Double track line rationalisation cost/benefits

[Shred Metal]

Yes mate. There were plans for a new alignment but not sure where. Needless to say the cost was very high & all plans kicked into the long grass. St.Pancras was very under utilised at the time.

Amazing. Wonder if any maps or scribbles exist of the proposed route..

 

[Bald Rick]

Amazing. Wonder if any maps or scribbles exist of the proposed route..

as I said upthread:

Correct. Out via Kentish Town, onto the T&H via the now removed curve, and onto the WAML via a new chord at South Tottenham. St Pancras had oodles of capacity then.

 

[uglymonkey]

Exmouth Junction to Topsham was singled around 1973? Because the new M5 was being built underneath it, a new rail bridge was required. Who ever paid for it (BR, council, highways?) Didn't want to pay for a double track bridge, so single line one was built. Which is fine except you now have a dead end siding with one passing loop, no spare capacity for recovery ( delays loading rugby fans on match days) or any chance of changing or adding services as the line is at"capacity" some of the time.
An "urban myth I have heard ( or should that be rural ? Is that Plymouth - Exeter via Okehampton ( double track " mainline") was supposed to be singled instead of tearing up the Bere Alston/ Meldon section as a useful diversionary for the sea wall. However the contractors miss understood and ripped out both down and up lines. By the time BR realised it was too late as too much damage had been done. After it was closed,but before it was ripped up BR did run some freights this way when there was a problem with the sea wall .(Even though they had already removed all the signalling and telephone lines) - which lends weight to the theory. Although I'm very doubtful about it.
A line singled, Carrys double the traffic of the double track, so x2 wear and tear? Increasing costs? Unless like beeching you drastically reduce the traffic to make the singled line have no more traffic than either of the up and down main line when it was double track?

 

[zwk500]

An "urban myth I have heard ( or should that be rural ? Is that Plymouth - Exeter via Okehampton ( double track " mainline") was supposed to be singled instead of tearing up the Bere Alston/ Meldon section as a useful diversionary for the sea wall. However the contractors miss understood and ripped out both down and up lines. By the time BR realised it was too late as too much damage had been done. After it was closed,but before it was ripped up BR did run some freights this way when there was a problem with the sea wall .(Even though they had already removed all the signalling and telephone lines) - which lends weight to the theory. Although I'm very doubtful about it.

I suspect this is an urban myth. If the line had been intended to be maintained the contractors would have been told very clearly, and BR would have remodelled the junctions appropriately.

A line singled, Carrys double the traffic of the double track, so x2 wear and tear? Increasing costs? Unless like beeching you drastically reduce the traffic to make the singled line have no more traffic than either of the up and down main line when it was double track?

A single line has a much lower capacity than a double track line so won't be anywhere near 2x the wear and tear. A double track line could have a train in each direction every 4-6 minutes depending on Box placement. A Single line won't be able to match that. What the Single does have though is lots more points at the loops, which are costlier to maintain than plain line.

 

[Bald Rick]

A line singled, Carrys double the traffic of the double track, so x2 wear and tear?

If a lightly used double track was singled, and the same level of service runs over the single line, then yes ‘wear and tear’ doubles. However this doesn’t double the costs of maintenance. On a lightly used line you can easily double traffic without needing any more maintenance.

 

[yorksrob]

Exmouth Junction to Topsham was singled around 1973? Because the new M5 was being built underneath it, a new rail bridge was required. Who ever paid for it (BR, council, highways?) Didn't want to pay for a double track bridge, so single line one was built. Which is fine except you now have a dead end siding with one passing loop, no spare capacity for recovery ( delays loading rugby fans on match days) or any chance of changing or adding services as the line is at"capacity" some of the time.
An "urban myth I have heard ( or should that be rural ? Is that Plymouth - Exeter via Okehampton ( double track " mainline") was supposed to be singled instead of tearing up the Bere Alston/ Meldon section as a useful diversionary for the sea wall. However the contractors miss understood and ripped out both down and up lines. By the time BR realised it was too late as too much damage had been done. After it was closed,but before it was ripped up BR did run some freights this way when there was a problem with the sea wall .(Even though they had already removed all the signalling and telephone lines) - which lends weight to the theory. Although I'm very doubtful about it.
A line singled, Carrys double the traffic of the double track, so x2 wear and tear? Increasing costs? Unless like beeching you drastically reduce the traffic to make the singled line have no more traffic than either of the up and down main line when it was double track?

