New Lines needed

[bluenoxid]

You are being insulting to Arup who have completed GRIP stages 1 and 2. Nobody is basing reinstatement on that alone but it all helps. Man is lazy by nature and takes the easiest path. It takes less effort to criticise than to promote and most people take the easiest path as you are doing. If we all acted this way nothing would get done. SELRAP is raising funding for GRIP 3 so everything is progressing nicely.

I am a campaigner by nature so I always try for improvement especially reinstated rail routes that should not have been closed in the 1960s/70s under Beeching or post Beeching. Skipton-Colne is one line that should not have closed as hundreds were using it daily in both directions.

I cannot see the benefit of reinstating in two sections as you suggest when it is such a short route. The business case is stronger being a through route with through traffic so spend £50m and reopen in one go. Even reinstate the branch to Barnoldswick and run services westwards from there instead of Colne. Extend electrification and Aire Valley services from Skipton to Earby interchanging here for both routes. It was a three platform station IIRC.

You correctly state that BCR is 1.52 but you fail to mention the possibility of 6.5 if footfall reaches 30% higher than forecast.

The line needs this harsh criticism. It was one of the longest pauses I ever witnessed at a meeting when I asked SELRAP representatives where the development was going to be. It will be facing the same difficult questions at a number of stages when those with the money sit down and look at what will take funding. I have fought for better transport and found there are opportunities but I am concerned that nobody runs the rule over their proposal. I am concerned that some people have their blinkers on with this project. The rail network is not going to serve the major population areas well that many are hoping for.

The problem i also have is this £50 million figure. It is going to top £100m very easily.

Personally, I want to see the area improve but it finds itself in a difficult location geographically and with regards to the network. This sticking plaster is not the only thing that will improve connectivity.

I don't mind if ARUP does their report (GRIP3 could also kill this project as well which is a risk you have to take). I look forward to seeing what inflationary value they have added to the figures for construction.

 

[mr_jrt]

(About the idea of an orbital London railway)


Interesting thoughts. But if I've understood you correctly, you seem to be basing it on an orbital railway that has mainly out-of-town parkway stations. I would envisage an orbital railway to be more like how I've drawn up in the attached map. This mainly connects with the existing radial lines out of London at existing interchange stations (and uses existing track for quite a bit of its route, including getting into most of the town centres).

With all the usual provisos of this only being a 'crayonista' sketch and it would be very expensive to build, I think it should hopefully be obvious just from looking at the large populations served and new interchange opportunities created that a route something like this would attract huge numbers of passengers - well beyond the numbers who might swap from driving on the M25.

(On the map - black=existing station, red=new station)

My old thoughts on this from 6 or 7 years ago on this are obviously fairly similar: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zoWagaM06p7o.kgAySrwjmpk8&usp=sharing

...and a later, but still quite old schematic experiment (included as it shows the northern section a bit more clearly): http://random.jamie-thompson.co.uk/newmap12

Timings I worked from are similar to tube timings - 3-4 minutes between stations on the whole, and 15-20 minutes between interchanges. Worked out quicker going orbitally than in and out for quite a lot of journeys.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Lucky the OP didn't want to go to Mablethorpe.
NOTE TO FORUM STAFF: Why does this site continually log me out before I have finished my post?

Perhaps the OP got logged out before he got to Mableyhorpe lol

 

[yorksrob]

This sticking plaster is not the only thing that will improve connectivity.

The fact that you refer to the SELRAP project as a "sticking plaster" makes me less inclined to believe your interpretation of the situation.

Ask the residents and businesses of Whitby and Bentham if they think that their railway services are "sticking plasters" and see how far you get.

 

[Class 170101]

To back up your approximation for the cost of the tunnelling: see http://www.irishcentral.com/culture...ng-Ireland-and-Wales-proposed-by-British.html. This is an article which refers to a report by the Chartered Institute for Logistics and Transport; I have been unable to find an online copy of the original report. Prof. Stuart Cole concurs with a cost estimate of the order of £15 billion:


As Prof. Cole says, a significant proportion of this bill might well be picked up by the European Union under the TEN-T programme.

You would either go Talgo style with gauge changing trains - or you would just fit three rail dual gauge equipment into the platforms at the Irish end.
But really the most likely crossing is in the North Channel between Stranraer and Northern Ireland - and after the debacle that is the Chunnel a surface, or combined tunnel-bridge, is more likely as it would allow for a feasible drive-through connection.

A drive through connection in the North Channel would likely kill all of the ferries on the Irish Sea.

But its still taxpayers money after all which won't be available if we pull out of the EU by 2017. Whilst a crossing of the North Channel might kill off the ferries (and I wouldn't bet on that entirely given the location it won't kill off most air traffic between the South east and Ireland / Northern Ireland. I very much doubt it would be a bridge given the inclement weather that often persists there and a road tunnel would be out of the questions for the same reasons it was when the Channel Tunnel was seriously looked at in the 1980s and 1990s.

