New Lines needed

[jayah]

That's not really much different from how large parts of the existing Regional Railway is funded though. As a taxpayer and rail traveller, I may never use some of those routes, but others I will do sometimes, maybe even quite regularly.

Same for re-opened routes. A route to Ripon, I would probably end up using, one in the far North of Scotland maybe not. However, as a principal, subsidy of loss making regional routes will benefit me.

I don't drive, so the road improvements will be of no direct use to me however.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I would certainly support taking such a coordinated route, particularly if there was funding included as part of it (certainly better than what we have now !). However, local campaign groups do give an idea of how much local support there would be for a route, so should certainly be a part of any consideration.

Also, rural areas shouldn't be excluded, particularly if there are specific issues, such as poor local road links, rural isolation or tourist potential.

I don't understand your assertion that diversionary justifications "should be a separate consideration and only considered if it is the best option for both purposes". What if you have a route which is the best for improving local connectivity, but only second best for diversionary purposes. Supposing the best route for diversionary purposes is going to take a massive amount of additional capital which will never be justifiable by itself. Surely it makes sense to combine that with the business case of the local connectivity route (given that you have conceded that diversionary capability is something that could and should be considered in a business case in some circumstances).

The fact it has a good bus route already tells you something. It is not as much about who is there, but where they go. The lowest cost option is a line to Harrogate and direct into Leeds. Forget TPE, EC, freight trains, Northallerton and all these distractions. Get some good connections to York and Ripon should be a great success.

The forecasting of demand even for new stations let alone new lines is notoriously bad. +150% or -50% are not uncommon. Even if there is modal shift, there are still user benefits in time and comfort and lots of people will reject buses outright. The good bus services tell you there is a lot of demand already and will be a lot more if you could get to Leeds in 45mins (currently 1hr20 by bus).

Ebbw Vale usage was 450% over forecast largely because of the signalling issues meaning the trains got diverted from Newport to Cardiff. In other words for all the BCRs and consultants the most successful reopening was only successful because of an accident, and the bureaucrats would have gone to Newport instead!

 

[HowardGWR]

There are some realities which need to be considered with any such proposal - and there is a world of difference between supporting schemes which clearly stand a chance - something like Portishead or Ashington (where the track remains) or others such as Lewes - Uckfield, or perhaps extending the Borders Railway back to Carlisle, which may stack up as opposed to the crayonista type stuff of 'let's re-build the S&D'.

I agree.

YorksRob did touch on environmental sustainability issues and also he has mentioned social exclusion (I believe he does not drive).

If it became (remember I began with 'if') more or less incumbent on UK to fulfil anti global warming commitments by greatly reducing car travel, we could end up with a need to try and absorb many urban and short inter-urban trips. It is those that are the problem. The longer distance ones could be tackled by reducing motorway and A road speed limits to cruising levels (55 approx). We don't need to touch HGV traffic, we need it for now.

However, I judge that the semi-rural examples, earlier quoted, would come far down , way down, the queue behind a huge expansion of tram routes, tram-train routes and extra tracks on existing commuter routes, together with other road based measures to provide better integration with those extra routes.

The people who cannot drive (children, handicapped, elderly) would of course be greatly benefited by these greatly improved services.

The BCR method would need to be redesigned in such circumstances to take account of such benefits - and that's not even putting any prices on environmental and health benefits.

Of course electric cars may alter that scenario, which is one reason why I began with 'if'. But in that case, we have to find a way of producing the energy in a carbon-less manner. 'Renewables', like burning trees, don't do it for me (we need immediate reductions); it will have to come from the dear old sun, more or less directly.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Ebbw Vale usage was 450% over forecast largely because of the signalling issues meaning the trains got diverted from Newport to Cardiff. In other words for all the BCRs and consultants the most successful reopening was only successful because of an accident, and the bureaucrats would have gone to Newport instead!

