New Lines needed

[muddythefish]

You've not proved any evidence that company car drivers are subsidised. Offer some facts - not just conjecture.


Evidence - facts. Where are they?

Company cars are a tax perk - in other words, other taxpayers are subsidising you. It's not difficult to understand.

A grade separated junction would cost about £ 10m (using the M1, Jnc 10a as an example) that barely buys you a mile of railway line. Yet it would address the only pinch point on the whole of the A43 from Northampton to the M40.

Evidence ?

The M1/A14 interchange works cost £500 million, all in order to save 5 minutes. For that you could reinstate the entire Nene valley line.

Even the local authorities see no value in reinstating a rail line to Towcester.

Really, evidence ?

Ah, personal abuse.

Your speciality on here.

Try answering the question.

Try looking at the bigger picture.

and made a childish demand for more spending on railways .

More abuse. You can't help yourself. .

 

[The Ham]

Yes, but traffic between Ripon and Leeds/York is one thing.

Traffic between Ripon and Northallerton is going to be miniscule by comparison.
Its traffic between two relatively small towns at a rather significant distance apart. Rather than tarffic between Leeds, the regional hub, and said small town.

And ECML North will rapidly see drop off in traffic potential due to the distances involved.

The only thing I can think of is that the reopening MAY (subject to it being viable) bring as a benefit is if there is justification for a more frequent service north of Northallerton which otherwise wouldn't be viable or possible. However such a benefit would have to be viewed compared to the costs in the link through.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ah, the S word. Unfortunately, any idea that extra connectivity and capacity with rail could contribute to a resolution to lower road traffic is wasted because no such resolution exists. I've got the T shirt on that one. First get the commitment that road traffic must be lowered and then start proposing lines that do not have a strong 'business case'.

It depends on who is trying to reduce traffic, Government - unlikely to push a project. Developers - if it allows them to build more and it comes out of the money that they would have to spend on improving public transport (and/or on local highway improvements) anyway then you are onto a winner.

For instance a rail line has a marginal benefit if all the costs are from the public pursue, however if a developer funds a proportion of the cost then the line becomes good value. The developer wins as once the line is open it releases capacity on the road network for more of their development traffic.

£100million totally funded by development would be (assuming very little local highway works) could be 15,000 new homes, however there comes a point below that where the government starts to see a return on investing its money and so the level of development could be significantly lower than that.

Depending on the area it could be viable to build a new town along the route with government funding stations for existing settlements, with the view of recouping some of their costs from other development near to the stations (say different percentages of public transport funding from any other development within certain distances of stations within the first 10 years of opening taken as payment to "pay back" the construction costs).

 

[edwin_m]

On the company car debate, they originally became popular as a tax dodge and/or a way of getting round the pay restraint policies of the 1970s (give 'em a car if you can't give 'em a raise). I believe the unfairness in the tax system has largely been eliminated, I leave people to judge whether this is for reasons of fairness and greenness or because the government could raise more revenue that way...

I would however point out that paid-for parking near a place of work can be funded through salary sacrifice, giving a saving of around 20%, or more for higher-rate tax payers. This concession is not however available in the UK for public transport season tickets, except for a legal loophole that allows some bus travel.

 

[deltic08]

And yet you somehow plan to route a significant fraction of this massed traffic over a minimum cost line via Ripon?
Any train north of Doncaster will be trapped because it won't be able to get to Leeds to get onto your diversion. Unless you plan to reverse south out of York to reach Leeds, which will play havoc with your journey times.

You would need a fully signalled twin track line throughout to do anything but be a psychological release valve of questionable overall usefulness.

Borders rail bought a single half hourly service.
And you are pulling most of the kit out of that project to reduce your costs.
And since you don't want to use buses you can't suspend the Ripon trains to make room for your planned diverted services.



But the railways are not going to be renationalised any time soon. Nigel Farage is more likely to be the next prime minister than Jeremy Corbyn.

Again someone posting through their bqckside without checking background. Who mentioned diverting from Doncaster via Leeds to York? Not me. This would not divert around a blockage north of York. I suggest you buy yourself a rail atlas.

The diversion route for blockage between York and Northallerton would be from Skelton Junction to Starbeck and then north through Ripon to Northallerton. This adds less than 30 minutes to journey time and saves refunds that are only given when destination is reached more than 30 minutes late.

Of course if it was decided Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton would be used as a diversion route it would be scaled up in infrastructure. York-Harrogate is being upgraded in CP6 (originally planned for CP5) with better signalling and redualling to reduce journey times and allow an increase in capacity.

You appear to nit pick for your own gratification.

 

[A0]

Company cars are a tax perk - in other words, other taxpayers are subsidising you. It's not difficult to understand.

So no evidence. Just your opinion.

The M1/A14 interchange works cost £500 million, all in order to save 5 minutes. For that you could reinstate the entire Nene valley line.

The M1 / A14 works at Catthorpe are not costing £ 500m - it's less than half that. And it's not a simple 'grade separated' junction they're putting in there, instead it's introducing various changes, including free flowing links which don't currently exist as follows:

A14 to M1 northbound
M1 southbound to A14
M6 to A14 in both directions

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/m1-junction-19-improvement-scheme/

And it will save rather more than '5 minutes' as anyone who's queued to get through Catthorpe, even at a quiet time, will attest.

