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

[The Ham]

I agree entirely! I think that the fact that it would be relatively simple to introduce a regular service from Exeter to Okehampton, given that it already runs on summer Sundays, and yet it hasn't been says an awful lot about the lack of pent up demand! Even as a diversionary route, I suspect that a bus from Tiverton to Newton A would be a faster way to get to Plymouth, as the road is much more direct. Connecting Tavistock might make sense, but the location of the station in Plymouth, plus the huge cost vs a major upgrade to the bus service seems to make it an easy decision not to do that either.

In the long term I would love to see a 125 or 140 mph Haldon base tunnel type solution to Dawlish, not only for the long distance services, but also to make rail much more competitive with road for commuting from Torbay into Exeter, but realistically the current solution of further upgrades along the coast is the most sensible

OK, of we build a DAL or base tunnel or other new line in Devon there's one major flaw, that being you need a new line from London to at least Reading, if not further to be able to have much more than the existing services.

That serverly limits the ability to improve capacity before several 10's of billions of pounds of new lines.

That's unlikely to be justified on 2tph between London and Exeter and the number of passengers which it would generate.

Conversely Crossrail 2 creates new paths or of Waterloo which (given constraints South of Guildford and South of Basingstoke) have fairly limited places to go.

Therefore by some redoubling of the WofE line you could create 2tph between Waterloo and Plymouth.

That's a few billion (2 maybe 3) and it doubles the frequency between Plymouth and Exeter.

It also provides better connectivity between Southern England and the West Country, which realises capacity on the line between Reading and Exeter, as people from Southampton, Salisbury, Portsmouth, Woking, etc don't have to travel via Reading/Westbury.

It would also be possible to have one of the services from Waterloo to be quick enough that it would either be a comparable journey time from Waterloo to Exeter/Plymouth as traveling to Paddington to catch the fast service. Even if it wasn't comparable it could be timed so as to allow an earlier arrival time (i.e. by leaving at, say, 12:30 it would beat the 13:00 to Exeter).

Add to that the improved links between Exeter Central, Honiton and the like with Plymouth, not least by providing a direct service.

Overall it would result in more people traveling between London/the South and the South West and between East and West Devon (potentially 4tph between London and Plymouth). This would then likely result in it being a better business case to build a new line than if the line wasn't built.

Unless someone can explain to me how we can improve step by step without spending significant amounts of money, then of the two (a new direct line through Devon rather than a reopening through Okehampton) then the route through Okehampton is more likely to happen.

 

[BayPaul]

OK, of we build a DAL or base tunnel or other new line in Devon there's one major flaw, that being you need a new line from London to at least Reading, if not further to be able to have much more than the existing services.

That serverly limits the ability to improve capacity before several 10's of billions of pounds of new lines.

That's unlikely to be justified on 2tph between London and Exeter and the number of passengers which it would generate.

Conversely Crossrail 2 creates new paths or of Waterloo which (given constraints South of Guildford and South of Basingstoke) have fairly limited places to go.

Therefore by some redoubling of the WofE line you could create 2tph between Waterloo and Plymouth.

That's a few billion (2 maybe 3) and it doubles the frequency between Plymouth and Exeter.

It also provides better connectivity between Southern England and the West Country, which realises capacity on the line between Reading and Exeter, as people from Southampton, Salisbury, Portsmouth, Woking, etc don't have to travel via Reading/Westbury.

It would also be possible to have one of the services from Waterloo to be quick enough that it would either be a comparable journey time from Waterloo to Exeter/Plymouth as traveling to Paddington to catch the fast service. Even if it wasn't comparable it could be timed so as to allow an earlier arrival time (i.e. by leaving at, say, 12:30 it would beat the 13:00 to Exeter).

Add to that the improved links between Exeter Central, Honiton and the like with Plymouth, not least by providing a direct service.

Overall it would result in more people traveling between London/the South and the South West and between East and West Devon (potentially 4tph between London and Plymouth). This would then likely result in it being a better business case to build a new line than if the line wasn't built.

Unless someone can explain to me how we can improve step by step without spending significant amounts of money, then of the two (a new direct line through Devon rather than a reopening through Okehampton) then the route through Okehampton is more likely to happen.