Not strictly true. The intention was always to serve both destinations. The reality is that Cardiff is a much more desirable destination than Newport. Despite the newly opened shopping centre in Newport, it cannot possibly compete with Cardiff which has a huge range of restaurants; bars; clubs; live theatre; the Rugby Ground (across the road from Cardiff Central); The Millenium Centre and its environs; County and Test Cricket a short walk from the station etc. etc. People living in the Western Valley will happily put up with a slightly longer journey time to Cardiff.

When services eventually start to Newport, I imagine that they will do fine, there is a latent demand, but I doubt that they will abstract very much from the Cardiff trains. They are two very different markets

 

[muddythefish]

Muddyfish, you are ****ing into the wind with these posters. They have some kind of congenital condition that makes them believe they are right every time by suppressing others. Their aggressive arrogance is staggering but don't chastise them as they know not what they do.
.

I agree they're a waste of space and most don't know what they are talking about (one idiot was even trying to excuse the crook Marples and blame the Beeching closures on Barbara Castle).

Their problem is they don't realise there is going to be a railway revolution over the next 20 - 30 years with new lines opened and old lines reopened. Britain's railways are in demand more than at any time since the 1920s and that demand will only increase with the population forecast to grown to 70m or more by 2030.

 

[HSTEd]

Unless those ten million people are going to move into the region between Ripon and Northallerton - that section of railway is not going to become economic to reopen.

 

[muddythefish]

All areas of the country will have increasing numbers of people. They will be predominantly young and will all need to move around to get work and for leisure. Many if not most will not have cars (unless they are in state sponsored vehicles). The rail revival is barely in its infancy.

 

[HSTEd]

All areas of the country will have increasing numbers of people. They will be predominantly young and will all need to move around to get work and for leisure. Many if not most will not have cars (unless they are in state sponsored vehicles). The rail revival is barely in its infancy.

I would disagree.

POpulation growth in rural areas isn't going so well, urbanisation is still, albeit slowly, increasing.
What people need are better internal transport systems in population centres.

And population between Ripon and Harrogate would have to increase an awful lot to justify a rail link.

 

[RichmondCommu]

All areas of the country will have increasing numbers of people. They will be predominantly young and will all need to move around to get work and for leisure. Many if not most will not have cars (unless they are in state sponsored vehicles). The rail revival is barely in its infancy.

And your evidence of this is......

 

[47802]

All areas of the country will have increasing numbers of people. They will be predominantly young and will all need to move around to get work and for leisure. Many if not most will not have cars (unless they are in state sponsored vehicles). The rail revival is barely in its infancy.

Not convinced of that one. So far lines that have been reopened have generally been where the lines still exist or a substancial part of the track bed and structures still exist, once you start looking at lines that have been obliterated then the costs will go through the roof.

Then there is the driverless vehicle, exactly how quickly this happens seems to be debatable but the experts seem to be saying within the next 5 years for ones which still require a qualified driver and longer for a truly driverless vehicle that doesn't need a driver, but clearly it will happen eventually and certainly for rural areas that may be the real revolution.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think you're wrong there - certainly if you look at the road ones on the HA's website it shows effects on pollution and noise. Also how a scheme benefits local residents and also pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. They are usually 'financialised' to make them more 'tangible' otherwise you'd have no way of assessing them.

I assume that rail ones (though I've not looked at one in depth) do the same in terms of benefits to community, reduction in traffic etc.

Sure, cost-benefit analyses etc. done to assess possible new schemes often do attempt to assess non-financial costs. However, I wasn't talking about those. I was specifically replying to your comment:

Let's say these lines cost £ 000s to run and don't cover their costs - so it then falls to the taxpayer to ensure they don't close again. Assuming most of the posters on here are taxpayers, care to explain how that "improves our lives" - given we'd end up being taxed more and get no benefit from how it was spent?

In that comment, you simply talked about subsidies, apparently ignoring non-financial benefits of rail relative to road.

I'm going to respond to this in the same way I have to 'Deltic08' and 'Muddythefish' - conjecture and your opinion are not the same as facts. Come on here with some facts to demonstrate this.

