Is it time for network rail / HMG to look at regional lines?

[Adrian1980uk]

I'm wondering if it's time, rather than massive projects (hs 2) costing billions, to look at the regional lines to increase speeds to make them more competitive with the private car.

An example of this is the Norwich to Ely line, if it between 90 and 100 mph for a large portion and therefore could to cambridge and Peterborough in around an hour it would be very favourable to taking the car

 

[Llandudno]

Totally agree, numerous relatively small projects (compared to HS2anyway!) could make major improvements for the regular, every day traveller: (for the many, not the Few!)

Platform lengthening
Junction improvements maybe flyovers
New signalling to improve frequencies
More rolling stock
Double tracking some single track sections
New station openings
Modest line reopenings
Electrification infill
Platform 15/16 at Manchester Piccadilly
More reasonably priced station car parks

The list is endless!

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Between Norwich and Ely, google suggests driving time of 1hr and 20 mins and fastest train takes 53 minutes (60mph average). Norwich to Cambridge 1hr 30mins by car and 1hr 11 by train.

How many HS2 type schemes have been built in the last 100 years? Compared to all the other infrastructure enhancements over the years? Everything Llandudno has listed (bar the specific job at Manchester) has been occurring on the network and will continue to happen.

Unless the above shopping list is carried out everywhere then they will only benefit the few and not the many.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

I'm wondering if it's time, rather than massive projects (hs 2) costing billions, to look at the regional lines to increase speeds to make them more competitive with the private car.

I'm not sure it's an either/or question but some line speeds are ridiculous.

For instance, Wales' two largest cities, Cardiff and Swansea, are 34 miles apart by rail. To travel between the two by train generally takes around 55 minutes. That's just pathetic for an inter-city mainline in the 21st century.

At the other end of the GWML the distance between Paddington and Reading is an identical 34 miles. The same IET trains that link Cardiff and Swansea take 26 minutes to travel between the two, less than half the time it takes to travel between the two Welsh cities.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm not sure it's an either/or question but some line speeds are ridiculous.
For instance, Wales' two largest cities, Cardiff and Swansea, are 34 miles apart by rail. To travel between the two by train generally takes around 55 minutes. That's just pathetic for an inter-city mainline in the 21st century.
At the other end of the GWML the distance between Paddington and Reading is an identical 34 miles. The same IET trains that link Cardiff and Swansea take 26 minutes to travel between the two, less than half the time it takes to travel between the two Welsh cities.

Cardiff-Swansea is nearly 46 miles (by rail), and there are usually 3 intercity stops.
Paddington-Reading is 36 miles, usually non-stop, max speed 125mph.
Max speed in South Wales is 100mph very briefly west of Bridgend, but mostly 75-90.

 

[The Planner]

I'm not sure it's an either/or question but some line speeds are ridiculous.

For instance, Wales' two largest cities, Cardiff and Swansea, are 34 miles apart by rail. To travel between the two by train generally takes around 55 minutes. That's just pathetic for an inter-city mainline in the 21st century.

At the other end of the GWML the distance between Paddington and Reading is an identical 34 miles. The same IET trains that link Cardiff and Swansea take 26 minutes to travel between the two, less than half the time it takes to travel between the two Welsh cities.

Are you really comparing apples with apples there though? How many times does the train stop between Paddington and Reading vs Cardiff and Swansea? Take out the Neath, Port Talbot and Bridgend stops and I suspect you could knock nigh on 10 minutes bringing it down to 43 ish minutes. Still not 26, but I suspect there are distinct reasons why it isn't 90mph minimum, Neath with its barrow crossing is going to be one.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

I'm not sure it's an either/or question but some line speeds are ridiculous.

For instance, Wales' two largest cities, Cardiff and Swansea, are 34 miles apart by rail. To travel between the two by train generally takes around 55 minutes. That's just pathetic for an inter-city mainline in the 21st century.

At the other end of the GWML the distance between Paddington and Reading is an identical 34 miles. The same IET trains that link Cardiff and Swansea take 26 minutes to travel between the two, less than half the time it takes to travel between the two Welsh cities.