But couldn't those extra Waterloo services simply reverse at St David's and take the coast route (or a new shortcut route)?

 

[The Ham]

But couldn't those extra Waterloo services simply reverse at St David's and take the coast route (or a new shortcut route)?

Is there capacity on the existing lines to do that (as unless the new line includes improvements at St Davids, there would still be the need for capacity)?

Given that the semi fast services from Paddington aren't going beyond Exeter I'd guess not, however if there is would it not be better to extend the new semi fast services to Plymouth? Would there still be capacity to do so after doing that?

As such an extension to existing services would likely to happen before any new line is built (circa 20 years away). Likewise it's likely that other local services would be vying for the capacity too.

Whilst a second service from Waterloo would also need extra capacity, because it and the existing service would be passing through rather than terminating the net impact would likely be similar. By reversing you tie up platform space for longer increasing the overall impact.

You also run the risk of making the disruption at Dawlish due to storms worse (due to trying to fit more services through) until you build the new line.

Any new line would be more expensive than the reopening route (see the Network Rail report into options), even the Dawlish avoiding line which only bypasses a fairly short section compared to a whole new line with a while new line being several times that to build, especially if it was tunneled.

If there was need for extra capacity at St Davids then that would be a fairly contained scheme, which would likely limit the overall cost, and would probably be sure to fit within railway land.

If you needed to grade separate the junction with the Barnstaple line (which would then increase its ability to cope with flooding) it would still be fairly cheap (£100 million to £200 million). Even grade separating the line to Central would add the same again. However if that needs doing that needs doing whatever route the trains take.

 

[MatthewRead]

There is no rolling stock to do it. DFT decided that SWT’s stock was better used providing an hourly service to Exeter following the Axminster redoubling. I suspect adding capacity to those trains that currently split at Salisbury would be a much better priority if SWR were allowed more 158s. FGW had their service specification altered to cover the removal of SWT beyond Exeter.

And I was told most passengers on that line don't go beyond Exeter so the company thought there was no point.

 

[swt_passenger]

But couldn't those extra Waterloo services simply reverse at St David's and take the coast route (or a new shortcut route)?

Of course they could, however @The Ham has been trying to reinstate the whole LSWR on the back of Dawlish for a few years now, and his posts are very detailed, but I think he’s the only one who thinks it likely or possible.

If you look in the Wessex route study for any evidence of a need to fully redouble Salisbury to Exeter, and it covers up to the year 2043, or any evidence of difficulty in finding destinations for Waterloo mainline services, then you’ll look in vain. What it does mention is more services to Southampton, Portsmouth via Eastleigh, and all sorts of existing needs.

 

[The Ham]

Of course they could, however @The Ham has been trying to reinstate the whole LSWR on the back of Dawlish for a few years now, and his posts are very detailed, but I think he’s the only one who thinks it likely or possible.

If you look in the Wessex route study for any evidence of a need to fully redouble Salisbury to Exeter, and it covers up to the year 2043, or any evidence of difficulty in finding destinations for Waterloo mainline services, then you’ll look in vain. What it does mention is more services to Southampton, Portsmouth via Eastleigh, and all sorts of existing needs.

Whilst I agree that until 2043 there's other priorities which need dealing with, the route through Okehampton would likely be a medium to long term project (2040-2060) especially given the desire to be carbon neutral post 2050 and the potential for passenger growth (even at 1% growth per year you're looking at 22-48% increase over that timeframe, increase that to 2.5% per year and you're looking at 64-168%, if you hit 4% per year and it's up to 380%). I've never thought that is going to happen overnight and if you look back at my past posts I often talk about longer timeframes.

I also accept that it's not an overly likely project, however my view is that it is now likely than a new fast line. I also think if you want to justify a new fast line then actually the best option is to build the line through Okehampton to build up the passenger flows to allow you to justify the expense of the new line.