As it happens there are many other facts than just 'people changing their behaviour' which leads to improvements being 'cancelled out' .

OK. My post was based on that

1. Improving road capacity causes more journeys to be made by car
2. Those additional car journeys will tend to cause more congestion on roads around the improved area, which...
3. ... will tend to cancel (or at least, reduce) the impact of the improvement, and
4. ...this will actually disbenefit some drivers (the ones making journeys in the more congested roads but whose journeys don't actually go through the improvements)

I would have thought the validity of those assertions/deductions is sufficiently self-evident as not to require further questioning. However, wanting to see evidence is a very laudable approach, so....

If you trust wikipedia, their page on Braess's Paradox provides specific examples of cases where reducing road capacity has actually reduced congestion. It gives references, although I haven't chased those up.

In Seoul, South Korea, a speeding-up in traffic around the city was seen when a motorway was removed as part of the Cheonggyecheon restoration project. In Stuttgart, Germany, after investments into the road network in 1969, the traffic situation did not improve until a section of newly built road was closed for traffic again. In 1990 the closing of 42nd street in New York City reduced the amount of congestion in the area. In 2008 Youn, Gastner and Jeong demonstrated specific routes in Boston, New York City and London where this might actually occur and pointed out roads that could be closed to reduce predicted travel times.

If you don't trust wikipedia, then there are these...

The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion - US-based research paper that analyzes data from US cities showing that traffic rises in direct proportion to road capacity, keeping congestion levels constant.

What's Up with that: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse is an easy-to-read explanation of, roughly, the same research.

Notes on the Economic Evaluation of Transport Projects - a World Bank document that discusses the impact of induced traffic on the evaluation of transport schemes

Generated Traffic and Induced Travel - This is an explanation of the phonenemon of induced traffic, pitched at a semi-academic level, with references to numerous research papers on the topic.

Braess' Paradox: Some New Insights uses mathematical reasoning to examine the conditions under which Braess's Paradox can be expected to apply (Braess's Paradox is - very roughly speaking - the mathematical version of one case of what what I'm describing - that improving roads can increase rather than reduce congestion).

If those are not sufficient for you, I'm sure I can provide more references

By the way, if you are (rightly) so keen on facts, how come you never provided any data to back up your assertion that improvements to the road network benefit them [=car users], despite the obvious reasons for doubting that assertion?

Either way - standing still and doing nothing isn't the answer - that's the bury your head in the sand approach Prescott used when he was running transport with the net result improvements in capacity are 10 years behind where they should be and there has been more pollution, more lost time and, dare I say it, more road deaths as a direct consequence.

I fear you're reading meaning into what I've written that isn't there . I have nowhere advocated "standing still and doing nothing". As it happens, I would like to see huge investment in transport infrastructure. But I want to see it spent on things that will, in the long term, actually on balance do good (for example, by reducing people's journey times). And by and large, as some of the above links demonstrate, that largely rules out most infrastructure whose main purpose is to increase road capacity.

 

[deltic08]

This is the attitude that winds people up and you have done it plenty of times so far by dropping in little comments like the child in hospital one.

Only matching that of the hyenas.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unfortunately this is the heart of the problem. You ignore the parts of reports you don't like, cherry pick the numbers that look good and dismiss people who present any conflicting advice.

You absolutely will not be able to build the line for £40m. For a GRIP level business case you will need much more detail than the ARUP report provided and a higher level of optimism bias.

The 0.6 from ATOC and 1.3 from ARUP are very similar business cases benefits wise but ATOC assume a higher capital cost.

So to achieve a positive business case you either need more benefits or less costs.

I'd suggest very large scale housing development (5,000 houses+) as the most likely source of both of these.

You will need NYCC on board though and at present they don't seem enthusiastic.

Certainly have not cherry picked. The hyenas don't read my posts carefully enough and take them in. It is quite the opposite.