I agree with the Midland Main line - I seem to recall that operation Rio seemed to highlight reasonable demand from Leicester etc to Manchester and would restore links between Derby and Manchester

The problem is now you need the sixth path out of St Pancras unless you split the 'slow' Sheffield at Chesterfield. Never mind capacity constraints on the Hope Valley. As I recall some services were run by EMT more recently than Project Rio from Manchester Piccadilly (and return) calling at Stockport, (Derby?), Wellingborough (for Northampton) and St Pancras and I thought they weren't well used but stand to be corrected on this.

There is no direct link between the District/Piccadilly Lines and the NLL (except by a tortuous changing at Turnham Green and Gunnersbury, District Line only). I think that the link could be reinstated without too much bother.

But what about having some NLL services go to Kew Bridge from South Acton on what is currently a freight line? The disused platforms on the east curve at Kew Bridge could be rebuilt without bother. Or it could be run as a shuttle between Kew Bridge and South Acton or Acton Central.

In view of that, what about passenger services along the line from Acton Wells to Cricklewood, with stations at sensible places? Perhaps Kew Bridge via South Acton and Acton Central (interchanging with the NLL) to Cricklewood, where there could be an interchange with Thameslink services? (Or, being really adventurous, through the tunnel at Finchley Road and on to the Goblin Line?) There used to be passenger services on that line, and the NLL used to go to Kew Bridge; they ended long ago as they were not used much, but now there is much more travelling around London and much more need for quick, regular transport of that sort.

It might be cheaper to just build a new station where the District / Piccadilly and NLL lines cross rather than re-instating an actual rail link.

The problem with Kew Bridge is where would find capacity between Kew Bridge and Clapham Jn or Waterloo for trains to run? You might have to extend Barking to Gospel Oak services services onwards through Kew Bridge to Clapham Jn and probably beyond towards either Shepherd's Bush or towards Denmark Hill and East London Line.

New Platforms with lifts (an additional expense) would be needed as well, never mind the trains.

By the Finchley Road tunnel I assume you mean the link between the T&H and the MML. On this basis the service would have to terminate at Cricklewood from both the T&H and from Acton Wells as linking the two services would involve crossing all lines MML on the flat - very likely to cause severe delays and reduce capacity on the MML.

 

[HSTEd]

But its still taxpayers money after all which won't be available if we pull out of the EU by 2017.

The British state is going to dissapear if we pull out of the EU?
Almost any reasonable analysis shows the economic effects would not be particularly drastic.

Whilst a crossing of the North Channel might kill off the ferries (and I wouldn't bet on that entirely given the location it won't kill off most air traffic between the South east and Ireland / Northern Ireland.

The fact that you could make the crossing at any time, immediately after arriving on the motorway that runs all the way from London (I assume the M6 would be extended to Stranraer, after all it ends near Carlisle as iti s) would eat up the distance saving from the Irish Mail route.

Ferries don't manage 65 knots after all.
And air traffic would probably take a serious hit if fuel prices stay as low as they are.

I very much doubt it would be a bridge given the inclement weather that often persists there and a road tunnel would be out of the questions for the same reasons it was when the Channel Tunnel was seriously looked at in the 1980s and 1990s.
.

A bridge would probably be able to handle stuff like that - after all we have had some bridges in seriously exposed locations put up since then.
As for a tunnel being out of the question things have improved drastically in lengths of undersea road tunnels since then.
The Fehmarn belt will manage ~19-20km under water without ventilation shafts, which while it is not the ~34km required for the Stranraer crossing is getting closer to feasible.

The deeper water would obviously cause problems - probably not be able to use an immersed tube, but it takes the length problem out of the question. It is possible to bypass the deepest portions of Beaufort's Dyke if you pick a relatively northern route leaving from the vicinity of Islandmagee without significantly nicreasing the underwater length (36km).
You end up having to cross water of about 140-150m from what I can tell from a fragment of a chart I have possesion of.

That is much deeper than any existing immersed tube but still not ridiculous.
A bored tunnel should be able to manage it easily but would probably be more expensive.
It is also still significantly shorter than the Channel Tunnel and could easily be made curved, which should reduce the driver mesmerisation concerns that were expressed with the 'Channel Expressway' project.

 

[deltic08]

Thanks for the interesting insight into this. So due to meddling by NYCC and WYPTE the whole reinstatement was set back 10 years. Unbelievable.
I am sure the residents of Harrogate and Ripon would be delighted to find out that it was thought they would be better served by a tram-train service to Leeds rather than direct fast express services to places like Manchester and Newcastle!

I have worked in Ripon for over 30 years and had not heard of the Lewis Carroll connection before! Most interesting.