Perhaps you'd like to do some research before making ill informed posts in future?

And the costs for Junc 10a on the M1 are in the public domain and that was a 'simple' grade separated junction.

Originally Posted by A0wen View Post
Even the local authorities see no value in reinstating a rail line to Towcester.

Really, evidence ?

The remaining trackbed is unprotected and it has not featured in any of the local plans. The trackbed has been breached at several points - quite significantly in some places. Even organisations such as Railfuture (who usually call for such reinstatements) haven't bothered with this one.

Originally Posted by A0wen View Post
Ah, personal abuse.

Your speciality on here.

Not at all - I rarely if ever claim to know or speak of other's personal circumstances - which is exactly what you did about me.

I might call people's views misguided, wrongheaded and various other things, but I have usually referenced facts to show why I believe they are wrong. You don't.

Try looking at the bigger picture.

I do - and I also know that any major infrastructure spending needs a benefits case of some description. And what I pointed out with regard to your suggested 'Bournemouth - Bath' line is that it will cost circa £ 1,000m - which as I pointed out is more the the cost of electrifying the whole of the MML and that has a genuine benefits case.

To put about an idea which will cost that much, there needs to be a benefits case to underpin it - even an outline one. So enlighten us - what's the benefits case?

Originally Posted by A0wen View Post
and made a childish demand for more spending on railways .

More abuse. You can't help yourself. .

Come off it - you're suggesting spending upwards of £ 1,000m on a line with no benefits case, just because you think it's a good idea? That's a pretty childish approach by any standard. An adult approach would be to have some facts to hand as to why it makes sense. If you reckon me calling your demand "childish" is "personal abuse" then I suspect you're just trolling for the sake of it.

Whereas you have, repeatedly, made claims to know about my personal circumstances - which are wrong - and you don't think that's "personal abuse"?

 

[sprinterguy]

The only thing I can think of is that the reopening MAY (subject to it being viable) bring as a benefit is if there is justification for a more frequent service north of Northallerton which otherwise wouldn't be viable or possible.

It's the section NORTH of Northallerton that is the limiting factor in terms of capacity for additional services, rather than south from there.

From Network Rail's published ECML 2016 Capacity Review:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...east coast main line 2016 capacity review.pdf
The section between Northallerton and Newcastle is already approaching full capacity and the current timetable makes significant use of the flighting of services to meet current demand. Any increase in freight or passenger services, or optimisation of passenger services to provide a more even spread, is likely to make demand exceed capacity.

 

[billio]

With regard to this discussion about Harrogate - Ripon - Northallerton, I am surprised the proposed route does not aim for Thirsk rather then Northallerton.
The reason being this route is about 5 miles shorter, brings into the service another small centre of population and the route east of Wath is virtually free of any obstructions (at least according to the current OS map).

I accept the journey time will be longer by a few minutes, but is that important ?. The lower building costs might make it easier to get the line built.

 

[deltic08]

Thanks – nothing like a nice attack when you don’t like a point. I notice you do that on a regular basis. Shall we try to debate in a mature fashion or would you prefer childish name calling?



Odd, don’t you think, that the pressing need to bypass this bottleneck has not led to the adoption of this scheme by either Network Rail, their LNE route ( who will hold the power in future) the TOC’s or the FOC’s. Odd also that NR planners feel able to fit more trains through such a congested route after electrification and re signalling.

As it stands your diverted train would have to make a reversal at Leeds which may well eat up even more capacity in the station area and increase journey times. You must also be assuming that the line will be double tracked and electrified to support both the new trains and their means of propulsion. That certainly won’t happen within your quoted figures. Furthermore you cannot assume that any other lines (Wetherby) will open at around the same time as your own to support your proposal.



I am sure the TOC representatives were very pleased with a presentation offering them a new line. Why would you not be when someone offers you free stuff. Odd, though, that they haven’t come out, publically in support of such a project. Especially in light of the horrific capacity constraints and market saturation between Leeds and York. Why is that? Why are they not demanding NR undertake this work forthwith?



Perhaps not, and that is good to know, although this board is aimed at railway enthusiasts, spotters if you will, many of whom love nothing more than to draw nice red lines on their maps and dream up new routes offering little in return.



Common sense for one! What does it serve? Which population centres? Which markets? Which industry?

Your obsession with road building also offers little help, especially in the case of this scheme which is needed to alleviate several local issues. In the case of Bedale, which I assume you are familiar with, I would suggest the road is needed to alleviate the congestion through both Bedale and Aiskew and remove the unhelpful cross roads in the centre of the town. I assume you have, as I have on many occasions, taken an age to travel from Leeming to any location beyond Bedale due to both this cross roads and the level of tourist traffic in the “season”. The two level crossings don’t help either!



If you say so. I disagree , especially if you want to electrify and signal any part of the line.



This is the most recent link I can find to the document: http://web.archive.org/web/20070928...port & streets/Contents and Pages 1 - 67 .pdf

I am happy to be corrected on the funding source. From memory (I can’t find my hard copy version as it is filled away for my house move) I assumed the document referred to funding for construction being via third party rather than central government sources. This is not correct. A lessons there! Please accept my apologies.



