Could the Stafford to Shrewsbury line be reopened?

[Masbroughlad]

Any progress on the move to reopen Stafford to Telford as part of Stafford to Shrewsbury link?

I would like to see it for many reasons. For starters, Shrewsbury to London would be good. Also think a county town, local link would work.

 

[Proud Salopian]

Nope. And it's not going to happen. Don't know where you've read anything along such lines (Wikipedia perhaps?) but it's a total pipe dream.

For starters, the route has been built on in several places.

I'd rather they electrified the Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton line and put on direct (electric) trains from Shrewsbury to Euston via Birmingham. Considering that's not going to happen before Yellowstone blows, you can forget about catching a train to the mighty metropolis of Gnosall anytime soon.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Any progress on the move to reopen Stafford to Telford as part of Stafford to Shrewsbury link?...I would like to see it for many reasons. For starters, Shrewsbury to London would be good. Also think a county town, local link would work.

I fear that you are doomed to see this project that you name as being on in the "Aspirational Only" agenda of rail enthusiasts. I could draw your attention to a certain railway route that ran from Manchester Central station to the metropolis of London that once had Blue Pullman diesel sets as part of the business market attraction.

 

[steamdrivenand]

I'd rather they electrified the Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton line and put on direct (electric) trains from Shrewsbury to Euston via Birmingham. Considering that's not going to happen before Yellowstone blows, you can forget about catching a train to the mighty metropolis of Gnosall anytime soon.

But whoever ran it wouldn't be allowed to use Virgins electricity at Wolverhampton!!!!!:roll:

 

[Masbroughlad]

Nope. And it's not going to happen. Don't know where you've read anything along such lines (Wikipedia perhaps?) but it's a total pipe dream.

An ATOC document on reopenings.

 

[jimm]

An ATOC document on reopenings.

But that was just a paper exercise in saying here are places that have lost their stations and routes that closed, where lots of extra people live now and reopening might be a nice idea. Many of the suggestions looked to have far more potential than this one.

 

[Proud Salopian]

But whoever ran it wouldn't be allowed to use Virgins electricity at Wolverhampton!!!!!:roll:

Quite!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

An ATOC document on reopenings.

Oh dear. I remember that. Very much a fanciful wish list.

Might as well put the Bishop's Castle Railway on that list too.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Like the mythological tale of King Arthur and his knights in slumber in that cave, awaiting the call to aid the country again, is there a sleepy manor house somewhere in England that hosts the spirit of Colonel Holman Fred Stephens ready to return to run all the "aspirational" railway re-openings that remain only just under the surface of the memories of certain of the more enthusiastic of our forum members....

 

[steamdrivenand]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Might as well put the Bishop's Castle Railway on that list too.

Oh! Yes please!

 

[Gareth Marston]

The easiest town to get back on the national network in Shropshire is Oswestry - its also the largest in the county not on rail network. trackbed and track intact from Gobowen.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

The easiest town to get back on the national network in Shropshire is Oswestry - its also the largest in the county not on rail network. trackbed and track intact from Gobowen.

If train operators can't rustle up a single carriage to strengthen the Crewe-Derby route serving a large railway junction and two cities where would the stock come from to operate it?

 

[DXMachina]

Like the mythological tale of King Arthur and his knights in slumber in that cave, awaiting the call to aid the country again, is there a sleepy manor house somewhere in England that hosts the spirit of Colonel Holman Fred Stephens ready to return to run all the "aspirational" railway re-openings that remain only just under the surface of the memories of certain of the more enthusiastic of our forum members....

A) If his spirit does endure it's probably a member here
B) if it wasnt for the awesome distractive force of internet forums and Youtube we'd probably all be out with picks and shovels clandestinely rebuilding closed railways by night
C) Where the **** were Arthur and the lads in 1940? Still sleeping as it wasnt interesting enough yet?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

C) Where the **** were Arthur and the lads in 1940? Still sleeping as it wasnt interesting enough yet?

It is said they had learnt modern skills though the efforts of Merlin and formed the Camelot squadron in the Battle of Britain where their sprits did so imbue the young British pilots who flew in the Battle of Britain.

 

[Goatboy]

But whoever ran it wouldn't be allowed to use Virgins electricity at Wolverhampton!!!!!:roll:

Or stop at any stations incase Virgin got upset.