You have obviously not been into Ripon Spa Gardens in Park Street. There are wood carvings from dead tree trunks depicting characters from Alice in Wonderland.

Go into the Cathedral Choir stalls and ask any of the vergers to show you the carvings there that gave Carroll the idea. If you would like me to show you just send a PM and a time can be arranged.

The drawings of Alice in the book are of a local girl whose name escapes me but if you go into the Unicorn Hotel in the corner of the market place there is a photo of her on the wall of the ground floor dining room that looks out onto the Market Place.

The hole that the White Rabbit disappeared into is thought to be the gypsum sink hole, now surrounded in a ring of trees, in a field on the hillside at the back of Ripon Land Rover showroom and workshop.

After somebody on this forum used White Rabbit Line a few days ago and turned it into White Elephant Line responding to a thread about reinstating Skegness to Grimsby via Louth, I have dropped the title after only a few days.

May call it Three Rivers Line instead as it crosses the Swale, Ure and Nidd or if Harrogate-Wetherby-Cross Gates is included then Four Rivers as the Wharfe is crossed at Wetherby. The river Aire flows beneath Leeds station so theoretically could become Five Rivers.

Did think of Minster Line years ago as Ripon Cathedral is also called Ripon Minster but York-Beverley reinstatement group used it first.

Right, back on topic before there are any complaints.

The attraction of reinstatement of Harrogate-Northallerton for Harrogate residents is InterCity quality through trains from Liverpool to Edinburgh under the new TPEx franchise and an immediate reduction in journey time of an hour to Northallerton and stations north of there without a change of trains at York.

I wonder if extension from Newcastle to Edinburgh will result in trains returning to Liverpool or Manchester via Carlisle and Preston and vice versa? Through trains from Harrogate to Manchester, Preston, Carlisle or Glasgow would be very attractive in addition to through trains to Edinburgh via the ECML.

There has been mention of using bimode class 800s on TPEx trains north of York, in addition to 185s between Manchester and York, until TPEx electrification is completed. If these are introduced, the business case for reinstating Harrogate-Northallerton is improved as rolling stock will be provided for a service anyway so will not be loaded onto operating costs in the benefit/cost analysis. They will just be diverted away from calling at York.

As this route is 15 miles shorter than via York to Northallerton, journey time could be 15 minutes shorter too.

Similarly, East Coast is introducing a regular service between Kings Cross and Harrogate from 2019 every two hours using bimodes until Harrogate-Leeds is electrified. Every reason to believe that these could be extended to Newcastle or even Edinburgh.

Harrogate station is very much underperforming for a conference town of this size, 77,000. My request for footfall numbers travelling via ECML to stations north of Harrogate in 2013/14 revealed only 49,000 out of a total of 1.36m. Is this because of journey time, or a compulsory change at York or condition of local feeder trains (Pacers) between York and Harrogate that is deterring travel?

 

[bluenoxid]

The fact that you refer to the SELRAP project as a "sticking plaster" makes me less inclined to believe your interpretation of the situation.

Ask the residents and businesses of Whitby and Bentham if they think that their railway services are "sticking plasters" and see how far you get.

Potentially not the best usage of words. Two examples would be

Reopening Whitby to Redcar and opening the direct route from Bentham to Lancaster. Both are lovely ideas for anyone with a pen or an imagination but to accommodate a thing like this it will require upgrades to the surrounding network and doesn't really improve connectivity to where people want to go. Even if they do, they don't deliver the returns. The sticking plaster covers the gap but does not resolve the actual problems for connectivity.

Colne would probably do better with improved connections to Manchester. The cheaper iterations of this project does not deliver that. Any passenger increase is going to head east towards Leeds as that becomes the biggest settlement on the route. With HS2 and the likely economic developments, is that a good use of £100m in this area?

The one thing to remember is that my views are an opinion. Some will not like it but I would prefer to see these projects thrive after a good run through the options/criticism mill rather than go on and on and on as a lovely idea. I think too much effort is placed on reopening the railway line rather than improving connectivity. A bus, tram, car, bike, cable car and even a path can improve an area.

My fear is that this project will be put up against road improvements and it won't be able to offer any options that could divert that budget within a similar timescale.

 

[yorksrob]

Potentially not the best usage of words. Two examples would be

Reopening Whitby to Redcar and opening the direct route from Bentham to Lancaster. Both are lovely ideas for anyone with a pen or an imagination but to accommodate a thing like this it will require upgrades to the surrounding network and doesn't really improve connectivity to where people want to go. Even if they do, they don't deliver the returns. The sticking plaster covers the gap but does not resolve the actual problems for connectivity.

Colne would probably do better with improved connections to Manchester. The cheaper iterations of this project does not deliver that. Any passenger increase is going to head east towards Leeds as that becomes the biggest settlement on the route. With HS2 and the likely economic developments, is that a good use of £100m in this area?

