Reopenings - the positive narrative the railway industry needs !

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure how much Stillington brings to the table given how congested the ECML is south of Newcastle.

EDITED: I think reopenings in many cases are going to suffer for business cases compared to enhancements on the existing lines and/or greenfield new construction.
Reopenings are expensive and in many cases the alignments are suboptimal.

As an example, extending the Tyne and Wear Metro to Hartlepool or somewhere else in Teeside is probably going to come out better than reopning a new line to connect Tyne and Tees together.
Or on the greenfield side, to be honest the track in Middlesbrough is rather a mess given the Tees is in the way so you end up with a very long and circuitous route to get into the station from the north. Fixing that would probably be highly beneficial if it could be done.

 

[Bald Rick]

Once again, lack of political will. You could have new level crossings, just like you could knock down 1960s post-Beeching estates. Maybe not within the current legal framework, but laws can be changed and adapted. That's not to say it's a good idea, but there is a debate about how much guidance, best practice and quangos should interfere or what their powers should be.

Are you suggestign that the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 be repealed?

 

[MatthewHutton]

Are you suggestign that the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 be repealed?

Does the 1974 health and safety at work act that really prevent new level crossings?

 

[Bald Rick]

Does the 1974 health and safety at work act that really prevent new level crossings?

With modern risk assessment tools, and the whole life costs of alternatives, yes.

 

[HSTEd]

Does the 1974 health and safety at work act that really prevent new level crossings?

To easily pass a So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable (SFAIRP) Assessment, the cost of a bridge solution would have to be ten times the capitalised cost of the injuries, deaths and other impacts of a level crossing or more.

Given the finite cost of a bridge, it will be quite difficult to meet that requirement.

I know I go on about aerial ropeways and cableliners (rope hailed train like the Luton DART), but I think on short links like many proposed a lot of the time they have a lot to recommend them over a heavy rail solution.

An aerial ropeway probably only needs one staff member per stop (and in Switzerland some stations are becoming unstaffed), and a cableliner could do a shuttle with only a single staff member and very high availability. Luton DART is claimed to manage 99.5% availability, so if you pay for a single staff member to be around it will almost always be open.

 

[Bald Rick]

To easily pass a So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable (SFAIRP) Assessment, the cost of a bridge solution would have to be ten times the capitalised cost of the injuries, deaths and other impacts of a level crossing or more.

Given the finite cost of a bridge, it will be quite difficult to meet that requirement.

Not forgetting the whole life cost of constructing a new level crossing, and its ongoing maintenance, operation and renewal.

 

[WAO]

There's something to be said for an overhead railway or EL in US parlance, through built up areas avoiding excessive demolitions and crossings. Land use is much better. A fabricated steel viaduct should be quick to erect and might aid getting tracks through otherwise blocked rights of way.

WAO

 

[The Ham]

There's something to be said for an overhead railway or EL in US parlance, through built up areas avoiding excessive demolitions and crossings. Land use is much better. A fabricated steel viaduct should be quick to erect and might aid getting tracks through otherwise blocked rights of way.

WAO

Depends on the length it's raised for, short distances and the ramps would be a significant percentage of the costs.

It also depends on how high it's lifted circa 3.5m for a pedestrian/cycle underpass and it's not too bad, but circa 6.5m for road bridges and you need (assuming flat ground) 1.3km of approach ramps at 1 in 100 to get it high enough to get over the road.

At 6.5m that's then looking down into 1st floor rooms (as circa 6m can be their ceiling height), that's potentially quite intrusive for nearby properties.

 

[HSTEd]

Depends on the length it's raised for, short distances and the ramps would be a significant percentage of the costs.

It also depends on how high it's lifted circa 3.5m for a pedestrian/cycle underpass and it's not too bad, but circa 6.5m for road bridges and you need (assuming flat ground) 1.3km of approach ramps at 1 in 100 to get it high enough to get over the road.

At 6.5m that's then looking down into 1st floor rooms (as circa 6m can be their ceiling height), that's potentially quite intrusive for nearby properties.

