re-opening the Wellington to Stafford route?

[Shrop]

So here's a tangent but perhaps worth a thought, even if some will no doubt view it with scorn! Given that serious consideration is being given in some quarters to electrifying the Shrewsbury to Wolves route, what would be people's thoughts about re-opening the Wellington to Stafford route, thus providing by some way an opportunity for the fastest route to London from a good number of places?

 

[The Planner]

So here's a tangent but perhaps worth a thought, even if some will no doubt view it with scorn! Given that serious consideration is being given in some quarters to electrifying the Shrewsbury to Wolves route, what would be people's thoughts about re-opening the Wellington to Stafford route, thus providing by some way an opportunity for the fastest route to London from a good number of places?

More chance of wires. A lot more considering a load of its built on. It only benefits Wellington and you would be better off speeding up Shrewsbury to Crewe for HS2 2a connections.

 

[Bald Rick]

So here's a tangent but perhaps worth a thought, even if some will no doubt view it with scorn! Given that serious consideration is being given in some quarters to electrifying the Shrewsbury to Wolves route, what would be people's thoughts about re-opening the Wellington to Stafford route, thus providing by some way an opportunity for the fastest route to London from a good number of places?

I think you are overstating how much consideration is being given to wiring the line.

my thoughts:

It would be great for Shrewsbury, and west thereof, to Stafford and London, but little else. The people of Telford and Wolverhampton would be less than happy (and there’s more of them, and they’re more likely to beat you up if they annoy you).

Some of the old line is under the A518, and most of the rest is a cycle way.

There’s much building in the way at either end, and through Newport. (Someone very close to me would be VERY cross about losing Lidl there)

It would be a billion quid+. The current phase of EWR is about the same length, and is costing that much, without electrification, and had a mothballed railway as a base, rather than one that has in places been turned into houses, shops, roads and cycleways.

The proposal was rejected by the Restoring Your Railway ideas fund.


In summary: a better idea than many new line proposals, but I’m afraid it will have an appalling business case, and has no chance.


(just had an awkward occurrence - the OP was transferred from another thread that I was responding to, and my post was sent there instead!)

 

[stuu]

It would be a billion quid+. The current phase of EWR is about the same length, and is costing that much, without electrification, and had a mothballed railway as a base, rather than one that has in places been turned into houses, shops, roads and cycleways.

Is there actually very much of a saving from having a mothballed railway, compared to building something on a greenfield site? It seems to me that virtually everything is rebuilt anyway

 

[tomuk]

As others have said the route is built on and it would severely disadvantage Telford or would they be happy with a Donnington/Muxton - Telford North? If there was any demand you could already run a service via the Oxley Chord.
I'd be happy with a Hereford - Crewe stopper on the Marches so stops could be taken out of the Cardiff - Manchester up to Crewe. Only 30 mins to HS2 in Crewe from Shrewsbury.

 

[Wolfie]

As others have said the route is built on and it would severely disadvantage Telford or would they be happy with a Donnington/Muxton - Telford North? If there was any demand you could already run a service via the Oxley Chord.
I'd be happy with a Hereford - Crewe stopper on the Marches so stops could be taken out of the Cardiff - Manchester up to Crewe. Only 30 mins to HS2 in Crewe from Shrewsbury.

I can't speak for everyone in/originating from Telford. I can speak for myself though in saying that l would never accept sacrificing our services for Shrewsbury's benefit. The most entitled place in the Midlands can do one!

 

[Shrop]

Interesting responses and I wouldn't disagree with any of the comments. It came up in conversation and I said I'd post it to see what people thought, who know more than I do. The context was that there are suggestions of re-opening Madeley to Bridgnorth, and even Shrewsbury to Bridgnorth, so Wellington to Stafford was mentioned with that. It seemed less unlikely, and it does benefit from being less indirect (to London) than going via Crewe, although we did recognise that Telford would need to be a new Telford North.
Fwiw, those of us in the conversation don't think of Shrewsbury as entitled, it just happens to pick up connecting services, which Telford doesn't, ie if you add those then Shrewsbury's population served becomes bigger than that of Telford, but yes it depends on how you measure it.
My preferred option still remains running existing services at 90mph, and if that really isn't justified due to higher maintenance cost bands etc, then why not just downgrade the Aber line speed (and maybe also others around the country) just to reduce costs?

