Suggestions for new short-ish lines

[deltic08]

Crossgates - Whinmoor. Halt near Stanks. Single track would do it. Whinmoor is a deprived area of Leeds.

This is an excellent idea as the area available will become East Leeds new town of 10,000 houses to the east of Whinmoor but nobody with clout in West Yorkshire is interested from the County Mayor down. Houses will be built over the original trackbed and not future proofed. Very short-sighted and unforgiveable for future residents.

A line from the former junction at Cross Gates, past Penda's Way and former station as far as the former Scholes station, past Whinmoor continuing to Scarcroft picking up the original Wetherby line at Bardsey (sorry to those with houses built on the station site) avoiding Collingham former station site now with too many houses in the way, tunnel through the ridge with the Wetherby-Harewood road on top, across the golf course on the original alignment and embankment, and into Wetherby station site.

Wetherby is on target to become 15,000 population by 2030 so that gives a population density of 70,000 in 8 miles by 2040. Enough for a railway line to the largest city in West Yorkshire. Then extend 7 miles to Harrogate on the former trackbed through Prospect tunnel and Crimple Junction where it meets the Harrogate-Leeds line via Horsforth.

 

[deltic08]

The opportunity has been missed to extend the East Kilbride line further into the town centre. E Mains road is still elevated for the line to extend underneath and the bridge on Main St is still present but the cutting and bridge are buried. This would allow more residents to walk to a railhead further east.

 

[Barclay]

I've always thought the simplest solution would be to build a platform on the Heart of Wessex line as close to Yeovil Junction as possible and install a footbridge linking the stations - as far as I can tell it wouldn't be anything more than a half mile walk which while not ideal is much better than having to pay a lot more to reinstate track. The best way to do this would then be also move the platforms at the existing Yeovil Junction station closer to the crossover of the tracks to also reduce that interchange walk, although then costs would obviously go up and the trains that currently reverse in the station wouldn't be able to reverse at a platform anymore.

This, plus a chord at Dorchester to allow a direct Bournemouth/Poole - Exeter service without reversals.

 

[MarkyT]

This, plus a chord at Dorchester to allow a direct Bournemouth/Poole - Exeter service without reversals.

It's a sparse service on the HoWx today and the largely single-track infrastructure is very capacity-constrained. I think splitting the current service frequency to serve Weymouth and Bournemouth alternately could make each leg unattractive. The two station arrangement in Dorchester makes interchange between the two lines difficult (~600m).
My alternative is a steeply graded (~1:40) bypass alongside the A35/A37, serving a new Poundbury station at the top of the hill. Yeovil - Weymouth trains would run via Poundbury then reverse in a new bay at the Weymouth end of Dorchester South station. The layout could also offer the opportunity to run trains between the mainline platforms at South station and Yeovil. It would be sensible to retain at least a single track on the old alignment, for specials, engineering traffic etc that can't easily reverse or climb the hill, but Dorchester West station might be closed with all services concentrated on South.

A track plan:

 

[Mgameing123]

It's a sparse service on the HoWx today and the largely single-track infrastructure is very capacity-constrained. I think splitting the current service frequency to serve Weymouth and Bournemouth alternately could make each leg unattractive. The two station arrangement in Dorchester makes interchange between the two lines difficult (~600m).
My alternative is a steeply graded (~1:40) bypass alongside the A35/A37, serving a new Poundbury station at the top of the hill. Yeovil - Weymouth trains would run via Poundbury then reverse in a new bay at the Weymouth end of Dorchester South station. The layout could also offer the opportunity to run trains between the mainline platforms at South station and Yeovil. It would be sensible to retain at least a single track on the old alignment, for specials, engineering traffic etc that can't easily reverse or climb the hill, but Dorchester West station might be closed with all services concentrated on South.
View attachment 173383
A track plan:
View attachment 173387

A new railway via Pondbury sounds interesting but I don't think closing Dorchester West is a good idea as reversing at Dorchester South would increase journey times significantly.

The best way to interchanges better in Dorchester is by replacing the 2 stations with 1 single station a bit south of the junction. Though it would have the consequence of being further away from town centre.