I know how to improve BCR thank you. That is why a through route is being looked at as the professionals, as opposed to certain posters on here, have suggested BCR will be improved having a through route as at Bicester-Oxford and Plymouth-Okehampton-Exeter.

Ah, are these the phantom houses that miraculously increase BCR? Not in Ripon I am afraid. Too much gypsum around for more than a 2,000 houses.

There are plans on hold for a new town of 25,000 inhabitants about 6 miles north of Ripon near where the old Ripon-Northallerton trackbed crosses the A1M. Could be the reason for NYCC included Harrogate-Northallerton in its Local Transport Plan two months ago.

NYCC told me they had identified an opportunity but would say no more than that.

I think I stated £45-£55m for Ripon-Harrogate as an extended siding but let us wait and see for an update on cost later this year.

Borders rail was quoted in the Scotsman only this week as costing £294m for 31 miles so strip out the double track, 6 stations and full signalling an that would make Ripon-Harrogate no more than £60m.

NYCC have estimated Harrogate-Northallerton at £192m and upgrade of Leeds-Harrogate for a 15 minute journey time non-stop (again criticised by the hyenas as not possible non-stop) for the new KX-Harrogate EC services introduced in 2018/19.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It could be possible, given the right circumstances, to provide a new line and reduce the national subsidy to rail. However that would mean looking to build relatively short lines (say 5 miles) which link to lines which are relatively lightly used. In doing so the fixed costs of the lightly used lines are spread over more passengers with the variable costs being fairly small in comparison (i.e. it doesn't cost double the cost to NR if 2 tph run over an existing line that currently only has 1 tph).

Although doubling the frequency wouldn't double passenger numbers in it's own right, with an additional destination or two served it could be enough so that the TOC sees it as viable.

Obviously long single track routes probably may not be overly suitable for such a scheme (unless the cost of passing places is included in the cost and it is still good value), however double track lines with 2 tph or 3 tph on them could likely be good candidates.

West Yorkshire PTE wanted 4tph between Leeds and Harrogate instead of 2tph. I wanted 2tph Ripon-Leeds in the 2006 study. Separately they would be loss makers but join them together and the additional footfall feed from Ripon makes the Harrogate-Leeds portion profitable even if Ripon-Harrogate isn't. The same subsidy would be required but 9 miles would be added to the rail network.
4tph Leeds-Harrogate is happening in 2017 so must be a loss maker initially without being fed by traffic from Ripon.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So 'deltic08' decides to take his bat home because he has found some people who dare to disagree with him!

He also said he wouldn't come to my town because it didn't have a train service well that's tough in my eyes we shouldn't be deciding transport policy on that basis.

Anyway I believe that the combined population of my nearest towns eg Cleckheaton/Heckmondwike and the Spen Valley area actually have a higher population than Ripon and the track bed of the Bradford line is still intact so maybe that should have a higher priority than Ripon.

On the other hand it does have a good bus service to Leeds, Bradford and Dewsbury and has managed perfectly well without a train service for the past 50 years.

As I have said I think we should concentrate investment on the existing routes and if we are to look at reopening more lines maybe there needs to a coordinated look at those which should be the highest priority rather than which Rail Campaign group shouts the loudest, and lets try and look at those lines on the merits of the area they will serve rather than a diversionary justification, that should be separate consideration and only considered if its the best option for both purposes.

It would also seem to me that some areas that don't have train services also don't have very good bus services either, so maybe we also need to look at how bus services are funded as well, and would a good bus service be a more cost effective option for some area's, rather than the very high cost of reopening some Railway Lines.

Haven't taken my bat home just yet. Have one or two posters to correct first.

I said I wouldn't travel to a town by bus if there wasn't a railway station. If I couldn't go by car I just wouldn't go. What is wrong with that. Twisting my words again for your own argument. My choice, I believe, to do that unless we have become a dictatorship led by hyenas.

Ah, Spen Valley. I was on one of the last excursion trains to travel over the route about 1980. Very sad day. Not enough residents fought for it. Needed more than ever. I feel as strongly about reinstating a railway down the valley as I do about Ripon and Keswick.

