closed, reopening this would not bring many benefits as it doesn't serve a very populous area.

I just hope the cash is spent productively and not just on fancy presentations as to what you could have if you spent even more money!

To reopen the Wetherby Line, you'd need to reopen it from Church Fenton to Wetherby (or even through to Harroagte, provided that Prospect Tunnel hasn't been bricked up) and realign it around Tadcaster as the site there and the Cross Gates to Wetherby section has been built upon. The same can be said for the Holmfirth branch, again built upon.

Its possible to rebuilt part of the Cross Gates section as far as Seacroft, but would that be worth the money?

Then there is the Queensbury Line, where most of the infrastructure is still in place apart from the viaduct between Halifax and North Bridge, some sections around Queensbury and the major issue that is Queensbury Tunnel. Should this line ever reopen it'd partially solve some of the problems around North Bridge and Burdock Way.

 

[randyrippley]

Not a reopening as such, but I'd reinstate passenger services on the Heysham branch and proper signalling and on it and the Morecambe branch.

Then new (or reinstated) stations at
Moneyclose Lane
Middleton Road (reinstate)
Meldon Road
Oxcliffe Road
Westgate
Out Moss Lane
Schola Green Lane / York Bridge (reinstate)
Broadway
Ashton Road (for Lancaster Infirmary)
Ashford Road
Bailrigg or Oubeck (for University)

then run a regular shuttle every 20 minutes Morecambe - Bailrigg, with one per hour starting at the harbour.
I'm assuming a tram-like battery powered vehicle, charged while running under the wires. May even be a case for running direct Morecambe - Carnforth and University-Carnforth shuttles with additional reinstated stations at Hest Bank and Bolton-le-Sands

 

[Peregrine 4903]

I feel like March - Wisbech is a good shout. What would be even better would be if the line was re-opened and electrified and the March - Peterborough line was also electrified.

Then if that were to happen the current Kings Cross to Ely services could be extended to Wisbech not only giving Wisbech a direct service to London, but also March a direct service to London.

I'm pretty sure Great Northern have some spare 387s meaning that there would be enough units to cover these services. Plus if not the redudant 365s could also be brought back into cover this service.

 

[JohnElliott]

If the trackbed had remained intact, Three Bridges - East Grinstead would have been a useful trackbed for local services EG - Three Bridges - Gatwick Airport. But it's been extensively built-over at Crawley Down; indeed, there's currently an application to build a new housing estate, immediately to the south of the trackbed with the access road crossing the alignment. So it's not getting reinstated without massive demolition, expensive tunnelling, or trams / guided buses that can get past the obstruction by street running.

 

[billio]

What is the likelihood of the Rawtenstall to Manchester line being used in the peaks?. Its absolutely horrendous the traffic in the morning on the M66- It also has a knock on effect when the traffic hits the local roads in Whitefield heading to Manchester. It takes me 1hour to travel from Radcliffe to Prestwich a distance of 4 miles -Due to the amount of cars on the motorway which I have to pass. Its now a heritage line so surely there could be room for some commuter trains -If money was available to renew track/signals etc, It would also connect people on to the ELR.

I don't think a heritage railway could support the speed or frequency required to provide a peak service as it stands, there would have to be a significant upgrade of track, signalling, sidings, possibly new park and ride stations near Ewood Bridge and Heap Bridge etc..
And I think the ELR is strongly against using its railway for this purpose.
Also, any service would have to go via Heywood so that would increase the journey time probably making it unattractive unless you worked near a station.
Probably a better idea might be to make a comprehensive development of Metrolink in and around Bury. For example by a triangular junction north of Radcliffe to provide services from Manchester and Bury to Bolton. This would follow more or less on the old formation of lines in that area and coming to some agreement with the ELR to extend Metrolink in a shared formation with the ELR to Heap Bridge Park and Ride (for M66) Heywood and Rochdale. This may help to remove local traffic from the M60 and M66 in this area.
[Personally I would rather see the Bo;ton - Bury - Rochdale route reinstated as a heavy rail line. Apart from the advantage of linking three large towns This route is about 30 miles shorter than a route through Colne for Liverpool and Drax traffic also avoiding problems in passing though Leeds. But I have no hope of this happening.]