 

[MarkyT]

A new railway via Pondbury sounds interesting but I don't think closing Dorchester West is a good idea as reversing at Dorchester South would increase journey times significantly.

The best way to interchanges better in Dorchester is by replacing the 2 stations with 1 single station a bit south of the junction. Though it would have the consequence of being further away from town centre.

Not significantly I suggest. Maybe 5 minutes in each direction. Most GW Weymouth turnback layovers during the day are just over one hour, so the extra running time might be absorbed many diagrams, though there are a few tighter timed trurnrounds in the early morning and evening. One possibility would be to turn some trains back at Dorchester instead of running through to Weymouth. The problem with many parallel routes is how to share the very limited single line capacity towards Yeovil between alternately routed services without reducing all of them to an unattractive frequency. Keeping the West station would be an ongoing cost in maintenance, cleaning etc even though it's presumably not staffed routinely. The big benefit of running via South station is easy interchange with SWR services heading east.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2025 ==

A new railway via Pondbury sounds interesting but I don't think closing Dorchester West is a good idea as reversing at Dorchester South would increase journey times significantly.

The best way to interchanges better in Dorchester is by replacing the 2 stations with 1 single station a bit south of the junction. Though it would have the consequence of being further away from town centre.

The town has redeveloped significantly around the current South station. It's all very well integrated into the town centre now. Much of that would be lost with a relocation.

 

[Mgameing123]

Not significantly I suggest. Maybe 5 minutes in each direction. Most GW Weymouth turnback layovers during the day are just over one hour, so the extra running time might be absorbed many diagrams, though there are a few tighter timed trurnrounds in the early morning and evening. One possibility would be to turn some trains back at Dorchester instead of running through to Weymouth. The problem with many parallel routes is how to share the very limited single line capacity towards Yeovil between alternately routed services without reducing all of them to an unattractive frequency. Keeping the West station would be an ongoing cost in maintenance, cleaning etc even though it's presumably not staffed routinely. The big benefit of running via South station is easy interchange with SWR services heading east.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2025 ==


The town has redeveloped significantly around the current South station. It's all very well integrated into the town centre now. Much of that would be lost with a relocation.

5 minutes is the raw time right? Because you also have add the extra time for turning around trains. Which can add up to 10 - 15 minutes longer journey times than just keeping Dorchester West.

The best solution is probably to build a walkway between the Dorchesters like at Hackney Central & Hackney Downs.

 

[yorksrob]

The real elephant in the room is that we're missing the S&DJR.

 

[MarkyT]

5 minutes is the raw time right? Because you also have add the extra time for turning around trains. Which can add up to 10 - 15 minutes longer journey times than just keeping Dorchester West.

The best solution is probably to build a walkway between the Dorchesters like at Hackney Central & Hackney Downs.

It's ~600m across a complex densely developed street pattern. Hackney was entirely on railway land and required no demolition. En route reversals of DMUs at for instance Bradford interchange and Sheffield do not take as long as you claim. Bradford is typically 3m from arrival to departure. Sheffield seems to allow 6m to 8m.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2025 ==

The real elephant in the room is that we're missing the S&DJR.

If you could path them you could recreate a Bristol/Bath to Bournemouth service via Yeovil and a direct chord at Dorchester of some design. Perhaps Bournemouth could become the default destination for Heart of Wessex services instead of Weymouth. Weymouth connections would be available from Dorchester South. A problem with expansion in this direction is the single line east of Dorchester.

 

[yorksrob]

It's ~600m across a complex densely developed street pattern. Hackney was entirely on railway land and required no demolition. En route reversals of DMUs at for instance Bradford interchange and Sheffield do not take as long as you claim. Bradford is typically 3m from arrival to departure. Sheffield seems to allow 6m to 8m.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2025 ==


If you could path them you could recreate a Bristol/Bath to Bournemouth service via Yeovil and a direct chord at Dorchester of some design. Perhaps Bournemouth could become the default destination for Heart of Wessex services instead of Weymouth. Weymouth connections would be available from Dorchester South. A problem with expansion in this direction is the single line east of Dorchester.