Harrogate via Wetherby, Tadcaster to Church Fenton does not exist . Do you propose to open it at the same time as Harrogate – Northallerton?



Based upon figures as of the date of the last route study? Was that 2009? How many of the freight paths are now occupied on a normal day? 12? 15? That is old information.

Finally, to question or challenge proposals does not make one anti rail.

Not recognising that you do spout drivel at times is a failing. I did not name call just stated an observation. You often accuse your critics of being childish in your defence.

If Leeds-York is almost at capacity any other route that would increase capacity is a bonus. Leeds-KX trains regularly use Platform 0 at Leeds and that entails cutting right across the entire west end throat. I have seen plans for a flyover off the Doncaster line to the north side platforms 1-5 of Leeds station to avoid conflict for onward travel to Bradford, Skipton and Harrogate.

Electrification will not improve matters as the Leeds-East Leeds Parkway shuttle will take up any capacity electrification will create. Again, do your homework.[/B]

Just give Abellio and First a chance. The new franchises have only just been announced.

I haven't underlined a number in a book since the end of steam on the GWR.

I genuinely have not had a problem with congestion although Bedale is not a town I go to or through very regularly.

My problem with building new roads is the cost with usually little benefit. Look at the M25. £Billions spent on additional lanes and smart signalling and it is still logjammed in the peaks and shoulder peaks.

The A1 was/is being upgraded north of Dishforth at a cost of £700m for 30 miles. After 8am I very rarely have to move out of the slow lane even at 70mph between the A61 junction and Leeming Bar as the road is empty. According to the DfT, this road has become 10% quieter since 2005 yet they still plough £millions into it.

If the case for Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton stands alone without being a diversion route for freight off the ECML then reinstating to Wetherby and Tadcaster will be dropped as Wethergy and Tadcaster Town Councils, although support the campaign in principle, have refused to contribute towards funding of a study. Although it is still an aspiration to connect Wetherby, Tadcaster and Harrogate, putting Ripon back on the rail map is the more important to me as I live here and may not want or be able to drive for much longer as I get older. Moving somewhere with a railway is not an option either.

Yes, this is the document although my copy is dated Feb 2006 not July 2005. You must have the first draft. There were two more after that. Third party funding was only mentioned as an option if someone other than Network Rail built the line and ran trains. Second hand track could be used which would be a little cheaper in overall construction costs. There was no intention to do any other than for Network Rail to adopt the line so would have to be to their standard, especially if line speed is to be 90mph or above, but Arup included other opportunities without being requested to do so by the joint committee but I think was dropped in the final draft.

 

[A0]

Not recognising that you do spout drivel at times is a failing. I did not name call just stated an observation. You often accuse your critics of being childish in your defence.

I may not agree with everything Darlorich posts, but he does at least put forward a structured argument supported either by facts or personal experience which he alludes to.

Far too many posters don't do that - and it is perfectly reasonable to accuse someone who just spouts a 'well we should just do x' attitude as being childish - that's not abusing the person, it's speaking of the behaviour they are exhibiting.

Whereas using abusive terms about others (such as the one you yourself used earlier in this thread) or claiming to know other's personal circumstances (as Muddythefish has about me on several occasions) most certainly does constitute 'personal abuse' and should be discouraged on these boards.

I would like to think that those who post on these boards are adults with bit of common sense and basic decorum, but too often the responses which get posted makes one doubt that's the case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The A1 was/is being upgraded north of Dishforth at a cost of £700m for 30 miles. After 8am I very rarely have to move out of the slow lane even at 70mph between the A61 junction and Leeming Bar as the road is empty. According to the DfT, this road has become 10% quieter since 2005 yet they still plough £millions into it.

Not sure where you're getting your figures from - Leeming - Barton upgrades are costing £ 380m

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/A1-Leeming-to-Barton-Improvement

And it's about achieving a number of things:

"Why is this happening and what will it cost?
The 12 mile section of the A1 between Leeming and Barton carries between 59,000 to 69,000 vehicles per day. It has poor alignment with many side road junctions, farms and field accesses. The accident rate is broadly in line with the national average for older dual carriageways, but the severity ratio is significantly higher. Incidents often lead to full closure of the route with lengthy diversions. This is the only section of non-motorway on the strategic M1/A1(M) route between London and Newcastle."

Clearly it's a nonsense in this day and age to have farm accesses and 'at level' junctions on a fast major road, particularly one which is the main link to/from Newcastle / Tyneside.

 

[deltic08]

But the Northallerton-Ripon section is not going to significantly increase the connectivity, and will majorly increase the cost of the project.

Creating a through route evidently improves BCR. Reinstating the whole route will reduce journey time from Harrogate northwards by an hour using through trains instead of travelling via York and changing there.

Intercity quality trains will be introduced instead of the crap being used currently. The difference in quality by changing at York or Leeds onto the Harrogate Loop is very noticeable and is quoted by Harrogate Conference Centre as a disincentive for delegates to travel to Harrogate by train.

Ripon will have a service to the north that doesn't exist at present. Only five buses a day connect with the railway by a 15 minute walk at Northallerton. Only four during school holidays. Before closure in 1967, Darlington was the preferred shopping centre to Harrogate or Leeds. The replacement bus only lasted two years as bus was a poor substitute for the train in comfort and journey time so wasn't used. Families that previously commuted by train even moved to Northallerton or Ripon or Darlington rather than commute by bus even though they had cars.

