New lines on new alighnments- fairly short

[The Pelican]

It’s often said on this forum that proposals sticking to the present rail network stick too closely to places where a Victorian line was closed and removed. Two good examples of new lines on new alignments, not mostly underground, are the Manchester Airport branch and the Stansted Airport branch- both feature a triangular junction into a series of airport platforms, and both have taken on impressive roles as regional railway hubs, with trains from Stansted to Norwich and Birmingham, and from Manchester to Glasgow and Liverpool. Barking Riverside is also a stretch of new line on a new alignment. Avoiding lines which would end up being mega projects, like HS2 or Crossrail 2, where would be a good place to build a new section of surface line?

 

[SynthD]

Airports are major journey destinations, and Barking Riverside is a new town. The new towns not in the thread named "Sites for Labour's New Towns that already have rail connections" should be in need of some short connection. Marlcombe, Exeter in combination with the airport looks to be the one closest to justifying a new alignment. It's a little over 2mi from the line east of Pinhoe to the Hill Barton Business Park.

Tempsford will be big enough to need some considerable urban transport, but I doubt that'll be rail. The Milton Keynes expansion to the north east is in the same boat.

 

[Magdalia]

Two good examples of new lines on new alignments, not mostly underground, are the Manchester Airport branch and the Stansted Airport branch

Other recent examples of new alignments in this part of the world are the Canal Tunnel that links Thameslink to the GN, Hitchin flyover, Werrington diveunder and the Bacon Factory curve at Ipswich.

But do you mean only new lines that reach places not previously served by rail?

Tempsford will be big enough to need some considerable urban transport, but I doubt that'll be rail.

Tempsford will be rail, it will have a station served by both the East Coast Main Line and East West Rail. The latter will also serve Cambourne.

Is Bedford-Cambridge too long to be "fairly short"?

 

[The Pelican]

Other recent examples of new alignments in this part of the world are the Canal Tunnel that links Thameslink to the GN, Hitchin flyover, Werrington diveunder and the Bacon Factory curve at Ipswich.

But do you mean only new lines that reach places not previously served by rail?


Tempsford will be rail, it will have a station served by both the East Coast Main Line and East West Rail. The latter will also serve Cambourne.

Is Bedford-Cambridge too long to be "fairly short"?

Yes, I meant to exclude chords and tunnels, as well as new stations on existing lines, and mainly include new stations on new lines. I agree Bedford-Cambridge is the most impressive example currently in development, and provides an interesting contrast to to western end of EWR, which has reused the old alignment.

 

[SynthD]

Tempsford will be rail, it will have a station served by both the East Coast Main Line and East West Rail. The latter will also serve Cambourne.

I meant for travel to that hub station. Milton Keynes has Wolverton, and Tempsford may have its own secondary, suburb station in a few decades.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Airports are major journey destinations...

Always thought it a tad surprising that the oft-proposed rail line to Glasgow Airport has never got built. One wonders if it ever will?

 

[Zomboid]

The (probably pie in the sky) proposal to return a train service to Witney is based around using a new alignment rather than the original Fairford branch route. The impossibility of using the old one is probably a factor, but even so it's the right approach to propose a 21st century route to solve a 21st century problem.

 

[zwk500]

Glynde to Uckfield via Ringmer. Might use the last mile or so of the old alignment at Uckfield but otherwise it'd be an almost completely new alignment.

Also a new curve bypassing Hertford completely to allow freight from Tilbury/London Gateway to run via the Lea Valley and onto the ECML instead of needing to use the North London Line through Canonbury.

 

[bananas]

Western rail approach to Heathrow, and Heathrow southern railway? Plenty of the new alignment for either of these would be in a tunnel, but not all, I think?

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Dawlish Avoiding Line - ah my coat.

 

[The Pelican]

I think it's interesting to compare pros and cons of a new line vs a victorian alignment:

New Line pros:
1. Can be built to fit modern development patters exactly- i.e. can bypass intermediate villages which may have grown since Victorian times. Also, compared to victorian times, easier to put up with poorly sited stations nowadays with people being willing to drive to stations.
2. Often built to standards which ensure fast running, limited long term maitenence requirements

Old Alignment pros:
1. A reasonably well-defined plan from the outset- nobody needs to worry about having their house demolished, as they might with a new line.
2. Probably slightly more precents for the surface revival of existing railways than for the construction of wholly new lines on the surface- many of these were in Scotland (Borders, Airdrie-Bathgate etc.).

I basically find it an interesting question why slightly more old lines get revived than new local lines built, despite the various advantages on each side.

