Campaign for Better Transport : Reopenings Fund

[Bald Rick]

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.

Agree entirely.

Having said that, other parties building new lines haven’t exactly had a sparkling record. Generally they give up and ask Network Rail to rescue their project.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

I've never claimed that the road lobby gets "whatever it wants", merely that there has been a sustained investment in the road network over the last sixty or so years, during which for the most part, the railway has been rationalised to an extent that has been damaging to the country.

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).

I don't agree. If you take towns such as Tavistock or Wisbech, they suffer from many of the issues such as traffic congestion and pockets of deprivation that cities suffer from. The fact that they are separated from the rest of the railway by a strip of countryside is neither here nor there. They are ideally suited to a rail link to the nearest employment centre, yet you seem to be blinded by some arbitrary division between city and countryside.

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.

And that is precisely why we need politics. Not everything can be boiled down into a simple profit and loss column. Politics reflects the reality that towns need services and people within towns need services to fulfill their potential. Funding should be scattered around different parts of the country to ensure that the whole countries needs are addressed. That is allocating funding on a needs basis, and that is why the new stations fund will come to be seen as one of the most successful capital projects of modern times.

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?

I see towns like Wisbech, Tavistock and Skelmersdale as being in a similar position. Small but not insignificant urban settlements whose inhabitants could have their lives and prospects improved by a connection to our railway network. It is you that has the unhealthy fixation on 'nostalgia' as you put it.

I do think that in the medium term, electrification of the Harrogate loop would be an improvement. To suggest that such improvements and extensions to the network are mutually exclusive is a bit like saying we shouldn't build any new social housing because we have a backlog of insulation and heating to install in existing social housing - a nonsense argument. That said, the Harrogate loop currently has a decent train service and is about to get new trains, so its electrification is probably less urgent in comparison to the travails of towns stranded off the network.

In terms of priorities, I would say that replacing five year old electric trains in the South West of London shouldn't be a priority, but it seems to be at the moment.

 

[yorksrob]

Agree entirely.

Having said that, other parties building new lines haven’t exactly had a sparkling record. Generally they give up and ask Network Rail to rescue their project.

If it gets the project started where it otherwise wouldn't have been, that can sometimes be a benefit. I'm reminded of the Victorian commuters of Worthing who obtained an act of parliament to build a direct link to the mainline which had to be completed by the LB&SCR. The result of that was the Cliftonville spur which is still used by commuters today.

 

[8H]

Keep it going Rob !! Some people are unalterably orthodox by nature, and the thinking of some others is constrained by what little it is actually possible to achieve in practical rail industry work situations given our current industry structure. We do need to think for the future and that may include learning from the past as part of the process !! All the best !!

 

[yorksrob]

Keep it going Rob !! Some people are unalterably orthodox by nature, and the thinking of some others is constrained by what little it is actually possible to achieve in practical rail industry work situations given our current industry structure. We do need to think for the future and that may include learning from the past as part of the process !! All the best !!

Thanks 8H !

 

[Railwaysceptic]

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

I suspect one or two of us have guessed that you don't drive!

 

[DarloRich]

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

I don't have a car either. That doesn't mean that i am blinded to the demands of that sector for investment and that it is possible that investment might be a better option than rail, hard a that is to consider.

Agree entirely.

Having said that, other parties building new lines haven’t exactly had a sparkling record. Generally they give up and ask Network Rail to rescue their project.

Surely not. Say it ain't so

Keep it going Rob !! Some people are unalterably orthodox by nature, and the thinking of some others is constrained by what little it is actually possible to achieve in practical rail industry work situations given our current industry structure. We do need to think for the future and that may include learning from the past as part of the process !! All the best !!

And some of us live in the real world where we understand it is fine to have pie in the sky ideas but that they have to be tempered by what can be delivered in a competitive and cash constrained environment. That means the focus has to be on spending the available money in the best possible way to deliver the highest possible return.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't have a car either. That doesn't mean that i am blinded to the demands of that sector for investment and that it is possible that investment might be a better option than rail, hard a that is to consider.