 

[The Ham]

It's the section NORTH of Northallerton that is the limiting factor in terms of capacity for additional services, rather than south from there.

From Network Rail's published ECML 2016 Capacity Review:

There are two lines north of Northallerton, so it could be a service on the other route.

However that does limit how viable such a service through could be, meaning that a through route may not be sensible.

Note, my response wasn't stating that such a service was needed, rather that was what I could think of as something that could make a through line from Ripon more beneficial to a point that it may be worth doing.

 

[deltic08]

Lol.Hello Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle. I don't doubt you with the contents of the 2009 RUS. But this has subsequently been addressed in the CP5 delivery plan.
[/URL]


The required outputs included 6ph TPE services, 2 tph Calder Valley to Micklefield and the Blackpool to York service calling at Garforth only.

What does "lol. Hello Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle" mean? Plain English please instead of jibberish.

Yes in hindsite perhaps but this campaign started in 1987 and a report published in 2006, well before the 2009 RUS. The campaign is still valid and continues.

Plans for Leeds-York upgrade will not provide enough capacity for estimated 5% growth per annum and it hasn't even gone through planning yet so delivery in CP5 is doubtful. Actual growth in 2014 was 7% on this route and 11% after Manchester/Liverpool/Wigan electrification so imagine that, 49% growth to 2022 and 11% growth per annum after that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am very disappointed with your attitude. You have been remarkably rude and immoderate in many of your postings on this thread and I, for one, am not prepared to engage in debate with you.

Likewise.

 

[snowball]

Not sure where you're getting your figures from - Leeming - Barton upgrades are costing £ 380m

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/A1-Leeming-to-Barton-Improvement

Perhaps he's counting Dishforth-Leeming, completed 2012 or thereabouts.

 

[deltic08]

So if 10% of the trains are able to bypass the blockage, how much of the fines are avoided?
He is attempting to build a business case on diversions - so every penny of fines he fails to avoid crushes his business case just a bit more.

Not true. He is not building a case on diversions alone but it is something to consider in a business case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I may not agree with everything Darlorich posts, but he does at least put forward a structured argument supported either by facts or personal experience which he alludes to.

Far too many posters don't do that - and it is perfectly reasonable to accuse someone who just spouts a 'well we should just do x' attitude as being childish - that's not abusing the person, it's speaking of the behaviour they are exhibiting.

Whereas using abusive terms about others (such as the one you yourself used earlier in this thread) or claiming to know other's personal circumstances (as Muddythefish has about me on several occasions) most certainly does constitute 'personal abuse' and should be discouraged on these boards.

I would like to think that those who post on these boards are adults with bit of common sense and basic decorum, but too often the responses which get posted makes one doubt that's the case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not sure where you're getting your figures from - Leeming - Barton upgrades are costing £ 380m

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/A1-Leeming-to-Barton-Improvement

And it's about achieving a number of things:

"Why is this happening and what will it cost?
The 12 mile section of the A1 between Leeming and Barton carries between 59,000 to 69,000 vehicles per day. It has poor alignment with many side road junctions, farms and field accesses. The accident rate is broadly in line with the national average for older dual carriageways, but the severity ratio is significantly higher. Incidents often lead to full closure of the route with lengthy diversions. This is the only section of non-motorway on the strategic M1/A1(M) route between London and Newcastle."

Clearly it's a nonsense in this day and age to have farm accesses and 'at level' junctions on a fast major road, particularly one which is the main link to/from Newcastle / Tyneside.

When people spout rubbish on here they deserve the response they get especially from me.

Please read my posts and carefully digest before responding with stupid replies.

I said that the A1 upgrade north of Dishforth is/was costing £700 million. I cannot be plainer than that. You have to question this with a stupid reply that Leeming Bar-Barton is costing £380m which is correct, but you have ignored Dishforth-Leeming Bar that cost £320m that I inferred to. That is where I get the figures from. I am becoming weary of repeating myself.

I question spending such large quantities of money upgrading a road to three lane motorway standard when it is only seriously busy for one hour in the morning peak and especially when using DfT figures traffic on this road has decreased by 10% since 2005. The old A1 was only busy when lorries only capable of 61mph try to overtake lorries doing 60mph blocking the outside lane for miles at a time. There wasn't a problem with the road, just the road users.

There are ways of addressing minor road access and roundabouts as was done south of Leeming Bar years ago, without making it a motorway. It was all done yet again in 2009 in some cases less than 5 years later.

I have to disagree with poor alignment north of Leeming Bar. It is/was perfectly capable of 70mph which is the maximum by law. A motorway will not allow you to travel any faster. The motorway north of Barton is still only dual all the way to Gateshead.

It can't have been that twisty as an RAF jet did an emergency landing on the A1 near Dishforth circa 1963 and again in 1978 as they couldn't make the runway at Dishforth. The 1978 one ran off the road and ended in a field of maize with very little damage.

Please come back at me with serious responses only.

 

[A0]

Not true. He is not building a case on diversions alone but it is something to consider in a business case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


When people spout rubbish on here they deserve the response they get especially from me.

Please read my posts and carefully digest before responding with stupid replies.

