Reopenings - the positive narrative the railway industry needs !

[The exile]

The lack of ambition and insight in this thread is the whole point.

It takes zero intellectual effort, zero vision, zero, to build a railway station in a town centre with a car park attached, with all other possible means of getting there, given less priority. It's how it's been done for 60 years. And we know the costs. Environmental, societal, economic.

How does that fit with the various initiatives by government to literally transform how we live, work and travel? It doesn't. It literally ignores them.

By the time you have gotten on a bus anywhere on the outskirts of Ashington or a nearby village, got off at the bus station, walked all the way to the station, the last leg right around a building site (which maybe in god knows how many years time will be a nice pedestrianied thoroughfare linking the town centre proper to their new station), even if you have timed it perfectly and the train is on time, you have lost all possible journey time advantaged over just getting a bus. Waiting a further 30 minutes should car drivers have held up your bus journey, is the extra kick in the teeth.

People must be fuming, having to go through all that, while cars and taxis just pull up right at the platform, or park a few yards away, in the adjacent sea of ugly tarmac, that could have been literally anything nicer.

You are quite correct that it is less than ideal to build a new station and not have the local buses serve it. However, whoever it is one can blame for that not happening. It is not the railway.

 

[Magrar]

You are quite correct that it is less than ideal to build a new station and not have the local buses serve it. However, whoever it is one can blame for that not happening. It is not the railway.

Only if you are referring to privatisation.

But that's being undone, and was on the cards as this line was in its earliest stages of construction.

The railway has made absolutely sure with their design, it would be require more expense and disruption, even for a simple thing like making sure bus passengers (after disabled passengers) are given the highest priority in terms of being able to access the station. Not car drivers or taxis (if conveying perfectly able bodied rich people heading to Newcastle for a night out).

One of the stations I used, presumably out of extreme safety fetishism, were forcing pedestrians to walk the long way around the car park, a sea of tarmac that was really quite empty in the middle of this nice summer's weekend day. That's how obvious it is from this design, who matters and who does not.

 

[The exile]

Only if you are referring to privatisation.

But that's being undone, and was on the cards as this line was in its earliest stages of construction.

The railway has made absolutely sure with their design, it would be require more expense and disruption, even for a simple thing like making sure bus passengers (after disabled passengers) are given the highest priority in terms of being able to access the station. Not car drivers or taxis (if conveying perfectly able bodied rich people heading to Newcastle for a night out).

One of the stations I used, presumably out of extreme safety fetishism, were forcing pedestrians to walk the long way around the car park, a sea of tarmac that was really quite empty in the middle of this nice summer's weekend day. That's how obvious it is from this design, who matters and who does not.

Whether nationalised or privatised, Network Rail does not determine where buses stop.

 

[Zomboid]

It'd be nice if we had an integrated public transport system across modes. But in most places we don't, and even if we did then a lot of people would still choose to drive to the station. Reopening this or that line can't change that other than meaning that a lot of people will hopefully drive to the station rather than to their destination, and local buses in the area may choose to serve the new station.

 

[Killingworth]

For generations SE Northumberland has been very well served by buses. In my youth most of the Ashington line territory was covered by United. I suspect the speed and reliability of those services today has been impacted by traffic congestion. As an example, there's now a Metro station at Ilford Road. 60 years ago several United double deck services ran along there from the Newcastle Haymarket bus station towards places now served by the Ashington line. Parked cars for the Metro now effectively reduce Ilford Road to single file traffic. Metro bus replacements originally used to go that way but along with United had to give up many years ago.

A comprehensive network of bus routes still exits. Congested minor roads mean they have to stick to main roads so don't get as close to so many dwellings, but they benefit from new roads so overall journey times may not be so different. It's quite correct that interchanging between buses and trains isn't ideal! The approach to Ashington station is somewhat hidden away even by car.

I've said previously that calling this a reopening is a misdescription. This is a new and fairly frequent service making use of predominantly mineral lines that carried a very limited passenger service to Manors 60 years ago. Those original Blyth & Tyne lines and settlements grew with the collieries that demanded their construction.