I don't think you'd design a new railway for 1% gradients unless it was really expecting to be used by lots of heavy freight trains. I can't think of many routes for reopening where such gradients would be necessary, and in any case high tractive effort locomotives are probably cheaper than longer ramps. As to overlooking, this can probably be mitigated by making the safety barriers on the evacuation walkway opaque, so you can't really see much near the railway.

 

[Jaydubya]

On the level crossing front some Australian state governments are spending significant sums to remove them. See Victoria’s level crossing removal project that removes 110 level crossings in the Melbourne area as and example.

https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/level-crossing-removal-project

 

[zwk500]

I don't think you'd design a new railway for 1% gradients unless it was really expecting to be used by lots of heavy freight trains. I can't think of many routes for reopening where such gradients would be necessary, and in any case high tractive effort locomotives are probably cheaper than longer ramps. As to overlooking, this can probably be mitigated by making the safety barriers on the evacuation walkway opaque, so you can't really see much near the railway.

Current design standards for the maibline are for a maximum gradient of 1:100, which can be relaxed to 1:80 if the line isn't going to be used by freight.
You can always get a derogation of course.

Worth pointing out that the line between Patchway and Severn tunnel junction has mostly 1:100 ascents and there is still a Severe impact on freight running times.

 

[yorksrob]

EDITED: I think reopenings in many cases are going to suffer for business cases compared to enhancements on the existing lines and/or greenfield new construction.
Reopenings are expensive and in many cases the alignments are suboptimal.

Although on the minus side, enhancements of existing lines tend to be less eyecatching and have less positive impact on passengers than a reopening (they will already have some form of train service) whilst causing more upheaval for passengers during construction.

 

[zwk500]

Although on the minus side, enhancements of existing lines tend to be less eyecatching and have less positive impact on passengers than a reopening (they will already have some form of train service) whilst causing more upheaval for passengers during construction.

Disagree - they might have a slightly lower impact on an individual passenger basis but that is normally far outweighed by positively impacting far more customers than a reopening.

E.g. Cryodon Area Remodelling Scheme vs Lewes-Uckfield Reopening. Fixing Croydon benefits nearly every passenger in Sussex. Reopening Lewes-Uckfield will impact one corridor. The net positive impact of CARS will far outweigh Lewes-Uckfield, even accounting for the significant disruption of the rebuild.

 

[yorksrob]

Disagree - they might have a slightly lower impact on an individual passenger basis but that is normally far outweighed by positively impacting far more customers than a reopening.

E.g. Cryodon Area Remodelling Scheme vs Lewes-Uckfield Reopening. Fixing Croydon benefits nearly every passenger in Sussex. Reopening Lewes-Uckfield will impact one corridor.

Those passengers benefitting from the East Croydon remodelling may see a limited impact in terms of better reliability and a bit more capacity, but will it move the dial for already well connected populations.

I'm not saying that enhancements shouldn't be happening, however they feel more like the sort of thing the railway should be doing routinely anyway.

For a proper success above and beyond, successful reopenings can be trumpeted.

 

[Egg Centric]

To easily pass a So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable (SFAIRP) Assessment, the cost of a bridge solution would have to be ten times the capitalised cost of the injuries, deaths and other impacts of a level crossing or more.

Given the finite cost of a bridge, it will be quite difficult to meet that requirement.

Sorry, what? The law says as long as it's 10% "efficient" it's reasonably practical?

 

[zwk500]

Those passengers benefitting from the East Croydon remodelling may see a limited impact in terms of better reliability and a bit more capacity, but will it move the dial for already well connected populations.

Yes. Look at what Thameslink did for commuting.

I'm not saying that enhancements shouldn't be happening, however they feel more like the sort of thing the railway should be doing routinely anyway.

IMO railways should be closing and opening lines routinely as well, but you only want one-way traffic.

For a proper success above and beyond, successful reopenings can be trumpeted.

This is beyond ideological for you, it's a cult.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes. Look at what Thameslink did for commuting.

IMO railways should be closing and opening lines routinely as well, but you only want one-way traffic.

