What does the term "no brainer" mean in the context of ideas for reopenings etc?

[William3000]

Moderator note - split from:

Ivanhoe line (via Coalville) - potential reopening?

The Campaign for the Reopening of the Ivanhoe Line have posted a lengthy and interesting update on their Facebook page. (As it's billed as a "public update" I think it's fair to reproduce here.) I've bolded some of the key points. We have been given clearance to give a public update on the...

www.railforums.co.uk

but the proposal doesnt see the line go to the existing Leicester station. And the last proposal put forward didn’t go to Burton either.

If it did of course. These kind of lines are absolute no brainers for reopening.

 

[Bald Rick]

If it did of course. These kind of lines are absolute no brainers for reopening.

usual comment for use of “no brainers” applies

 

[The Planner]

Something that is relatively straightforward. In the case of the Leicester Burton line, the subsidence does it no favours.

 

[yorksrob]

Okehampton and Ashington are the poster boys. Willing passenger markets and track in situ (even if some needed to be replaced).

Bicester town - Bletchley is the same, even though it hasn't opened !

Portishead and Wisbech for similar reasons.

(And a personal one, Lydd Town perhaps !).

 

[styles]

I would say where there's objective evidence, or obvious captive market, for a station being reopened. If you have a town a few miles out of a city centre and the old station is surrounded by residential property, and the space is there for a couple of platforms without much difficulty, it is a 'no brainer'.

 

[NXEA!]

I’d go for Wymondham-Dereham if a deal could be done with the MNR, and Fowey - that’d be analogous to the Looe branch, which does well during the summer. I’d also second Wisbech, surprised that hasn’t gathered momentum.

 

[William3000]

My definition of a no brainer is a railway line that is essential in situ and could have services running on - like the reopening of the Camp Hill line or Waterside line. Reopening the join my line through Melton Constable or Kettering to Huntingdon does not count as a no brainer

 

[Magdalia]

Wisbech for similar reasons.

I’d go for Wymondham-Dereham

Neither Wisbech or Dereham are "no brainers".

For Wisbech, no brains means no solution on where to put a station in Wisbech, no solution on how to cross the A47 Wisbech bypass, and no solution on what to do with the trains when they get to March. The people of Wisbech don't particularly want to go to March, they want to go to Peterborough and Cambridge.

For Dereham, no brains means no explanation of how trains will be any benefit compared to the much more direct and frequent buses, and no explanation on what to do about the Mid Norfolk Railway.

Furthermore, both routes have lots of level crossings.

 

[Farigiraf]

I’d go for Wymondham-Dereham if a deal could be done with the MNR, and Fowey - that’d be analogous to the Looe branch, which does well during the summer. I’d also second Wisbech, surprised that hasn’t gathered momentum

Not sure about Fowey but both Dereham and Wisbech reopenings wouldn't have the level of usage that you'd expect.

The issue is that both the Breckland and the Hereward lines are lines that utilise the line capacity to (more or less) the full extent. There are busy traffic sources at both ends (Cambridge/Peterborough/Norwich) which means that the trains are already busy enough. Reopening either branch line faces the inital problem that any train to Wisbech is one not going to Peterborough, and any train to Dereham is one not going to Cambridgeshire. Therefore the most optimal use of capacity would be a cross-platform connection at March/Wymondham to a half-hourly service in both directions.

While that's excellent for non-drivers and experienced rail travellers, in rural Anglia that's a minority of passengers. In reality, without a direct train and competitive fares, even if you poured a few hundred million pounds into a reopening it would be far from busy. For travel to the nearest city from Wisbech/Dereham, the bus (or P&R) wins, and for travel to Cambridge a fairly slow 1-change journey won't win many drivers over even if it's frequent and comfortable - the Swiss 'transfer culture' requires Swiss levels of investment, until then, to most non-urban motorist Britons, if there's no affordable direct train then it's not even worth considering over the door to door drive!

So even though achieving the bare minimum needed for a line reopening would be close to a no-brainer, there would also be little point in doing so. You get what you pay for, basically. Both Wisbech and Dereham are large enough to warrant a rail connection but if you want meaningful mode shift and economic growth in these places, you'd be looking at over a billion plus the cost of the Ely North Jn upgrade. Even then you'd have to do a lot of explaining as to why it's a better use of capacity to run 1-2tph to a sleepy market town rather than the much busier Peterborough or Cambridge which can do with all the capacity and frequency it can get.

 

[zwk500]

My definition of a no brainer is a railway line that is essential in situ and could have services running on - like the reopening of the Camp Hill line or Waterside line.

