Housing Development driven reopening suggestions

[Tobbes]

Afternoon everyone,

All of this talk about reopenings has had me thinking about the circumstances under which housing developments at scale could be made possible by reopened railways, and be of sufficient scale that the development would over time pay for the reinstatement. In these terms, we can assume a contribution of £25k/house to rail infrastructure, or 40k houses = £1bn.

I'm also talking here of overall lines, rather than slavishly following the old route: the key here is the ability to create new housing, and for a meaningful service level, which, like BordersRail means either double track or long dynamic loops. I also accept that there are reasonable questions about terminal capacity, especially in London.

Mindful of @Altnabreac 's excellent guidelines for reopening (60 minutes to a major source of employment being a key element), I was wondering where you'd build new lines in exchange for (signficant) additional housing? Especially grateful for non-SE suggestions from areas I'm much less familiar with.

My starters for 10:

1. Ashendon Junct - Rugby (ex-GC ML): one of the reasons that the GC failed to attract mcuh local traffic is that it had been built across countryside - and much of that countryside is still rural and ripe for housing - Finmere, Brackley, Culworth. Not only would this serve the London market, the northern section would serve the West Midlands conurbation. Questions about extending Chiltern services or routing into Paddington.

2. St Margarets - Buntingford - Cambridge (A10 corridor): similar profile to ex-GCML, in this case with London and Cambridge employment markets served. Could initially use existing Hertford East paths and join trains at St Margarets.

3. Braintree - Dunmow - Stansted, which has the benefit of the A140 already being dualled between these points. Serves London.

4. Cambridge - Newmarket - new W/N curve - Fordham - Mildenhall: possibly already programmed to be ready for the redevelopment of RAF Mildenhall as a new town in mid 2020s. Serves Cambridge and potentially London (though this would be better served by reinstating the direct Mildenhall branch).

5. Cambridge - Bartlow - Haverhill (& possibly onto Sudbury, housing dependent): Cambridge housing. Presumes Cambridge South (Addenbrookes) station is also built.

6. Yarnton - Whitney - Fairford - Cirencester - Kemble: clearly not on the orignial route, given the lost route in Whitney, but this corridor has lots of new town potential to serve Oxford / Didcot / Thames Valley.

 

[B&I]

How about some examples from outside the south-east, in the hope that our economy might, some day, provide some jobs somewhere outside it ?

From local knowledge, I'd suggest the Skelmersdale branch (there is lots of space there as only half the original town was completed) and some of the lines in the area between Manchester and Wigan, where numerous run-down towns with space for housing development exist.

 

[Tobbes]

@B&I thanks, interesting, and I'm grateful for a non-SE example. I know nothing about the housing market in the NW, how much unmet demand exists?

 

[Bertie the bus]

From local knowledge, I'd suggest the Skelmersdale branch (there is lots of space there as only half the original town was completed) and some of the lines in the area between Manchester and Wigan, where numerous run-down towns with space for housing development exist.

That is a blatant contradiction. Many of the towns are run down because they have lost their reason to exist (closed mines, lost industry, etc), ergo nobody is going to want to move to them so nobody is going to build large housing developments.

 

[HowardGWR]

Again in the SE region, the old 'Castleman's Corkscrew', at least from Ringwood to Brockenhurst (and thus to Southampton) was suggested by no less an organisation than the CBI, for the very reasons stated. I suspect there is quite a lot of local opposition to further housebuilding on the heaths of Dorset and Hampshire. The New Forest is now a National Park, but anything that reduces traffic on the A31 could find support from the environmentalists, perhaps.

 

[Tobbes]

Again in the SE region, the old 'Castleman's Corkscrew', at least from Ringwood to Brockenhurst (and thus to Southampton) was suggested by no less an organisation than the CBI, for the very reasons stated. I suspect there is quite a lot of local opposition to further housebuilding on the heaths of Dorset and Hampshire. The New Forest is now a National Park, but anything that reduces traffic on the A31 could find support from the environmentalists, perhaps.

Very helpful @HowardGWR , thank you.

 

[Tobbes]

Sorry, and I meant to add Honeybourne - Long Marston - Stratford-upon-Avon to the original list

 

[DarloRich]

Worked well at wixhams. Oh. Hang on.............

 

[Tobbes]

Worked well at wixhams. Oh. Hang on.............