Surely not. Say it ain't so



And some of us live in the real world where we understand it is fine to have pie in the sky ideas but that they have to be tempered by what can be delivered in a competitive and cash constrained environment. That means the focus has to be on spending the available money in the best possible way to deliver the highest possible return.

Putting a railway track through Shillamill tunnel is not 'pie in the sky'. Or at least it shouldn't be in an environment where we have billions to spend 'grandes projects' and replacing entire TOC fleets, regardless of whether they are life expired.

There is no such thing as simply going for the highest possible return. By extrapolating that philosophy to it's ultimate conclusion, you would end up spending everything on improving the South East's transport network because that would produce the highest return. In the real world, this has to be tempered by considerations such as not everyone having access to a car, the undesirability of everyone being over dependant on one city etc.

This fund could be an instrument whereby the Government could help to fund what communities actually need.

The railway doesn't exist in some economists fantasy world where every decision can be reduced down to a mathematical formula, completely free of local social and environmental considerations.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I suspect one or two of us have guessed that you don't drive!

Its probably only around half the population that drive on a regular basis. Given the number of elderly and urban dwellers who now choose not to even though they hold licenses. My mother gave up driving after illness some years ago bu it was a point of honor to renew her driving license earlier this year!

 

[8H]

I don't have a car either. That doesn't mean that i am blinded to the demands of that sector for investment and that it is possible that investment might be a better option than rail, hard a that is to consider.



Surely not. Say it ain't so



And some of us live in the real world where we understand it is fine to have pie in the sky ideas but that they have to be tempered by what can be delivered in a competitive and cash constrained environment. That means the focus has to be on spending the available money in the best possible way to deliver the highest possible return.

How is Darlington more real than other places and I think I made the point about economic constraints causing limited solutions myself. It doesn’t mean the stupidity of austerity and stifling the economy can go on forever any more than the march of the motor car can. In our local area in Pieinntheskyshire there are about 11,000 properties and over 11,500 cars registered excluding vans lorries and motor bikes. This is simply not sustainable any more than the daily madness of the M6 is

 

[Gareth Marston]

Keep it going Rob !! Some people are unalterably orthodox by nature, and the thinking of some others is constrained by what little it is actually possible to achieve in practical rail industry work situations given our current industry structure. We do need to think for the future and that may include learning from the past as part of the process !! All the best !!

There are certain posters on here who go into melt down at the thought of open fields even just a couple between towns of relatively high population.

 

[DarloRich]

Putting a railway track through Shillamill tunnel is not 'pie in the sky'. Or at least it shouldn't be in an environment where we have billions to spend 'grandes projects' and replacing entire TOC fleets, regardless of whether they are life expired.

It is pie in the sky if the money isnt there. It is pie in the sky if the project wont make an acceptable return in an acceptable period. We can debate if that formula is right or wrong but wishing it away isnt going to make it go away.

There is no such thing as simply going for the highest possible return. By extrapolating that philosophy to it's ultimate conclusion, you would end up spending everything on improving the South East's transport network because that would produce the highest return. In the real world, this has to be tempered by considerations such as not everyone having access to a car, the undesirability of everyone being over dependant on one city etc.

Indeed - that is why the process has a consideration of social impacts. However, social impacts alone wont make a business case under the current rules. The difference highlighted in these threads is that of the enthusiast v the professional. The first looks at what might be done regardless of cash, the second what can be done with the money available.

This fund could be an instrument whereby the Government could help to fund what communities actually need.

Want, not need. There is a difference.

How is Darlington more real than other places and I think I made the point about economic constraints causing limited solutions myself. It doesn’t mean the stupidity of austerity and stifling the economy can go on forever any more than the march of the motor car can. In our local area in Pieinntheskyshire there are about 11,000 properties and over 11,500 cars registered excluding vans lorries and motor bikes. This is simply not sustainable any more than the daily madness of the M6 is

Agreed - but neither is chucking away what money we do have on fantasy projects. Further, wishing away the government polices wont make them change. We have to work with what we have today. If money was endless then crack on with your pet projects. It isnt so you cant. The ideas have to be prioritised and ranked, not just within the rail environment but within the entire envelope of government spending. That is the reality of the situation. It means that many good ideas wont happen. That is sad but reality.