I said that the A1 upgrade north of Dishforth is/was costing £700 million. I cannot be plainer than that. You have to question this with a stupid reply that Leeming Bar-Barton is costing £380m which is correct, but you have ignored Dishforth-Leeming Bar that cost £320m that I inferred to. That is where I get the figures from. I am becoming weary of repeating myself.

I question spending such large quantities of money upgrading a road to three lane motorway standard when it is only seriously busy for one hour in the morning peak and especially when using DfT figures traffic on this road has decreased by 10% since 2005. The old A1 was only busy when lorries only capable of 61mph try to overtake lorries doing 60mph blocking the outside lane for miles at a time. There wasn't a problem with the road, just the road users.

There are ways of addressing minor road access and roundabouts as was done south of Leeming Bar years ago, without making it a motorway. It was all done yet again in 2009 in some cases less than 5 years later.

I have to disagree with poor alignment north of Leeming Bar. It is/was perfectly capable of 70mph which is the maximum by law. A motorway will not allow you to travel any faster. The motorway north of Barton is still only dual all the way to Gateshead.

It can't have been that twisty as an RAF jet did an emergency landing on the A1 near Dishforth circa 1963 and again in 1978 as they couldn't make the runway at Dishforth. The 1978 one ran off the road and ended in a field of maize with very little damage.

Please come back at me with serious responses only.

There's no need to be rude (and prove various poster's points about how you are conducting yourself).

I queried the £ 700m because I could only find the £ 380m mentioned on the HA website - not unreasonable to ask where the other £ 320m came from.

I don't usually believe in the moderator's getting involved on discussion boards such as this, however I'm coming to the conclusion that certain posters would benefit from a little time out until they moderate their tone somewhat.

 

[deltic08]

With regard to this discussion about Harrogate - Ripon - Northallerton, I am surprised the proposed route does not aim for Thirsk rather then Northallerton.
The reason being this route is about 5 miles shorter, brings into the service another small centre of population and the route east of Wath is virtually free of any obstructions (at least according to the current OS map).

I accept the journey time will be longer by a few minutes, but is that important ?. The lower building costs might make it easier to get the line built.

One County Councillor who represents Ripon only supports reinstating Thirsk-Ripon and nothing else. This is despite a study in 2002 looking at both options and the fact that 65% of users travel south from Ripon according to the 2004 demand forecast. This is typical of what the campaign is up against.

Thirsk-Ripon was dismissed in the study for the following reasons:-
1. Thirsk station is too far away from Thirsk to be used by passengers from Ripon and Harrogate except on race days.
2. Junction with the ECML at Thirsk would be too complicated and expensive on quad track.
3. Not enough capacity between Thirsk and Northallerton for additional 2 trains per hour stopping at both stations.
4. 20mph curve at former junction at Melmerby adding journey time and operating costs.
5. Additional journey time over Ripon-Northallerton direct.

Both routes would now have to bridge the A1M and the bridge over the River Swale at Skipton Bridge was removed completely as the Thirsk branch was closed in 1962 and demolished fairly quickly being metal and not masonry.

The bridge over the Swale at Maunby on the Northallerton route is still intact although many other bridges will need replacing as the route is flat and level crossings can no longer be used.

I hope this has answered your question.

 

[lejog]

What does "lol. Hello Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle" mean? Plain English please instead of jibberish..

The phrase "The pot calling the kettle black" is an idiom suggesting that a person is guilty of the same thing of which they accuse some one else. You accused DarloRich of not carrying out research before spouting drivel. I was trying to be a little more polite in suggesting that in the same post you too were guilty of doing no research before posting and spouting drivel.

Yes in hindsite perhaps but this campaign started in 1987 and a report published in 2006, well before the 2009 RUS. The campaign is still valid and continues.

Now you are being unclear in what you mean. In posting "yes in hindsite (sic) perhaps" are you admitting that that your post

Two Liverpool-Newcastle (now extended to Edinburgh) trains an hour are in the trans-Pennine post electrification draft timetable. As Leeds-Micklefield Junction is almost at capacity and recognised in the 2009 RUS Report as such, diverting one or both away from this route would seem logical as well as necessary if an alternate route is available.
........
You can disagree all you like until you are blue, these are the facts why York cannot be used for certain capacity reasons.

was incorrect and that the CP5 capacity improvements will be sufficient for both planned extra TPE and Northern services under the new franchise, that diversions are unnecessary and specifically that York can be used for the TPE Liverpool to Newcastle services? Incidentally these services are due to start in December 2019 not post-electrification.

Plans for Leeds-York upgrade will not provide enough capacity for estimated 5% growth per annum.

Can you substantiate this lack of capacity? Can you substantiate expected growth of 5%?

and it hasn't even gone through planning yet so delivery in CP5 is doubtful.

With extra TPE and Northern services announced for 2019, you would hope that delivery in CP5 is planned.

Actual growth in 2014 was 7% on this route and 11% after Manchester/Liverpool/Wigan electrification so imagine that, 49% growth to 2022 and 11% growth per annum after that.

A moment ago you were quoting 5% growth a year, do you have any substantiation for these alternative figures?

I would be very happy to support a line to Ripon if there were well based sound reasons. Unfortunately I have yet to see any, just attempted shouting down of anyone posting an alternative view and unpleasant personal abuse. You are not likely to encourage supporter to your campaign with such posts. You say you are a councillor, do you tell your constituents that they are spouting drivel? I may suggest that if you did, you would be unlikely to get their votes.

