-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Restoring Your Railway Fund: what ideas would you suggest?
- Thread starter deltic
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I think the full list has been released today:
In full: The 85 abandoned rail schemes vying for restoration funding | New Civil Engineer
The funding round closed last week, with more than 85 bids received to restore old railway lines to their former glory. The bids are dominated by schemeswww.newcivilengineer.com
The 85 can be divvied up as follows:
75 barking mad off the wall which won't see the light of day again
5 which are worthy of further investigation and may or may not be viable
5 which probably make sense and may actually happen in the next 10 years.
There have been three rounds of applications. This is the list of those that submitted applications in the third and final round. Many are repeat applications, having been unsuccessful in the first or second round. All of these proposals will be whittled down to another 15 or so, to be progressed to a Strategic Outline
Business Case. Whether any of the previously unsuccessful proposals makes the cut is anyone’s guess.
Abbey Line was successful in round one. But it’s important to explain what ‘successful’ means. It results in the Government providing funding of 75% (max £50k) to the proposer to develop a Strategic Outline Business Case for their proposal. This business case is then submitted back to the DfT, who then assess it to see whether it will be worth taking further. Some will be. Many won’t. There is £500m of funding, and getting on for half is already earmarked for Okehampton and the Northumberland line.
The funding is for the period up to March 2024. Therefore I suspect that the projects most likely to succeed are those that involve parts of the railway already in existence, such as reopening stations on existing lines, or provision of services on freight lines - as with Okehampton that we heard about today.
Ok thanks, this is helpful.
So the first and second round 'winners' are just sitting awaiting this third tranche, to then comprise a 'long list' for the business cases?
@CyrusWuff - Was the Bricket Loop approved already? Or just per above, not yet binned?
Halifaxlad
Established Member
I would like to see your'e list ?
In particular the 5 which you think are worthy and the 5 that you think make sense!
Dave Beeching
Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 30
I was surprised by the number for the Westcountry. Many of them could well be on the 'mad' list
No, the successful proposals in the first and second rounds are doing their business cases now, the first few must be close to completion. It will be interesting to see what happens next. But bear in mind this is only the very first stage for those successful proposals. If their business cases are accepted, they then proceed to the development stage, where feasibility happens.
I was being tongue-in-cheek, but the 10 I picked out having scanned through were:
| Re-opening Sawston Station |
| Newcastle - Berwick-upon-Tweed |
| Reinstatement of Nexus Metro Expansion – Cobalt Business Park Line |
| Ledsham Station |
| Grove Station |
| Tavistock Okehampton |
| Corsham Station |
| Coventry area stations study |
| The Stourbridge Dasher - Stourbridge - Brierley |
| Lichfield - Burton on Trent / Derby |
Okehampton seems to have bypassed most of the stages in the 3 rounds of applications., unless they were quietly worked on behind the scenes. C Grayling just 'instructed' GWR in Jan 2018 to introduce a service. No consultations, no business case, no DCO, assuming that was needed, no feasibility study. From 2018 to work starting in 2020 and opening in 2021. Portishead started in 2013 and is scheduled to open in 2024, Covid permitting. 11 years. E-W has been similarly drawn out. Oke will be open in 4 years from CG's instruction. A Ministerial 'instruction seems to be a way to shortcut the normal time consuming bureaucratic process
Timescales - Portishead Railway Group
Portishead Railway Group - campaigning for the reopening of the Portishead to Bristol Railway.
www.portisheadrailwaygroup.org
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,313
It’s the same info that’s on DfT website that was linked to in post #317 on Monday - New Civil Engineer have just missed the first two groups off their version...I think the full list has been released today:
In full: The 85 abandoned rail schemes vying for restoration funding | New Civil Engineer
The funding round closed last week, with more than 85 bids received to restore old railway lines to their former glory. The bids are dominated by schemes
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Okehampton’s consultation was all wrapped up in the wider “Devon Metro” scheme, so to find older phases of consultation and studies then that’s where you need to look. But it was bubbling along in various GW franchise consultations and ITTs etc, at least ten years ago, it was comparatively much further along well before these latest “lists of ideas“ were asked for.
Last edited:
I’ll give you mine.
Those with a good shout:
Newcastle - Berwick, if it’s looking at additional services, not new lines or stations
New station south of Gloucester+
Sutton Park Line (Preferably Walsall - Aldridge only)
Those worth a look:
Wymondham - Dereham*
Ashton - Stockport
Middlewich Line
Rawtenstall - Manchester*
Midge Hall station
Carn Brea station
Stonehouse Bristol Rd station+
Saltford station+
Extension of Rivera line*
Corsham Station
Oswestry - Gobowen
Stockingford
Leek (at a push - big regeneration potential)
*These seem to be repurposing of heritage lines; it’s not clear how that might work with the heritage operation.