 

[8H]

It is pie in the sky if the money isnt there. It is pie in the sky if the project wont make an acceptable return in an acceptable period. We can debate if that formula is right or wrong but wishing it away isnt going to make it go away.



Indeed - that is why the process has a consideration of social impacts. However, social impacts alone wont make a business case under the current rules. The difference highlighted in these threads is that of the enthusiast v the professional. The first looks at what might be done regardless of cash, the second what can be done with the money available.



Want, not need. There is a difference.



Agreed - but neither is chucking away what money we do have on fantasy projects. Further, wishing away the government polices wont make them change. We have to work with what we have today. If money was endless then crack on with your pet projects. It isnt so you cant. The ideas have to be prioritised and ranked, not just within the rail environment but within the entire envelope of government spending. That is the reality of the situation. It means that many good ideas wont happen. That is sad but reality.

Just so I understand, are you saying that the principle of a reopening fund is wrong ? Thanks.

 

[DarloRich]

Just so I understand, are you saying that the principle of a reopening fund is wrong ? Thanks.

I am saying that the idea set out by the OP is vague and ill defined and offers no realistic possibility of either happening or delivering anything. The idea of a fund with clearly defined parameters and deliverables is not wrong - a bucket is.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

There are certain posters on here who go into melt down at the thought of open fields even just a couple between towns of relatively high population.

Really? Which individual posts demonstrate this?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Its probably only around half the population that drive on a regular basis. Given the number of elderly and urban dwellers who now choose not to even though they hold licenses. My mother gave up driving after illness some years ago bu it was a point of honor to renew her driving license earlier this year!

I imagine that far less than half the population drive on a regular basis. If you add passengers, the total will increase enormously. However, most people who don't drive do not begrudge sensible investment in our road system, nor do they advocate spending vast sums of tax-payers' money on re-opening lines that very few people would use.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I imagine that far less than half the population drive on a regular basis. If you add passengers, the total will increase enormously. However, most people who don't drive do not begrudge sensible investment in our road system, nor do they advocate spending vast sums of tax-payers' money on re-opening lines that very few people would use.

So whose homes, which schools, hospitals and factories do you propose knocking down to make urban road transit more efficient then?

The motor vehicle has long since gone past the point of optimum efficiency in the UK due to the sheer volume of them on the roads and the constrained urban land-form we live in. People like to whine about it and believe that "sensible investment" can solve the problems but it never will - most road investment over the last 30 years has essentially generated traffic and induced new problems elsewhere on the road network making the overall picture worse not better.

"Improving" roads between places only encourages more traffic to drive internally within those places to access the cross country journey adding to pre existing problems in the urban areas. Road investment is a game of many snakes and few ladders.

 

[B&I]

I wouldn't mind reopeningphobia so much if it could be demonstrated that the sorts of things the reopeningphobics argue should be invested in as alternatives, were actually being invested in. For example, there is about as much chance of the Harrogate loop being electrified as there is of the Pateley Bridge branch re-opening, so long as Grayling and the other electroscpetics remain in charge at DfT

 

[Railwaysceptic]

So whose homes, which schools, hospitals and factories do you propose knocking down to make urban road transit more efficient then?

The motor vehicle has long since gone past the point of optimum efficiency in the UK due to the sheer volume of them on the roads and the constrained urban land-form we live in. People like to whine about it and believe that "sensible investment" can solve the problems but it never will - most road investment over the last 30 years has essentially generated traffic and induced new problems elsewhere on the road network making the overall picture worse not better.

"Improving" roads between places only encourages more traffic to drive internally within those places to access the cross country journey adding to pre existing problems in the urban areas. Road investment is a game of many snakes and few ladders.