I think I'd favour perhaps doubling the HoW and having alternate trains to Weymouth and Bournemouth.

Weymouth seems to be a bit of a honeypot destination in itself.

 

[trainmania100]

I don't know why the island line is so short, now or in the past. If I remember, Newport is a very busy interchange for buses, I'd like to see the island line actually serve the island rather than just the short distance it does serve

 

[Mgameing123]

I don't know why the island line is so short, now or in the past. If I remember, Newport is a very busy interchange for buses, I'd like to see the island line actually serve the island rather than just the short distance it does serve

The island line is short because all the other lines on the Island closed.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't know why the island line is so short, now or in the past. If I remember, Newport is a very busy interchange for buses, I'd like to see the island line actually serve the island rather than just the short distance it does serve

The disastrous closure programme that's benighted the nation since the 1960's.

 

[A S Leib]

How would Bournemouth – Dorchester – Yeovil – Exeter compare with bypassing Southampton instead? Bournemouth to Dorchester (0:40), Dorchester to Yeovil (0:35) and Yeovil to Exeter (1:10) gives ~2:25 for the former; 0:30 for Bournemouth to Southampton, 1:00 for Southampton to Westbury and 1:00 for Westbury to Exeter gives more or less the same time. Apart from Exeter to Bournemouth, I'm not sure if Yeovil to Bournemouth or Exeter to (almost) Southampton would be the bigger flow, or which route has the most spare or easily found capacity.

 

[Halifaxlad]

This is an excellent idea as the area available will become East Leeds new town of 10,000 houses to the east of Whinmoor but nobody with clout in West Yorkshire is interested from the County Mayor down. Houses will be built over the original trackbed and not future proofed. Very short-sighted and unforgiveable for future residents.

A line from the former junction at Cross Gates, past Penda's Way and former station as far as the former Scholes station, past Whinmoor continuing to Scarcroft picking up the original Wetherby line at Bardsey (sorry to those with houses built on the station site) avoiding Collingham former station site now with too many houses in the way, tunnel through the ridge with the Wetherby-Harewood road on top, across the golf course on the original alignment and embankment, and into Wetherby station site.

Wetherby is on target to become 15,000 population by 2030 so that gives a population density of 70,000 in 8 miles by 2040. Enough for a railway line to the largest city in West Yorkshire. Then extend 7 miles to Harrogate on the former trackbed through Prospect tunnel and Crimple Junction where it meets the Harrogate-Leeds line via Horsforth.

Without having to say sorry to those living in the houses. Follow the original line to the new ring road then parrallel to the orignal trackbed until York road, then East alongside the A64 before curving round to Toulston before joining the Church Fenton to Wetherby line, a station at Thorpe Arch then a new alignment around Wetherby adjacent to the B1224 with a new station North of Wetherby Racecourse then a new line around Spofforth before rejoinnig the original alignment and connecting to the Harrogate line through Prospect tunnel. That is what I would propose but certainly worth looking at the prospect of acquiring the land through Wetherby via negioation as that could put a new station in the centre of a residential area.

 

[waverley47]

The opportunity has been missed to extend the East Kilbride line further into the town centre. E Mains road is still elevated for the line to extend underneath and the bridge on Main St is still present but the cutting and bridge are buried. This would allow more residents to walk to a railhead further east.

West Mains Road definitely isn't elevated though, and crosses the trackbed about ten meters beyond the buffers, about one meter above track level...

 

[Falcon1200]

The opportunity has been missed to extend the East Kilbride line further into the town centre.

Even better would have been safeguarding the route on towards Blantyre/Hamilton, allowing (eventually) through electric trains beyond East Kilbride to Hamilton, Motherwell and beyond (Falkirk, Stirling?). But that possibility has long gone!

 

[MarkyT]

Even better would have been safeguarding the route on towards Blantyre/Hamilton, allowing (eventually) through electric trains beyond East Kilbride to Hamilton, Motherwell and beyond (Falkirk, Stirling?). But that possibility has long gone!