 

[deltic08]

Ah, the S word. Unfortunately, any idea that extra connectivity and capacity with rail could contribute to a resolution to lower road traffic is wasted because no such resolution exists. I've got the T shirt on that one. First get the commitment that road traffic must be lowered and then start proposing lines that do not have a strong 'business case'.

There is a 2012? EU directive that greenhouse gases emissions from transport must be reduced by 60% by 2050. To reach that target we must start yesterday on reinstating railways.

 

[lejog]

Company cars are a tax perk - in other words, other taxpayers are subsidising you. It's not difficult to understand.

Are you just blindly going to repeat this or present any evidence? Yes there can be a tax advantage if you choose a car with low emissions, and a corresponding tax disadvantage if you choose other cars. Since I have found it to my benefit to take the extra salary in lieu of a company car for the last 20years, and paying all applicable tax and NI on that extra salary, I can categorically tell you that a company car would have been a tax disadvantage to me and I would have been subsidising other tax payers.

 

[deltic08]

The phrase "The pot calling the kettle black" is an idiom suggesting that a person is guilty of the same thing of which they accuse some one else. You accused DarloRich of not carrying out research before spouting drivel. I was trying to be a little more polite in suggesting that in the same post you too were guilty of doing no research before posting and spouting drivel.



Now you are being unclear in what you mean. In posting "yes in hindsite (sic) perhaps" are you admitting that that your post



was incorrect and that the CP5 capacity improvements will be sufficient for both planned extra TPE and Northern services under the new franchise, that diversions are unnecessary and specifically that York can be used for the TPE Liverpool to Newcastle services? Incidentally these services are due to start in December 2019 not post-electrification.


Can you substantiate this lack of capacity? Can you substantiate expected growth of 5%?

With extra TPE and Northern services announced for 2019, you would hope that delivery in CP5 is planned.

A moment ago you were quoting 5% growth a year, do you have any substantiation for these alternative figures?

I would be very happy to support a line to Ripon if there were well based sound reasons. Unfortunately I have yet to see any, just attempted shouting down of anyone posting an alternative view and unpleasant personal abuse. You are not likely to encourage supporter to your campaign with such posts. You say you are a councillor, do you tell your constituents that they are spouting drivel? I may suggest that if you did, you would be unlikely to get their votes.

Where have I not done my homework? I have been involve with the Ripon campaign for 29 years and I can assure you my posts are pretty accurate where this is concerned.

5% growth per annum in CP5 is what Network Rail estimated for this line in March 2014 and 3% average for the rest of the UK. I was as the press conference at NR HQ in York Road as a prospective Board member. Were you?

7% is actual growth in the ORR 2014/15 station usage figures just published for this route. Took me 30-45 minutes to work out with a calculator.

11% growth for Manchester-Liverpool-Wigan electrification is from Northern.

THESE ARE ALL STATISTICS YOU COULD FIND WITH A LITTLE EFFORT.

If growth on this route in CP5 is 10% more than estimated for, 30% in total, and possibly 11% per annum after electrification in 2020/22 then NR have seriously underestimated when upgrades haven't even got to GRIP 3 stage yet and could take 5 years until delivered. Planned electrification and resignalling will not provide sufficient capacity post 2025 at this rate of growth.

My constituents know I do my best for them at all times and do not behave in the way some posters do on here. 97% of my constituents support me in pushing for reinstatement of the railway to Ripon again unlike 97% of posters on here who don't appear to.

I don't know why I am bothering to continue replying to you but I do like a challenge.

 

[The Ham]

Are you just blindly going to repeat this or present any evidence? Yes there can be a tax advantage if you choose a car with low emissions, and a corresponding tax disadvantage if you choose other cars. Since I have found it to my benefit to take the extra salary in lieu of a company car for the last 20years, and paying all applicable tax and NI on that extra salary, I can categorically tell you that a company car would have been a tax disadvantage to me and I would have been subsidising other tax payers.

Company cars USED to bring tax advantages, however for most people now it is often better to be paid the extra salary and buy their own car (especially if they don't buy brand new and/or keep their car for more than 3 years).

However for many it is better value (if it is a viable option) to travel to work by public transport and minimise the number of cars in their household.

As an example you buy a car for £8,000 (second hand), keep it for 4 years and sell it for £4,000 (to then start the process again), so that's basicly £1,000 per year. Add to that £100 car tax, £150 MOT & servicing and £350 for insurance and the cost of owning a car is £1,600 per year before driving a single mile. Now it could well be that various costs are different for different people but if most people added up their costs they wouldn't be much less than that and quite a lot of people would be more (a fairly cheap lease car of £150 per month would be £1,800 per year plus insurance and any servicing and car tax not included in the lease).

Yes, there will be many for whom public transport is not viable, my wife for instance; however as I can use public transport for the vast majority of my work (and all my commuting) it enables us to have just one car in the household.

I think that the reason that car usage has remained broadly flat for the last 5 years is that a lot of people have started to realise that they do not have to have as many cars as they thought that they needed and that public transport isn't as gastly as they thought (some may even enjoy it as they don't get stressed getting stuck in traffic or behind that car that always goes at 35 mph no mater what the speed limit is).