 

[MarkRedon]

The Ham argues the case for a via Okehampton route very well. It makes sense as an interim, small(-ish) step change which might help to make the case for a longer-term genuinely fast line while at the same time offering sensible relief for the endangered Dawlish line. It has the added advantage - already often expressed - of offering North Cornwall connectivity. So no, @swt_passenger, The Ham is not alone in thinking this possible. And sensible. An out-to-sea Dawlish avoiding line needs a serious risk assessment: how many days per year would it offer additional service? And it would add precisely nothing to network connectivity.

 

[DJ_K666]

Don't get me wrong, £500 million is a step in the right direction but as you say is more of a short term 'crowd pleaser'.

Ten billion would pay for a fair few re-openings, with the money budgeted and paid for over a ten year period, not all at once.

Realistically, how many re-openings will £500 million be enough for? One or two major schemes at best? Six or seven smaller ones?

I think the £500 million is for feasability studies and business case preparation. The real money comes later, probably from the private sector.

 

[DJ_K666]

The Rugby and Stamford Railway, particularly as the public transport in Rutland's villages is diabolical.

This would be handy for me in a slightly doubl-y back-y way. My main intended destination on a line like this would be Leicester, where I have family. really for me the Rugby to Leicester line via Ullesthorpe and Broughton Astley would be better. At the moment it takes 1 hour and 7 minutes to get between Rugby and Leicester by train. It's 2 hours+ by bus, instead of the half hour it would take in the car, due to the half hour wait at Nuneaton. I'd be praying that the train to Nuneaton was 20 or so late so I wouldn't have to wait so long. To my mind a hour journey time for 20 miles is just not acceptable.

 

[Tobbes]

I think the £500 million is for feasability studies and business case preparation. The real money comes later, probably from the private sector.

I'm not sure why the private sector would pony up their own cash (rather than as a PFI of one flavour or another which is ultimately public debt)? If the business case was so overwhelming that a private firm wanted to fund it without subsidy, presumably they'd have done it already?

 

[DJ_K666]

I'm not sure why the private sector would pony up their own cash (rather than as a PFI of one flavour or another which is ultimately public debt)? If the business case was so overwhelming that a private firm wanted to fund it without subsidy, presumably they'd have done it already?

Possibly although the government are unlikely to pay for the whole lot once the final list of schemes has been decided. Unless they're planning some kind of Keynesian economic stimulus or something.

 

[MarkRedon]

From https://assets.publishing.service.g...ata/file/938049/NIS_final_web_single_page.pdf published and accessed 25/11/2020:

"The railways helped to build modern Britain, so as well as building HS2, the government is also boosting the classic rail network. Over the remainder of Network Rail’s 5 year settlement – Control Period 6 – the government will invest £17.5 billion to renew and upgrade the railway system, improving passenger journeys across the UK. This will deliver on the NIC’s recommendations by progressing the East West Railway.

In 2017, the National Infrastructure Commission outlined the transformational economic potential of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc in its report ‘Partnering for Prosperity’. At Spending Review 2020 the government has reaffirmed its commitment to the area, including additional funding to support the Budget 2020 commitments to develop a Spatial Framework to plan for long-term economic and housing growth and to explore the case for up to four Development Corporations along the route of East West Rail. This will help to deliver sustainable economic and housing growth, supported by infrastructure, that meets the needs of local people.

The government will also deliver on its manifesto commitment to spend £500 million to restore transport services previously lost in the Beeching cuts of the 1960s, including reopening the Ashington-Blyth line in Northumberland to passenger services, and restoring rail links to Okehampton in Devon. The government has also launched a New Ideas Fund to pay for feasibility work on proposals for new lines and stations.

Feasibility funding for the first ten schemes has been announced, which will provide a basis for decisions on further development: re-opening Meir Station in Stoke-on-Trent; the Barrow Hill line between Sheffield and Chesterfield; the Ivanhoe line between Leicester and Burton on Trent; branch lines on the Isle of Wight (Shanklin-Ventnor and Wootton-Newport); the Abbey line between St Albans Abbey and Watford Junction; Reopening Wellington and Cullompton railway stations; Bury-Heywood-Rochdale lines; Clitheroe to Hellifield railway line; reinstatement of rail access to Devizes via a new railway station at Lydeway; and the Waterside line (Hythe-Totton).The government will provide further feasibility funding for an additional fifteen proposals to inform decisions on further development: reopening Beeston Castle and Tarporley station in Cheshire, St. Anne’s Park station in Bristol, and Ferryhill station in County Durham; links between Bolton, Radcliffe, and Bury; the Stratfordupon-Avon to Honeybourne/Worcester/Oxford line; new stations at Waverley in South Yorkshire and a station in the Langport/Somerton area of Somerset; improved services from Melton Mowbray and Falmouth; upgrading the South Fylde Line; the Maid Marian line between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire; reinstating rail access to Cirencester; restoring services between Swanage and Wareham; the South Humber rail link; and a new link between Consett and Newcastle.