Just to pick up on a few points. Swansea to Cardiff may be 34 miles by road but it certainly isn't by rail. It's 45 miles.

The line isn't a 21st century mainline it's a 19th century mainline in the 21st century. A quick look at a map of the line between Swansea and Cardiff, the alignment is a lot more sinuous than that between Reading and Paddington and therefore track geometry will limit top speeds. That's unlikely to bettered without rebuilding most of the line.

The Swansea to Cardiff train makes 3 intermediate stops whereas Reading to Paddington is non-stop.

 

[Ianno87]

Totally agree, numerous relatively small projects (compared to HS2anyway!) could make major improvements for the regular, every day traveller: (for the many, not the Few!)

Platform lengthening
Junction improvements maybe flyovers
New signalling to improve frequencies
More rolling stock
Double tracking some single track sections
New station openings
Modest line reopenings
Electrification infill
Platform 15/16 at Manchester Piccadilly
More reasonably priced station car parks

The list is endless!

In terms of usage, HS2 (and the released capacity on the WCML etc), is very much the "many".

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Just to pick up on a few points. Swansea to Cardiff may be 34 miles by road but it certainly isn't by rail. It's 45 miles.

The line isn't a 21st century mainline it's a 19th century mainline in the 21st century. A quick look at a map of the line between Swansea and Cardiff, the alignment is a lot more sinuous than that between Reading and Paddington and therefore track geometry will limit top speeds. That's unlikely to bettered without rebuilding most of the line.

The Swansea to Cardiff train makes 3 intermediate stops whereas Reading to Paddington is non-stop.

I got the 34 mile figure from the Trainline website. If they're wrong, apologies. The point about the intermediate stops if a fair one as well.

However, I'm actually making much the same point as you are when you say that 'it's a 19th century mainline in the 21st century'. A lack of investement over decades in things like grade separation and other line improvements has left us with infrastucture that's simply not fit for purpose. The cancelation of electrification west of Cardiff is just the latest example of that.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

I got the 34 mile figure from the Trainline website. If they're wrong, apologies. The point about the intermediate stops if a fair one as well.

However, I'm actually making much the same point as you are when you say that 'it's a 19th century mainline in the 21st century'. A lack of investement over decades in things like grade separation and other line improvements has left us with infrastucture that's simply not fit for purpose. The cancelation of electrification west of Cardiff is just the latest example of that.

That's really my point, grand scheme has all the publicity etc. But areas all over the country could be improved and make the best of what we have

 

[HowardGWR]

The OP has a point but the one investment should not be at the expense of the other. The question is rather whether rail should be competitive with the car for local or regional services. For those with a car, the railhead to railhead time is not likely to be hugely relevant. A person who has a car does not travel from 'Norwich' to 'Ely' but from an address near or in a suburb of the first place and to the same in the second. Thus the time taken by car has to balance against rail with having to use some local transport at each end. It's normally no contest and that's not even listing the advantages of private transport over using public, which are huge. Thus the only potential traffic on offer is from those who do not have access to a car, either by choice or necessity. The only time rail starts to make a plus for the car driver for such journeys, is when impediments are present, such as road congestion or parking restrictions, such that driving becomes a pain in the neck.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

I got the 34 mile figure from the Trainline website. If they're wrong, apologies. The point about the intermediate stops if a fair one as well.

I use http://rmme.railmiles.me/

However, I'm actually making much the same point as you are when you say that 'it's a 19th century mainline in the 21st century'. A lack of investment over decades in things like grade separation and other line improvements has left us with infrastructure that's simply not fit for purpose. The cancellation of electrification west of Cardiff is just the latest example of that.

I don't always buy the argument that because it's a Victorian railway we can't do x, y and Z as the railway systems elements of the line are all, on the whole, 20th/21st century and the remaining Victorian elements don't have an effect on speed/capacity/reliability et cetera. However, when it comes to the alignment no amount of modernisation of the railway systems will result in significant improvements in journey times as much as a total realignment of the route would bring. Much in the same way that the motorways of today aren't upgraded country lanes - they are wholesale new alignments. So our railways today are effectively country lanes with new cars, fresh tarmac and traffic lights.