Sorry, I don't know the story at Wixhams, @DarloRich

 

[DarloRich]

Sorry, I don't know the story at Wixhams, @DarloRich

Check it out. Station should be open to serve the vast housing estate near Bedford. It isn't. I doubt it ever will be. Local politicians have a lot to ponder on that one!

 

[Tobbes]

Thanks, @DarloRich - this model is rather the reverse - put the infrastructure in first and build the houses second.

 

[DarloRich]

Thanks, @DarloRich - this model is rather the reverse - put the infrastructure in first and build the houses second.

Same risk though surely? The infrastructure and the homes need to be done together.

Using wixhams as an example we might have a nice new station next to a derelict mod base!

 

[Tobbes]

The difference @DarloRich is that if necessary the Govt can build the houses, safe in the knowledge that its going to make a fortune. The Wixams situation is presumably down to a developer having made the profit and not wanting to pay for the station.

 

[Realfish]

In the Midlands, Lichfield Stns > Alrewas* > Burton-on-Trent, *for proposed further housing and the National Memorial Arboretum.
And in the other direction Lichfield > Hammerwich / Burntwood > Brownhills > Pelsall > Walsall.

 

[158756]

The difference @DarloRich is that if necessary the Govt can build the houses, safe in the knowledge that its going to make a fortune. The Wixams situation is presumably down to a developer having made the profit and not wanting to pay for the station.

The Government is the main funder of railway infrastructure as well. Most of Wixams itself hasn't been built yet, never mind the station - which has, as with all railway projects, ballooned in cost, but I'm not sure if it was ever clear how the station would work or whether the railway even wanted it built.

 

[Tobbes]

@Realfish - excellent, thanks very much.

@158756 - fair enough, but if NR had built the station, then the value of the planning permission is even greater, and therefore the public sector should (and I stress should, as s106 contributions are a pretty terrible system) be providing the cash for Wixams. That Wixams Station has not been built even after the first houses have been rather demonstrates that the system needs some work.

 

[matacaster]

Kirkstall Forge.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

What's this continual obsession everyone has with "growth" ? More people, more houses, more countryside under concrete - we should be looking at reducing "development" and reducing population. Why do people just want to build over everything and over populate the country ? We don't have the space to spread out like China does. .. eventually we will all be living in a 'utopian' Le Corbusier style megacity.

 

[The Planner]

Without growth you stagnate? And how do you reduce the population, go all China and limit the amount of kids people have?

 

[JamesT]

I don’t think it’s so much encouraging population growth as recognising it’s happened. UK population has grown by about 10 million in the last couple of decades. That suggests a requirement for more housing and infrastructure just to keep up.

 

[Tobbes]

@Mutant Lemming: @JamesT is spot on - for house prices to stand still, we need to build 300k houses per annum. This is partly immigration, but smaller households plays a large part. The key for me is to make sure that existing communities benefit from the growth that we've built into the system, rather than only suffering the downsides. See you on the first train from Marylebone to Woodford Halse!

 

[6Gman]

The difference @DarloRich is that if necessary the Govt can build the houses, safe in the knowledge that its going to make a fortune. The Wixams situation is presumably down to a developer having made the profit and not wanting to pay for the station.

How often does "the Government" build houses?

 

[Tobbes]

How often does "the Government" build houses?

Good question - not frequently enough when there is a market failure in the private sector. More than happy to have a New Towns corporation issuing the contracts.

 

[6Gman]

I look at this from the other end of the telescope, so to speak. Let's build new housing around existing infrastructure that's under-used.

For example, make the Crewe - Shrewsbury stopper hourly with housing allocations at Wrenbury, Prees and Yorton.

 

[Tobbes]

I look at this from the other end of the telescope, so to speak. Let's build new housing around existing infrastructure that's under-used.

For example, make the Crewe - Shrewsbury stopper hourly with housing allocations at Wrenbury, Prees and Yorton.

More than happy with these suggestions, too, though as Wixams has shown, this isn't as straightforward as we may like.

 

[158756]

I look at this from the other end of the telescope, so to speak. Let's build new housing around existing infrastructure that's under-used.

For example, make the Crewe - Shrewsbury stopper hourly with housing allocations at Wrenbury, Prees and Yorton.

Wrenbury, Prees and Yorton would probably be considered 'unsustainable ' locations for development - they have a station but not much else, in the middle of nowhere. To get local services you'd have to build a whole new town, which doesn't seem very likely in that part of the country.