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

The Royal Borough will be lobbying the government to restore the railway link between Maidenhead and High Wycombe.

The news comes after the Tory government announced a £500million fund to ‘kick-start’ the restoration

https://www.maidenhead-advertiser.c...-maidenhead-to-high-wycombe-railway-line.html

Don't have access to the full article but Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead will be lobbying for the reopening of the Bourne End to High Wycombe link to be reopened. If someone can post the full article please do

 

[Killingworth]

Reopen Thirsk to Malton! I have memories of two summer holidays in Scarborough about 1960 that involved August Saturday special train journeys from Newcastle behind a V2 that went through Gilling East very slowly and seemed to take for ever. It must have had to reverse at Malton but I don't recall that. Went that way to avoid York. Musty old pre-war LNER corridor carriages kept in sidings to be allowed out for a few days each year.

British Railways were still maintaining masses of old vehicles and hundreds of miles of tracks for an occasional train. I visited relatives in the East Riding and loved watching similar 4-6-0 hauled specials pass through every 15 minutes on summer Saturdays running from South Yorkshire to Butlins at Filey, Bridlington and Scarborough. Those trains were getting less well filled as each year went by, the passengers moving to coaches and cars. It probably looked as though each well filled train would be profitable, but set against maintaining the tracks, rolling stock and the cost of staff they were an accountants nightmare.

Set in the time it was written Beeching's findings were about right, although with hindsight some of the details were wrong - possibly Beverley - Hull because I used that! Look at OS maps and you can see lots of disused railway lines. The vast majority should stay that way. Nostalgia has to be tempered with practicality and sound financial business cases for the 21st Century. If we didn't have the present railway network what would we build from scratch today? Very little I'd imagine.

 

[yorksrob]

Reopen Thirsk to Malton! I have memories of two summer holidays in Scarborough about 1960 that involved August Saturday special train journeys from Newcastle behind a V2 that went through Gilling East very slowly and seemed to take for ever. It must have had to reverse at Malton but I don't recall that. Went that way to avoid York. Musty old pre-war LNER corridor carriages kept in sidings to be allowed out for a few days each year.

British Railways were still maintaining masses of old vehicles and hundreds of miles of tracks for an occasional train. I visited relatives in the East Riding and loved watching similar 4-6-0 hauled specials pass through every 15 minutes on summer Saturdays running from South Yorkshire to Butlins at Filey, Bridlington and Scarborough. Those trains were getting less well filled as each year went by, the passengers moving to coaches and cars. It probably looked as though each well filled train would be profitable, but set against maintaining the tracks, rolling stock and the cost of staff they were an accountants nightmare.

Set in the time it was written Beeching's findings were about right, although with hindsight some of the details were wrong - possibly Beverley - Hull because I used that! Look at OS maps and you can see lots of disused railway lines. The vast majority should stay that way. Nostalgia has to be tempered with practicality and sound financial business cases for the 21st Century. If we didn't have the present railway network what would we build from scratch today? Very little I'd imagine.

Thirsk to Malton was, to all intents and purposes, closed anyway by the time Dr Beeching came along.The relevant line in the area was of course, York - Beverly which turns up as a worked example in the report. I think we've discussed before how it illustrates the problems with the approach taken from the report onwards.

In terms of what TBTC says, it is comforting to imagine that the closure programme was some sort of a benign process, designed to bring the network down to what we have today, but the truth is that had the Marples/Beeching ideology been allowed to continue, it would have begat only more closures. For those in any doubt of this, I would suggest reading the second Beeching report on major trunk routes, then look up Dr Beechings 1982 (I think it was) TV interview on youtube. Our railway would never have been able to prosper as it has today, had it not have been recognised that the Beeching approach was a mistake.