The government is also expanding the third round of the New Stations Fund to £32 million. This will fund the opening of railway stations at Edginswell and Thanet Parkway in Kent; and St Clears in Carmarthenshire. It will also provide funding to further develop proposals for stations at Haxby in York and Deeside in Flintshire.

The government is fully committed to improving connectivity between northern cities. Over the course of this year, the government has been drawing up an Integrated Rail Plan for the Midlands and the North of England, which will be published shortly. In line with the terms of reference, the Plan will ensure that Phase 2b of HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and other planned rail investments in the North and Midlands are scoped and delivered in an integrated way. This will bring transformational rail improvements more quickly and to more places, and will be informed by the NIC’s assessment of the rail needs of the Midlands and the North. "

In the usual way, there is here the reiteration of previously-announced and still uncommitted schemes. Time will tell how much of this is fully realised, no doubt only a fraction. But I am encouraged by the level of detail of the government’s aspirations. I also note reference to a number of schemes which have not until now received any level of funding. These include a particular favourite of mine, which is some new railway between Honeybourne and Stratford-upon-Avon.

Because we are all used to disappointment, it will be a temptation to dismiss these aspirations as pie in the sky. Not all of these proposals are likely to go very far, and all must of course be subject to full financial appraisal – but I for one am encouraged that at least the government seems to realise that getting ourselves out of the mess we have gone into will involve investment in rail infrastructure.

 

[Ianno87]

From https://assets.publishing.service.g...ata/file/938049/NIS_final_web_single_page.pdf published and accessed 25/11/2020:



In the usual way, there is here the reiteration of previously-announced and still uncommitted schemes. Time will tell how much of this is fully realised, no doubt only a fraction. But I am encouraged by the level of detail of the government’s aspirations. I also note reference to a number of schemes which have not until now received any level of funding. These include a particular favourite of mine, which is some new railway between Honeybourne and Stratford-upon-Avon.

Because we are all used to disappointment, it will be a temptation to dismiss these aspirations as pie in the sky. Not all of these proposals are likely to go very far, and all must of course be subject to full financial appraisal – but I for one am encouraged that at least the government seems to realise that getting ourselves out of the mess we have gone into will involve investment in rail infrastructure.

Sounds like a classic 'lets pepper examples from all over the place to keep everybody happy for now'.

Rather than, you know, just pick maybe 2 or 3 actually credible ones to focus on, and tell the rest they're no-hopers (or wait their turn).

 

[Wynd]

Not sure if this has been posted already, but up in this neck of the woods the Formartine and Buchan is the next logical candidate for reopening. Current alignment out to Ellon, but up for debate what way after that would be best to connect Peterhead and Fraserburgh.

In time the Deeside line is another candidate for reopening but only justifiably in conjunction with or slightly after the F&B. Beyond that Alford Via Kemnay.

All of these areas have experienced drastic levels of new house building and the associated road traffic has probably doubled in the last 20 years alone.

One that I'm sure will be a firm favorite among some on here is the Kieth-Duffton-Craigellachie-Granton-Boat. That one however doesn't have anything like the business case of the others, but the tourism would be considerable given the number of Distilleries.


EDIT:

I would reopen the lines from Dyce to Fraserburgh and Peterhead. Combined population of over 45,000 along that route, an area far from any existing railway and roads are struggling. Considering the Borders Railway came in at £300 million, the routes to Peterhead and Fraserburgh ought to cost less than £750 million at the most, which was the cost of the recently constructed AWPR Aberdeen bypass.