This is beyond ideological for you, it's a cult.

Strictly speaking Thameslink was a reopening as it opened up new journey opportunities. The Kent Link route modernisation was more akin to an enhancement of existing routes.

I certainly don't agree with railways closing routinely. There may be exceptional circumstances - for example Dover Marine where the Channel Tunnel removed it's purpose, however given that passenger railways serve settlements and settlements don't tend to move much, there's little logic to cutting off populations from the network.

I come from the perspective that the passenger network is too motheaten from the closure programme that went far too far. Opportunities to reverse the damage should be taken.

(If my ideology is a cult, I wonder who'd be the leader. Sir John Betjamin perhaps).

But I'm considering this from the wider good news perspective for the railway.

 

[HSTEd]

Sorry, what? The law says as long as it's 10% "efficient" it's reasonably practical?

There is no hard value, but it must be much greater than one, and 10x is adopted in the nuclear industry (which is my field) for a value that will make the regulator not make too many issues.

Trying to argue that you can tolerate the deaths of members of the public because its a little cheaper than doing something goes down very badly with the regulator! You end up in the "Unsafe at any speed" situation.

 

[Egg Centric]

There is no hard value, but it must be much greater than one, and 10x is adopted in the nuclear industry (which is my field) for a value that will make the regulator not make too many issues.

Trying to argue that you can tolerate the deaths of members of the public because its a little cheaper than doing something goes down very badly with the regulator! You end up in the "Unsafe at any speed" situation.

To my mind that's nuts, what's the point in putting a hard nosed value on human life if we then say "well actually we value them much more than that"? We should increase the value in that case if we really mean it.

Otherwise we're promoting utterly irrational spending. And preventing rational spending eg in the above example where BCR would have been ok had it not been for the crossings.

 

[Bald Rick]

Sorry, what? The law says as long as it's 10% "efficient" it's reasonably practical?

There is no hard value, but it must be much greater than one, and 10x is adopted in the nuclear industry (which is my field) for a value that will make the regulator not make too many issues.

Trying to argue that you can tolerate the deaths of members of the public because its a little cheaper than doing something goes down very badly with the regulator! You end up in the "Unsafe at any speed" situation.

For Level Crossings, the Grossly Disproportionate factor used is typically 2.5x, as set out in guidance from Government and ORR.

This means that ehen comparing options, if the additional whole life costs of a safer option are less than 2.5x the whole life beenfits benefits (including safety risk improvement) of that option then it should be pursued.

For new lines, the initial cost of a bridge is higher than a level crossing (but not by much in some cases), but the ongoing costs of a bridge are much lower. And of course the safety risk is much better. Hence it would be near impossible to find a case where building a new level crossing on a new line is a better result.

People can argue all they like, but I’ve being doing assessments like this on and off for 20 years and have never found an example where a new level crossing passes the assessment. Aand that’s good, because the assessment proves society is better off without it.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I'm not sure what the previous 6 pages of comments suggest but the railway could do a lot of good if there was more on local much smaller improvements rather than things like HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail.

There are plenty of ways that accessibility and customer facilities could be improved too.

 

[SynthD]

I'm not saying that enhancements shouldn't be happening, however they feel more like the sort of thing the railway should be doing routinely anyway.

For a proper success above and beyond, successful reopenings can be trumpeted.

Strictly speaking Thameslink was a reopening as it opened up new journey opportunities.

What work did Thameslink 2000 involve that was not routine? It only relaid track, rebuilt stations that already existed, opened a new but very short tunnel (Canal, north of St Pancras). Yet it was rightly trumpeted and is now relied on by such a huge number of people, approaching the population Devon and Cornwall. Positive narratives are counted in the people impacted, not in the projects.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yet it was rightly trumpeted and is now relied on by such a huge number of people, approaching the population Devon and Cornwall.

Rather more than the population of Devon + Cornwall use Thameslink every week

 

[Jaydubya]

It’s a reopened heritage line but a few level crossings are being reinstated on the Rother Valley Railway between Robertsbridge and Bodiam including over the A21. Limited rail movements at less busy times.