The one thing to remember is that my views are an opinion. Some will not like it but I would prefer to see these projects thrive after a good run through the options/criticism mill rather than go on and on and on as a lovely idea. I think too much effort is placed on reopening the railway line rather than improving connectivity. A bus, tram, car, bike, cable car and even a path can improve an area.

My fear is that this project will be put up against road improvements and it won't be able to offer any options that could divert that budget within a similar timescale.

Isn't the point rather that the Colne Valley requires access to areas of economic development. For residents there it doesn't matter so much whether that is in West Yorkshire or Greater Manchester, however it's the bit towards West Yorkshire that's currently missing.

 

[JohnB57]

Isn't the point rather that the Colne Valley requires access to areas of economic development. For residents there it doesn't matter so much whether that is in West Yorkshire or Greater Manchester, however it's the bit towards West Yorkshire that's currently missing.

Rob, you may want to edit the reference to "Colne Valley" in this post. As I'm sure you know, neither of the two Colne Valleys - in West Yorkshire and Essex - are related to this Colne. I just spent a confused few minutes trying to work out what you were referring to before I realised that you'd invented a third one!

 

[yorksrob]

Rob, you may want to edit the reference to "Colne Valley" in this post. As I'm sure you know, neither of the two Colne Valleys - in West Yorkshire and Essex - are related to this Colne. I just spent a confused few minutes trying to work out what you were referring to before I realised that you'd invented a third one!

Apologies - my knowledge of river basins is lacking. I suppose this is more accurately the Craven Valley ?

 

[bluenoxid]

Apologies - my knowledge of river basins is lacking. I suppose this is more accurately the Craven Valley ?

Pendle is probably the best term to use. No need to call it a valley.

 

[Dr_Paul]

It might be cheaper to just build a new station where the District / Piccadilly and NLL lines cross rather than re-instating an actual rail link.

The problem with Kew Bridge is where would find capacity between Kew Bridge and Clapham Jn or Waterloo for trains to run? You might have to extend Barking to Gospel Oak services services onwards through Kew Bridge to Clapham Jn and probably beyond towards either Shepherd's Bush or towards Denmark Hill and East London Line.

New Platforms with lifts (an additional expense) would be needed as well, never mind the trains.

By the Finchley Road tunnel I assume you mean the link between the T&H and the MML. On this basis the service would have to terminate at Cricklewood from both the T&H and from Acton Wells as linking the two services would involve crossing all lines MML on the flat - very likely to cause severe delays and reduce capacity on the MML.

Yes, it would be a good idea to replace Chiswick Park and South Acton with a joint station, rather than reinstating the Acton Town to South Acton shuttle. The problem with the point where the NLL crosses under the District and Piccadilly Lines is that whilst platforms could be built for the District, a four-platform station on the viaduct there would mean a hefty engineering project.

I was thinking more of a service that terminated at Kew Bridge. The platforms on the east to north curve are still there, if rather tatty, and I think that they could be rebuilt to take 5-car NLL stock. Some provision would have to be made for freight working, to ensure that terminating passenger trains don't cause obstructions, perhaps reversible running on both lines.

I mooted the link with the Goblin line as an ambitious projection; the realistic service being Kew Bridge to Cricklewood, where there would be a connection with Thameslink services. I guessed that the line up from Acton Wells would have to cross the fast line to reach the Thameslink platforms (the same sort of problem with services from Watford to Olympia and beyond at Willesden), and so a flying or burrowing junction would be needed, or perhaps a cheaper idea would be new terminal platforms off the freight lines (there seems to be sufficient room).

 

[Class 170101]

The British state is going to dissapear if we pull out of the EU?
Almost any reasonable analysis shows the economic effects would not be particularly drastic.

The fact that you could make the crossing at any time, immediately after arriving on the motorway that runs all the way from London (I assume the M6 would be extended to Stranraer, after all it ends near Carlisle as iti s) would eat up the distance saving from the Irish Mail route.

Ferries don't manage 65 knots after all.
And air traffic would probably take a serious hit if fuel prices stay as low as they are.

The British state won't disappear if we leave the EU BUT we would have to solely fund a tunnel across the North Channel without EU funding.

The ferries wouldn't disappear between Holyhead and Dublin as the distance from North Wales to Ireland via NW England would be too great though they would disappear between SW Scotland and Belfast.

 

[HSTEd]

The British state won't disappear if we leave the EU BUT we would have to solely fund a tunnel across the North Channel without EU funding.

Well yes, however the funding resources of the UK Government are still easily equal to the task. Not everything has to be funded by the EU.

The ferries wouldn't disappear between Holyhead and Dublin as the distance from North Wales to Ireland via NW England would be too great though they would disappear between SW Scotland and Belfast.

