Campaign for Better Transport : Reopenings Fund

[Gareth Marston]

There has been massive investment in new roads over the last fifty or so years at the same time that railways were being closed or rationalised. That's not to say that investment in the road building programme didn't have to be prioritised.

The SACTRA report in the early 1990's frightened the horses in Whitehall and this combined with a poor fiscal situation was used to shelve "Roads to Prosperity" the problem being that the Torys who were too busy tearing themselves apart at the time failed to learn any lessons and the senior civil servants who recognized that road building was not all good news have retired. Wind the clock forward 20 years and every backswood Tory bod is desperately trying to resurrect their local Roads to Prosperity scheme.

Road construction did make a difference back in the day when it changed things on a national scale however the point was reached decades ago where it no longer could do this. The Motorway network was essentially complete by the late 80's , vehicle ownership has more or less reached its peak level and most crucially roads have nowhere to expand into in our urban areas where most of us live. Mass vehicle ownership has become the problem not the solution and we cant demolish our urban areas and redesign them for better vehicle use. Improving roads between City A and City B is relatively pointless if City A and City B are already clogged up with traffic.

 

[yorksrob]

So why hasn't a major trans pennine link between the A1 and M6 not been doubled throughout? The last 20/25 years during which this main road has been dualed in small chunks have seen how many railway lines close? I would suggest this work has a better business case than opening a branch line to Wisbeech

Clearly the fact that this trunk road is being dialled at all, albeit in chunks, illustrates that investment has been taking place. Can the same be said of the railway for that route, I wonder.

Also if you're talking about road links between the A1 and M6, there is the small matter of the M62 which links them both.

 

[yorksrob]

Most of which are minor bypasses and junction improvements, akin to line speed improvements on rail lines. And the road network is in a shocking state now with terrible potholes

The last 50 years has seen quite a bit of electrification and line speed improvements, The Jubilee Line extension, HS1, many light rail projects (Manchester, Edinburgh, Sheffield etc)

Rail to me has been treated pretty fairly in relation to road, especially in the last 30 years.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Rail investment has only really begun to pick up in the last ten to fifteen years or so (after the network had its 'nervous breakdown' and a lot of that was sorting out the backlog) well after passenger numbers started to increase. And the investment has taken a lot longer in the provinces.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are lots of local railway proposals that have a BCR of greater than one.

Name one, other than East West Rail, that has had costs and benefits calculated in accordance with DfT Webtag guidance.

 

[yorksrob]

Wisbech to Cambridge has a BCR of 2.27 to 1:
https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/t...nd-studies/railway-between-march-and-wisbech/

Tavistock BCR 2.72:
https://heartofswlep.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DCC-Tavistock-Railway-Publication-Version.pdf

Skelmersdale BCR 1.5 - 2:
http://council.lancashire.gov.uk/documents/s107734/Report.pdf

 

[Mikey C]

Clearly the fact that this trunk road is being dialled at all, albeit in chunks, illustrates that investment has been taking place. Can the same be said of the railway for that route, I wonder.

Also if you're talking about road links between the A1 and M6, there is the small matter of the M62 which links them both.

Surely the rail equivalent is the £3bn Transpennine upgrade plan?

 

[yorksrob]

Surely the rail equivalent is the £3bn Transpennine upgrade plan?

If that goes ahead. We've already had electrification shelved.

That said, I think that there is a real case for a fund specifically for linking communities to the railway network that aren't currently linked.

 

[tbtc]

Hardly a slew, the road building programme is minuscule when compared to the Motorway building programme of the 60s, 70s and 80s

Especially when compared to the expense of the likes of Crossrail and HS2

True - plenty of roads built over a generation following Beeching, but not a huge amount over the past thirty years (despite the huge numbers of drivers).

Twenty first century road building has been pretty paltry, despite demand.

I don't think rail can complain too much - road hasn't had anything like as generous as the CP5 settlement for rail.

That must be why the A66 is a dual carriageway all the way from Penrith to Teesside. Oh hang on.......................