I can see it as a useful urban myth for the Western Region, to deflect from their complicity in the destruction of such an important through route.

 

[zwk500]

I can see it as a useful urban myth for the Western Region, to deflect from their complicity in the destruction of such an important through route.

Is there any evidence the Western region had any interest in doing so, or that they thought it was a remotely important route?

 

[Parjon]

I beleive much of the drive for singling to 'reduce costs' is down to reducing the networks liability costs as seen by the Treasury. Eg. Single track has a lower value than double track therefore the book value of maintenance liability is lower according to the accounting rules the Treasury follows.

This sounds very plausible.

Apart from a siding, either you need a railway line or you don't and if you do then what idiot makes it single line when it's already double/normal!

I hope the Treasury are good at hoarding all the nation's wealth, as they are certainly rubbish at letting us use it (or create it).

 

[yorksrob]

Is there any evidence the Western region had any interest in doing so, or that they thought it was a remotely important route?

I'm not saying they started the myth, but it would have been useful PR.

 

[zwk500]

They clearly had the intention because they closed it.

Sorry, I should have been clearer - is there any evidence that the Western Region had any interest in downplaying their role in closing a secondary line that was bleeding money?

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry, I should have been clearer - is there any evidence that the Western Region had any interest in downplaying their role in closing a secondary line that was bleeding money?

Apologies - see above post.

 

[zwk500]

I'm not saying they started the myth, but it would have been useful PR.

Apologies - see above post.

I disagree - the WR had no interest in defending itself from SR loyalists. It would have found the myth harmful if anything, because it needed the Treasury onside and the treasury wanted lines gone.

 

[yorksrob]

I disagree - the WR had no interest in defending itself from SR loyalists. It would have found the myth harmful if anything, because it needed the Treasury onside and the treasury wanted lines gone.

I think it's more local passengers and residents they'd want to look better for.

 

[uglymonkey]

Also a "useful diversionary route" has no monetary value in a treasury account book, so whether to single or close is just down to passengers at stations on any given day. Therefore things were singled or removed with no thought of greater strategic need either then or in the future.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also a "useful diversionary route" has no monetary value in a treasury account book

It dose have a monetary value (in terms of benefit). Typically a very small one.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I'm not saying they started the myth, but it would have been useful PR.

This is going OT:

I believe it is a far, far bigger urban myth that the WR closed the former Southern Route. Or the S&D.
Or that the LMR closed the GC.

These would have been BRB decisions. The transfers to other regions would have been done to avoid the former management having to - in professional terms - 'murder' the teams formerly under them.

Yes, these lines of course closed under the auspices of their 'new' owners, but it was not the latter region's decision to close them.

 

[Amlag]

Exmouth Junction to Topsham was singled around 1973? Because the new M5 was being built underneath it, a new rail bridge was required. Who ever paid for it (BR, council, highways?) Didn't want to pay for a double track bridge, so single line one was built. Which is fine except you now have a dead end siding with one passing loop, no spare capacity for recovery ( delays loading rugby fans on match days) or any chance of changing or adding services as the line is at"capacity" some of the time.
An "urban myth I have heard ( or should that be rural ? Is that Plymouth - Exeter via Okehampton ( double track " mainline") was supposed to be singled instead of tearing up the Bere Alston/ Meldon section as a useful diversionary for the sea wall. However the contractors miss understood and ripped out both down and up lines. By the time BR realised it was too late as too much damage had been done. After it was closed,but before it was ripped up BR did run some freights this way when there was a problem with the sea wall .(Even though they had already removed all the signalling and telephone lines) - which lends weight to the theory. Although I'm very doubtful about it.
A line singled, Carrys double the traffic of the double track, so x2 wear and tear? Increasing costs? Unless like beeching you drastically reduce the traffic to make the singled line have no more traffic than either of the up and down main line when it was double track?

i remember in Summer of 1969 one day near Tavistock North seeing and talking to a BR Plymouth District PW man with his accompanying Jack Russel dog and an Assistant who were assessing condition of the rails and sleepers (whether for reuse or scrap), measuring length of rails on both lines and recording details in a notebook.
Had a serious incident, resulting in closure for several weeks, like at Dawlish in 2014, happened on the GW line between Exeter and Plymouth after closure in May 1968 and before recovery by rail started in Aug 1969, then I am very sure Meldon to Bere Alston would have been retained.