Residents have managed but not managed perfectly well. I know many living there who want the line reinstating but to start a campaign there again is spreading myself too thinly. It would be easier to succeed here than the Ripon line as you say.

What have you personally done to make this happen? Nothing? Why not start a campaign and then you can be brutalised too. I would support and defend you though.

Bus services are heavily subsidised in West Yorkshire by bus passes and other subsidised schemes. There were over 10m bus pass journeys in West Yorkshire in 2012. This will become less as bus passes are withdrawn from under 70 year olds by 2020.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think I have done a good job on this thread even though very few agree with me. You all know more about the Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton line now than you did before even the hyenas who don't read my posts fully. Any publicity is good publicity.

 

[The Ham]

I think I have done a good job on this thread even though very few agree with me. You all know more about the Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton line now than you did before even the hyenas who don't read my posts fully. Any publicity is good publicity.

There is a difference between asking questions about the business case and thinking that reopening a through route shouldn't happen.

As I read it most of the questions were more to do with how does this project compare with others (given the limited amount of funding available nationally for any transport improvements) rather than saying that such an opening shouldn't happen.

However from your last post it would appear that a branch could be possible (depending on the outcome of the report), with the link through being developed as the 25,000 housing scheme comes forward. (Providing this information could have been beneficial to your argument for the through route).

 

[Kettledrum]

All areas of the country will have increasing numbers of people. They will be predominantly young and will all need to move around to get work and for leisure. Many if not most will not have cars (unless they are in state sponsored vehicles). The rail revival is barely in its infancy.

The demographics of different regions and sub regions are very complicated.

In some areas, there are trends for the expanding younger populations to be in the cities: London, Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Cambridge etc. There are also huge concentrations of jobs for the expanding population in the south east.

Expansion of the rail links in these areas is needed to enhance mobility to enable people to get to the jobs without clogging up the roads even more.

In other parts of the country, there is an expanding elderly population where the economic benefits of new rail links might be less. I am not sure whether North Yorkshire fits into this category or not.

The problem is that if all the investment is concentrated in the south east or the big cities, then the trend of jobs and prosperity in the south east will continue, and the rebalancing of the economy will not happen. It is a vicious circle.

Business cases alone are not the be all and end all.

 

[DerekC]

Am a bit tentative about saying anything on this thread for fear of being branded a hyena. Doesn't it all boil down to pushing forward with the minimalist Harrogate - Ripon scheme if that can be made to fly, but doing it in such a way that restoration of the through route would be possible if that becomes economically feasible? Or am I missing something? (It's a long time since I lived and worked in the area so my local knowledge is rusty).

 

[jayah]

Not strictly true. The intention was always to serve both destinations. The reality is that Cardiff is a much more desirable destination than Newport. Despite the newly opened shopping centre in Newport, it cannot possibly compete with Cardiff which has a huge range of restaurants; bars; clubs; live theatre; the Rugby Ground (across the road from Cardiff Central); The Millenium Centre and its environs; County and Test Cricket a short walk from the station etc. etc. People living in the Western Valley will happily put up with a slightly longer journey time to Cardiff.

When services eventually start to Newport, I imagine that they will do fine, there is a latent demand, but I doubt that they will abstract very much from the Cardiff trains. They are two very different markets

I am reading a DfT appraisal of demand forecasting for new stations and lines. Ebbw Vale came in at 450% over forecast and the forecast being based on Newport is cited as the cause. Clearly they had no idea how many people would go from where to where and why, which is pretty much the question at hand, leaving them unable to deduce even where they should be running the trains to begin with.

You might have thought during the fieldwork phase they would have twigged and made Cardiff the priority. Any aspiration to go to Cardiff later wasn't reflected in the forecast, although the mistake would have become abundantly evident had they started running to Newport with everyone changing trains.

My conclusion based on this and the many other spectacular variances, is that they really can't do a BCR for new stations, let alone lines, that is worth the paper it is written on. Ripon would easily be a success if it connects to Harrogate and Leeds.