So why hasn't a major trans pennine link between the A1 and M6 not been doubled throughout? The last 20/25 years during which this main road has been dualed in small chunks have seen how many railway lines close? I would suggest this work has a better business case than opening a branch line to Wisbeech

Agreed - seems crazy that we have cars struggling amongst the lorries on single carriageway sections of the A66 - a major route from one side of the country to the other - yet the S&C and Little North Western are both double tracked and lightly used lines.

Most of which are minor bypasses and junction improvements, akin to line speed improvements on rail lines. And the road network is in a shocking state now with terrible potholes

The last 50 years has seen quite a bit of electrification and line speed improvements, The Jubilee Line extension, HS1, many light rail projects (Manchester, Edinburgh, Sheffield etc)

Rail to me has been treated pretty fairly in relation to road, especially in the last 30 years.

Yup - but sadly the money spent on these schemes gets ignored because these busy new alignments don't directly replace heavy rail routes closed in the 1960s, so the investment doesn't count in some people's books!

Also if you're talking about road links between the A1 and M6, there is the small matter of the M62 which links them both.

The small matter of the M62? The M62 is a carpark for much of the day - we need to build an M62 bypass before we start worrying about some of the crayonista rail schemes - the M62 is no solution to the A66 - the M62 has its own problems.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Rail investment has only really begun to pick up in the last ten to fifteen years or so (after the network had its 'nervous breakdown' and a lot of that was sorting out the backlog) well after passenger numbers started to increase. And the investment has taken a lot longer in the provinces.

Rail spending has always had huge subsidies, per passenger number. The only thing is that we've tended to focus that rail subsidy on things like keeping quiet branch lines open, maintaining parliamentary services etc, rather than building new lines.

Wisbech to Cambridge has a BCR of 2.27 to 1:
https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/t...nd-studies/railway-between-march-and-wisbech/

Tavistock BCR 2.72:
https://heartofswlep.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DCC-Tavistock-Railway-Publication-Version.pdf

Skelmersdale BCR 1.5 - 2:
http://council.lancashire.gov.uk/documents/s107734/Report.pdf

Interesting that two of your top schemes are modest stubs, rather than grandiose plans based on fabled "resilience"?

I'm all for short extensions that link towns to the nearest hub city. Just not long ambitious plans through the middle of nowhere.

Surely the rail equivalent is the £3bn Transpennine upgrade plan?

A massive shame - but, again, it doesn't reopen any Beeching cuts, so the True Believers aren't interested!

I think that there is a real case for a fund specifically for linking communities to the railway network that aren't currently linked.

.
We have a huge fund for rail - people are always complaining on here about how much subsidy the railway gets - we just have better things to spend it on than reopening every backwater branchline.

Putting little communities back on the railway map really isn't a priority.

 

[yorksrob]

Agreed - seems crazy that we have cars struggling amongst the lorries on single carriageway sections of the A66 - a major route from one side of the country to the other - yet the S&C and Little North Western are both double tracked and lightly used lines.

So what exactly is 'crazy' about the minimalist Little North Western, which carries hundreds of people each day ? or the S&C which carries even more hundreds of people and plentiful freight? Perhaps you're inferring that we should further rationalise these routes, even though this wouldn't translate into funding for further doubling the A66 and would just make those routes less reliable and less useful to the community !

The small matter of the M62? The M62 is a carpark for much of the day - we need to build an M62 bypass before we start worrying about some of the crayonista rail schemes - the M62 is no solution to the A66 - the M62 has its own problems.

The M62 represents a major investment in transpennine road building, as does the progressive widening of the A66. I don't really see how you can try to argue otherwise.

Interesting that two of your top schemes are modest stubs, rather than grandiose plans based on fabled "resilience"?

I'm all for short extensions that link towns to the nearest hub city. Just not long ambitious plans through the middle of nowhere.

A massive shame - but, again, it doesn't reopen any Beeching cuts, so the True Believers aren't interested!