The only people left using those would be people living in NOrth Wales wanting to travel to the Irish Republic or vice versa.
Thanks to the rather slow travel time on the ferry, combined with a rather low frequency. 6 ferries at 1hr50 and 4 at 3hr15, as far as I can tell.
Either way you are looking at two hours.

Traffic from Liverpool (and beyond) has to drive all the way to Holyhead first, which takes something like 1hr45.
Which means you are loking at 3hr35 up to something like 5 hours.
Liverpool to Stranraer currently takes 4 hours or so - however if a fixed road crossing was built the M6 would certainly be extended to the bridge.
It takes 2 hours to cover the distance between Stranraer and Carlisle, and cruising on a motorway you might expect to do the 100 miles in 1hr30.

Which means you get to the Irish side in something like 3hr45, albiet in the vicinity of Larne instead of Dublin.
Larne to Dublin currently takes 2 hours or so.

Leaving us with Liverpool to Dublin in about 5hr45 - so slower than the slow ferry and beaten by the normal ferry by two hours or more.

The point is the ferries are only available at a handful of sailings per day - over two different operators and with seperate ticketing arrangements.
Whereas with a bridge you can leave at any time you like.

A bridge would certainly kill the slow ferries, and I imagine it would bleed off enough traffic that the fast ferries would collapse under the strain.
Just look at the obliterated bulk of the eastern Channel Ferries, despite the tunnel not being a drive through connection.

 

[edwin_m]

The point is the ferries are only available at a handful of sailings per day ...

A bridge would certainly kill the slow ferries, and I imagine it would bleed off enough traffic that the fast ferries would collapse under the strain.
Just look at the obliterated bulk of the eastern Channel Ferries, despite the tunnel not being a drive through connection.

Looking at that the other way, those points show that the amount of surface travel between the UK and Ireland is tiny compared to that between the UK and France. Combined with the Channel Tunnel an Irish Sea crossing would be longer and more expensive to use, and even if it was quicker at some times of day the increased distance overland to reach it would make it expensive to use. The only way this is going to happen is if something happens to kill the (probably much larger) air market between UK and Ireland, and I really can't imagine that happening.

 

[HSTEd]

Looking at that the other way, those points show that the amount of surface travel between the UK and Ireland is tiny compared to that between the UK and France. Combined with the Channel Tunnel an Irish Sea crossing would be longer and more expensive to use, and even if it was quicker at some times of day the increased distance overland to reach it would make it expensive to use.

I am not entirely sure I understand your statement - the Irish sea crossing would not be significantly longer than the Channel tunnel and might actually be significantly shorter.

And modern diesel cars are capable of rather low costs per mile on a marginal basis.

The only way this is going to happen is if something happens to kill the (probably much larger) air market between UK and Ireland, and I really can't imagine that happening.

Or if it is used as an attempt to catalyse the economic development of Northern Ireland - the subsidies truly are becoming absurd and anything that improves its transport links to markets in the rest of the UK has to be beneficial.
The bridge/tunnel toll is almost certain to be far lower than the ferry fares are today.
NI can't go on soaking up as much public money as it does now.

EDIT:

It is worth noting that the lifetime of these structures is enormous - the only reason the Forth Road Bridge has had to be replaced early is due to its enormous success.
In the worst, low-traffic case, this fixed crossing (be it tunnel or bridge) would be in use for a hundred years or more - all it has to do is cover its marginal operating costs and its economic uplifts will pay for the bridge many times over. So tolls can be set very low.
There are very few white elephants in infrastructure projects.

 

[deltic08]

Out of interest 'Backontrack' how many of the 16000 want the rail link?

If you asked me about restoring the rail link to my insignificant nearby town I would say a road bypass around the town would be more use.

You may not deliberately set out to insult and anger others but you are a natural at it.

I doubt any work has been done by your nearest town to ascertain figures to support reinstatement as has been done for Ripon. I may visit your town if it had a railway station and I didn't have a car but without a station I certainly wouldn't use a bus to visit you. Reinstatement to Ripon doesn't rely on being an ECML diversion route in a business case but would become one when opened.

The latest figure I have for 2013 combined visitor numbers to the five Ripon attractions is 1.07m. In order of popularity they are Fountains Abbey, Lightwater Valley theme park, Ripon Cathedral, Ripon Racecourse and Newby Hall.

Visitor numbers were not taken into account in revenue/demand forecasting as it was assumed rail tickets are bought elsewhere. This is called contributory revenue and something that Beeching didn't understand. This is why many seaside resorts lost their branch lines and BR as a whole lost £millions in revenue generally when holiday makers changed mode to road for the complete journey if they couldn't reach a destination by rail. It was assumed that 5-8% of visitors would use Ripon station if there was one.