The Waterside line is such a no brainer that despite repeated studies, it is still yet to reopen.

FWIW, I wouldn't count a project that needs:
- Signalling works at a major station
- Significant level crossing upgrades
- Comprehensive signalling overhaul of the line itself, which interfaces with an ageing signalling system that itself has limited scope for additional controls.

a 'no-brainer'. (I think this is what @Bald Rick may have been getting at with the 'usual comments apply' - things are almost always more complicated than they appear).

 

[Magrar]

"No brainer" = do not waste time on any kind of cost-benefit analysis, since the benefits are manifestly obvious, and the project is on its face not something even the DfT and their partners could mess up.

Literally doesn't apply to any UK railway project using the terms "reopen" and "line", clearly.

Freight trains were still running on the Ashington line, and yet once they looked into it, long after the design costing phase, they realised it still needed major work to deal with the fact the embankments of that line were formed of ash from mine workings. Just one of several issues arising from the fact the whole area is, unsurprisingly, former mining country.

Indeed, as Northumberland showed, and ironically precisely because the freight being carried to the power station was now biomass not coal (so cannot be stockpiled), it can be even dafter to try and reopen a line still in use, when you cannot even posess the track for more than ten days at a time.

 

[Bald Rick]

no-brainer, n. an abstract concept assumed to be so obvious that it must be possible, often said with disbelief that it hasn’t actually happened. var. In railway terminology - usually said without any evidence as to why the proposed concept is obvious, often due to the proposer’s non-use of their own cranial matter.

 

[William3000]

Not sure about Fowey but both Dereham and Wisbech reopenings wouldn't have the level of usage that you'd expect.

The issue is that both the Breckland and the Hereward lines are lines that utilise the line capacity to (more or less) the full extent. There are busy traffic sources at both ends (Cambridge/Peterborough/Norwich) which means that the trains are already busy enough. Reopening either branch line faces the inital problem that any train to Wisbech is one not going to Peterborough, and any train to Dereham is one not going to Cambridgeshire. Therefore the most optimal use of capacity would be a cross-platform connection at March/Wymondham to a half-hourly service in both directions.

While that's excellent for non-drivers and experienced rail travellers, in rural Anglia that's a minority of passengers. In reality, without a direct train and competitive fares, even if you poured a few hundred million pounds into a reopening it would be far from busy. For travel to the nearest city from Wisbech/Dereham, the bus (or P&R) wins, and for travel to Cambridge a fairly slow 1-change journey won't win many drivers over even if it's frequent and comfortable - the Swiss 'transfer culture' requires Swiss levels of investment, until then, to most non-urban motorist Britons, if there's no affordable direct train then it's not even worth considering over the door to door drive!

So even though achieving the bare minimum needed for a line reopening would be close to a no-brainer, there would also be little point in doing so. You get what you pay for, basically. Both Wisbech and Dereham are large enough to warrant a rail connection but if you want meaningful mode shift and economic growth in these places, you'd be looking at over a billion plus the cost of the Ely North Jn upgrade. Even then you'd have to do a lot of explaining as to why it's a better use of capacity to run 1-2tph to a sleepy market town rather than the much busier Peterborough or Cambridge which can do with all the capacity and frequency it can get.

I’m pretty sure the Breckland line is nowhere near at capacity - there are capacity issues at Ely North junction and the Trowse swing bring in Norwich but aside from that there are generally only two trains each hour in each direction and very little freight

 

[Magdalia]

I’m pretty sure the Breckland line is nowhere near at capacity - there are capacity issues at Ely North junction and the Trowse swing bring in Norwich but aside from that there are generally only two trains each hour in each direction and very little freight

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Ely North Junction is at one end of the Breckland line, it is at capacity.

Trowse is at the other end of the Breckland line, it is at capacity.

When both ends of a line are at capacity, they are the constraints, and the line as a whole is at capacity.

That is a "no brainer"!

Even then you'd have to do a lot of explaining as to why it's a better use of capacity to run 1-2tph to a sleepy market town rather than the much busier Peterborough or Cambridge which can do with all the capacity and frequency it can get.

Much as I'd like Wisbech to have an opportunity to wake from its slumbers, it is absolutely right that the priority for the route through March is a better service between Cambridge and Peterborough, two fast growing cities.

 

[Class15]

no-brainer, n. an abstract concept assumed to be so obvious that it must be possible, often said with disbelief that it hasn’t actually happened. var. In railway terminology - usually said without any evidence as to why the proposed concept is obvious, often due to the proposer’s non-use of their own cranial matter.