 

[Shred Metal]

as I said upthread:

Time for the crayons! Cheers mate

 

[Magdalia]

This is going OT:

I believe it is a far, far bigger urban myth that the WR closed the former Southern Route. Or the S&D.
Or that the LMR closed the GC.

These would have been BRB decisions. The transfers to other regions would have been done to avoid the former management having to - in professional terms - 'murder' the teams formerly under them.

Yes, these lines of course closed under the auspices of their 'new' owners, but it was not the latter region's decision to close them.

The BRB did not exist until 1962, prior to that the regions had much more autonomy under the old BTC.

The final closures were BRB decisions but the earlier rundown of the GC can be clearly traced to its transfer from the ER to the LMR in 1958. Through express running between Marylebone and places north of Nottingham ended in January 1960. The end of the local services was also an LMR not BRB decision. The end was delayed until March 1963, for a reason I've forgotten, but the original closure decision predated the BRB.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The BRB did not exist until 1962, prior to that the regions had much more autonomy under the old BTC.

The final closures were BRB decisions but the earlier rundown of the GC can be clearly traced to its transfer from the ER to the LMR in 1958. Through express running between Marylebone and places north of Nottingham ended in January 1960. The end of the local services was also an LMR not BRB decision. The end was delayed until March 1963, for a reason I've forgotten, but the original closure decision predated the BRB.

But why did they transfer it in the first place? I can not believe this 'just happened' or that the LMR closed a main line like the GC - moreover one that had 222 Marylebone Rd right at the line's London terminus - all on it's own. We're not talking about a branch line in Devon or Sutherland.

 

[class26]

Crazy to think there were similar plans to single the line Diss to Trowse when electrification was being planned in the 1980s. Thank goodness penny pinching & common sense prevailed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2023 ==


Yes it was 1986 when the new Trowse Bridge was commissioned. Tentative plans afoot to redouble it & possibly add a road for additional access into the large housing development on the old Colman's site.

Stansted tunnel is one folly I have never quite understood. Just why?

UK short termism

 

[james60059]

The line between Cockett and Duffryn (Swansea and Llanelli) was singled in 1986 I understand as an "economy measure" but was redoubled in 2013 along with new platform at Gowerton.

Closer to home, I believe Kenilworth to Milverton Junction was singled just after the Beeching period (early 70's) with a loop at Kenilworth just before the station, plans to redouble the section crop up from time to time. Gibbet Hill (Coventry) to Kenilworth AIUI was always single track

 

[swissrailpassion]

Bridlington to Hunmanby was singled in 73. Ten miles of single track caused problems from day one. The section is too long. Later in the 80s Filey to Seamer was singled.

After 84, various further schemes were planned that would have singled between Driffield and Beverley and Malton to York.
Thankfully they weren't implemented.

In 91 to cut costs at York, Scarborough Bridge was singled at the scissors which was replaced by two turnouts back to back.

 

[zwk500]

In 91 to cut costs at York, Scarborough Bridge was singled at the scissors which was replaced by two turnouts back to back.

This isn't really a singling though. It just makes the Scarborough line platforms a single lead junction, saving 2 point ends. East Grinstead was also like that for a long while, IIRC. Platform 2 was only used during the peaks or disruption, so the conflict really didn't matter too much. However later the other track was restored to permit a non-conflicting departure.

 

[DM352]

Another thing with singled sections and loops is often a reduced line speed going from double to single, or vice versa. An example is Alrewas which was singled to Wychnor in the BR cost saving eighties that has a 15mph crossover back to double track towards Lichfield.

For Settle Carlisle I remember reading a comment a 20 years ago about it being possible to have one dual track section for the line if the Ribblehead was not single.