 

[The Planner]

Interesting responses and I wouldn't disagree with any of the comments. It came up in conversation and I said I'd post it to see what people thought, who know more than I do. The context was that there are suggestions of re-opening Madeley to Bridgnorth, and even Shrewsbury to Bridgnorth, so Wellington to Stafford was mentioned with that. It seemed less unlikely, and it does benefit from being less indirect (to London) than going via Crewe, although we did recognise that Telford would need to be a new Telford North.
Fwiw, those of us in the conversation don't think of Shrewsbury as entitled, it just happens to pick up connecting services, which Telford doesn't, ie if you add those then Shrewsbury's population served becomes bigger than that of Telford, but yes it depends on how you measure it.
My preferred option still remains running existing services at 90mph, and if that really isn't justified due to higher maintenance cost bands etc, then why not just downgrade the Aber line speed (and maybe also others around the country) just to reduce costs?

Reducing the Cambrian line speeds would then trigger infrastructure interventions as the timetable is is built on hitting the passing loops at the correct time. Slow it down and that doesn't happen. It also just carries passenger trains so the mean tonnage over it is low so it might not even reduce its track category.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there actually very much of a saving from having a mothballed railway, compared to building something on a greenfield site? It seems to me that virtually everything is rebuilt anyway

It makes the consents process a little easier, and some structures might be ok for re use, depending on their construction and th elength of time it has been out of use. But not that much different.

 

[Wolfie]

Interesting responses and I wouldn't disagree with any of the comments. It came up in conversation and I said I'd post it to see what people thought, who know more than I do. The context was that there are suggestions of re-opening Madeley to Bridgnorth, and even Shrewsbury to Bridgnorth, so Wellington to Stafford was mentioned with that. It seemed less unlikely, and it does benefit from being less indirect (to London) than going via Crewe, although we did recognise that Telford would need to be a new Telford North.
Fwiw, those of us in the conversation don't think of Shrewsbury as entitled, it just happens to pick up connecting services, which Telford doesn't, ie if you add those then Shrewsbury's population served becomes bigger than that of Telford, but yes it depends on how you measure it.
My preferred option still remains running existing services at 90mph, and if that really isn't justified due to higher maintenance cost bands etc, then why not just downgrade the Aber line speed (and maybe also others around the country) just to reduce costs?

Good luck with reopening pretty much any of them. Not only have great swathes of the former trackbed been built over but are you aware what happened in Jackfield for example?

Apologies if l misunderstood the thrust of your argument but l have come across the "Shrewsbury first" types all too often.

 

[Bald Rick]

It seemed less unlikely, and it does benefit from being less indirect (to London) than going via Crewe, although we did recognise that Telford would need to be a new Telford North.

thinking about it, Shrewsbury - Euston via Crewe post HS2 (2a) assuming a half decent connection, will be in the region of 1h45.

Shrewsbury - Euston via Stafford, including stops at ‘Telford North’ and Stafford will be in the region of 1h35.
it’s an awful lot of money for 10 minutes and avoiding a change.

 

[Shrop]

thinking about it, Shrewsbury - Euston via Crewe post HS2 (2a) assuming a half decent connection, will be in the region of 1h45.

Shrewsbury - Euston via Stafford, including stops at ‘Telford North’ and Stafford will be in the region of 1h35.
it’s an awful lot of money for 10 minutes and avoiding a change.

I entirely agree, it was only speculation.

However, I STILL think there is merit in the much less expensive possibility of minor modifications to existing infrastructure to run existing 90mph capable trains at 90mph. It's not just about saving 2 minutes, although that actually could be useful too!

 

[muddythefish]

Interesting responses and I wouldn't disagree with any of the comments. It came up in conversation and I said I'd post it to see what people thought, who know more than I do. The context was that there are suggestions of re-opening Madeley to Bridgnorth, and even Shrewsbury to Bridgnorth,

Madeley to Bridgnorth........I presume that would be via Ironbridge?

Lovely idea but fraught with difficulties. Bridgnorth's golfers wouldn't be happy

 

[The Planner]

However, I STILL think there is merit in the much less expensive possibility of minor modifications to existing infrastructure to run existing 90mph capable trains at 90mph. It's not just about saving 2 minutes, although that actually could be useful too!

That is exactly what it would be about. No time saving or capacity benefit and it falls on its backside immediately.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's not just about saving 2 minutes, although that actually could be useful too!

what else is it about if linespeed improvements aren’t to save journey time?

 

[6Gman]

what else is it about if linespeed improvements aren’t to save journey time?

Going faster than the cars on any nearby road.

Apparently.

 

[zwk500]

Going faster than the cars on any nearby road.

Apparently.

It'd be an interesting point to look into if e.g. HS1 being next to the M20 at 186mph or even the WCML being next to the M1 at 125mph through Watford Gap has made any impact at all on car to train modal shift. My suspicion is that the absolute number of drivers who've changed to the train because of a train sailing past them on the road will be less than 1.

 

[Shrop]

what else is it about if linespeed improvements aren’t to save journey time?