Anyone who finds Class 158 and 156s dirty hasn't seen how it was within living memory!! The pit heaps and colliery infrastructure have gone, and many of the houses. Today there are masses of private 'executive' houses lining the route. It's a totally different market which is why it's doing so well.

The very existence of the new service is improving the area. Having visited the Borders line it's clear that the two locations are very different. All cases need careful consideration of local factors.

.

 

[eldomtom2]

Whether nationalised or privatised, Network Rail does not determine where buses stop.

It'd be nice if we had an integrated public transport system across modes. But in most places we don't, and even if we did then a lot of people would still choose to drive to the station. Reopening this or that line can't change that other than meaning that a lot of people will hopefully drive to the station rather than to their destination, and local buses in the area may choose to serve the new station.

I took @Magrar's complaints as referring to the physical design of the station rather than current levels of rail/bus integration - i.e. they are complaining that the stations are designed, in their view, as park-and-rides first and foremost.

 

[The exile]

It’s a recognition of reality in all but the most densely built urban areas. If you don’t provide parking the local residents will soon be up in arms about people taking “their” parking spaces. In an area where there has been no rail service, most people will have learnt to be reliant on a car. Providing adequate parking at least stands a chance of getting them out of the car for the congested bit of the journey. The rest might eventually follow.
Equally worthy of “plugging” are frequency improvements which change the train from being an emergency fall-back to a viable first choice. Thinking of things like the doubling of the service on the Westbury - Gloucester corridor.

 

[WAO]

Luxury high class experiences whether by road or rail are only for the premium few, not the third class commuter. Even the toffs have to put up with pot holes, congestion and lorry fumes and Pullmans experience failures and signal checks.

I agree stations should have (modern) canopies not bus shelters, even loos and buffets where busy. Keep aspiring!

WAO

 

[Magrar]

I just read a piece which suggested the productivity gap between the south east and the rest of England, of which the North East is the most deprived, is worse than East-West Germany at unification.

It is in that context where I think you should be very wary of shouting about the reopenong of a line which most definitely feels more like merely offering already rich people (i.e. rich enough to own cars in the former mining areas of south east Northumberland) an alternative means of travel, maybe cheaper or faster, then anything truly transformative in how people, especially those who cannot afford a car/taxi or otherwise cannot operate a car, can move around their region.

 

[yorksrob]

I just read a piece which suggested the productivity gap between the south east and the rest of England, of which the North East is the most deprived, is worse than East-West Germany at unification.

It is in that context where I think you should be very wary of shouting about the reopenong of a line which most definitely feels more like merely offering already rich people (i.e. rich enough to own cars in the former mining areas of south east Northumberland) an alternative means of travel, maybe cheaper or faster, then anything truly transformative in how people, especially those who cannot afford a car/taxi or otherwise cannot operate a car, can move around their region.

This argument seems bizarre to me.

The lack of decent public transport in areas like Northumberland is surely one of the contributing factors to the divide between the South East and the rest of England. Being "rich enough to own cars" is hardly an indicator of above average wealth and arguably hasn't been so since the 1950's.

 

[Magrar]

This argument seems bizarre to me.

The lack of decent public transport in areas like Northumberland is surely one of the contributing factors to the divide between the South East and the rest of England. Being "rich enough to own cars" is hardly an indicator of above average wealth and arguably hasn't been so since the 1950's.

As has been pointed out many times, this area was already well served, relatively speaking, by buses. With car congestion being a major factor in reducing their usefulness.

All I can say is why don't you have a walk around Ashington one time, let alone the outlying villages, and really look. There are lots of available parking spaces in the more deprived areas.

The richer estates are all packed with two or three expensive cars, increasingly hybrids or all electrics. The reason being pretty obvious. You do need a certain level of wealth, economic security, to own and operate a car. This is why many motor vehicles in the poorer areas are dual purpose, for both personal and economic use.

Some of the richer estates now even have the luxury of getting rid of one car, to reap the even greater economic benefits of flexible working. As long as you have access to a lift or a taxi, you're good, if your nearest station lets you get right to the platform, by design.