Possibly via a new alignment going directly from Ellon to Peterhead then on to Fraserburgh would be beneficial, as the railway could be operated as one service.

If the Deeside railway were reopened as far as Peterculter, coupled with the reopening of Kittybrewster station this could replace the super slow buses in Aberdeen. This is a good candidate for a tram-train service. Currently the bus from Peterculter takes 38 minutes to the railway station, 50 minutes to Kittybrewster vs 21 and 25 minutes driving.

Not sure why the current alignment to Ellon is a problem to so many folk? I must be missing something...

Operationally it would be my own view that the F&B be incorporated in to the Aberdeen Crossrail venture. Starting and terminating at Stonehaven or Montrose.

Reopening Kitty would be great, most of the land on the west side is still publicly owned with the cooncil depot. The east side is a little more tricky.

Deeside should reopen to Banchory at a minimum but ideally Abyne.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Sounds like a classic 'lets pepper examples from all over the place to keep everybody happy for now'.

Rather than, you know, just pick maybe 2 or 3 actually credible ones to focus on, and tell the rest they're no-hopers (or wait their turn).

I'm fairly sure the first 10 in that long list (from Meir onwards) are the ones that got shortlisted from the 1st round of the Reversing Beeching (or whatever it's official name was) fund. I'm guessing the next 15 (Beeston Castle onwards) would be the shortlisted ones from the 2nd round. I'm not sure if those had already got announced somewhere and I missed it or whether this is the de facto announcement though.

Either way, that would seem to imply all those will at least have feasibility study funding, even though some of those look sufficiently impractical that it's hard to see how it'd go further.

btw, does anyone know what the 'South Humber rail link' is?

 

[Aictos]

What about Marks Tey to Shelford?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I'm fairly sure the first 10 in that long list (from Meir onwards) are the ones that got shortlisted from the 1st round of the Reversing Beeching (or whatever it's official name was) fund. I'm guessing the next 15 (Beeston Castle onwards) would be the shortlisted ones from the 2nd round. I'm not sure if those had already got announced somewhere and I missed it or whether this is the de facto announcement though.

Either way, that would seem to imply all those will at least have feasibility study funding, even though some of those look sufficiently impractical that it's hard to see how it'd go further.

btw, does anyone know what the 'South Humber rail link' is?

South Humber link is a proposal to divert the Barton service hourly to Gainsborough connect with the Sheffield service from there to Sheffield

 

[CBlue]

What about Marks Tey to Shelford?

There's been clamour to reinstate the line from Haverhill for years. Any alignment would be pretty much useless for serving Haverhill unless they started knocking down houses in the many estates that have been built since the line closed. Don't think any of the villages really generate any traffic to sustain a line by themselves.

 

[Tobbes]

What about Marks Tey to Shelford?

There's been clamour to reinstate the line from Haverhill for years. Any alignment would be pretty much useless for serving Haverhill unless they started knocking down houses in the many estates that have been built since the line closed. Don't think any of the villages really generate any traffic to sustain a line by themselves.

I'd vote for full reinstatement - Cambridge/shire will only grow as an economic anchor and commuting by rail is much more friendly than everyone trying to drive.

Haverhill not easy, but well within the scope of CPOing - the main thing would be buying the Tesco site to become the station once more.

 

[CBlue]

I'd vote for full reinstatement - Cambridge/shire will only grow as an economic anchor and commuting by rail is much more friendly than everyone trying to drive.

Haverhill not easy, but well within the scope of CPOing - the main thing would be buying the Tesco site to become the station once more.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but electrification and a two-track alignment is definitely needed for any improvement in transport links over the current half-hourly bus service between Cambridge and Haverhill. An hourly DMU shuttle won't attract people off the A1307 or the bus that much either, I'd wager.

 

[Tobbes]

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but electrification and a two-track alignment is definitely needed for any improvement in transport links over the current half-hourly bus service between Cambridge and Haverhill. An hourly DMU shuttle won't attract people off the A1307 or the bus that much either, I'd wager.

Agreed - 2tph off-peak, 4tph peak at least as far as Cambs-Haverhill.

At the other end of the line (Sudbury-Marks Tey) 3tp2h seems to suffice in the morning, but 2tph would be ideal.