+these are all linked in service terms, unlikely to be able to have them all.
My opinions based on a cursory look. ‘Other opinions are available’
Last edited:
Killingworth
Established Member
New station at Waverley looks a fairly easy win on Sheffield - Lincoln route. Successful in Round 2. Will be a wonderful source of confusion, so maybe it will need to be called Orgreave, or Waverley & Orgreave, station code WOE?
On the site of the 18th June 1984 Battle of Orgreave during the Miners Strike. It could become a tourist attraction, although the Orgreave connection seems to be being played down in favour of the new housing being built on the restored opencast site that replaced the battle ground.
This is also on the Barrow Hill route (used for freight and passenger diversions) successfully put forward for restoration in Round 1.
On the site of the 18th June 1984 Battle of Orgreave during the Miners Strike. It could become a tourist attraction, although the Orgreave connection seems to be being played down in favour of the new housing being built on the restored opencast site that replaced the battle ground.
This is also on the Barrow Hill route (used for freight and passenger diversions) successfully put forward for restoration in Round 1.
Last edited:
For s strategic point I would imagine those two have to be considered together. Also a bit tricky, as Sheffield Midland is essentially at capacity when you take into account other commitments. Wasn’t there a proposal for the Barrow Hill trains to go to a reopened Victoria? Not sure how that would work, as it wouldn’t be terribly convenient. I’m not local so don’t know, but would have thought a tram train option would be worth considering in the feasibility phase - better city access (including to Sheffield Midland), and far cheaper to run. Probably more expensive to set up, though.
Killingworth
Established Member
This is where restoration gets complicated because there's also a bid in to Round 3 to reopen the freight line through Victoria to Stocksbridge! All these 3 could be combined, but I'd suggest opening Waverley is the only realistic proposition.
It's the easiest to build on an already active passenger carrying route that wouldn't require extra paths into Midland.
If it's successful that may help later reopening of the Barrow Hill route for passenger traffic, but even an hourly service may struggle to compete for paths into the North end at Midland. That's where fantasy comes in. If paths were available that service needs a terminating platform and they're already under pressure.
Let's run it into the restoring Sbeaf Valley stations bid in Round 3 with 4 tracking to Dore and terminate it there in a terminal bay or siding.
That's not realistic, so run this Barrow Hill service through Victoria and up the Don Valley to Stocksbridge, or Penistone. A lot of station building for little likely traffic makes this a long odds bid in Round 3.
Sheaf and Don Valley schemes may, one day, be developed further as part of new tram expansion plans.
I come back to a single new station at Waverley as the only submission of the 4 in the Sheffield area that is likely to succeed. A combination of cost, practicality, speed and politics.
Mintona
Established Member
I do think a new station for south Gloucester makes a lot of sense. The population of Quedgeley, Kingsway Hunts Grove and Hardwicke must be well over 30000 by now, and the railway goes right past. It’s more than three miles from there to Gloucester station, so an hour’s walk for most people. A station in the Naas Lane/Brookthorpe area would surely mop up a lot of passengers, and save ‘doubling back’ on journeys towards Bristol and Swindon. And it’s just off the M5 too.
It certainly looks like a good idea. The issue it will have is what calls there. Realistically it can only be the hourly stopper. And as hinted at above, that would also be the only train that could call at Stonehouse Bristol Rd and Saltford. Putting all three could well break the timetable. Tough call!
Mintona
Established Member
You might be able to squeeze a stop in on the London trains too. They have extra time between Stonehouse and Gloucester on the down and between Stroud and Kemble on the up, so could probably just about fit a stop in too. Realistically having 1tph to Swindon and Stroud, 1tph to Bristol and Bath, and 2tph to Gloucester with at least 1 continuing to Cheltenham wouldn’t be a bad service. I do appreciate you probably don’t build this and Stonehouse Bristol Road though.
No love for Haverhill, @Bald Rick ? I would have thought that it would make the cut - and given the impending new town on RAF Mildenhall, I'd have added a new Mildenhall - Newmarket - Cambridge service, too.
Kingham West
Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 132
Is not the difficulty for ministers , in reopening , schemes like Grove and West Oxon (Witney) have BCRs of over 2 , as they are in prosperous South East , Sheffield may offer fantastic social benfits, poor BCR,s.
Perhaps the 8bn £, saved by cancelling the Expressway , could be redirected . Let us hope , otherwise there are far too many schemes .
Perhaps the 8bn £, saved by cancelling the Expressway , could be redirected . Let us hope , otherwise there are far too many schemes .
The Mayor has other plans for Haverhill. Let him do that.
Besides, no space at Cambridge for more trains post EWR.
daodao
Established Member
Proposed conventional commuter rail routes into Cambridge suffer from the fact that the main Cambridge railway station is situated well over 1 mile from the city centre.