 

[tbtc]

• HS2 threads: It's such a waste of money to spend all this cash just so people can arrive at their destination twenty minutes earlier - we're not all time-obsessed - why is there such a focus on faster journeys

• Non-HS2 threads: It's such a scandal that the train journey time between two places isn't faster than the car - we should spend huge sums of money at speeding up journey times

Erm...

An example of this is the Norwich to Ely line, if it between 90 and 100 mph for a large portion and therefore could to cambridge and Peterborough in around an hour it would be very favourable to taking the car

I could certainly see the possibilities in turning Ely into a "hub" station with "turn up and go" frequencies to Cambridge, Peterborough and (to a slightly lesser extent) Norwich (plus services to Kings Lynn/ Ipswich) - at the moment you've got a number of services passing through but not all well co-ordinated, a significant proportion of them are relatively long distance (and therefore not able to adjust to local passenger demands), it'll be hard to adjust the longer distance services (paths at Birmingham New Street or up the ECML to Grantham are probably set in stone), plus longer distance services mean less reliability.

The question is how much you can improve the infrastructure to take faster trains, given that the poor ground conditions mean speed restrictions on heavier trains like 222s - so I think that increased train length and a better hub/spoke arrangement would be the solution here - it wouldn't take much to give at least four trains per hour to Peterborough/Cambridge and three trains to Norwich - so plenty opportunities for regional connections.

This feels like the kind of project that may have more chance of succeeding if it were backed by a strong local representative (English PTEs, Welsh Assembly, Scottish Government), but from what I've heard of the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, I don't think he sounds particularly capable, so I won't hold my breath for many regional improvements.

 

[moggie]

This constant fantasy that ANY funds would be made available to build / reinstate old lines should HS2 get kicked into touch is simplistic thinking. For a start there's no worked up alternative plans. Secondly it ignores the fact that there's allegedly £9Bn+ funding already available for enhancement works under the 'Pipeline' process announced by Grayling at the time NR's CP6 statement of funds available was made. AFAIK NONE of that £9Bn has been allocated after many months have passed. If they can't / won't spend what's available now for precisely the purpose listed by the OP then they're not going to spend a bonanza on rail after HS2 bites the dust, at least not on rail. They more than likely to announce a scheme or two 'making use of the money saved from HS2' which of course will actually come out of the existing, but largely forgotten Pipeline fund.
Meanwhile the much need capacity benefits on WCRM / ECML / MML are lost for a generation.

 

[squizzler]

I'm wondering if it's time, rather than massive projects (hs 2) costing billions, to look at the regional lines to increase speeds to make them more competitive with the private car.

I agree, when the HS2 is finished the focus will inevitably move to regional routes that join the spine thus created into an integrated network. Just like, in the world of motoring, after the M1 was built the focus turned the trunk road system as a whole and addressing pinch points on the legacy highway system.

 

[yorksrob]

Between Norwich and Ely, google suggests driving time of 1hr and 20 mins and fastest train takes 53 minutes (60mph average). Norwich to Cambridge 1hr 30mins by car and 1hr 11 by train.

How many HS2 type schemes have been built in the last 100 years? Compared to all the other infrastructure enhancements over the years? Everything Llandudno has listed (bar the specific job at Manchester) has been occurring on the network and will continue to happen.

Unless the above shopping list is carried out everywhere then they will only benefit the few and not the many.

Everything listed may have been happenning, but not to nearly a great enough an extent. Take the trans-pennine route as an example. It's been struggling with inadequate length trains for years. An opportunity to change to 4 carriage operation was missed be cause the Government of the day didn't want to pay for the fourth carriage. It's this type of neglect that's seen the regional railway struggle to keep up with demand.

 

[Julia]

The OP has a point but the one investment should not be at the expense of the other. The question is rather whether rail should be competitive with the car for local or regional services. For those with a car, the railhead to railhead time is not likely to be hugely relevant. A person who has a car does not travel from 'Norwich' to 'Ely' but from an address near or in a suburb of the first place and to the same in the second. Thus the time taken by car has to balance against rail with having to use some local transport at each end. It's normally no contest and that's not even listing the advantages of private transport over using public, which are huge. Thus the only potential traffic on offer is from those who do not have access to a car, either by choice or necessity. The only time rail starts to make a plus for the car driver for such journeys, is when impediments are present, such as road congestion or parking restrictions, such that driving becomes a pain in the neck.