Would it be reasonable to say this about the rest of GWML electrification (Oxford in particular), London Gateway electrification and Marchwood?

 

[The Planner]

Would it be reasonable to say this about the rest of GWML electrification (Oxford in particular), London Gateway electrification and Marchwood?

Marchwood depends on how you are looking at it. As a reopening it has some merit, but as the reason to open it to start an open access operation, no.

 

[Harpo]

Would it be reasonable to say this about the rest of GWML electrification (Oxford in particular), London Gateway electrification and Marchwood?

If English electrification was on an efficient rolling programme maybe, but mismanagement and political (financial) interference has stalled English schemes badly.

In the past, eliminating diesels and diesel maintenance facilities strengthened the business case for electrification. Nowadays adding diesels to EMUs (etc.) is used to undermine electrification and its business cases.

 

[zwk500]

Would it be reasonable to say this about the rest of GWML electrification (Oxford in particular),

GWML electrification is probably the closest to a no-brainer on the NR network - however, when you consider that Oxford needs to wait for the track layout changes, and Bristol Temple Meads will require considerable attention to detail (and possibly a layout change at both ends), neither are as clear-cut as it would seem at first sight (although both are perfectly possible).

Also consider the service patterns - you wouldn't enable many diagrams to actually switch to pure EMU, but rather just reduce the mileage of bi-modes on diesels or require conversion/procurement of BEMUs. Very possible, but also not as straightforward as appears on first glance.

London Gateway electrification and Marchwood?

London Gateway electrification is only a no-brainer if you ignore the issue about how you load containers from overhead with overhead live wires. There are many solutions, but they all involve costs and most of them involve costs that will make them less efficient, while the option that doesn't change operations (bi-mode locos) makes it less necessary to wire any more track.

Marchwood I've mentioned upthread - once you take the wallpaper of 'active railway' off, it needs a significant amount of work to bring it up to regular passenger service standard. I fervently hope that when that end of Eastleigh PSB is resignalled, it includes the branch so that passenger services will have 1 less major obstacle

 

[CdBrux]

"No brainer" in the context of forums such as this generally means "I would like / want it to happen" [so have made no thought to how viable it actually would be]

 

[Bald Rick]

Would it be reasonable to say this about the rest of GWML electrification (Oxford in particular), London Gateway electrification and Marchwood?

1) yes
2) yes, if the port pays
3) no

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 12:26 ==

Much as I'd like Wisbech to have an opportunity to wake from its slumbers, it is absolutely right that the priority for the route through March is a better service between Cambridge and Peterborough, two fast growing cities.

The business case for Wisbech, for which the combined authority paid a lot of money, was hilarious.

It essentially said - not explicity, but the numbers were there for everyone to read - that you would get 85% of the benefit of the reopening by not spending a penny on reopening, but just running an additional hourly service from March to Cambridge. Oddly that option was not assessed to provide a BCR.

It also (metaphorically) put it’s hands over it’s ears when it came to Ely Area Capacity and Cambridge platform capacity, by assuming this would be ‘paid for by others’.

 

[Class15]

1) yes
2) yes, if the port pays
3) no

The port is paying 50%. Why can’t DfT/Government/whatever stump up the remaining 50%?

Regarding 1 and 3, your views seem very reasonable.

 

[Bald Rick]

The port is paying 50%.

I’ve not seen anything to suggest that.

 

[Class15]

I’ve not seen anything to suggest that.

DP World willing to pay towards London Gateway electrification

Cost to electrify branch is estimated at £20 million.

www.railmagazine.com

DP World is willing to pay half of the £20 million needed to electrify the freight-only branch into London Gateway, RAIL understands.

 

[zwk500]

DP World willing to pay towards London Gateway electrification

Cost to electrify branch is estimated at £20 million.

www.railmagazine.com

Willing to pay, and actually paying, are quite separate things.

 

[Bald Rick]

Ah, RAIL…

 

[Severnia333]

Bristol and Oxford electrification as others have said.

In terms of reopenings/ new stations then Grangemouth? Line exists, refinery is cutting jobs so likely more desire to commute.

Although aware that Edinburgh would need a reversal or a chord to work though, do maybe not so much.

 

[The exile]

I would suggest that nothing (as it stands) is a true “no brainer” - as t would already have been done if it were. A brand new town / large development slap-bang on an under capacity line with slack in the timetabling and at the “Goldilocks spot” in terms of distance from likely destinations is the closest we’re likely to get.