If the Borders railway had a BCR of 0.5 is being used already by well over 2x as many as forecast and is already demand constrained by lack of parking and train capacity, then Ripon should easily work.

The crucial part is to avoid looking at places e.g. Devizes and look at whether you will serve the places people actually want to go.

 

[Kettledrum]

Am a bit tentative about saying anything on this thread for fear of being branded a hyena. Doesn't it all boil down to pushing forward with the minimalist Harrogate - Ripon scheme if that can be made to fly, but doing it in such a way that restoration of the through route would be possible if that becomes economically feasible? Or am I missing something? (It's a long time since I lived and worked in the area so my local knowledge is rusty).

minimalist schemes are good to get a scheme off the ground, but there needs to passive provision for future expansion such as future double tracking or electrification.

 

[The Ham]

The crucial part is to avoid looking at places e.g. Devizes and look at whether you will serve the places people actually want to go.

The reason for suggesting Devices (which was only a suggestion of the sort of location which could be served) was that it isn't far from a lightly used mainline, but not very near a station. Has a reasonable population which could justify the extension of an existing service and the increase in services to an existing station. Although London would be a bit of a treck, would link with Reading (a fairly major town and transport hub).

 

[47802]

Haven't taken my bat home just yet. Have one or two posters to correct first.

I said I wouldn't travel to a town by bus if there wasn't a railway station. If I couldn't go by car I just wouldn't go. What is wrong with that. Twisting my words again for your own argument. My choice, I believe, to do that unless we have become a dictatorship led by hyenas.

Ah, Spen Valley. I was on one of the last excursion trains to travel over the route about 1980. Very sad day. Not enough residents fought for it. Needed more than ever. I feel as strongly about reinstating a railway down the valley as I do about Ripon and Keswick.

Residents have managed but not managed perfectly well. I know many living there who want the line reinstating but to start a campaign there again is spreading myself too thinly. It would be easier to succeed here than the Ripon line as you say.

What have you personally done to make this happen? Nothing? Why not start a campaign and then you can be brutalised too. I would support and defend you though.

Bus services are heavily subsidised in West Yorkshire by bus passes and other subsidised schemes. There were over 10m bus pass journeys in West Yorkshire in 2012. This will become less as bus passes are withdrawn from under 70 year olds by 2020.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think I have done a good job on this thread even though very few agree with me. You all know more about the Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton line now than you did before even the hyenas who don't read my posts fully. Any publicity is good publicity.

Clearly you don't like Buses and seem obsessed with trying to rebuild the 1960's rail map as a result. so I don't see how that's particularly twisting your words.

I'm so glad you are too busy to campaign for the Spen valley area as I wouldn't want anyone with such blinkered and narrow vision viewpoints involved in Spen Valley Public Transport.

My Mother tuck me for a Trip on the train to Bradford when I was 4 years old just before it closed which I just about remember. I lived all my childhood years in the Spen Valley area and the majority of my Adult life as well did the lack of a train service cause me or anyone I know a problem No.

I now use the line as a walkway and cycleway as many residents do, and if restoration of the line is ever contemplated then ideally it would need to retain the cycleway with perhaps a tram train solution, but then that not popular with many so called rail campaigners is it because its not a proper train, and you might not be able to use as a diversionary route, run a steam train down it, and it may not conform to the 1960's rail map.

 

[A0]

I agree they're a waste of space

More personal insuts - nice.

and most don't know what they are talking about (one idiot was even trying to excuse the crook Marples and blame the Beeching closures on Barbara Castle).

Now stop misrepresenting what I said.

What I pointed out, as I'm guessing you didn't understand it, is that all closures need the sign off of the Secretary of State or Transport Minister.

The majority of Beeching closures (and one or two such as the GCR which weren't part of Beeching's proposals) were signed off by Castle.

So whatever Marples' motives were in appointing Beeching, he was long gone from influence by the time anything was being implemented - in fact Harold Wilson held a further general election in 1966 so anything post '66 was most certainly on Labour's mandate.