"Competitive" is a combination of total journey time, enjoyment and ability to do other things (eg. 2hr of being able to get work done, catch up on box-sets, drink a G&T, phone friends, or nap is infinitely preferable to me to 1.5hr of staring at a strip of asphalt in front of me, as well as not having to stop my journey to eat and use the loo). Speed improvements, even if they don't overtake the car purely on point to point times, will tip the balance for some people. As will improved service frequencies, improved comfort, wi-fi on all trains and stations*, drinkable tea from buffet cars, etc. etc...

* EMT, I'm looking at you on Norwich-Nottingham in particular...

 

[DarloRich]

• HS2 threads: It's such a waste of money to spend all this cash just so people can arrive at their destination twenty minutes earlier - we're not all time-obsessed - why is there such a focus on faster journeys

• Non-HS2 threads: It's such a scandal that the train journey time between two places isn't faster than the car - we should spend huge sums of money at speeding up journey times

Erm...



I could certainly see the possibilities in turning Ely into a "hub" station with "turn up and go" frequencies to Cambridge, Peterborough and (to a slightly lesser extent) Norwich (plus services to Kings Lynn/ Ipswich) - at the moment you've got a number of services passing through but not all well co-ordinated, a significant proportion of them are relatively long distance (and therefore not able to adjust to local passenger demands), it'll be hard to adjust the longer distance services (paths at Birmingham New Street or up the ECML to Grantham are probably set in stone), plus longer distance services mean less reliability.

The question is how much you can improve the infrastructure to take faster trains, given that the poor ground conditions mean speed restrictions on heavier trains like 222s - so I think that increased train length and a better hub/spoke arrangement would be the solution here - it wouldn't take much to give at least four trains per hour to Peterborough/Cambridge and three trains to Norwich - so plenty opportunities for regional connections.

This feels like the kind of project that may have more chance of succeeding if it were backed by a strong local representative (English PTEs, Welsh Assembly, Scottish Government), but from what I've heard of the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, I don't think he sounds particularly capable, so I won't hold my breath for many regional improvements.

This constant fantasy that ANY funds would be made available to build / reinstate old lines should HS2 get kicked into touch is simplistic thinking. For a start there's no worked up alternative plans. Secondly it ignores the fact that there's allegedly £9Bn+ funding already available for enhancement works under the 'Pipeline' process announced by Grayling at the time NR's CP6 statement of funds available was made. AFAIK NONE of that £9Bn has been allocated after many months have passed. If they can't / won't spend what's available now for precisely the purpose listed by the OP then they're not going to spend a bonanza on rail after HS2 bites the dust, at least not on rail. They more than likely to announce a scheme or two 'making use of the money saved from HS2' which of course will actually come out of the existing, but largely forgotten Pipeline fund.
Meanwhile the much need capacity benefits on WCRM / ECML / MML are lost for a generation.

two eminently sensible posts. The logic of which will be completed wasted.

 

[jfowkes]

Rather than spending time and effort on a new HS2 thread, shouldn't we cancel this one and concentrate our efforts on the old, neglected and over-capacity HS2 threads that already exist?

 

[yorksrob]

This constant fantasy that ANY funds would be made available to build / reinstate old lines should HS2 get kicked into touch is simplistic thinking. For a start there's no worked up alternative plans. Secondly it ignores the fact that there's allegedly £9Bn+ funding already available for enhancement works under the 'Pipeline' process announced by Grayling at the time NR's CP6 statement of funds available was made. AFAIK NONE of that £9Bn has been allocated after many months have passed. If they can't / won't spend what's available now for precisely the purpose listed by the OP then they're not going to spend a bonanza on rail after HS2 bites the dust, at least not on rail. They more than likely to announce a scheme or two 'making use of the money saved from HS2' which of course will actually come out of the existing, but largely forgotten Pipeline fund.
Meanwhile the much need capacity benefits on WCRM / ECML / MML are lost for a generation.