 

[A0]

Are you just blindly going to repeat this or present any evidence? Yes there can be a tax advantage if you choose a car with low emissions, and a corresponding tax disadvantage if you choose other cars. Since I have found it to my benefit to take the extra salary in lieu of a company car for the last 20years, and paying all applicable tax and NI on that extra salary, I can categorically tell you that a company car would have been a tax disadvantage to me and I would have been subsidising other tax payers.

Having made exactly the same points to the same poster on several previous occasions, I can hazard a guess on this (which I think will be pretty accurate) - namely he'll continue blindly repeating the statement.

In my experience there is usually little or no difference between the cost of the company car tax bill and the tax on the additional salary paid by foregoing the car - if anything the car has come out as more. At which point I've taken the opposite approach to you and decided I'm happier with my employers owning the risk of running a car - but I can understand why others have taken a different approach.

To claim company car drivers are 'subsidised' though is frankly laughable. Indeed to claim any motorist is subsidised is pushing it a bit, when you consider the contribution motorists make to the exchequer when set against the spending on road infrastructure generally.

 

[deltic08]

Useful for what?
What other reopening are you prepared to sacrifice to make people more able to take the train between Ripon and Northallerton?
It is highly unlikely to be competitive with the normal route for through traffic, which is faster and also electrified.


You could get half hourly from Harrogate to Ripon with a very lightweight infrastructure - extending to Northallerton will, at least, double the cost of the project. For every little gain.

Stupid reply after all I have said about through trains, possibility of freight trains from a substantial warehousing site on the line and a diversion for York-Northallerton in an emergency.

Why does it have to be competitive? It will provide a service to Harrogate and Ripon that they do not have now and unlikely to get without the line reopening. Light rail has already been dismissed by two authorities and Network Rail as I have already said.

If Leeds-Harrogate is electrified in CP6 as planned then Harrogate-Ripon-northallerton will have to be. Leeds-Harrogate after electrification is planned for 15 minutes non-stop and Harrogate-Northallerton with one stop at Ripon is 24 minutes. Total 40 minutes. That will be difficult to beat where time via York is 50 minutes. 15 miles shorter is 15 miles shorter.

Before you question Leeds-Harrogate in 15 minutes, I regularly used the 0948 Yorkshire Pullman from Harrogate in the 1970s, whilst at Leeds University, which was Deltic + 10 and 18-20 minutes was easily attainable then on 60ft bullhead rail. Much improvement has been done since.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The old A1 was only busy when lorries only capable of 61mph try to overtake lorries doing 60mph blocking the outside lane for miles at a time.

Being a regular user of the old A1 between Tyneside and West Yorkshire, I would have to respectfully disagree with you on that.

The HGVs did cause bunching, but that was not the only, or even the main, issue with the A1.

There are ways of addressing minor road access and roundabouts as was done south of Leeming Bar years ago, without making it a motorway. It was all done yet again in 2009 in some cases less than 5 years later.

If you're going to the expense of building the road up to be fully grade-separated, whilst maintaining local road access, you may as well spend the extra and build it to motorway standards. Particularly as building it to motorway standard will resolve the safety issues with slow moving horse-drawn and agricultural vehicles using the road alongside vehicles doing 50mph+.

I'm unsure what work south of Leeming Bar you're referring to, other than removing the crossroads at Rainton, which was done by putting an overbridge in that was designed to allow a motorway beneath it later anyway. The twisty and dangerous section between Wetherby and Ferrybridge was replaced by an entirely new motorway alignment in the 90s.

I have to disagree with poor alignment north of Leeming Bar. It is/was perfectly capable of 70mph which is the maximum by law. A motorway will not allow you to travel any faster. The motorway north of Barton is still only dual all the way to Gateshead.

North of Leeming Bar the road straightened out, but there were/are still issues with several side roads and farm access tracks opening directly on to a dual carriageway with vehicles travelling at 50mph+.

The issue isn't the third lane (motorways do not have to have three lanes), the issue is the fact that slow-moving horse-drawn and agricultural vehicles were able to use the road. If you don't think this is an issue, you should have seen what the road was like in the weeks leading up to the Appleby Horse Fair (and indeed see what the A66 remains like).

The upgrade works north of Dishforth were long overdue.

 

[deltic08]

Having made exactly the same points to the same poster on several previous occasions, I can hazard a guess on this (which I think will be pretty accurate) - namely he'll continue blindly repeating the statement.

In my experience there is usually little or no difference between the cost of the company car tax bill and the tax on the additional salary paid by foregoing the car - if anything the car has come out as more. At which point I've taken the opposite approach to you and decided I'm happier with my employers owning the risk of running a car - but I can understand why others have taken a different approach.

To claim company car drivers are 'subsidised' though is frankly laughable. Indeed to claim any motorist is subsidised is pushing it a bit, when you consider the contribution motorists make to the exchequer when set against the spending on road infrastructure generally.

What about self employed?

I do no more than 3,000 miles per year yet I still pay the same road tax as a rep doing 50.000. I consider I am subsidising him.

 

[duffield]

...unlike 97% of posters on here who don't appear to.