There is no precedent for an incoming government to continue the policies of their predecessor - as I pointed out, Denis Healey cancelled the BAC TSR2 project in 1965. More recently the incoming coalition government in 2010 scrapped the stupid HIPS policy in a matter of months which had been implemented by the Blair government.

Lastly, there's no obligation on the minister to sign off a proposed closure. Indeed it's a matter of public record that Michael Portillo rejected BR's attempt to close the S&C.

So yes, Marples may have started the process, yes his motives may have been questionable, but he didn't implement the process - that was down to successors from the Labour government of 64-70. And they could have walked away from it at any time - yet didn't.

So if you want to apportion blame for the closures, perhaps you should look at who signed them off.

Their problem is they don't realise there is going to be a railway revolution over the next 20 - 30 years with new lines opened and old lines reopened.

50 years ago we were going to put a man on Mars by the 1980s......

There may be reopenings - but not the ones you keeping going on about - it will be ones to support travel into the major cities - London, Birmingham, Manchester and quick travel between them. Not cross country routes through sparsely populated areas stopping at every hamlet and village.

Britain's railways are in demand more than at any time since the 1920s and that demand will only increase with the population forecast to grown to 70m or more by 2030.

Interestingly the rail network has been able to accommodate the increased use without large scale new route mileage - alot of it will be about better, more efficient use of the network - improved signalling etc. There is no need to return to the scale of the network of the 1920s or 1950s to achieve capacity improvements of the type which are needed in the medium term.

A population increase to 70m doesn't mean you need to increase the size of the rail network by 20% - you need to increase capacity. A very different thing.

 

[6Gman]

Only matching that of the hyenas.

Bus services are heavily subsidised in West Yorkshire by bus passes and other subsidised schemes. There were over 10m bus pass journeys in West Yorkshire in 2012. This will become less as bus passes are withdrawn from under 70 year olds by 2020.

Bus services are not subsidised by bus passes. The passengers making the journeys are subsidised. Many operators find the low payments made under the ENCTS actually make services unviable.

And what is your obsession with hyenas?

 

[simonw]

I read recently that Swanage was supposedly closed because he only looked at sales AT and not TO a particular place. It might explain a few other oddities like Minehead if this is true.

Swanage and Minehead closed in the 1970s, long after the good Dr had ceased to have anything to do with such matters.

 

[backontrack]

Swansea? I think you mean Swanage

 

[simonw]

Swansea? I think you mean Swanage

Sorry, yes auto correct at work.

 

[Bevan Price]

More personal insuts - nice.



Now stop misrepresenting what I said.

What I pointed out, as I'm guessing you didn't understand it, is that all closures need the sign off of the Secretary of State or Transport Minister.

The majority of Beeching closures (and one or two such as the GCR which weren't part of Beeching's proposals) were signed off by Castle.

So whatever Marples' motives were in appointing Beeching, he was long gone from influence by the time anything was being implemented - in fact Harold Wilson held a further general election in 1966 so anything post '66 was most certainly on Labour's mandate.

There is no precedent for an incoming government to continue the policies of their predecessor - as I pointed out, Denis Healey cancelled the BAC TSR2 project in 1965. More recently the incoming coalition government in 2010 scrapped the stupid HIPS policy in a matter of months which had been implemented by the Blair government.

Lastly, there's no obligation on the minister to sign off a proposed closure. Indeed it's a matter of public record that Michael Portillo rejected BR's attempt to close the S&C.

So yes, Marples may have started the process, yes his motives may have been questionable, but he didn't implement the process - that was down to successors from the Labour government of 64-70. And they could have walked away from it at any time - yet didn't.

So if you want to apportion blame for the closures, perhaps you should look at who signed them off.

.

Wilson's government was at the mercy of the "money people". That meant that they would have had great difficulty in stopping closures, as said "money people" would have viewed it as refusal to take an opportunity to make savings and reduce government spending.