Contributory revenue was only recognised during the campaign to save the Settle-Carlisle railway in the 1980s

Ripon is not an insignificant little town, IT IS A CITY with lots of history that visitors find attractive. It is where Lewis Carroll wrote Alice in Wonderland, where the poet Wilfred Owen lived until he was killed in the Great War, has two army barracks that at one time had 20,000 troops.

The tradition of the Hornblower is performed every night at 9pm in the Market Place to Set the Watch.

Reinstating a station in Ripon would remove 144,000 driver only cars from the A61 Ripon-Harrogate road annually with 78% of these commuting to Harrogate only. Harrogate has a parking and peak time traffic problem that only a reinstated railway can improve but North Yorkshire CC planners are too road orientated to see this and propose yet another bypass. A bypass, costing not much less than reinstating a railway to Northallerton, will not sort the parking problem in Harrogate for daily commuters.

The 2004 demand forecast estimated that there would be 0.7m footfalls annually at Ripon station, slightly more than the actual footfall for Skipton in the same year. In 2013/14 the actual footfall for Skipton was 1.0 million and there is every reason to believe Ripon would have been the same in that year.

Replying to your question, in an online poll conducted by the local newspaper recently, 96.8% of respondents (460) wanted the railway back. That is a very good representative sample.

The population of Ripon is 17,000, up from 8,000 when Beeching closed the line in 1967, and is forecast to become 25,000 by 2025. 1,000 new homes are already in the planning pipeline. As there are not the jobs in Ripon for all these extra residents, they will have to commute to Harrogate, York, Leeds and Bradford. Current road journey time Ripon to Harrogate in the peaks is an hour and the other three cities in excess of 90 minutes. By rail it would become 10 minutes to Harrogate, 34 minutes Leeds, 50 minutes York and 60 minutes Bradford.

Ripon-York could become 40 minutes with direct trains from Ripon to Starbeck and Knareborough in the peaks without calling at Harrogate.

If the campaign to reinstate Arthington-Otley-Menston is successful, Ripon-Bradford via Guiseley would become 48 minutes.

If Beechings own figures are taken then Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton was marginally profitable. He massaged them to make it look unprofitable by adding in operating costs of non-stop passenger and freight trains (had these been diverted at additional cost in fuel as the route via York was 15 miles longer, Ripon's balance sheet would have looked even better) but only took income from Ripon booking office for the whole 24 mile route that didn't include a substantial amount for army traffic income that was paid to either York or London HQs direct.

That was being a devious and dishonest ba****d and the reason he was hated so much.

 

[edwin_m]

I am not entirely sure I understand your statement - the Irish sea crossing would not be significantly longer than the Channel tunnel and might actually be significantly shorter.

I may be confusing the Stranraer and Holyhead options here. However I understand the sea between Scotland and NI is much deeper than the Channel which would make either a bridge or a tunnel more difficult and costly.

And modern diesel cars are capable of rather low costs per mile on a marginal basis.

All that extra mileage - remember it's commercial vehicles as well as cars - and roadbuilding may even make this a negative in environmental terms.

Or if it is used as an attempt to catalyse the economic development of Northern Ireland - the subsidies truly are becoming absurd and anything that improves its transport links to markets in the rest of the UK has to be beneficial.
The bridge/tunnel toll is almost certain to be far lower than the ferry fares are today.
NI can't go on soaking up as much public money as it does now.

Not sure if this is a reason to spend extra tens of billions on a tunnel and linking motorway (and perhaps even a railway?). And the tolls will only be low if the Government writes off the construction cost.

 

[The Ham]

On the issue of an orbital railway around London, would it not be better (if the target market is to save people from going in and back out again) to have the interchange between the lines at existing key rail hubs?

As an example would it not make sense to have stations like Reading, Milton Keynes and the like which have both commuter and longer distance services calling as the interchange points? Rather than which ever station just happens to be located near to the M25.

If that is the case then there are railways in place or due to be in place soon(ish) which would provide the possibility of travelling around rather than in and back out again.

Once East West Railway (western) is open it would be possible to travel between MK and Gatwick via Oxford and Reading by going around fairly easily (number of changes depends on how the timetables works, but is likely to be one or two).

The North Downs line (which links Reading and Gatwick) shows how successful a line around London can be, even with just a frequency of 2 trains per hour and poor interchange links to some lines (such as the SWML). It should be noted that it was at risk of closure and was "saved" because of the political desire to do so which resulted in cost saving such as doing away with station staff and buildings. Fast forward to today and 3tph is planned and 4tph could be on the cards and electrification may not be too far away either.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

If Beechings own figures are taken then Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton was marginally profitable. He massaged them to make it look unprofitable by adding in operating costs of non-stop passenger and freight trains (had these been diverted at additional cost in fuel as the route via York was 15 miles longer, Ripon's balance sheet would have looked even better) but only took income from Ripon booking office for the whole 24 mile route that didn't include a substantial amount for army traffic income that was paid to either York or London HQs direct.