I see Haverhill as being like St Ives (Cambs) - better served (and more attractive at getting people out of cars) by a frequent busway or tram service than a once or twice per hour heavy rail service.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Though the main traffic objective from Haverhill is the Biomedical campus as much as it is the city centre.
daodao
Established Member
Addenbrooke's Hospital and the Biomedical Campus are fairly close to the A1307, the main Cambridge-Haverhill road, so a frequent bus service would be more useful than a rail service from Haverhill to these destinations as well as to the city centre.
For starters I would throw out any scheme that's likely to be in the hundreds of millions, and concentrate on the schemes where the track still exists eg Oakhampton or where only a fairly short section of new track would be required (Tavistock-Plymouth) but schemes that require massive rebuilds in the hundreds of millions should go in the bin at this stage.
Erf. See discussion elsewhere
quite why this wasn't linked with the Tavistock-Plymouth plan in this document ( bearing in mind the previous study for Tavistock was *not* done with a view of running through ) I don't know. There were studies done after 2014 over the whole thing, so I'm not sure this will even get to the 50k stage.Cullompton station ( as discussed earlier ) has a fairly good chance of going ahead, I think, assuming the housing development is greenlit - the local council has been bullish on the topic for years. Less certain of Wellington. After seeing some of the others I'm extremely surprised noone proposed handing the whole Minehead route back to NR...
Perhaps there needs to be a fund for study suggestions which aren't reopenings, like moving stations to better sites. Not something which generates the same headlines, unfortunately.
The whole thing needs the Beeching buzzword taking away from it, and a focus on connectivity improvements however they may be achieved.
Cambridge point well taken - but even if it was running through and not terminating? As for the risible bus-prentending-to-be-a-tram nonsense from the Mayor, the only good thing I have to say about that is that it (should) be relatively straightforward to convert into a proper tram when the current Mayor is replaced.
tbtc
Veteran Member
It's a really awkward decision - there's an element of the projects with the best business case, an element of the projects that can tick different boxes around the country (e.g. Ashington is a good headline to avoid the impression that spending is focussed on London/ south) plus there'll probably also be at least a suspicion that projects are being focussed on seats with Tory MPs (given the recent furore about how the relatively prosperous North Yorkshire seat of RIchmond apparently needed more regeneration than places like Barnsley).
My frustration in Sheffield is that the "Barrow Hill"/ Old Road project and the Deepcar project would struggle to work alone (given that they'd both need scarce paths at Sheffield Midland)...
...but the combined benefits of doing *both* schemes would be significantly higher, given that you could run them onto each other (e.g. Stocksbridge Fox Valley - Deepcar - Oughtabridge - Wadsley Bridge - Sheffield Victoria - Darnall - Woodhouse - Beighton - Halfway - Barrow Hill - Chesterfield)
A combined project would solve some of the negatives that each have as well as being more efficient use of stock etc. However, given act the Government will want to be seen to spread around the good news, so the likelihood of getting both local ones accepted is rather slim - but doing one without the other would create some new problems.
(I'm not saying that he two projects around Sheffield would be top of my list, just that they would work better together than apart - unlike some other areas where we could either build Station X or Station Y on a line but there's no space in the timetable for services to stop at both - without needing additional additional trains/ staff or recasting the timetable etc)
At what cost though ?
The Cambridge busway cost about £ 200m for 16 miles so about £ 12.5 m / mile.
The latest extension to Midland Metro of 7 miles from Wednesbury to Brierley Hill is reckoned to be costing £ 450m, so about £ 64m / mile. That's not excessive given back in 2014 the Manchester Metrolink extension to the airport cost £ 400m for 9 miles, so about £ 45m / mile.
On heavy rail, Bald Rick's given a 'wet finger in air' estimate of £ 40m / mile as a starter for most schemes.
So without being funny, you're seriously suggesting replacing busway schemes with light rail schemes which cost more than 4 times as much - do you seriously think you'll get 4 times as much usage or farebox revenue ? And if not, how do you suggest bridging that particular gap ?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
On this I agree completely.
Too often Beeching is used as a 'slur' or a negative. Yet all the good Doctor did was a bit of basic cost / benefit analysis and pointed out a few simple facts of life. Line closures had been taking place across the network for similar reasons for the previous 4 decades before Beeching.
And of course, Beeching wasn't responsible for the farcical 'modernisation plan' which simultaneously continued to build steam locos which were scrapped after less than a decade in use nor a multitude of different diesel types a good number of which also didn't reach a decade in service - all paid for by the taxpayer. BR's level of largesse, obstinacy and dislike of things 'not invented here' was only exceeded by London Transport's.
- Status