In the 1960s, there was a much greater obsession with "balance of payments deficits" (imports v. exports) than there is now, and upsetting the "money people" led to much adverse criticism from the media.

 

[yorksrob]

Wilson's government was at the mercy of the "money people". That meant that they would have had great difficulty in stopping closures, as said "money people" would have viewed it as refusal to take an opportunity to make savings and reduce government spending.

In the 1960s, there was a much greater obsession with "balance of payments deficits" (imports v. exports) than there is now, and upsetting the "money people" led to much adverse criticism from the media.

Arguably, a lack of interest in the balance of payments defecit is part of the problem with the economy today ! It seems we're happy to flog everything off abroad and let all of our competitors enjoy the income streams off of our economy .

 

[backontrack]

A lot of people will mention Castle just because it's 'evil Labour'. :roll:

Castle did do some closures which she shouldn't have done, but not as badly as Marples did!

 

[yorksrob]

More personal insuts - nice.



Now stop misrepresenting what I said.

What I pointed out, as I'm guessing you didn't understand it, is that all closures need the sign off of the Secretary of State or Transport Minister.

The majority of Beeching closures (and one or two such as the GCR which weren't part of Beeching's proposals) were signed off by Castle.

So whatever Marples' motives were in appointing Beeching, he was long gone from influence by the time anything was being implemented - in fact Harold Wilson held a further general election in 1966 so anything post '66 was most certainly on Labour's mandate.

There is no precedent for an incoming government to continue the policies of their predecessor - as I pointed out, Denis Healey cancelled the BAC TSR2 project in 1965. More recently the incoming coalition government in 2010 scrapped the stupid HIPS policy in a matter of months which had been implemented by the Blair government.

Lastly, there's no obligation on the minister to sign off a proposed closure. Indeed it's a matter of public record that Michael Portillo rejected BR's attempt to close the S&C.

So yes, Marples may have started the process, yes his motives may have been questionable, but he didn't implement the process - that was down to successors from the Labour government of 64-70. And they could have walked away from it at any time - yet didn't.

So if you want to apportion blame for the closures, perhaps you should look at who signed them off.


50 years ago we were going to put a man on Mars by the 1980s......

There may be reopenings - but not the ones you keeping going on about - it will be ones to support travel into the major cities - London, Birmingham, Manchester and quick travel between them. Not cross country routes through sparsely populated areas stopping at every hamlet and village.



Interestingly the rail network has been able to accommodate the increased use without large scale new route mileage - alot of it will be about better, more efficient use of the network - improved signalling etc. There is no need to return to the scale of the network of the 1920s or 1950s to achieve capacity improvements of the type which are needed in the medium term.

A population increase to 70m doesn't mean you need to increase the size of the rail network by 20% - you need to increase capacity. A very different thing.

Marples and the McMillan/Douglas Hulme Government could have ordered the development of the basic railway at any time of their governance up until 1964. No one did until Castle.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Castle's 1968 Transport Act undoubtedly helped to turn the corner, by accepting the concept of subsidy - following on from Beeching pointing out in his Reshaping report that it was necessary if busy commuter lines in particular were to have a future.

It is nevertheless ironic that the rush to create 'basic railways' by singling with the aid of the £50 million Surplus Track Capacity (elimination) Grant has led to so much criticism since.

 

[47802]

Castle's 1968 Transport Act undoubtedly helped to turn the corner, by accepting the concept of subsidy - following on from Beeching pointing out in his Reshaping report that it was necessary if busy commuter lines in particular were to have a future.

It is nevertheless ironic that the rush to create 'basic railways' by singling with the aid of the £50 million Surplus Track Capacity (elimination) Grant has led to so much criticism since.

Yes I don't see how any criticism of the basic railway is valid when we are now many years forward from then and Railway usage has vastly increased.

 

[bluenoxid]

I also don't know how much relevance you can base present cases on demand/closure reasons from 50 years ago. It should be mentioned once in the history section of the business case for a reopening proposal, then dropped.