We have a huge fund for rail - people are always complaining on here about how much subsidy the railway gets - we just have better things to spend it on than reopening every backwater branchline.

Putting little communities back on the railway map really isn't a priority.

You say that you're "all for" short extensions to link towns to the nearest hub city, but then you admit in the same breath that you don't agree with any funding being made available for such schemes.

I do agree with such short unexciting routes being reinstated, however I'm a realist in that I acknowledge that capital funding must be made available for them to happen.

 

[Bald Rick]

Wisbech to Cambridge has a BCR of 2.27 to 1:
https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/t...nd-studies/railway-between-march-and-wisbech/

Tavistock BCR 2.72:
https://heartofswlep.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DCC-Tavistock-Railway-Publication-Version.pdf

Skelmersdale BCR 1.5 - 2:
http://council.lancashire.gov.uk/documents/s107734/Report.pdf

I’ll give you Skelmersdale, albeit the link doesn’t show the actual costs of the project. But looking at the benefits it does seem likely to be a goer. And given that the local authorities are stumping up cash for it from their budgets, they think so too. (The same local authorities that also control the roads budgets for the majority of highways there - ie choosing to spend money on rail schemes rather than road).

The other two, I’m afraid, have capital costs that are built on some very, very brave assumptions. They wouldn't pass the costs test. Albeit I know that the Cambridgeshire / Peterboro’ local authority is committing cash to look into Wisbech; however they are likely to be in for a shock when those assumptions come home to roost.

 

[yorksrob]

I’ll give you Skelmersdale, albeit the link doesn’t show the actual costs of the project. But looking at the benefits it does seem likely to be a goer. And given that the local authorities are stumping up cash for it from their budgets, they think so too. (The same local authorities that also control the roads budgets for the majority of highways there - ie choosing to spend money on rail schemes rather than road).

The other two, I’m afraid, have capital costs that are built on some very, very brave assumptions. They wouldn't pass the costs test. Albeit I know that the Cambridgeshire / Peterboro’ local authority is committing cash to look into Wisbech; however they are likely to be in for a shock when those assumptions come home to roost.

Or a case of the longer we wait, the greater costs become.

Local Authorities are more likely to stump up capital if they have something to match fund with.

 

[Bald Rick]

Or a case of the longer we wait, the greater costs become.

Of course they do, it’s called inflation.

Important to note that Network Rail haven’t been anywhere near the Wisbech or Tavistock estimates. (Rather astutely, in my opinion).

 

[tbtc]

So what exactly is 'crazy' about the minimalist Little North Western, which carries hundreds of people each day ? or the S&C which carries even more hundreds of people and plentiful freight? Perhaps you're inferring that we should further rationalise these routes, even though this wouldn't translate into funding for further doubling the A66 and would just make those routes less reliable and less useful to the community !

Exactly - two double track railways over the Pennines that carries "hundreds" of people, a train every couple of hours - whilst traffic struggles on a single carriageway road - and you think that rail gets a rough deal compared to road?

The M62 represents a major investment in transpennine road building, as does the progressive widening of the A66. I don't really see how you can try to argue otherwise.

The M62 was a major investment in transpennine road building over forty years ago - since then there's been, erm... not a lot of transpennine road links built (despite traffic volumes going up a fair bit since the 1970s).

But, please, tell me that rail is hard done by in comparison?

You say that you're "all for" short extensions to link towns to the nearest hub city, but then you admit in the same breath that you don't agree with any funding being made available for such schemes

If the business case for such schemes is good enough then then will be high up the "to do" list when funding is allocated (without needing a special pot).

If the business case for such schemes is rubbish then we shouldn't be bothering with them, as we have plenty of other projects to focus on (electrifying existing lines, new trains, refurbishing old trains, signalling projects, grade separate junctions, new stations on existing lines, four tracking busy lines...).