I have always liked the idea of Motherwell being developed further as a south city long-distance rail hub with comprehensive local transport links, including those from the East Kilbride direction. It might be possible to build new railway, but only with massive expenditure and disruption which is unlikely to be affordable or politically realistic. As it stands today, the direct First 201 bus runs at 12m intervals through the day and it takes around 30 minutes. The bus runs in the evening at 30 minute intervals, although very late it thins out to hourly and journeys turn short at Hamilton so an additional change is required.

 

[Nottingham59]

If this thread allows new stations, I'd build a 500m four-track viaduct from Ardwick Junction to the throat of the HS2 station at Manchester Piccadilly. Two tracks to join the Up Fast and Down Fast to Stockport, and two to connect to the Guide Bridge and Marple line, as shown in red below.



The land needed is already earmarked for use by HS2 Phase 2b (orange areas), and the throat viaduct (dark blue outline) could be built to carry the tracks from the HS2 tunnel if that ever gets built. Estimated cost: £3-400M for the viaduct at current prices; £1-2Bn for the station.

I'd expect platforms H1, H2 to carry 4tph trains, two to London direct (using existing Avanti paths via Stoke) and two to London via Birmingham Curzon St (using existing Cross Country paths as far as Stone). These could all be 400m trains, though 1 or 2tph could stay at 200m to allow them to still call at Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke. I'd keep the Avanti path via Crewe as a Pendolino to P8 and P9 in the main shed.

Platforms H3, H4, H5, H6 would constitute a new suburban station handling stoppers from Glossop, Hadfield, New Mills Central, and any TPE traffic terminating at Piccadilly from the East. A scissors crossover halfway down H4 and H5 would allow more flexibility. If the HS2 tunnel ever gets built, this suburban traffic would revert to the Piccadilly main shed.

 

[deltic08]

Without having to say sorry to those living in the houses. Follow the original line to the new ring road then parrallel to the orignal trackbed until York road, then East alongside the A64 before curving round to Toulston before joining the Church Fenton to Wetherby line, a station at Thorpe Arch then a new alignment around Wetherby adjacent to the B1224 with a new station North of Wetherby Racecourse then a new line around Spofforth before rejoinnig the original alignment and connecting to the Harrogate line through Prospect tunnel. That is what I would propose but certainly worth looking at the prospect of acquiring the land through Wetherby via negioation as that could put a new station in the centre of a residential area.

View attachment 173393

You are missing the point that the more direct route is much shorter in distance and time and passes through a more densely populated area.
If you are going that close to Tadcaster then go closer. The disused trackbed from Tadcaster to Wetherby is mostly extant.

 

[Halifaxlad]

You are missing the point that the more direct route is much shorter in distance and time and passes through a more densely populated area.
If you are going that close to Tadcaster then go closer. The disused trackbed from Tadcaster to Wetherby is mostly extant.

Its not about using whats left of the disused trackbed, what you want is a high speed alignment which is only likely via a new alignment. My suggestion also gives you the option of providing a connection to York.

 

[Bald Rick]

How about a bit of track to allow a connection between the Waterloo & City and the DLR at Bank, allowing it to become part of the DLR network? Or would that just be duplicating some of what the Jubilee line does already?

As quoted in Modern Railways about 35 years ago… The DLR trains are too big for the W&C tunnels, and the W&C trains won’t fit round DLR curves. That’s before you get to the issue of the very different levels between the lines, and what would be a very tight curve, plus various basements / foundations in the way. It would comfortably be the most expensive stretch of new line in the country.

Luton to Hitchin!

Connect to the Midland Main Line south of Luton Airport Parkway (north-facing), join the East Coast Main Line south of Hitchin (again, north-facing). Provide a fast connection Bedford <-> Luton (+ airport) <-> Hitchin <-> Cambridge! There must be a way to thread through avoiding too much destruction, orange line here drawn just to give an idea of how close the two connection points are!