Any time savings will have the bonus of easing stress in schedules, even if some contributors refuse to accept that trains going faster than cars actually does also incentivise their use.

It'd be an interesting point to look into if e.g. HS1 being next to the M20 at 186mph or even the WCML being next to the M1 at 125mph through Watford Gap has made any impact at all on car to train modal shift. My suspicion is that the absolute number of drivers who've changed to the train because of a train sailing past them on the road will be less than 1.

So look into it then! Let's just say, I've never seen any evidence to support your assertion. To those who love to ridicule my suggestion, how many of the car drivers using these sections of motorway have you interviewed, about whether seeing fast trains might encourage them to use them?

 

[The Planner]

Any time savings will have the bonus of easing stress in schedules, even if some contributors refuse to accept that trains going faster than cars actually does also incentivise their use.

So like I said it falls flat on its arse because there is no perceived benefit. You would not spend the money on a 28 mile line speed improvement for resilience.

 

[zwk500]

Any time savings will have the bonus of easing stress in schedules, even if some contributors refuse to accept that trains going faster than cars actually does also incentivise their use.

People are interested in journey time between origin and destination. That's what incentivises use. Going at 90mph at some arbitrary point isn't attractive if the time from your house to the shops/office/etc is longer than it would be in your car.

So look into it then! Let's just say, I've never seen any evidence to support your assertion. To those who love to ridicule my suggestion, how many of the car drivers using these sections of motorway have you interviewed, about whether seeing fast trains might encourage them to use them?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/944172/rai0108.ods

Road Traffic Statistics UK

Road Traffic Statistics UK at Road Traffic Statistics UK.

roadtrafficstats.uk

UK: Channel Tunnel and short sea passengers 1994-2018| Statista

This statistic compares the number of passengers using the Channel Tunnel and those making Short Sea journeys in the United Kingdom (UK) between 1994, when the Channel Tunnel opened, and the year 2018.

www.statista.com

I've not interviewed anybody, but here's some data from the 186mph HS1 vs heavily congested and repeatedly closed M20: The pattern quite clearly suggests that the train has taken over from the boat (which cannot see each other), but that drivers are quite keen to keep their cars with them on their trips to France. Chart 1 shows the pattern of passengers through the tunnel (on both types of train) as following quite neatly the trend of motor traffic on the M20 approaching the Eurotunnel terminal. The train has run alongside the M20 for a considerable distance at this point, so you'd expect passenger numbers on the train to climb faster than vehicle numbers. But it doesn't.

This is in no way conclusive - it's a 10-minute google exercise. But you've asked for data, so here some is!

 

[Llanigraham]

Any time savings will have the bonus of easing stress in schedules, even if some contributors refuse to accept that trains going faster than cars actually does also incentivise their use.

So look into it then! Let's just say, I've never seen any evidence to support your assertion. To those who love to ridicule my suggestion, how many of the car drivers using these sections of motorway have you interviewed, about whether seeing fast trains might encourage them to use them?

By the same rules, I wonder how many you have interviewed?

 

[Bald Rick]

Any time savings will have the bonus of easing stress in schedules

Forgive me, but what does that mean?

 

[Shrop]

People are interested in journey time between origin and destination. That's what incentivises use. Going at 90mph at some arbitrary point isn't attractive if the time from your house to the shops/office/etc is longer than it would be in your car.

View attachment 106699View attachment 106700View attachment 106701

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/944172/rai0108.ods

Road Traffic Statistics UK

Road Traffic Statistics UK at Road Traffic Statistics UK.

roadtrafficstats.uk

UK: Channel Tunnel and short sea passengers 1994-2018| Statista

This statistic compares the number of passengers using the Channel Tunnel and those making Short Sea journeys in the United Kingdom (UK) between 1994, when the Channel Tunnel opened, and the year 2018.

www.statista.com

I've not interviewed anybody, but here's some data from the 186mph HS1 vs heavily congested and repeatedly closed M20: The pattern quite clearly suggests that the train has taken over from the boat (which cannot see each other), but that drivers are quite keen to keep their cars with them on their trips to France. Chart 1 shows the pattern of passengers through the tunnel (on both types of train) as following quite neatly the trend of motor traffic on the M20 approaching the Eurotunnel terminal. The train has run alongside the M20 for a considerable distance at this point, so you'd expect passenger numbers on the train to climb faster than vehicle numbers. But it doesn't.

This is in no way conclusive - it's a 10-minute google exercise. But you've asked for data, so here some is!

Hmm, I can see that I ought to do a bit more than just making comments, I might even do a bit of research. You're right, I don't think this proves anything, but I do appreciate that you took time to make this response.

Forgive me, but what does that mean?