 

[Peter Wilde]

Not sure about Fowey but both Dereham and Wisbech reopenings wouldn't have the level of usage that you'd expect.

The issue is that both the Breckland and the Hereward lines are lines that utilise the line capacity to (more or less) the full extent. There are busy traffic sources at both ends (Cambridge/Peterborough/Norwich) which means that the trains are already busy enough. Reopening either branch line faces the inital problem that any train to Wisbech is one not going to Peterborough, and any train to Dereham is one not going to Cambridgeshire. Therefore the most optimal use of capacity would be a cross-platform connection at March/Wymondham to a half-hourly service in both directions.

While that's excellent for non-drivers and experienced rail travellers, in rural Anglia that's a minority of passengers. In reality, without a direct train and competitive fares, even if you poured a few hundred million pounds into a reopening it would be far from busy. For travel to the nearest city from Wisbech/Dereham, the bus (or P&R) wins, and for travel to Cambridge a fairly slow 1-change journey won't win many drivers over even if it's frequent and comfortable - the Swiss 'transfer culture' requires Swiss levels of investment, until then, to most non-urban motorist Britons, if there's no affordable direct train then it's not even worth considering over the door to door drive!

So even though achieving the bare minimum needed for a line reopening would be close to a no-brainer, there would also be little point in doing so. You get what you pay for, basically. Both Wisbech and Dereham are large enough to warrant a rail connection but if you want meaningful mode shift and economic growth in these places, you'd be looking at over a billion plus the cost of the Ely North Jn upgrade. Even then you'd have to do a lot of explaining as to why it's a better use of capacity to run 1-2tph to a sleepy market town rather than the much busier Peterborough or Cambridge which can do with all the capacity and frequency it can get.

Would also add that the Swiss “transfer culture” works so well there because:

1. Much of Switzerland is mountainous and many roads are relatively slow, indirect, steep, narrow - and may be positively scary (at least for tourists who are not used to them); and

2. There are a lot of people on holiday there who may not like the driving conditions; enjoy the opportunity to relax and look at the scenic views from Swiss trains; and when planning their trip, will already have heard a lot about the legendary efficiency of Swiss public transport.

The latter efficiency is also a well deserved reputation. It maynot transfer so well to the UK. Anyone seeking to emulate it here could only do so after a long period of successful operation, getting over any teething troubles and slowly wearing away at historically justified fears that austerity-driven economies, or shifts in local or Government policies, might soon kick in … to damage whatever a newly convenient, integrated system might be startiing to achieve.

 

[Farigiraf]

1. Much of Switzerland is mountainous and many roads are relatively slow, indirect, steep, narrow - and may be positively scary (at least for tourists who are not used to them); and

2. There are a lot of people on holiday there who may not like the driving conditions; enjoy the opportunity to relax and look at the scenic views from Swiss trains; and when planning their trip, will already have heard a lot about the legendary efficiency of Swiss public transport.

To be fair driving through the fens isn't exactly a pleasant experience either, so I'd say that Wisbech has more potential there. But then, as you say, the other factors - namely Swiss rail's high reliability stats and rail network integration - just doesn't exist here and is impossible to enact with current British austerity and meddling from local politicians.

It could be argued that building whatever mediocre solution full of compromises that has a good enough looking BCR may still be worth it to get a foot in the door, but I could think of about 20 important local transport schemes that would provide much greater benefits than a shuttle service that few will use in the short to mid term. Long-term projects just don't go together with current devolved regional politics, as if every 5-10 years you have a new mayor which cuts everything their predecessor started (with no measures to prevent this happening) then a lot of money ends up wasted while at the same time the existing transport network stagnates.

If, for our sanity's sake, we do entertain the idea, and imagine some sort of utopia (which isn't totally unachievable but pointless to discuss at this point in time) where there is the funding for such things, then I'd imagine even then it'd make most sense to concentrate the Ely-Peterborough on trains between Ely and Peterborough, of which at least 4tph from various places is justified. For more capacity, lower journey times and capitalisation of the poor state of Fenland roads, a new alignment to Cambridge through the few pockets of density (e.g. Chatteris, Northstowe) in an otherwise sparse region is fun to think about, and may allow for more housing growth in a region that's currently constrained by poor transport links. Calling this a no-brainer though is laughable! If anything along these lines happens in my lifetime I'd be pleasantly surprised.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

No brainer is not identical to crayons/crayonista but in many ways there are similarities.

It is easy to crayon in a line on a map - oh sounds like a no-brainer!

Ah, RAIL…

LIAR !!!!