I don’t know how well you know that area, but it is very hilly. You‘d be in tunnel or on viaduct most of the way. And I’m sure the good folk of St Ippolyts would be delighted to see putting a railway through the middle of the village, I suppose youd get a nice close up view of the church consecrated in 1087. You might also get a question or two about building a billion pounds’ worth of railway between Luton and Hitchin that doesnt directly serve the airport…

 

[Dr_Paul]

A very short, perhaps 50 yards, new line to connect the up line at Twickenham with the up bay platform 2, which would thereby become a through platform. This would give Twickenham four through platforms. The bay was originally built as a through platform, although the track was never connected and the potential track-bed was blocked by a platform-level path to the adjacent GPO depot. The recent rebuilding of the station has, rather to my surprise, allowed space for such a line to be constructed with only minor alterations at platform level. Platforms 2 and 3 would be become up; platforms 4 and 5 down. Having four through platforms at Twickenham would be useful, especially if the West London orbital route from Hendon/Cricklewood to Hounslow via Acton Wells comes into being, as some of the services could be extended from Hounslow to Twickenham, which has services to many more destinations.

 

[deltic08]

Its not about using whats left of the disused trackbed, what you want is a high speed alignment which is only likely via a new alignment. My suggestion also gives you the option of providing a connection to York.

I already commissioned a study on possible reopening Cross Gates to Wetherby and Harrogate over 20 years ago with 4 possible routes as part of a new strategic route from West Yorkshire to Teesside,Tyneside and Scotland via Leeds-Wetherby-Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton avoiding the pinch point of York. This route would be 13 miles shorter than via York and connect Ripon and Wetherby to the national rail system and to each other. The chosen route was the shortest one through the most densely populated area with the most stations namely Penda's Way, Scholes, A64 Park & Ride, possibly Whinmoor, Scarcroft, Bardsey and Collingham-cum-Linton. The new build route would be between Scholes and Bardsey. All this was before the proposal to build East Leeds new town and East Leeds Orbital Road (ELOR).
If only to Wetherby, there would be these 6 stations between Cross Gates and Wetherby. There would not be enough distance between stations for high speed. 60mph using diesel trains and some 70 mph sections for electric trains. Due to the topography in this area only 80 mph would be possible in places if it became a through line beyond Wetherby to Harrogate where non stop trains could take advantage of the speeds..
It was turned down as the 2 track Leeds-Cross Gates line was already optimised. "Apply again after the Leeds-Micklefield line is quadrupled and electrified in 2016". (Minister of Transport Justine Greening)

Looking at your proposed route, speeds would be no higher and wouldn't serve as much population.

 

[deltic08]

West Mains Road definitely isn't elevated though, and crosses the trackbed about ten meters beyond the buffers, about one meter above track level...

I was last on EK station in 1986. The ground behind the buffers appeared to be higher than one metre. Did the line continue in a cutting with West Mains Road on an overbridge or was it a level crossing?

 

[zwk500]

I was last on EK station in 1986. The ground behind the buffers appeared to be higher than one metre. Did the line continue in a cutting with West Mains Road on an overbridge or was it a level crossing?

From National Library of Scotland's Maps website, it was an overbridge (as were the 2 other road crossings immediately east).

 

[Grumpy]

I would propose two short lines to bring the Holbeck/Farnley viaduct back into use.

At the western end a line of approx 700 yards reinstating a connection with the current route mainly over the old trackbed. I accept this would need the demolition of a couple of industrial units but much of the route is undeveloped/open storage/parking (which admittedly would need reproviding elsewhere).
At the eastern end there would seem to be some unused land to provide two more tracks of approx 200 yards from the station to near the canal , from which point a viaduct of approx 150 yards, parallel to the existing route would give access to the viaduct.
This would allow Trans Pennine trains using platforms 15-17 to enter/exit from the west without coming into conflict with trains using other routes into Leeds-for example as now happens with trains to/from the Woodlesford line.
This should allow shorter and more reliable journeys.
The viaduct was still in use in the era of HST so I cant see any argument that it couldn't be used by modern trains.
By contrast many millions are being spent on a viaduct at Ravensthorpe to to avoid conflict between TP trains and trains to/from the Thornhill direction. However there are only a handful of trains per day conflicting at Raventhorpe

 

[Nottingham59]

I would propose two short lines to bring the Holbeck/Farnley viaduct back into use.