Needing a separate fund just for reopening abandoned branchlines is only going to placate the kind of people for whom re-opening some old line is an "end" in itself - if these projects are decent then they will compete fairly against the list of alternative things that we could spend our money on.

Trouble is, you've made your mind up that we need to reopen old lines, rather than wanting to assess such schemes against electrification/ new trains etc. You know your cases are weak, so the only way that we'll build something like Tavistock - Okehampton is if we have a pot of cash that *must* be spent on such projects - you want the answer that you want to reach ("re-open old lines") and the only way to guarantee that you'll get what you want is if there's a fund that can only be used to give you that answer.

Something like Skelmersdale (or Portishead or Ashington) can stand or fail on its own merits, and we can decide whether that represents a better deal than something as humdrum as increasing capacity on existing busy lines.

 

[Master29]

Warning! Quango alert.

 

[yorksrob]

Exactly - two double track railways over the Pennines that carries "hundreds" of people, a train every couple of hours - whilst traffic struggles on a single carriageway road - and you think that rail gets a rough deal compared to road?

I think those routes justify their existence perfectly well and you are being deliberately mischievous to mention them in relation to the A66.

If the business case for such schemes is good enough then then will be high up the "to do" list when funding is allocated (without needing a special pot).

If the business case for such schemes is rubbish then we shouldn't be bothering with them, as we have plenty of other projects to focus on (electrifying existing lines, new trains, refurbishing old trains, signalling projects, grade separate junctions, new stations on existing lines, four tracking busy lines...).

Needing a separate fund just for reopening abandoned branchlines is only going to placate the kind of people for whom re-opening some old line is an "end" in itself - if these projects are decent then they will compete fairly against the list of alternative things that we could spend our money on.

Trouble is, you've made your mind up that we need to reopen old lines, rather than wanting to assess such schemes against electrification/ new trains etc. You know your cases are weak, so the only way that we'll build something like Tavistock - Okehampton is if we have a pot of cash that *must* be spent on such projects - you want the answer that you want to reach ("re-open old lines") and the only way to guarantee that you'll get what you want is if there's a fund that can only be used to give you that answer.

Something like Skelmersdale (or Portishead or Ashington) can stand or fail on its own merits, and we can decide whether that represents a better deal than something as humdrum as increasing capacity on existing busy lines.

And how long have we been waiting for Skelmersdale and Ashington. Linking together big cities is important, but such projects will always drown out the smaller schemes such as these without funding. Electrification has its place, as do new trains, although the vagaries of the market seem to mean that we end up churning out electric trains that won't be needed in a few years time, rather than building a route such as Tavistock to Bere Alston that the town is crying out for now. How is that adequately attending to the countries transport needs ?

If everything is automatically allocated according to merit, how comes we needed a new stations fund - or perhaps you think that was a bad idea and we should have spent the money on a dual carriageway.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course they do, it’s called inflation.

Important to note that Network Rail haven’t been anywhere near the Wisbech or Tavistock estimates. (Rather astutely, in my opinion).

Perhaps the routes promoters should get some construction quotes from people other than Network Rail anyway...

 

[DarloRich]

Clearly the fact that this trunk road is being dialled at all, albeit in chunks, illustrates that investment has been taking place. Can the same be said of the railway for that route, I wonder.

Also if you're talking about road links between the A1 and M6, there is the small matter of the M62 which links them both.

The small matter of the M62? The M62 is a carpark for much of the day - we need to build an M62 bypass before we start worrying about some of the crayonista rail schemes - the M62 is no solution to the A66 - the M62 has its own problems.

Aye - the M62 is a really obvious and practical route to travel from Teesside or the North East to Scotland or the North West. The good news is the government have said they will fund the dualing of the remaining single carriage way sections.

Perhaps the routes promoters should get some construction quotes from people other than Network Rail anyway...

why?

 

[yorksrob]

Aye - the M62 is a really obvious and practical route to travel from Teesside or the North East to Scotland or the North West. The good news is the government have said they will fund the dualing of the remaining single carriage way sections.



why?