If you believe that improvements to our national road system can only be achieved by knocking down schools, hospitals and factories, then clearly you have neither knowledge nor understanding. Your cliché about more roads generating more traffic has been comprehensively undermined by the fact that traffic growth per head of population has occurred as much in areas which have not had new roads as in those areas which have.

 

[InOban]

If you believe that improvements to our national road system can only be achieved by knocking down schools, hospitals and factories, then clearly you have neither knowledge nor understanding. Your cliché about more roads generating more traffic has been comprehensively undermined by the fact that traffic growth per head of population has occurred as much in areas which have not had new roads as in those areas which have.

Have you a link to the evidence for that? It's my understanding that traffic expands to fill the road space available, so if a single carriageway is replaced by a dual one then traffic will grow until it too becomes a car park because there is nowhere the vehicles to go.

Of course there are rural areas where the road system isn't at capacity, at least most of the time, so traffic can continue to grow without new builds.

 

[Bald Rick]

Have you a link to the evidence for that? It's my understanding that traffic expands to fill the road space available, so if a single carriageway is replaced by a dual one then traffic will grow until it too becomes a car park because there is nowhere the vehicles to go.

Of course there are rural areas where the road system isn't at capacity, at least most of the time, so traffic can continue to grow without new builds.

Try the M45!

 

[yorksrob]

It is pie in the sky if the money isnt there. It is pie in the sky if the project wont make an acceptable return in an acceptable period. We can debate if that formula is right or wrong but wishing it away isnt going to make it go away.

Indeed - that is why the process has a consideration of social impacts. However, social impacts alone wont make a business case under the current rules. The difference highlighted in these threads is that of the enthusiast v the professional. The first looks at what might be done regardless of cash, the second what can be done with the money available.

Agreed - but neither is chucking away what money we do have on fantasy projects. Further, wishing away the government polices wont make them change. We have to work with what we have today. If money was endless then crack on with your pet projects. It isnt so you cant. The ideas have to be prioritised and ranked, not just within the rail environment but within the entire envelope of government spending. That is the reality of the situation. It means that many good ideas wont happen. That is sad but reality.

This proposal is in effect arguing for the formula to be changed. This won't happen unless there's a political will for it to happen, which is why the proposal exists. Unfortunately you seem to be arguing that there's no point trying to change the status quo whilst at the same time advocating it.

There are many of us who feel that the spending priorities at the moment are skewed. Skewed towards road building, as opposed to railway construction, skewed towards mega-projects as opposed to small ones and skewed towards the existing railway market, as opposed to linking in new settlements.

It is not exclusively the remit of railway professionals (even though I suspect you have little basis for appropriating the collective opinion of railway professionals any more than anyone else) to decide how resources should be allocated. Railway users and potential railway users have just as much of an interest in deciding how resources should be used.

In the one paragraph you reference "fantasy projects" and "pet projects" whilst at the same time admitting that "many good ideas won't happen" which suggests to me that you are unconvinced by your own argument that the fund is somehow a waste of money for railway enthusiasts.

 

[yorksrob]

I am saying that the idea set out by the OP is vague and ill defined and offers no realistic possibility of either happening or delivering anything. The idea of a fund with clearly defined parameters and deliverables is not wrong - a bucket is.

The new stations fund provides a perfectly good blueprint of how small projects can be compared and evaluated.

 

[8H]

The new stations fund provides a perfectly good blueprint of how small projects can be compared and evaluated.

This is a good idea, it would be even better were it able to avoid some things such as the death clamp of “GRIP” and gilded panoply of planning and legal obstacles which seem excellent at consuming large costs and wasting lots and lots of time. This methodology proving and planning baggage can not always be wholly appropriate or even necessary. Nothing is straightforward, but it doesn’t have to be the labours of Hercules every time either to make progress in reopening a railway.