I don't think that's correct. I think it's more likely that 97% of posters on this forum would agree with the reinstatement; it's just that you've got into a lengthy disagreement with a few people who don't or have doubts. A large volume of posts by a handful of individuals is not (necessarily) representative of the general forum opinion.

Although of course it depends whether when you refer to 'posters on here' you mean only those who have posted on this particular thread or those who post on railforums.co.uk as a whole (and may be reading this particular thread without commenting because they agree with you or one of the other posters and consider them chiming in is redundant).

Apologies if this is overly pedantic, just don't assume opinion here is (necessarily) against you based on flimsy evidence!

 

[deltic08]

Since I came to Ripon in 1966 the A61 and Dishforth roundabouts have been abolished by grade seperation with the A61 junction being done again completely in 2009 almost like for like, the junction for RAF Leeming abolished by flyover, the junction for Londonderry closed and replaced with flyover and as you say Rainton. Apart from Dishforth roundabout and Rainton (so narrow it is traffic light controlled), the other three are recent enough to be a complete waste of money.

 

[A0]

What about self employed?

I do no more than 3,000 miles per year yet I still pay the same road tax as a rep doing 50.000. I consider I am subsidising him.

Self employed can claim their mileage from their 'home' to a place of work for a period of up to 2 years as many contractors do once they've gone beyond 2 years at the same location the Inland Revenue treats it as a permanent place of work and they can no longer claim - permanent employees are not able to do that. So self-employed have a number of advantages.

Road fund licence (or road tax) is, as you well know, only one of a number of taxes which motorists pay. Others include VAT on parts, fuel duty and Insurance Premium Tax. A higher mileage motorist will incur far more of those than you.

Either way - there's no company car I know of which attracts a £ 100 year tax bill - £ 1000, yes. £ 1500 definitely.

 

[deltic08]

I don't think that's correct. I think it's more likely that 97% of posters on this forum would agree with the reinstatement; it's just that you've got into a lengthy disagreement with a few people who don't or have doubts. A large volume of posts by a handful of individuals is not (necessarily) representative of the general forum opinion.

Although of course it depends whether when you refer to 'posters on here' you mean only those who have posted on this particular thread or those who post on railforums.co.uk as a whole (and may be reading this particular thread without commenting because they agree with you or one of the other posters and consider them chiming in is redundant).

Apologies if this is overly pedantic, just don't assume opinion here is (necessarily) against you based on flimsy evidence!

Yes I know. I was just being mischievous at that point because I know from an online poll that 97% of Ripon supports reinstatement and I just repeated that figure on purpose with tongue in cheek.

Ironically I have to stop now and go to an informal Council meeting where reinstating the Ripon line and possible funding of a benefit/cost analysis is on the agenda.

Apologies to those I know think the same as myself here and support more railways.

I thought Penrith-Keswick thread was a good thrash and one I support whole heartedly for many reasons including happy childhood holidays. It raised temperatures but this thread raises blood pressures too.

 

[lejog]

Even if I get banned from this site, I am afraid you are an arse. Do your research before coming back with idiotic posts when I have already said this more than once.

LOL, more abuse I see. Very reasoned. I note your lack of reply to two of my questions about about admitting whether your post was in error and whether you treat your voters this way. I will leave others to draw their own conclusions on your lack of answers.

5% growth per annum in CP5 is what Network Rail estimated for this line in March 2014 and 3% average for the rest of the UK. I was as the press conference at NR HQ in York Road as a prospective Board member. Were you?

7% is actual growth in the ORR 2014/15 station usage figures just published for this route. Took me 30-45 minutes to work out with a calculator.

11% growth for Manchester-Liverpool-Wigan electrification is from Northern.

THESE ARE ALL STATISTICS YOU COULD FIND WITH A LITTLE EFFORT.

It is normal internet etiquette to provide links to backup up your assertions (as I did with the links to the CP5 plan and the HLOS in my post), not to shout at people and expecting them to start to go round searching themselves. If people can not substantiate your posts without going to a great deal of research themselves, then your posts are going to be ignored.

If growth on this route in CP5 is 10% more than estimated for, 30% in total, and possibly 11% per annum after electrification in 2020/22 then NR have seriously underestimated when upgrades haven't even got to GRIP 3 stage yet and could take 5 years until delivered. Planned electrification and resignalling will not provide sufficient capacity post 2025 at this rate of growth.

Thanks for the clarification of your statistics. So basically you are saying that Network Rail are wrong in their growth assumptions and that the DfT/franchises/Network Rail are wrong to announce new services starting in 2019. Well we can wait and see whether you are right or they are. A couple of questions though.

Since you were at this presentation by Network Rail, when they announced this 5% growth estimate did they specifically say that the capacity improvements would only support 5% growth? It would be good practice to allow for more than this in the infrastructure and allow extra services to be run if growth proves higher. I don't know about the Leeds-York line but I understand this is the case for the Calder Valley line, which of course is highly relevant because for extra Calder Valley trains to be run into Leeds they need to be extended east of Leeds. Your reasoning assumes that the capacity improvements will only support 5% growth.

Anyway what is the relevance of this to the reopening of the Ripon line? If the capacity upgrade is not possible by 2019 then reinstating the Leeds-Ripon-Northallerton line certainly will be. Are you on a personal crusade to show that the rail industry were wrong to ignore you in the past?