You mentioned roads linking the A1 and the M6.

Nevertheless, I'm pleased that the Government is continuing its ongoing investment in the A66. Which bolsters my argument because rail travellers from Teeside to the North West would have to follow routes shadowing the M62, practical or otherwise, because the direct line through Stainburn was torn up.

As to why get quotations for building routes from people other than NR, surely one of the issues is that their project resources are already taken up managing the existing network. For the purposes of price benchmarking, it might be worthwhile letting someone else have a go at managing the construction.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Hmmm...

Seems like we should just tarmac over the entire northern section of the Pennines then. We can't have anyone spending longer than necessary in their nice comfortable Audi, can we?

There are more important things than the economic benefits we may get from building more roads.

The only reason the S&C and LNW routes exist is that they're already there. If they weren't they wouldn't get built. But seeing as though they are there, it'd be stupid to rip them up or even downgrade them. I can't imagine that the cost of maintaining Hellifield to Carnforth is that great in railway terms: large parts of it are still jointed track. Also isn't it something like just one or two signal sections over that whole stretch? In road terms that's the equivalent of it being just a farm track or cobbled street.

 

[yorksrob]

Hmmm...

Seems like we should just tarmac over the entire northern section of the Pennines then. We can't have anyone spending longer than necessary in their nice comfortable Audi, can we?

There are more important things than the economic benefits we may get from building more roads.

The only reason the S&C and LNW routes exist is that they're already there. If they weren't they wouldn't get built. But seeing as though they are there, it'd be stupid to rip them up or even downgrade them. I can't imagine that the cost of maintaining Hellifield to Carnforth is that great in railway terms: large parts of it are still jointed track. Also isn't it something like just one or two signal sections over that whole stretch? In road terms that's the equivalent of it being just a farm track or cobbled street.

Very true. Just the two signalling blocks between Hellifield and Carnforth, the first of course being shared by the S&C.

 

[DarloRich]

You mentioned roads linking the A1 and the M6.

it should be fairly obvious to anyone able to read a map the areas of the country served by the A66. That also includes Leeds. When we drive to Scotland the fastest route is via the A66 not the M62. The M62 isnt practical for many areas.

Nevertheless, I'm pleased that the Government is continuing its ongoing investment in the A66. Which bolsters my argument because rail travellers from Teeside to the North West would have to follow routes shadowing the M62, practical or otherwise, because the direct line through Stainburn was torn up.

The Stianmoor route was built to move iron ore, coal and steel between Country Durham, Teesside and Cumbria - passengers were an afterthought. It was always a back water route not comparable to a main route like the A66. It must have been a stunning route if not a highly practical one.

As to why get quotations for building routes from people other than NR, surely one of the issues is that their project resources are already taken up managing the existing network. For the purposes of price benchmarking, it might be worthwhile letting someone else have a go at managing the construction.

I doubt they could deliver, in the same environment and to the same rules, any cheaper than NR. If they were allowed to operate as a standard ( rather than railway) construction environment they may be cheaper. However they would still have to meet the same regulatory standards, use the same approved tools and techniques etc to meet the required approvals process.

Seems like we should just tarmac over the entire northern section of the Pennines then. We can't have anyone spending longer than necessary in their nice comfortable Audi, can we?

There are more important things than the economic benefits we may get from building more roads.

The only reason the S&C and LNW routes exist is that they're already there. If they weren't they wouldn't get built. But seeing as though they are there, it'd be stupid to rip them up or even downgrade them. I can't imagine that the cost of maintaining Hellifield to Carnforth is that great in railway terms: large parts of it are still jointed track. Also isn't it something like just one or two signal sections over that whole stretch? In road terms that's the equivalent of it being just a farm track or cobbled street.

you are being silly now. No one suggests that "we should just tarmac over the entire northern section of the Pennines" or rip up or downgrade lines.