 

[yorksrob]

This is a good idea, it would be even better were it able to avoid some things such as the death clamp of “GRIP” and gilded panoply of planning and legal obstacles which seem excellent at consuming large costs and wasting lots and lots of time. This methodology proving and planning baggage can not always be wholly appropriate or even necessary. Nothing is straightforward, but it doesn’t have to be the labours of Hercules every time either to make progress in reopening a railway.

Indeed. Going through endless cycles of studies and applications may well be necessary for mega-projects worth billions of pounds, but is surely a waste of resources for smaller projects.

 

[Bevan Price]

Whilst there might be a case for reopening one or two "disused" lines, I think that most of any available money would be better spent on improving the existing network. This would include a steady pursuit of electrification of all but the most minor secondary lines. But first, we need to get abolition of some of the over-zealous regulations about clearances, etc., and a competent and thorough examination of why some projects involving NR seem to be so hideously expensive. Also we need a steady pursuit of extending platforms, so that passenger capacity can be increased, replacing toy-sized trains by something much longer.

Other changes might involve changing the "cultures" within both NR and the civil service. One change would be to contemplate questions like "Is this absolutely necessary" rather than "We must do this". For example, it is really essential to pay for mile after mile after mile of expensive palisade fencing through areas of sparsely populated countryside ?

As for roads - experience is that, within a few years, traffic expands to fill the available road space. More, or wider, motorways just enables more HGVs to pollute our roads, some carrying freight that could be better conveyed in liner trains. Now I realise that no government will adopt this, but I think that the road tax on HGVs should be increased substantially, ensuring that they contribute much more towards the damage (potholes, etc.) that they cause to the roads.

And as someone posted previously, more motorways just create even bigger traffic congestion in towns & cities.

 

[Bald Rick]

The planning and legal ‘obstacles’ are there to protect people and organisations that may be disadvantaged by the presence of a new railway. The principle is the same regardless of whether you are building 200 metres or 200 miles of line.

 

[Bald Rick]

I do like the sense of humour of the forum though; the banner advert below this thread for me is for nearly new Audis...

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The new stations fund provides a perfectly good blueprint of how small projects can be compared and evaluated.

Apart from the horrendous costs to most new (modest) re-openings , and inherent delays for all sorts of reasons from newts or other things.

Kenilworth (see thread on here) , being a magnificent example.

 

[Gareth Marston]

If you believe that improvements to our national road system can only be achieved by knocking down schools, hospitals and factories, then clearly you have neither knowledge nor understanding.

Read what was said "Urban" transit - you cant expand the road footprint within the urban boundary's of the UK because of other development. In these urban areas most of us live and work and road usage has progressed beyond the point of optimum efficiency for nearly all city's and large towns in the UK. You can expand the road footprint between the edges of urban centers - yes but that traffic then has to go somewhere when it reaches the edge of the next urban centre, traffic doesn't magically stop when the dual carriageway ends all it can do is become part of the problem of over congested urban traffic. This renders improvements between urban centers counter productive due to the negative effect the extra traffic then has on traffic in the urban areas.

Your cliché about more roads generating more traffic has been comprehensively undermined by the fact that traffic growth per head of population has occurred as much in areas which have not had new roads as in those areas which have.

Do you mean the "cliche" of an official Government report from 1994 ?- THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT TRUNK ROADS AND THE GENERATION OF TRAFFIC The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment.

As a "Induced Traffic Denier" you no doubt have an answer to all the other international study's that have noted the effect and can tell us all about the country's in the world that have solved road traffic congestion by building more roads?

We love to pretend in this country that we can have our cake and eat it. We can all have cars and drive around unconstrained was the snake oil salesman pitch of the road lobby in the 50's and 60's people like yourself desperately want to believe it can still happen. Politicians have failed to heed the evidence base on traffic and roads because they dont want to tell people something they dont want to hear. No amount of £ can change this so crying foul about proposed rail re openings pinching money that could be spent on roads is missing the point entirely. Throwing money at road expansion is self defeating even if "not that many" people use the reopened railway at least their doing something positive for the country's transport and economy not the negativity of more traffic causing more congestion.