It's interesting that you cite £9 billion of funding available but apparently unclaimed. We all know of lots of regional lines that are beyond capacity and could do with longer trains/platforms.

Why is this unclaimed? Is it a lack of skills or are those with the relevant skills set engaged elsewhere ?

Rather than spending time and effort on a new HS2 thread, shouldn't we cancel this one and concentrate our efforts on the old, neglected and over-capacity HS2 threads that already exist?

I don't see this as primarily a HS2 or a reopening thread. I see it more as a thread about covering the backlog of work on the existing regional railway.

 

[coppercapped]

It's interesting that you cite £9 billion of funding available but apparently unclaimed. We all know of lots of regional lines that are beyond capacity and could do with longer trains/platforms.

Why is this unclaimed? Is it a lack of skills or are those with the relevant skills set engaged elsewhere ?



I don't see this as primarily a HS2 or a reopening thread. I see it more as a thread about covering the backlog of work on the existing regional railway.

Essentially what has happened is that the settlement for the current 5-year long Control Period for Network Rail's funding has been divided into two parts. Whereas in previous Control Periods the High Level Output Specification (HLOS) included all NR's expenditure - on-going operations, maintenance, replacements and enhancements - because of NR's difficulties in costing enhancements that were not fully specified and designed and the overspends and delays on several large projects, the Government has now split the HLOS.

The published settlement now covers only on-going operations, maintenance and replacements. There is a separate 'pipeline' within the DfT for 'enhancements' and these will be released when the DfT thinks fit. This is probably what the £9bn refers to, but I have not seen a figure put on the size of the pipeline. (This does not mean it has not been published - only that I have not seen it). Quite of lot of this 'pipeline' funding will probably be used to complete some enhancements which were abandoned in the last Control Period, such as the electrifications from Didcot to Oxford, and Bristol Temple Meads to both Bristol Parkway and Chippenham (to give some examples from my neck of the woods). The DfT has claimed that the contents of the 'pipeline' would be published to give contracting industry sight of future projects in order to better plan for them - but as usual the DfT hid the contents from view.

It is not that the money is 'unclaimed' - it was never there to be 'claimed'. It was (is still?) there for the DfT to spend as it thought fit.

 

[yorksrob]

Essentially what has happened is that the settlement for the current 5-year long Control Period for Network Rail's funding has been divided into two parts. Whereas in previous Control Periods the High Level Output Specification (HLOS) included all NR's expenditure - on-going operations, maintenance, replacements and enhancements - because of NR's difficulties in costing enhancements that were not fully specified and designed and the overspends and delays on several large projects, the Government has now split the HLOS.

The published settlement now covers only on-going operations, maintenance and replacements. There is a separate 'pipeline' within the DfT for 'enhancements' and these will be released when the DfT thinks fit. This is probably what the £9bn refers to, but I have not seen a figure put on the size of the pipeline. (This does not mean it has not been published - only that I have not seen it). Quite of lot of this 'pipeline' funding will probably be used to complete some enhancements which were abandoned in the last Control Period, such as the electrifications from Didcot to Oxford, and Bristol Temple Meads to both Bristol Parkway and Chippenham (to give some examples from my neck of the woods). The DfT has claimed that the contents of the 'pipeline' would be published to give contracting industry sight of future projects in order to better plan for them - but as usual the DfT hid the contents from view.

It is not that the money is 'unclaimed' - it was never there to be 'claimed'. It was (is still?) there for the DfT to spend as it thought fit.

That's interesting.

So essentially, it's going to be going towards the backlog.

 

[Dr Day]

Yes, but individual infrastructure enhancement schemes still need to get through a business case process, which includes looking at any additional ongoing costs to subsidise services and maintain/operate the infrastructure as well as the capital cost of the works themselves. Any funding for longer/more frequent services (which have no infrastructure implications) is separate from the Network Rail/others enhancements 'pipeline' - ie generally between the DfT/franchising body and TOC, so should be already be in the public domain for the current franchises at least.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, but individual infrastructure enhancement schemes still need to get through a business case process, which includes looking at any additional ongoing costs to subsidise services and maintain/operate the infrastructure as well as the capital cost of the works themselves. Any funding for longer/more frequent services (which have no infrastructure implications) is separate from the Network Rail/others enhancements 'pipeline' - ie generally between the DfT/franchising body and TOC, so should be already be in the public domain for the current franchises at least.