At the western end a line of approx 700 yards reinstating a connection with the current route mainly over the old trackbed. I accept this would need the demolition of a couple of industrial units but much of the route is undeveloped/open storage/parking (which admittedly would need reproviding elsewhere).
At the eastern end there would seem to be some unused land to provide two more tracks of approx 200 yards from the station to near the canal , from which point a viaduct of approx 150 yards, parallel to the existing route would give access to the viaduct.
This would allow Trans Pennine trains using platforms 15-17 to enter/exit from the west without coming into conflict with trains using other routes into Leeds-for example as now happens with trains to/from the Woodlesford line.
This should allow shorter and more reliable journeys.
The viaduct was still in use in the era of HST so I cant see any argument that it couldn't be used by modern trains.is

Is that the viaduct in Leeds that crosses Gelderd Road, the A643, and Domestic Street?

 

[Topological]

I would propose two short lines to bring the Holbeck/Farnley viaduct back into use.

At the western end a line of approx 700 yards reinstating a connection with the current route mainly over the old trackbed. I accept this would need the demolition of a couple of industrial units but much of the route is undeveloped/open storage/parking (which admittedly would need reproviding elsewhere).
At the eastern end there would seem to be some unused land to provide two more tracks of approx 200 yards from the station to near the canal , from which point a viaduct of approx 150 yards, parallel to the existing route would give access to the viaduct.
This would allow Trans Pennine trains using platforms 15-17 to enter/exit from the west without coming into conflict with trains using other routes into Leeds-for example as now happens with trains to/from the Woodlesford line.
This should allow shorter and more reliable journeys.
The viaduct was still in use in the era of HST so I cant see any argument that it couldn't be used by modern trains.
By contrast many millions are being spent on a viaduct at Ravensthorpe to to avoid conflict between TP trains and trains to/from the Thornhill direction. However there are only a handful of trains per day conflicting at Raventhorpe

There is something nice about the fact the route ends at the western end opposite a firm called "Dragon Bridge Reclamation"

Link: Google maps of location

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I would propose two short lines to bring the Holbeck/Farnley viaduct back into use.

At the western end a line of approx 700 yards reinstating a connection with the current route mainly over the old trackbed. I accept this would need the demolition of a couple of industrial units but much of the route is undeveloped/open storage/parking (which admittedly would need reproviding elsewhere).
At the eastern end there would seem to be some unused land to provide two more tracks of approx 200 yards from the station to near the canal , from which point a viaduct of approx 150 yards, parallel to the existing route would give access to the viaduct.
This would allow Trans Pennine trains using platforms 15-17 to enter/exit from the west without coming into conflict with trains using other routes into Leeds-for example as now happens with trains to/from the Woodlesford line.
This should allow shorter and more reliable journeys.
The viaduct was still in use in the era of HST so I cant see any argument that it couldn't be used by modern trains.

Up until the c.2000 rebuild of Leeds station, the stub of the viaduct line was retained for additional stabling but seldom saw use- and there were a couple of stabling roads beyond the P12 (now P15) track on the footprint of P16 which were more suitable. IIRC it was Mk4 stock that was unsuitable- though this was moot anyway as neither P12 nor the adjacent stabling sidings were wired at the time.
My understanding is that 23m stock could only use the line at walking pace even before it became a siding (Trans-Pennine was entirely Mk1 & Mk2 operated in those days), but as the future plans for Trans-Pennine (as well as much of the present-day stock) will be or is 26m stock, the gauging situation is unlikely to improve. The wiggly section closest to Leeds station would be particularly difficult, you may just about get away with a single track- which obviously wouldn't have the capacity to render the present-day routing redundant.
There's also an OHLE mast pretty much slap bang in the middle of where any track or tracks accessing the viaduct would need to be- which isn't in itself a deal-breaker but does complicate matters somewhat.