 

[Zomboid]

It’s a reopened heritage line but a few level crossings are being reinstated on the Rother Valley Railway between Robertsbridge and Bodiam including over the A21. Limited rail movements at less busy times.

And that was pretty hard fought, I believe.

A handful of movements on certain days of the year is a very different proposition to a regular all day every day service.

 

[AndrewE]

What work did Thameslink 2000 involve that was not routine? It only relaid track, rebuilt stations that already existed, opened a new but very short tunnel (Canal, north of St Pancras). Yet it was rightly trumpeted and is now relied on by such a huge number of people, approaching the population Devon and Cornwall. Positive narratives are counted in the people impacted, not in the projects.

Rather more than the population of Devon + Cornwall use Thameslink every week

which I don't doubt is true, but it just shows how overcrowded London and the SE was and still is. It has no bearing at all on the need or otherwise for public transport investments elsewhere in the country.
If you keep stripping employment out of the provinces this will be one of the consequences.

(Royal Liverpool Insurance - as was - moved to London and renamed itself "LV" to avoid embarrassment and is now being sold to Aviva.) I'm not surprised that London is choking on its prosperity. How this squares with London having some of the most deprived areas of the country is politics, and not for this forum!

 

[Egg Centric]

For Level Crossings, the Grossly Disproportionate factor used is typically 2.5x, as set out in guidance from Government and ORR.

This means that ehen comparing options, if the additional whole life costs of a safer option are less than 2.5x the whole life beenfits benefits (including safety risk improvement) of that option then it should be pursued.

For new lines, the initial cost of a bridge is higher than a level crossing (but not by much in some cases), but the ongoing costs of a bridge are much lower. And of course the safety risk is much better. Hence it would be near impossible to find a case where building a new level crossing on a new line is a better result.

People can argue all they like, but I’ve being doing assessments like this on and off for 20 years and have never found an example where a new level crossing passes the assessment. Aand that’s good, because the assessment proves society is better off without it.

I have no view on whether there "ought" to be bridges V level crossings, I just find this extra multiplicative factor preposterous, it double counts safety versus everything else. There should probably be *some* multiplier there as a kind of uncertainty/anti-systemic-error thing but since this should average out over time imo should be more like 1.3 (other made up numbers are available). I assume that safety estimates fed in tend to be pretty conservative as well so any bias should be the other way, but am willing to be corrected on that.

 

[NCT]

Or possibly the calculation under-estimates the benefit to local communities.

Multiple informed posters have debunked the myth of systematic underestimations.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have no view on whether there "ought" to be bridges V level crossings, I just find this extra multiplicative factor preposterous, it double counts safety versus everything else. There should probably be *some* multiplier there as a kind of uncertainty/anti-systemic-error thing but since this should average out over time imo should be more like 1.3 (other made up numbers are available). I assume that safety estimates fed in tend to be pretty conservative as well so any bias should be the other way, but am willing to be corrected on that.

It comes from the phrase ‘grossly disproportionate’ and laid out in the law. In simple terms, the cost of makimg something safer (if that is possible) needs to be ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the safety benefit gained.

Naturally different people have different opinions, however the guidance has been built on decades of experience with the inout of some very, very intelligent safety professionals. I trust them.

 

[Egg Centric]

It comes from the phrase ‘grossly disproportionate’ and laid out in the law. In simple terms, the cost of makimg something safer (if that is possible) needs to be ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the safety benefit gained.

Naturally different people have different opinions, however the guidance has been built on decades of experience with the inout of some very, very intelligent safety professionals. I trust them.

It's the law I'm objecting to - it's irrational. The safety professionals can only work within said irrational framework. You set a very talented person on a task with extremely clear yet irrational goals you will get it executed incredibly well within those terms but the result is still silly.

If we want to value human lives as more than they are at the moment then the rational thing to do is increase the accounting value of them. Which is an entirely different thing to applying a multiplier on the (sub)project cost.

In no way am I questioning the judgement of the guys and gals actually doing these calculations.