Even in places like Ashington, there is a clear divide between those who can afford to entertain their kids for fhe six weeks summer holiday, and those who keep them at home, sometimes alone. A good way to tell the difference, is whether they own a car, let alone more than one.

The issue is not weatlh per se, it is the gap between rich and poor, both within and across regions. The ever widening gap. There being a pretty big correlation between bow rich the south east is, and the share of the national rail network they have access to. Typically as car-rail commuters.

It is only their success that means some need to resort to more space/time efficient modes, in some cases. Or being comfortably off enough to have other ethical concerns about private vehicles, such as climate or public health. Such things are not available to many in Ashington, the poorest, specifically those who could and probably should be reaping the economic benefits of a reopened rail line, rather than essentially being economically inactive (or worse).

 

[yorksrob]

As has been pointed out many times, this area was already well served, relatively speaking, by buses. With car congestion being a major factor in reducing their usefulness.

All I can say is why don't you have a walk around Ashington one time, let alone the outlying villages, and really look. There are lots of available parking spaces in the more deprived areas.

The richer estates are all packed with two or three expensive cars, increasingly hybrids or all electrics. The reason being pretty obvious. You do need a certain level of wealth, economic security, to own and operate a car. This is why many motor vehicles in the poorer areas are dual purpose, for both personal and economic use.

Some of the richer estates now even have the luxury of getting rid of one car, to reap the even greater economic benefits of flexible working. As long as you have access to a lift or a taxi, you're good, if your nearest station lets you get right to the platform, by design.

Even in places like Ashington, there is a clear divide between those who can afford to entertain their kids for fhe six weeks summer holiday, and those who keep them at home, sometimes alone. A good way to tell the difference, is whether they own a car, let alone more than one.

The issue is not weatlh per se, it is the gap between rich and poor, both within and across regions. The ever widening gap. There being a pretty big correlation between bow rich the south east is, and the share of the national rail network they have access to. Typically as car-rail commuters.

It is only their success that means some need to resort to more space/time efficient modes, in some cases. Or being comfortably off enough to have other ethical concerns about private vehicles, such as climate or public health. Such things are not available to many in Ashington, the poorest, specifically those who could and probably should be reaping the economic benefits of a reopened rail line, rather than essentially being economically inactive (or worse).

You've argued the case for the Ashington line twice over:

- Car congestion in the area makes bus transport inherently unreliable, hence the need for a train service.

- The income disparity between the South East and the rest of the country is in part driven by it having a much better railway network - hence the need for developing a better railway network outside of the South East.

The national income disparity will not be alleviated by keeping the rest of the country down with poor rail links.

 

[Zomboid]

Ashington is a deprived area. Giving it better, faster access to the local economic center should contribute to alleviating that. Sure, the stations have car parks, so people who are fortunate enough to have access to a car can drive to the station, but nothing about that is to the detriment of those who don't have the use of a car.

 

[DH1Commuter]

Absolutely this - Ashington and Blyth have needed this for a very long time, and giving people there affordable, rapid transport to the largest employment centre in the region, the Metro, and the location of multiple education facilities, is likely to be a net benefit to poorer people as well as the 2-car middle classes. As someone who uses Central station daily, those getting on and off the Ashington trains don’t look like those getting off at Waterloo in the early morning.

We will have to wait a little longer I suspect for evidence of overall economic benefit, but I would be surprised if it were not positive.

 

[WAO]

- The income disparity between the South East and the rest of the country is in part driven by it having a much better railway network

The best comment I've read for a long time! In Neon lights please!
WAO

 

[stuu]

The income disparity between the South East and the rest of the country is in part driven by it having a much better railway network - hence the need for developing a better railway network outside of the South East

If transport is a major driver of development, why is Newcastle, with it's metro network, not outperforming Bristol, with it's pitiful transport infrastructure? I would suggest the North-East's peripheral location is a much bigger factor than the quality or otherwise of it's transport network

 

[yorksrob]

If transport is a major driver of development, why is Newcastle, with it's metro network, not outperforming Bristol, with it's pitiful transport infrastructure? I would suggest the North-East's peripheral location is a much bigger factor than the quality or otherwise of it's transport network

I said "in part". In truth there are many factors affecting city economies - Newcastle was likely more dependant on heavy industry which has declined, than Bristol.