The route also proved its worth in 1967 after its closure. It was hastily reopened and manned for ECML diversions when DP2 was wrecked at Thirsk. Fortunately despite its closure the previous year no significant demolition had started and was easily reinstated. A lesson learned if ever there could have been one but unfortunately not heeded

That was being a devious and dishonest ba****d and the reason he was hated so much.

He had an agenda to follow from government and he did what he was told to do. He gets the blame and is the fall-out guy as far as everyone was concerned, but when you look into who else was in charge at the time and the corruption becomes far bigger and clearer! His head still rolls, but he takes the fall for a number of others who dont get singled out the same way he does. (Marples for one!)

Interesting to note the East Grinstead branch was curtailed, not closed because thats where he lived, and he had free travel!

McNulty's original report stated there was too much fragmentation in todays railway the cause of the excessive costs. When the condems told him to do it again because it made privatisation look bad he wrote it again, proposing more fragmentation....

 

[DarloRich]

the level of crayonista wibbling in this thread is outrageous! i love these threads. Cheers me up no end. Thanks!

Excluded from that is crayonistaism is the Northallerton - Ripon proposals btw. At least some detailed work has been done, by committed people, on understand how much that might cost to reinstate! I don't support them ( would that I could - same as leamside) but they are trying to make a proper case.

PS i don't wish to reopen debate on the Harrogate - Northallerton line as my views are clear other than to say:

1) Use as a diversionary route is not a firm foundation for a business case. Whilst beloved by spotters the TOC's view them somewhat differently
2) The use of freight flows as a foundation for this business case is not sound. Coal traffic has fallen off a cliff, Teesside steel is all but gone, Pot Ash mining is falling off and Teesport is quiet.
3) Opening to Ripon is about the only part that even approaches commercial sense and that is shaky and seems to rely on fudging the capital costs which themselves seem ambitious to say the least.

Finally - who ever said that Croft Spa Station served some large "traffic centres" is a genius. I lived there for many years and can only assume it has grown exponentially since i left for the metropolis that is Northallerton. Perhaps the Rockliffe Park Hotel is to blame

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Think the entire route has been proposed for a re-opening as part of a diversion of some TPE services to avoid York and reduce journey times from Newcastle and the North and Scotland to Leeds. Sure I read somewhere that was one of WYPTE/NYCC's proposals.

I could be mistaken.....

 

[DarloRich]

Think the entire route has been proposed for a re-opening as part of a diversion of some TPE services to avoid York and reduce journey times from Newcastle and the North and Scotland to Leeds. Sure I read somewhere that was one of WYPTE/NYCC's proposals.

I could be mistaken.....

you are not - i just don't agree it is worth missing out York or that any proposed time savings are actually worth the cost

 

[sprinterguy]

Think the entire route has been proposed for a re-opening as part of a diversion of some TPE services to avoid York and reduce journey times from Newcastle and the North and Scotland to Leeds. Sure I read somewhere that was one of WYPTE/NYCC's proposals.

I could be mistaken.....

I'm scratching my head as to why any TOC with a keen eye on their revenue flows (which means all of them) would be interested in bypassing such an important location as York. As well as being a popular destination in its' own right for both residents, with a population of around 200,000 and a notable university, and visitors, the station itself is also an important interchange.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

1) Use as a diversionary route is not a firm foundation for a business case. Whilst beloved by spotters the TOC's view them somewhat differently
2) The use of freight flows as a foundation for this business case is not sound. Coal traffic has fallen off a cliff, Teesside steel is all but gone, Pot Ash mining is falling off and Teesport is quiet.
3) Opening to Ripon is about the only part that even approaches commercial sense and that is shaky and seems to rely on fudging the capital costs which themselves seem ambitious to say the least.

I agree entirely. I can actually see a good deal of merit in reconnecting Ripon to the national network as the terminus of a commuter service from Leeds, but as a through route to the ECML it makes no sense to me.

As far as I know, the majority of freight traffic on the Darlington - York stretch of the ECML is coal and biomass mainly between Tyne Dock and Drax power station. Attempting to funnel this, and any other, traffic through the congested Whitehall Junction and possibly Leeds itself, and quite possibly increasing the length of journey that the trains travel, would seem to help no-one. Also isn't York's Holgate sidings and North Yard used as a regular staging and crew changeover point for Freightliner Heavy Haul coal trains?

 

[47802]

the level of crayonista wibbling in this thread is outrageous! i love these threads. Cheers me up no end. Thanks!

Excluded from that is crayonistaism is the Northallerton - Ripon proposals btw. At least some detailed work has been done, by committed people, on understand how much that might cost to reinstate! I don't support them ( would that I could - same as leamside) but they are trying to make a proper case.