 

[DXMachina]

It is said they had learnt modern skills though the efforts of Merlin and formed the Camelot squadron in the Battle of Britain where their sprits did so imbue the young British pilots who flew in the Battle of Britain.

Sopwith Camelot with a Merlin engine?

 

[Gareth Marston]

If train operators can't rustle up a single carriage to strengthen the Crewe-Derby route serving a large railway junction and two cities where would the stock come from to operate it?

You've picked the heart of the problem in your question. There is relatively- lots of infrastructure work going on on the UK rail network up to the end of the next control period and plenty of £ going into that but by comparison sod all in the way of additional rolling stock. Ask any regular passengers and the thing that most agree on as a priority is the need for extra carriages not infrastructure. I suggest we have the balance wrong.
Govt may have found it easier to pull the lever via not for profit Network Rail than the TOCS/ROSCO's and by default gone infrastructure top heavy.

 

[MK Tom]

Something I will say about the Wellington-Stafford line is that it would suffer from a terminal case of Bletchley Syndrome. Telford wasn't there when the line was built. The railway is configured around the idea of Wellington being a medium sized town and Shrewsbury being the main destination. Telford is now the largest urban area and economic centre in the region. Nobody would use a station at Donnington or Wellington station when it's Telford they want.

That said there is a case for returning a rail service to Newport (and possibly even Gnossal) but my experience on the 481 bus doesn't leave me too enthused about the potential passenger loadings (and that does go to Telford!!).

The best hope for this line is either as a freight link or as a part of a small-scale Telford-centred mass transit system. Telford lends itself to such a system given its urban layout so that's probably the most realistic way to bring use to the line again, but it's still a long shot.

 

[steamdrivenand]

You've picked the heart of the problem in your question. There is relatively- lots of infrastructure work going on on the UK rail network up to the end of the next control period and plenty of £ going into that but by comparison sod all in the way of additional rolling stock. Ask any regular passengers and the thing that most agree on as a priority is the need for extra carriages not infrastructure. I suggest we have the balance wrong.
Govt may have found it easier to pull the lever via not for profit Network Rail than the TOCS/ROSCO's and by default gone infrastructure top heavy.

But surely the TOCs/ROSCO's run the rolling stock the Government agrees to buy for them/lease them. They seem to have little choice about the matter from what I've seen. I do wish the Government would keep their paws out things and let the industry get on with sorting matters without Granny being involved in everything.

 

[Wath Yard]

I'm sure if a TOC said we want more trains; we've got a ROSCO lined up to provide the finance; and we don't need any additional subsidy the DfT would bite their hand off. However, reality is slightly different. TOCs aren't philanthropic organisations and normally they will expect to be compensated by way of additional subsidy when providing additional capacity, so the Government is involved and when it involves spending our money they should be.

 

[Bevan Price]

Nope. And it's not going to happen. Don't know where you've read anything along such lines (Wikipedia perhaps?) but it's a total pipe dream.

For starters, the route has been built on in several places.
.

That would not stop the line reopening in the very unlikely event that some future government decided to reopen it. Various buildings were removed when the Croydon Tramway was built on old railway alignments.

However, unless yet another large new town gets built between Stafford & Wellington, I doubt that the line will ever reopen.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That said there is a case for returning a rail service to Newport (and possibly even Gnosal) but my experience on the 481 bus doesn't leave me too enthused about the potential passenger loadings (and that does go to Telford!!).

In this part of your posting, with regard to the existing use of bus provision that is used by the travelling public and the passenger loadings contained thereon, I see a reflection in similar postings that were made on the "aspirational" line reopening thread concerning the Malton-Pickering-Whitby direct heavy rail route.

Some of the more enthusiastic of our forum members, armed as they are with great creativity of thought but seemingly very little financial acumen, see that once a rail provision is offered, there will be an automatic viability of service caused by the projected numbers of passenger loadings, which will be enough to run a service profitably. A cynic such as I, with forty years of business experience in the real world behind me, can only look at such proposals with the eye of a pragmatist. I have in the past been likened to "The Angel of Death" when deciding to make a posting comment upon schemes that I see as totally and utterly devoid of any financial realism.

This is why I choose to use one of the two particular terms that are contained in my forum signature to express my outlook on life these days.