That aside, Newcastle is likely still much better off with its transport network than without.

 

[Killingworth]

I said "in part". In truth there are many factors affecting city economies - Newcastle was likely more dependant on heavy industry which has declined, than Bristol.

That aside, Newcastle is likely still much better off with its transport network than without.

Newcastle and South East Northumberland has seen the total loss of coal mining and ship building, steel at Consett and heavy engineering with firms like Parsons and Armstrongs old factory that built ships and latterly tanks and Wills tobacco factory gone.

All these were active in my youth but not any more. Yes, there are new developments but with hindsight the downturn began a long time ago, probably soon after WW1. I recall Lord Hailsham ringing a handbell at the 1958 Tory Conference and in the North East as a sign of his intention to rejuvenate the area and create jobs. It didn't stop bright young people moving south to further their careers.

The Metro and now the Ashington line combine with the ECML and Newcastle Airport to provide much improved transport links. I sense much greater optimism today, but there's a long way to go to recover the prosperity my grandparents were used to before WW1.

Can't speak for Bristol.

 

[yorksrob]

Newcastle and South East Northumberland has seen the total loss of coal mining and ship building, steel at Consett and heavy engineering with firms like Parsons and Armstrongs old factory that built ships and latterly tanks and Wills tobacco factory gone.

All these were active in my youth but not any more. Yes, there are new developments but with hindsight the downturn began a long time ago, probably soon after WW1. I recall Lord Hailsham ringing a handbell at the 1958 Tory Conference and in the North East as a sign of his intention to rejuvenate the area and create jobs. It didn't stop bright young people moving south to further their careers.

The Metro and now the Ashington line combine with the ECML and Newcastle Airport to provide much improved transport links. I sense much greater optimism today, but there's a long way to go to recover the prosperity my grandparents were used to before WW1.

Can't speak for Bristol.

Thanks for the context. As someone without family connections in the area, I find it very interesting.

 

[Magrar]

And of course many of the new estates with their multiple car owning families, were built on those former mass employment local sites. Or just added onto the rural edges, as if cars and car depency was not an issue at all. We now know better. But the new train line is a throwback to that era of development, clearly.

Giving those people a train option will do nothing for traffic congestion or economic growth, not when their jobs already existed and they will be a mere fraction of the total number of cars (and vans and trucks) using the primary interurban routes that also have to be traversed by buses. It only adds to the congestion in the centres (as does more frequent operation of level crossings).

This is not rocket science.

Unsurprisingly, this thread keeps returning to the question of whether the downtrodden people of Ashington should simply be grateful for a train line of any sort, which they would be, when the question actually posed was, is there something here worth shouting about?

There's lots of electric scooters in these areas, reflecting the stark choices faced those without cars or money, seeking to find work. They can't use this line, or any line. But apparently you can safely park a whole bunch of cars next to these stations, in urban areas, and there's no issue, even once they all have batteries.

The rich electric car owners in this area are of course the ones noisily objecting to the building of electric stroage capacity anywhere near a residenttial area, despite that being critical for a carbon neutral energy grid and wider economy in the region.

The noisy filthy crap boxes used on this service seemingly aren't even all that accessible to the other common form of personal mobiliity in these types of areas, the thing literally called a "mobility scooter", which compares poorly to the buses and Metro.

I doubt for example, there will ever be anything as transformative as a truly reliable and afforadable rail+bus option up there, to join up isolated villages to their nearest Northumberland Line station for commuting purposes, despite that having been a feature of south eastern rail travel for decades. The stations just aren't designed for it. No thought was even given to it.