 

[w1bbl3]

The Wixams situation is presumably down to a developer having made the profit and not wanting to pay for the station.

Not really the wixams problem is the developer allocated a sum of money to fund a new station £9m with a contingency of £4.5m both index linked from 2003 and bonded accordingly for twenty years as part of the S106 planning conditions, so logically the station should have been built.

However since then the latest cost estimates have the station needing near on £30m in funding. The developer has thus stated it's unaffordable and undeliverable. The S106 agreement doesn't outline what happens to the funding or land if after twenty years the developer (or local authority) have been unable to deliver the station. The question really is one of how the original cost figure was arrived upon and how the planning system should in future cover situations where funding costs where not correctly worked out at the outset. The later in this case may well go back to railtrack and network rail...

Generally private developers are pretty good at delivering community infrastructure promised and conditioned as part of major planning applications be it primary schools, secondary schools, health-centres, churches, parks and road improvement or new "spine/distributor" roads. In cases where funding bus routes is conditioned with the planning permission this is normally done. What does seem to be problem is rail related funding obligations not in hindsight being set high enough to deliver the intent be it a new station or new track.

I can't see how "government" funding the housing developments becomes the solution when the problem is likely to be one of the rail industry not being able to accurately and realistically estimate costs. If cost certainty could be achieved I'd suspect more major schemes would propose rail connections or agree unconditional funding of such as part of the development.

 

[DanTrain]

A spur of the Newcastle metro up to Great Park wouldn’t be a bad idea, there are a lot of new houses going up there with no rail link at all.

 

[jhy44]

Redditch is set to grow exponentially under plans to build 10,000s of new homes in the next decade, Redditch station is located in the far North of the (geographically) large town, and the old line to Alcester is already built-up solidly for a good 5 miles down to Studley.

I'd argue that as the area builds up even more, the case for reopening the line at least as far as Studley, with three new stations; Oakenshaw, Woodrow (for the Redditch Hospital) and Studley Parkway (which would draw in drivers from Alcester/Evesham/the wider Worces/Warks border country) is one of the best cases in the country.

 

[tbtc]

this model is rather the reverse - put the infrastructure in first and build the houses second.

This seems to me to be "how can the economy fit around the way that enthusiasts want the railway to expand", rather than "how can the railway fit around the needs of the economy".

I've no problem with changing the railway to reflect changing demands - I'd much rather that we invested in lines to "new towns" where large number of people live, rather than only focussing on rural villages that lost their station in the 1960s - but this thread sounds like an excuse to make some ancient lines viable (some people feel that building tens of thousands of new houses is a price worth paying if it justifies their favourite old line re-opening)

What's this continual obsession everyone has with "growth" ? More people, more houses, more countryside under concrete - we should be looking at reducing "development" and reducing population. Why do people just want to build over everything and over populate the country ? We don't have the space to spread out like China does. .. eventually we will all be living in a 'utopian' Le Corbusier style megacity.

I think this is less about "growth" and more about "bringing back old railways by whatever means necessary

@Mutant Lemming: @JamesT is spot on - for house prices to stand still, we need to build 300k houses per annum. This is partly immigration, but smaller households plays a large part. The key for me is to make sure that existing communities benefit from the growth that we've built into the system, rather than only suffering the downsides. See you on the first train from Marylebone to Woodford Halse!

Politicians like to blame immigration for the destruction of the green belt etc, but one of the main reasons we need so many additional homes is pensioners. We've around ten million people over the age of 65 (over ten thousand people in the UK are over one hundred) - many of these people still live in the family home that they have lived in for decades - one of the reason we need to spend so much in Winter Fuel Allowance is that we have so many pensioners living alone in massive draughty houses with the heating turned up high - over a half a million people a year turn 65 in the UK.

The increase in life expectancy is certainly a good thing, overall, but it brings a few headaches with it - one of which is "how can we minimise Green Belt development as we cram young families into small Starter Homes whilst their grandparents still live in three bedroom houses".

If anything, we should be welcoming more immigrants here to work in jobs and pay taxes for the cost of all these pensioners (who didn't pay sufficient taxes during their working lifetime for all of the benefits that they now receive).

A spur of the Newcastle metro up to Great Park wouldn’t be a bad idea, there are a lot of new houses going up there with no rail link at all.

That's a good shout - a lot of people living and working in that side of Newcastle (SAGE etc)