More realistically i am saying there are equally good road projects that want funding along with railway projects. In many cases the road scheme has a much better business case. It is a competitive funding environment and funds must be used to deliver the best possible value for money and return on investment. Wasting that money on a backwater branchline might not be the best approach.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I doubt they could deliver, in the same environment and to the same rules, any cheaper than NR. If they were allowed to operate as a standard ( rather than railway) construction environment they may be cheaper. However they would still have to meet the same regulatory standards, use the same approved tools and techniques etc to meet the required approvals process.

I was thinking about whether rail infrastructure projects cost more £ per unit of output than other kinds of infrastructure projects
(Note I'm not talking about benefits, I'm talking about the £ per thing done)

The Kettering-Corby Capacity Scheme @ £130M
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...-line-improvement-programme/ketteringtocorby/

The M1 J23a-J25 Smart Motorway scheme @ £120M.
http://roads.highways.gov.uk/projects/m1-junctions-23a-to-25-smart-motorway/

They're both about 12 km of total improvements (if I've read the project pages correctly)
They're both capacity schemes, delivered as "online" schemes aimed to minimise disruption
Although the M1 has not been closed at weekends the way that the MML has been

Are Traffic England getting more work done for their money?

 

[DarloRich]

I was thinking about whether rail infrastructure projects cost more £ per unit of output than other kinds of infrastructure projects
(Note I'm not talking about benefits, I'm talking about the £ per thing done)

The Kettering-Corby Capacity Scheme @ £130M
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...-line-improvement-programme/ketteringtocorby/

The M1 J23a-J25 Smart Motorway scheme @ £120M.
http://roads.highways.gov.uk/projects/m1-junctions-23a-to-25-smart-motorway/

They're both about 12 km of total improvements (if I've read the project pages correctly)
They're both capacity schemes, delivered as "online" schemes aimed to minimise disruption
Although the M1 has not been closed at weekends the way that the MML has been

Are Traffic England getting more work done for their money?

Roads projects are no better than rail at spending money and face many of the same problems ( possessions, ALO, logistics etc) that railway projects face. There have also been some horrendous overruns ( both cost and time) on road projects

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

1981 saw the first stage of the M65 that eventually gave the East Lancashire region a motorway connection to the major M6 motorway. Does anyone think that this motorway link was something that helped with road freight transport in the East Lancashire area and kept much HGV traffic off the local roads.

The rail line from Preston to Colne is not really what you feel offers much in the way of freight carrying alternatives.

 

[muddythefish]

So why hasn't a major trans pennine link between the A1 and M6 not been doubled throughout? The last 20/25 years during which this main road has been dualed in small chunks have seen how many railway lines close? I would suggest this work has a better business case than opening a branch line to Wisbeech

Well, you would. Because you don't live in Wisbech.

 

[muddythefish]

1981 saw the first stage of the M65 that eventually gave the East Lancashire region a motorway connection to the major M6 motorway. Does anyone think that this motorway link was something that helped with road freight transport in the East Lancashire area and kept much HGV traffic off the local roads.

The rail line from Preston to Colne is not really what you feel offers much in the way of freight carrying alternatives.

Of course it doesn't, because it's been starved of investment.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

1981 saw the first stage of the M65 that eventually gave the East Lancashire region a motorway connection to the major M6 motorway. Does anyone think that this motorway link was something that helped with road freight transport in the East Lancashire area and kept much HGV traffic off the local roads.

The rail line from Preston to Colne is not really what you feel offers much in the way of freight carrying alternatives.

Some people think that diverting the Liverpool Dock biomass flows would be the salvation of the world - despite major structural needs and pathing issues elsewhere....(discussed elsewhere) -

 

[yorksrob]

it should be fairly obvious to anyone able to read a map the areas of the country served by the A66. That also includes Leeds. When we drive to Scotland the fastest route is via the A66 not the M62. The M62 isnt practical for many areas.

The Stianmoor route was built to move iron ore, coal and steel between Country Durham, Teesside and Cumbria - passengers were an afterthought. It was always a back water route not comparable to a main route like the A66. It must have been a stunning route if not a highly practical one.