PS i don't wish to reopen debate on the Harrogate - Northallerton line as my views are clear other than to say:

1) Use as a diversionary route is not a firm foundation for a business case. Whilst beloved by spotters the TOC's view them somewhat differently
2) The use of freight flows as a foundation for this business case is not sound. Coal traffic has fallen off a cliff, Teesside steel is all but gone, Pot Ash mining is falling off and Teesport is quiet.
3) Opening to Ripon is about the only part that even approaches commercial sense and that is shaky and seems to rely on fudging the capital costs which themselves seem ambitious to say the least.

Finally - who ever said that Croft Spa Station served some large "traffic centres" is a genius. I lived there for many years and can only assume it has grown exponentially since i left for the metropolis that is Northallerton. Perhaps the Rockliffe Park Hotel is to blame

At last somebody actually talking some sense here, shame there isn't a like button.

I agree reopening to Ripon probably has a stronger case than most.

 

[The Ham]

I'm scratching my head as to why any TOC with a keen eye on their revenue flows (which means all of them) would be interested in bypassing such an important location as York. As well as being a popular destination in its' own right for both residents, with a population of around 200,000 and a notable university, and visitors, the station itself is also an important interchange.

However, the suggestion is probably only following on from the fact that there are a few services which do miss out York (the fast Scotland to London service which only calls at Newcastle being a key example). That's not to say that it would be useful (so little in way of benefit when comparing it to costs) given how little it would be used, but it's not without foundation in fact.

Other than the above I agree, it's not likely to missed out any* more than at present. (*note I could conceded one two extra services a day, but even those would be difficult to justify).

 

[HSTEd]

I may be confusing the Stranraer and Holyhead options here. However I understand the sea between Scotland and NI is much deeper than the Channel which would make either a bridge or a tunnel more difficult and costly.

The Beaufort Dyke is often cited, especially as it is full of a variety of dumped munitions from the post war demobilisation.
However having obtained a ~70 old Admiralty Chart (which I imagine is still accurate in broad strokes) it appears a marginal increase in length (~2km) can get the depth downt o 150m, which while by far the deepest depth attempted for an immersed tunnel is not beyond the realms of possibility, and certainly possible for a bored tunnel. I am going to try and get hold of a more modern and detailed chart.

All that extra mileage - remember it's commercial vehicles as well as cars - and roadbuilding may even make this a negative in environmental terms.

Mileage is cheap these days. Labour costs for hauliers are relatively low and fuel costs are too. Environmental terms are more complicated - but it appears hybrid lorries are coming.

Not sure if this is a reason to spend extra tens of billions on a tunnel and linking motorway (and perhaps even a railway?).

The hundred miles to the M6 at Stranraer would cost about ~£3bn (DfT figures estimate that a motorway in open country is about ~£30m/mile or so), especially since will only need a two lane each way motorway.
Extending the M77 would be about 80 more miles and would probably be more expensive as it is significantly more built up, but then there is significant amounts of population along that route which would add some extra traffic and partially offset the cost.
The roads on the Northern Irish side are not much of a problem as the distances are so short in comparison.

There is no point building a newbuild railway to Gretna Green until HS2 to Scotland arrives, if it ever does - otherwise trains to Glasgow could be routed over the existing line to Girvan, which would be electrified and fitted with more loops.
Essentially extend Glasgow Commuter trains to Belfast using dual gauge stock via the Larne Line, which would also be electrified.

And the tolls will only be low if the Government writes off the construction cost.

Well its a hundred year long project, and government debt doesn't tend to last that long, so writing off is a reasonable thing to do on that basis. Even if we don't you effectively only have to pay off the interest, which is very low.

 

[deltic08]

The route also proved its worth in 1967 after its closure. It was hastily reopened and manned for ECML diversions when DP2 was wrecked at Thirsk. Fortunately despite its closure the previous year no significant demolition had started and was easily reinstated. A lesson learned if ever there could have been one but unfortunately not heeded....

In March 1967 only Melmerby-Northallerton closed completely. Melmerby-Ripon-Bilton Junction-Starbeck remained open for a Melmerby-York daily pick-up goods until December 1969.

In July 1967, Melmerby-Northallerton was hurriedly opened for three days for northbound traffic only at 40mph linespeed to bypass the wreckage at Sessay that was blocking both Down lines and Up fast between York and Northallerton.

The manager at York (who was living in Ripon at the time) who approved this very sensible action was severely reprimanded by BR and within hours of the ECML reopening, a masonry overbridge at Sinderby was dropped by explosives without lifting of track underneath so that the route could not be used again. This procedure was totally illogical because this bridge carried a B road that had to be closed for two weeks until the cutting was filled in and tarmaced over before being reopened. This was the sick mentality that existed in railway circles in the 1960s.

 

[The Ham]

A boring list of lines needed would be (least to most controversial - current thinking):
- Crossrail
- East West Railway (Western)
- Crossrail 2
- HS2