 

[yorksrob]

Some of the more enthusiastic of our forum members, armed as they are with great creativity of thought but seemingly very little financial acumen, see that once a rail provision is offered, there will be an automatic viability of service caused by the projected numbers of passenger loadings, which will be enough to run a service profitably. A cynic such as I, with forty years of business experience in the real world behind me, can only look at such proposals with the eye of a pragmatist. I have in the past been likened to "The Angel of Death" when deciding to make a posting comment upon schemes that I see as totally and utterly devoid of any financial realism.

This is why I choose to use one of the two particular terms that are contained in my forum signature to express my outlook on life these days.

But we run lots of train services that aren't financially profitable because they provide benefits in other ways. Why wouldn't this be the case with a reopened line !

 

[steamdrivenand]

I'm sure if a TOC said we want more trains; we've got a ROSCO lined up to provide the finance; and we don't need any additional subsidy the DfT would bite their hand off. However, reality is slightly different. TOCs aren't philanthropic organisations and normally they will expect to be compensated by way of additional subsidy when providing additional capacity, so the Government is involved and when it involves spending our money they should be.

One could argue that the reason subsidies are needed in some cases is that NR charges make them necessary and guess who owns NR?

If the 'not for profit' and therefore 'not as efficient as it could be' NR were to reduce charges it might be that some lines would become self financing, but that would mean the dead hand of Government would lose influence and control and the Whitehall mandarins wouldn't like that.

 

[yorksrob]

If the 'not for profit' and therefore 'not as efficient as it could be' NR

So involving private shareholders will automatically make the organisation more efficient ?

Shareholders have had a patchy record of ensuring good corporate governance of late.

 

[steamdrivenand]

Was there not a report a few months back that said that costs on UK rail were enormous compared to the Continent?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But we run lots of train services that aren't financially profitable because they provide benefits in other ways. Why wouldn't this be the case with a reopened line !

Why not just leave the matter with the existing 481 bus service provision so described by MKTom in which he makes comment with concern to the loadings achieved.

Why go to the trouble of replacing a bus service, with financial shortfall overtones, with a rail service that will also be a drain on financial resources, for whatever altruistic reasons that may be considered.

Railway operation is somewhat removed from the marketing habits of the large supermarket groups. The rail operators are not in the habit of providing "loss leaders" when their franchise monies are to be considered, not can I forsee the Treasury being greatly enamoured of such an idea, which they would be at pains to point out as being that of financial profligacy.

 

[Wath Yard]

Was there not a report a few months back that said that costs on UK rail were enormous compared to the Continent?

Yes and many of the recommendations related to the operation of the railway, not just the maintenance.

 

[yorksrob]

Why not just leave the matter with the existing 481 bus service provision so described by MKTom in which he makes comment with concern to the loadings achieved.

Why go to the trouble of replacing a bus service, with financial shortfall overtones, with a rail service that will also be a drain on financial resources, for whatever altruistic reasons that may be considered.

Railway operation is somewhat removed from the marketing habits of the large supermarket groups. The rail operators are not in the habit of providing "loss leaders" when their franchise monies are to be considered, not can I forsee the Treasury being greatly enamoured of such an idea, which they would be at pains to point out as being that of financial profligacy.

But you forget, lots of routes' only direct financial contribution to the railway is as feeder routes to the main line network, therefore, they can already be said to be loss leaders.

I don't know the merits of this particular case (I have plenty of aspirational routes of my own), however buses are not always a suitable alternative. My own commute in Leeds is almost directly parallelled by a bus service, however this takes over twice as long and is not suitable for daily commuting. WYPTE certainly don;t consider funding of my route to be profligacy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Was there not a report a few months back that said that costs on UK rail were enormous compared to the Continent?

The McNulty report looked at many aspects of railway operation (not just Network Rail).

However, I reiterate my point that the business pages have been full of cases where private shareholders have failed to ensure good governance.

 

[AlterEgo]

But whoever ran it wouldn't be allowed to use Virgins electricity at Wolverhampton!!!!!:roll:

The Moderation of Competition clause at Wolverhampton no longer exists.

 

[themiller]

But we run lots of train services that aren't financially profitable because they provide benefits in other ways. Why wouldn't this be the case with a reopened line !

Yes, we do run such services but the cost of reopening would be a not inconsiderable, up-front sum of money. Also to be taken into account is the fact that a reopening would entail rebuilding the route to modern-day standards whilst existing routes have "grandfather" rights and are not necessarily subject to upgrading.