You'll have to forgive my lack of knowledge of the trunk road network as I don't drive.

However, the vast majority of our main lines were built for freight first, passengers second. That doesn't preclude them becoming useful passenger routes. Members of this very forum have used the transpennine route via Stainmore as passengers !

I doubt they could deliver, in the same environment and to the same rules, any cheaper than NR. If they were allowed to operate as a standard ( rather than railway) construction environment they may be cheaper. However they would still have to meet the same regulatory standards, use the same approved tools and techniques etc to meet the required approvals process.

Well, one can't tell unless you have a benchmark. NR has a limited pool of professionals and they have a lot on their plate with the existing network.

More realistically i am saying there are equally good road projects that want funding along with railway projects. In many cases the road scheme has a much better business case. It is a competitive funding environment and funds must be used to deliver the best possible value for money and return on investment. Wasting that money on a backwater branchline might not be the best approach.

I simply have to disagree. The good road projects seem to be looking after themselves quite nicely at the moment. In a competitive environment you could spend all the capital on massive projects such as Crossrail etc that generate a massive return. However the new stations fund seems to be an admission that smaller projects need to be allowed to compete on their own terms. I see the same being necessary for smaller reconnections.

 

[tbtc]

I think those routes justify their existence perfectly well and you are being deliberately mischievous to mention them in relation to the A66

I'm pointing out that we have two double track railways over the Pennines that each see a couple of hour gaps between passenger services... whilst we have large numbers of people travelling over the A66... and you keep claiming that rail is hard done by whilst the road lobby gets whatever it wants.

The grass isn't always greener.

Linking together big cities is important, but such projects will always drown out the smaller schemes such as these without funding

Exactly!

Linking big cities is important, linking big cities is the kind of mass transportation that heavy rail is suited to, linking big cities should be a priority for railway funding... that will drown out funding for projects for villages in places like rural Devon because it should drown out funding for villages in places like rural Devon.

To create a fund specifically to fund reopening through empty bits of countryside is essentially to remove funds from the busy urban projects (the kind of projects where rail investment ought to be spent).

If everything is automatically allocated according to merit, how comes we needed a new stations fund - or perhaps you think that was a bad idea and we should have spent the money on a dual carriageway

I don't think that we do need a "new stations" fund.

But politics dictates that we have to divert some funding onto a fund that can ensure funding is scattered around different parts of the country, rather than be allocated on "needs" basis.

I simply have to disagree. The good road projects seem to be looking after themselves quite nicely at the moment

We had a lot of road projects in the 1960s/1970s/1980s.

We've had very few big road projects over the past thirty years though - despite increasing numbers of cars/ lorries on the road.

In a competitive environment you could spend all the capital on massive projects such as Crossrail etc that generate a massive return. However the new stations fund seems to be an admission that smaller projects need to be allowed to compete on their own terms. I see the same being necessary for smaller reconnections

It seems to be an admission that the kind of projects that you want cannot compete for finite resources on a fair basis, so the system needs to be rigged to give the answer that you want - we could focus attention on the projects with the best BCR - but if we use some of our finite resources on funds specifically to reopen old lines with then that comes at the opportunity cost of not investing on the projects with good business cases but instead having to open "old" lines (that may not have a great business case).

So, using Yorkshire as an example, as we both live there, after wiring the TPE line then the next obvious project may be Leeds - Knaresborough - but we might not be able to invest in a project that will improve journeys for thousands of people because that money has been allocated to opening some old line that may not be high up the list of priorities.

All depends on whether you want the best improvements for the railway or you are just fixated with reopening lines that were abandoned in the 1960s because that's more important to you?

 

[philthetube]

The small matter of the M62? The M62 is a carpark for much of the day - we need to build an M62 bypass before we start worrying about some of the crayonista rail schemes - the M62 is no solution to the A66 - the M62 has its own problems.

I fail to see the point in building a parallel car park