 

[Glenn1969]

Should they consider reopening Malton-Pickering, Harrogate- Ripon Northallerton and the Spen Valley line to help connectivity in Yorkshire?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

A few have been mentioned in the media:

• Bangor To Caernarfon
• Burton to Leicester
• Cirencester to Kemble
• Bourne End to Maidenhead
• Tavistock to Bere Alston
• Fleetwood to Poulton-le-Fylde (as funded by Shapps)
• Ashington to Newcastle (as funded by Shapps)
  
• Uckfield to Lewes
• Tunbridge Wells to Eridge

 

[billio]

Should they consider reopening Malton-Pickering, Harrogate- Ripon Northallerton and the Spen Valley line to help connectivity in Yorkshire?

And how about Castleford - York. All the infrastructure is there, just run some trains !

 

[Aictos]

I feel like March - Wisbech is a good shout. What would be even better would be if the line was re-opened and electrified and the March - Peterborough line was also electrified.

Then if that were to happen the current Kings Cross to Ely services could be extended to Wisbech not only giving Wisbech a direct service to London, but also March a direct service to London.

I'm pretty sure Great Northern have some spare 387s meaning that there would be enough units to cover these services. Plus if not the redudant 365s could also be brought back into cover this service.

The only issues with this modification is:

1. Ely North Junction is rather busy those days so doubt there’s capacity available?

2. There is Ely West Curve but that needs bringing back to use as it was bidirectional under BR but hasn’t for some time as I recall?

3. Electrification, it’s difficult enough to get Ely to Birmingham via Stamford, Leicester and Nuneaton so it be near impossible to get wires to Wisbech.

4. It’s making what is a simple proposal more complicated because rather then run a simple DMU shuttle between March and Wisbech, it’s now proposed to become a extension of a London to Ely service.

 

[Jack Hay]

If reopening former lines is to go ahead then careful consideration should be used to firstly work out if the proposed scheme has a viable business case then secondly work out how best to make use of any reopening.

Example 1: Skipton to Colne

Although there are advantages to having a though route between the two, redoubling Rose Grove to Colne should be done first to improve the frequency from hourly to half hourly and secondly once that is complete then look into reopening the rest of the line as a twin track to Skipton with the Blackpool South to Colne service being extended to Skipton and no further.

I don’t believe for one minute that a Blackpool to Leeds via Skipton is needed but simply extending the Colne service to Skipton would do far more then dreaming about Leeds.
(snipped your Example 2 - March)

I agree about the need for viable business cases, but the case for Skipton to Colne rests on the need for more freight capacity across the Pennines, not on the passenger case because the population density in the district means passenger loadings are unlikely to be high. There is a dire shortage of east-west freight capacity which is forcing some freight to take absurd routes to avoid congested areas. Have a look at the Liverpool to Drax biomass trains for an example.

 

[The Planner]

Freight on its on will never make a business case.

 

[faltskog36abba]

I don't think a heritage railway could support the speed or frequency required to provide a peak service as it stands, there would have to be a significant upgrade of track, signalling, sidings, possibly new park and ride stations near Ewood Bridge and Heap Bridge etc..
And I think the ELR is strongly against using its railway for this purpose.
Also, any service would have to go via Heywood so that would increase the journey time probably making it unattractive unless you worked near a station.
Probably a better idea might be to make a comprehensive development of Metrolink in and around Bury. For example by a triangular junction north of YRadcliffe to provide services from Manchester and Bury to Bolton. This would youfollow more or less on the old formation of lines in that area and coming to some agreement with the ELR to extend Metrolink in a shared formation with the ELR to Heap Bridge Park and Ride (for M66) Heywood and Rochdale. This may help to remove local traffic from the M60 and M66 in this area.
[Personally I would rather see the Bo;ton - Bury - Rochdale route reinstated as a heavy rail line. Apart from the advantage of linking three large towns This route is about 30 miles shorter than a route through Colne for Liverpool and Drax traffic also avoiding problems in passing though Leeds. But I have no hope of this happening.]