I'm not sure what there is to not understand? If a present service has, say 5 minutes dwell time in Shrewsbury and it's running 4 minutes late, that makes things tricky to make up time at Shrewsbury because most trains dwell for at least 2-3 minutes in practice. If the track is 90mph and that dwell time was 7 minutes instead, then it helps doesn't it? I suspect you'll tell me that I'm wrong here somewhere ...

 

[Bald Rick]

Hmm, I can see that I ought to do a bit more than just making comments, I might even do a bit of research. You're right, I don't think this proves anything, but I do appreciate that you took time to make this response.

I'm not sure what there is to not understand? If a present service has, say 5 minutes dwell time in Shrewsbury and it's running 4 minutes late, that makes things tricky to make up time at Shrewsbury because most trains dwell for at least 2-3 minutes in practice. If the track is 90mph and that dwell time was 7 minutes instead, then it helps doesn't it? I suspect you'll tell me that I'm wrong here somewhere ...

Ah I see.

In which case, rather then spending a load of cash raising the linespeed, make the dwell time at Shrewsbury 7 minutes anyway. Of course that doesn’t help if the train is 6 minutes late. Or 2 minutes late. Etc.

 

[The Planner]

At what point do you give up spending to add resilience and allow the train to be late?

 

[Shrop]

Ah I see.

In which case, rather then spending a load of cash raising the linespeed, make the dwell time at Shrewsbury 7 minutes anyway. Of course that doesn’t help if the train is 6 minutes late. Or 2 minutes late. Etc.

Hmm, I was in Aberystwyth just a few weeks ago and the train arrived late, which meant it then left late. Not by much, but just enough to miss the slot to get through Talerddig to Newtown before the oncoming service was given priority. I surely don't need to tell rail experts how costly the knock on effects of this are, but the point is that you sound you're advocating an EXTRA 2 minutes at Shrewsbury. Or if not, then at very least you're not supporting ways to reduce the risks of the all too frequent problems that happen with this single line working.

 

[Bald Rick]

Hmm, I was in Aberystwyth just a few weeks ago and the train arrived late, which meant it then left late. Not by much, but just enough to miss the slot to get through Talerddig to Newtown before the oncoming service was given priority. I surely don't need to tell rail experts how costly the knock on effects of this are, but the point is that you sound you're advocating an EXTRA 2 minutes at Shrewsbury. Or if not, then at very least you're not supporting ways to reduce the risks of the all too frequent problems that happen with this single line working.

Oh I’m all for punctual trains.

My point is that in the example you cite, raising the linespeed to 90 mph would only help the handful of trains that arrive Shrewsbury 4 minutes late. Anything up to 3 minutes late would still leave on time; anything 5 minutes late or more would still leave late (just 2 minutes less late).

My other point is that if trains are delayed, rather than spending millions on expensive infrastructure solutions, it is better to find out what caused the delay in the first place and nip it in the bud. And if the problem is that the ‘plan of the day’ (timetable + resource plan) is not reliable, then it needs to be made reliable through a better plan.

 

[Shrop]

Oh I’m all for punctual trains.

My point is that in the example you cite, raising the linespeed to 90 mph would only help the handful of trains that arrive Shrewsbury 4 minutes late. Anything up to 3 minutes late would still leave on time; anything 5 minutes late or more would still leave late (just 2 minutes less late).

My other point is that if trains are delayed, rather than spending millions on expensive infrastructure solutions, it is better to find out what caused the delay in the first place and nip it in the bud. And if the problem is that the ‘plan of the day’ (timetable + resource plan) is not reliable, then it needs to be made reliable through a better plan.

Yes, some of that would be my thoughts too. The problem is, rail companies are caught in a spiral of trying to squeeze more and more out of limited stock and tracks. And when it succeeds, someone comes along and suggests that yet more could be squeezed out of the resources, until eventually it gives way. Which it often does on the single line sections west of Shrewsbury and north of Wrexham. And therefore there is benefit in finding ways to reduce tension in the schedules, which increased speeds would do.

 

[Bald Rick]

And therefore there is benefit in finding ways to reduce tension in the schedules, which increased speeds would do.

As do many other things, much more cheaply.

 

[Bevan Price]

Good luck with reopening pretty much any of them. Not only have great swathes of the former trackbed been built over but are you aware what happened in Jackfield for example?

Apologies if l misunderstood the thrust of your argument but l have come across the "Shrewsbury first" types all too often.

Buildings in the way are not a problem apart from cost. Lots of buildings are removed when Motorways are built, and many more have to go to make space for HS2.
The greater problem is that frequently, as in the case of Stafford / Wellington, the cost of restoring a closed railway will usually be much too high to justify when considering the likely level of use of a reopened railway.