 

[spyinthesky]

It'd be nice if we had an integrated public transport system across modes. But in most places we don't, and even if we did then a lot of people would still choose to drive to the station. Reopening this or that line can't change that other than meaning that a lot of people will hopefully drive to the station rather than to their destination, and local buses in the area may choose to serve the new station.

Whilst my rural public transport has improved dramatically over recent years, to get to my nearest station takes 1h 12 mins which includes a 20 minute walk(longer if I would catch another bus) and then a 1 stop train journey to reach my local station.
It would be quite obvious why I wouldn’t undertake that journey, it does sound ridiculous.

 

[Farigiraf]

If transport is a major driver of development, why is Newcastle, with it's metro network, not outperforming Bristol, with it's pitiful transport infrastructure?

In addition to historical context, it's worth adding that the Metro only covers Tyneside, and even then only some of it. It's an urban transport system, more like the Elizabeth line, Overground or Tube.

A lot of places within an hour's drive of central Newcastle have either poor or nonexistent rail services into Newcastle - Spennymoor, Consett, Washington, Houghton-le-Spring as well as Blyth until very recently. These places would be prime commuterland but currently only have a decently frequent bus route. In comparison, the 'London effect' of decent rail provision stretches a lot further out than the outer suburbs of Greater London - Brighton, Reading, Cambridge etc all have frequent, modern and high capacity train services into the city.

Bristol's not that much better to be fair, but then that's where other factors do come into play. A tech company is more likely to pick the city that's 1h 30 away from the city where everything happens, over one that's 3h away. Manchester becoming more of a world city is certainly making the North West more attractive, and HS2 will have a similar effect on the West Midlands.

 

[sh24]

I just read a piece which suggested the productivity gap between the south east and the rest of England, of which the North East is the most deprived, is worse than East-West Germany at unification.

I'd be interested in the piece. It certainly chimes with my experiences travelling around the UK (sadly) and seems worse than any time I can recall from the late 80s' (very sadly).

 

[Magrar]

I'd be interested in the piece. It certainly chimes with my experiences travelling around the UK (sadly) and seems worse than any time I can recall from the late 80s' (very sadly).

It appears "at unifification" was my own addition, but the gist is the same....

Scoff at cheaper bus fares and No 10 North if you like, but Andy Burnham knows what he’s doing | Jonathan Freedland

Retail politics while taking power out of London: if this works, Burnham’s premiership could be seriously transformational, says Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland

www.theguardian.com

A new paper from the Harvard Kennedy School and King’s College London, authored by Ed Balls and others, argues that Britain’s national productivity problem is a function of its “persistent regional productivity problem”, with the divide between the south-east and the rest leading to “productivity gaps wider than between east and west Germany”.

 

[Severnia333]

I said "in part". In truth there are many factors affecting city economies - Newcastle was likely more dependant on heavy industry which has declined, than Bristol.

That aside, Newcastle is likely still much better off with its transport network than without.

Bristol has also retained much more of it's heavy industry (primarily aerospace, which didn't emerge until the 1920a) vs Newcastle.

 

[The exile]

It appears "at unifification" was my own addition, but the gist is the same....

Scoff at cheaper bus fares and No 10 North if you like, but Andy Burnham knows what he’s doing | Jonathan Freedland

Retail politics while taking power out of London: if this works, Burnham’s premiership could be seriously transformational, says Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland

www.theguardian.com

Given the fact that much of German domestic economic policy for the last 35 years has been centred around “levelling up”, it’s hardly surprising.

 

[yorksrob]

Bristol has also retained much more of it's heavy industry (primarily aerospace, which didn't emerge until the 1920a) vs Newcastle.

Indeed. Aerospace will only become more important, given the geopolitical situation.

 

[The exile]

Bristol has also retained much more of it's heavy industry (primarily aerospace, which didn't emerge until the 1920a) vs Newcastle.

It lost tobacco, of course.

 

[yorksrob]

It lost tobacco, of course.

I miss being able to smoke a cigar in the pub

 

[6Gman]

The thought that those disgusting noisy units will be used for another ffiteen years, is horrific. Not so much a shout, but a scream.

What do you want then if 158s are "disgusting"?