You make some very good points, Thank you for your reply.

 

[The Ham]

I don't think a heritage railway could support the speed or frequency required to provide a peak service as it stands, there would have to be a significant upgrade of track, signalling, sidings, possibly new park and ride stations near Ewood Bridge and Heap Bridge etc..
And I think the ELR is strongly against using its railway for this purpose.

Having had some involvement with a project which was looking to build a load of housing at one end of a heritage line, it certainly isn't something which is easy to achieve.

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree about the need for viable business cases, but the case for Skipton to Colne rests on the need for more freight capacity across the Pennines, not on the passenger case because the population density in the district means passenger loadings are unlikely to be high. There is a dire shortage of east-west freight capacity which is forcing some freight to take absurd routes to avoid congested areas. Have a look at the Liverpool to Drax biomass trains for an example.

As @The Planner says, there is no chance that freight can contribute to this route.

Firstly, there’s not actually that much rail freight across the Pennines, nor a huge untapped market that could readily transfer to rail. And what there is (existing or potential) would not necessarily be routed that’s way anyway.

Secondly, there is the rather sticky issue of Leeds. Any freight that was routed that way would either have to go through Leeds station, or across the southern / western approaches at 25mph. See what happens at Manchester Picadilly for the reasons why this wouldn’t be a good idea.

 

[EastisECML]

Apologies, wasn`t aware that the line to Blyth port was not intact.

Maybe you meant the connection to the section of the Port of Blyth which is on the north bank which is still intact and used?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

These have all been mentioned anyone think there good candidates

• Bangor To Caernarfon
• Burton to Leicester
• Cirencester to Kemble
• Bourne End to Maidenhead
• Tavistock to Bere Alston
• Fleetwood to Poulton-le-Fylde (as funded by Shapps)
• Ashington to Newcastle (as funded by Shapps)
  
• Uckfield to Lewes
• Tunbridge Wells to Eridge
• Tetbury to Kemble
• Beverley to York

 

[Bald Rick]

These have all been mentioned anyone think there good candidates

• Bangor To Caernarfon
• Burton to Leicester
• Cirencester to Kemble
• Bourne End to Maidenhead
• Tavistock to Bere Alston
• Fleetwood to Poulton-le-Fylde (as funded by Shapps)
• Ashington to Newcastle (as funded by Shapps)
  
• Uckfield to Lewes
• Tunbridge Wells to Eridge
• Tetbury to Kemble
• Beverley to York

Just for clarity, the ‘funded by Shapps’ proposals are:

Ashington - further development money. Probably not enough to get to the point of being able Tom take a decision on whether to proceed to consents and design. I could be wrong. Absolutely not a commitment to deliver.

Fleetwood - £100k for very early stage Business case work. Note that £100k seems to be the standard answer to certain proposals; a cynic might day ‘throw some money at them to shut them up for a while’. It’s worked pretty well elsewhere.

 

[furnessvale]

As @The Planner says, there is no chance that freight can contribute to this route.

Firstly, there’s not actually that much rail freight across the Pennines, nor a huge untapped market that could readily transfer to rail. And what there is (existing or potential) would not necessarily be routed that’s way anyway.

Secondly, there is the rather sticky issue of Leeds. Any freight that was routed that way would either have to go through Leeds station, or across the southern / western approaches at 25mph. See what happens at Manchester Picadilly for the reasons why this wouldn’t be a good idea.

First point. I don't think the Planner says that. He mentions freight ON ITS OWN never making a business case. Freight could contribute to a case.

Second point. An hour at the side of the M62 would show a huge amount of freight traffic. I'm not suggesting wholesale transfer to rail but I'm sure some could be identified.