 

[MarkyT]

Old Alignment pros:
1. A reasonably well-defined plan from the outset- nobody needs to worry about having their house demolished, as they might with a new line.

Unless their house is actually built on the old alignment, and a lot of nice executive housing was built on old station sites in small towns and villages, often blocking key parts of old routes that are difficult to bypass without avoiding the town entirely. In narrow valleys, particularly, it may not be possible to bypass at all within reasonable cost limits. Buying out properties can be done, but it will be expensive and could raise significant opposition and create political difficulties.

2. Probably slightly more precents for the surface revival of existing railways than for the construction of wholly new lines on the surface- many of these were in Scotland (Borders, Airdrie-Bathgate etc.).
I basically find it an interesting question why slightly more old lines get revived than new local lines built, despite the various advantages on each side.

There's little saving over a new route in construction costs when reinstating an old alignment if it's been unmaintained for over half a century, but if clear of obstructions through a built-up area it can be a good way to get into centres of population. In the countryside between settlements, old lines are usually clear of major development, and are sometimes adapted to farm tracks or other access roads with small agricultural or light industrial buildings on them.

 

[Bald Rick]

Old Alignment pros:
1. A reasonably well-defined plan from the outset- nobody needs to worry about having their house demolished, as they might with a new line.

There’s often lots of property acquisitions required for new lines an old alignments.

 

[fishwomp]

There’s often lots of property acquisitions required for new lines an old alignments.

.. and plenty - including the line to Witney (at Eynsham) that are now a road.

 

[eldomtom2]

There’s often lots of property acquisitions required for new lines an old alignments.

Though I imagine probably on the whole less than for new alignments. Of course it will depend a lot on what's happened to the alignment since closure.

 

[Pigeon]

New Line pros:
1. Can be built to fit modern development patters exactly- i.e. can bypass intermediate villages which may have grown since Victorian times.

...can avoid bypassing intermediate villages, in order to serve them, when the Victorians would have contented themselves with plonking down a platform at a bridge a couple of miles away, on the grounds that's good enough when people have no other choice?

Also, compared to victorian times, easier to put up with poorly sited stations nowadays with people being willing to drive to stations.

Absolutely not. These days people do have a choice so there is much more of a need for stations to be in convenient places. Building stations in rubbish places because it's easier is simply repeating the mistakes of the Victorians in a less appropriate setting and with less excuse.

I basically find it an interesting question why slightly more old lines get revived than new local lines built, despite the various advantages on each side.

Easier to see that it's possible when there are still traces of an old line there, while a completely new route does not thus advertise itself?

 

[quantinghome]

ECML - Morpeth bypass

Also ECML - Newark bypass from North to West, allowing Nottingham XC (and possibly MML) services to continue north, plugging a significant gap in the national network. This would avoid the Newark flat crossing, so would not be adding traffic to a bottleneck. All XC services through Sheffield can then be sent to Leeds.

 

[Bald Rick]

This would avoid the Newark flat crossing, so would not be adding traffic to a bottleneck.

It would, just not at Newark Crossing!

 

[Zomboid]

If anyone is building a mile or so of new track in the Newark area it should be a bridge to eliminate the flat crossing.

I imagine ECML paths are not exactly plentiful through there, but the concept of a Nottingham to Doncaster link in the area might have some merit in addition to that.

 

[The Pelican]

...can avoid bypassing intermediate villages, in order to serve them, when the Victorians would have contented themselves with plonking down a platform at a bridge a couple of miles away, on the grounds that's good enough when people have no other choice?



Absolutely not. These days people do have a choice so there is much more of a need for stations to be in convenient places. Building stations in rubbish places because it's easier is simply repeating the mistakes of the Victorians in a less appropriate setting and with less excuse.



Easier to see that it's possible when there are still traces of an old line there, while a completely new route does not thus advertise itself?

I agree it's worth serving as many intermediate villages as possible, with stations which are as well located as possible. But Victorian railway builders had the two advantages of easier compulsary purchase, and villages which hadn't grown as large. So wholly new routes to serve towns and villages will need to justify the amount of demolition they involve.

It probably explains why so much of the country's post privatisation railway expansion has been tram based- light rail is useful for allowing well located stations in towns at a reasonable price. But no-one has built a modern rural tramway, with a Class 398 every half hour on a route from a town to a mainline junction station, in the UK.

Without access to trams, and with limited funds for compolsury purchase, a new line would have to thread itself around the edge of towns. There is a good example of that in South West London- the Wimbledon to Sutton line came later than most of the development in it's area, and so threads it's way around the houses which already existed when it was built.

Anyway, it's interesting to think about new alighments vs reopened ones.