In general, most proposals for longer and/or more frequent services have infrastructure implications though. Many of those proposed in new franchises had the infrastructure ‘implications’ proposed and costed by the bidders, with predictable results.

The funding for the pipeline, or Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline (RNEP) to give it the correct title, also has the potential to be grown if there more good schemes than funding available. But make no mistake, DfT hold all the cards and will make the decisions on which proceed and when. Only a couple of projects have been through the Final Investment Decision (for implementation) so far, but there are a lot more in earlier stages of the pipeline.

 

[moggie]

Essentially what has happened is that the settlement for the current 5-year long Control Period for Network Rail's funding has been divided into two parts. Whereas in previous Control Periods the High Level Output Specification (HLOS) included all NR's expenditure - on-going operations, maintenance, replacements and enhancements - because of NR's difficulties in costing enhancements that were not fully specified and designed and the overspends and delays on several large projects, the Government has now split the HLOS.

The published settlement now covers only on-going operations, maintenance and replacements. There is a separate 'pipeline' within the DfT for 'enhancements' and these will be released when the DfT thinks fit. This is probably what the £9bn refers to, but I have not seen a figure put on the size of the pipeline. (This does not mean it has not been published - only that I have not seen it). Quite of lot of this 'pipeline' funding will probably be used to complete some enhancements which were abandoned in the last Control Period, such as the electrifications from Didcot to Oxford, and Bristol Temple Meads to both Bristol Parkway and Chippenham (to give some examples from my neck of the woods). The DfT has claimed that the contents of the 'pipeline' would be published to give contracting industry sight of future projects in order to better plan for them - but as usual the DfT hid the contents from view.

It is not that the money is 'unclaimed' - it was never there to be 'claimed'. It was (is still?) there for the DfT to spend as it thought fit.

Is a fair summary. The following publications explain in more detail but in short Grayling announced (in 2017!!!!) spending approval of £47.9Bn. The latter NR CP6 Delivery plan however contains a breakdown of funds totalling £53Bn projected expenditure - pg.12.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/rail-infrastructure-funding-statement-of-funds-available-2019-to-2024

of which circa £40Bn is earmarked for day to day operations, maintenance and renewal of the existing network.

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/CP6-Delivery-Plan-High-Level-Summary.pdf

So the sums make £10.4Bn set aside for enhancement projects which AFAIU are not exclusively limited to the CP6 period. There are various publications in the public domain with slightly differing figures but the sums quoted are near enough. NR have stated that DfT have been supplied with a list of what they consider 'ready to go' projects and await ministerial authority to proceed. As you say some of these are former CP5 deferments. I believe NR are still waiting much like Diana Ross. The salient point being that two YEARS after announcement no enhancement 'pipeline' project authorities have yet been announced and industry bleeds in the vacuum.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Rather than spending time and effort on a new HS2 thread, shouldn't we cancel this one and concentrate our efforts on the old, neglected and over-capacity HS2 threads that already exist?

Very good! I got you.....even if yorksrob didn't.

 

[yorksrob]

Very good! I got you.....even if yorksrob didn't.

I got the joke. I just didn't agree with its premise !

 

[yorksrob]

So essentially, it seems to be that the old political block against spending on the Regional railway network is still there, so I agree with the OP that politically there should be a change towards spending on it.

 

[Bald Rick]

The salient point being that two YEARS after announcement no enhancement 'pipeline' project authorities have yet been announced and industry bleeds in the vacuum.

A couple have. But true, not many.

 

[Bald Rick]

So essentially, it seems to be that the old political block against spending on the Regional railway network is still there, so I agree with the OP that politically there should be a change towards spending on it.

Spending anywhere (including HS2). You can blame Br**it for that as it has put a huge choke on effective government. Note this is not a Br**it thread!