New Lines needed

[A0]

Not jealous at all. I just don't like my taxes being used so people can help pollute the planet and help fill up the roads - and then call for more taxpayers' money to be spent on roads but not on railways.

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

Bedford-Cam will go ahead. This isn't about the Borders railway (which I have no doubt will be long term sucess despite the cheapskate nature of its reconstruction) - this is about the others that have been reoopened for years and have exceeded all forecasts and expectations and continue to do so.

Evidence - facts. Where are they?

There's no justification for a flyover at Towcester, either in terms of the exorbitant costs and the damage to the environment. Towcester's role as a town has changed since 1951 - there's no doubt the rail link would be extremely busy if it were open today because of its position between major centres of employment in Northampton and Oxford

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.

As for the rest of your post - evidence? Facts? Traffic flow? Demand?

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

Yawn - you keep peddling the same old solutions - spend money on roads so you can drive even more faster and freely in your expense account company car. As always you also ignore the major towns along the route adding up to more than 400,000 people and the possibility of through trains beyond the region. T

Ah, personal abuse. Claiming to know my personal circumstances. Always the course of someone who's lost the argument.

Beyond building more and more roads, enlighten me on how the people of Dorset, Somerset and Hampshire (and the rest of the country) get to and from the major centres of work when the population of this country is 70m by 2027 and climbing towards 80m by 2050? As ever, you cannot see past the end of your own nose and see the bigger picture - that this country needs to correct decades of under investment and invest significantly in better public transport.

Try answering the question - which you've not done.

To remind you, where would this fantasy line from Bournemouth to Bath run? What towns would it link? What demand is there for such a link?

I've pointed out that to build a 100 mile railway will cost in the region of £1,000m - using Borders railway to give indicative costs - you've just ignored all of that and made a childish demand for more spending on railways with seemingly little consideration of the costs & benefits.

So try a bit harder and answer some of the questions.

 

[HSTEd]

Why would you need a double track mainline for diversions? The route through Honiton is single track, yet has been vital for diversions for years. You wouldn't even need to bustitute Ripon passengers, just insert an additional stop on the diverted service.

And how many trains are diverted through it?
There will be almost no intermediate signals on this low cost route opening proposal - so you won't even be able to flight trains through the single track section.

If it was possible to run a significant fraction of the traffic on a four track part of the ECML on a single track line - it probably wouldn't stay four tracked.

 

[lejog]

I just wish certain posters on this forum would do a little research, as I try to do, before spouting out drivel.

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.

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]

East of Leeds capacity
Enhanced line capacity to enable a more intensive train service to operate between Leeds and York. Options being developed include:
• improvements to signalling to provide three minute planning headways between trains;
• alterations to the track layout at Neville Hill West Junction to provide more flexible access for train movements on and off the train maintenance depot; and
• improvements to Micklefield Junction, which will include consideration of a turnback facility as one of the options to meet the required outputs.

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

 

[The Ham]

Well the next place 'west' of MK is logically Aylesbury and I can't see people travelling 'away' from London to get to Gatwick. Far quicker to go via Marylebone.

As for the EWR route - you've then got Winslow (very small) or Bicester - and again I suspect Bicester residents will have a quicker journey via London.

As for Oxford, anyone currently travelling by train to Gatwick will almost certainly go via Reading in some capacity - either because they are changing at Reading or they are on a Paddington train which goes via Reading - yes, I'm aware that Oxford also has a service to Marylebone, but from a connectivity point of view, Paddington makes more sense.

As I said it maybe quicker (although NOT from Oxford) to go into London and back out again, however Anytime tickets Via London are (or, for the missing lines, are likely to be) cheaper to go around. As such people may use it.

The routing across London from Paddington/Marylebone requires a change between two tube trains (i.e. 3 changes over the journey) which may make that route unattractive to some (rather than at Reading and possibly at one other station).

Although the main point, which you keep missing, was that why have a rail M25 (which requires an additional change to a slower service) rather it would be better to have a radial rail service linking up where fast services already stop.

EWR will be faster* for a lot of medium distance journeys between quite a few places on the WCML and GWML (as well as some on the SWML) which are not directly served by XC services. Each possible journey is unlikely to generate many passengers each day, but as a whole they could form a reasonable percentage of passengers who use EWR.

(*faster is based on EWR services and not any possible future XC or other long distance service which may exist in the future which would improve journey times further by skipping the minor stations).

 

[A0]

The routing across London from Paddington/Marylebone requires a change between two tube trains (i.e. 3 changes over the journey) which may make that route unattractive to some (rather than at Reading and possibly at one other station).

????

Met from either Paddington or Baker Street to Farringdon, then TL from Farringdon.

Or anti-clock Circle from Paddington to Victoria.

Not sure why you think you need 2 tube trains?

 

[deltic]

What demand is there for a Heathrow - Gatwick link?

People tend not to travel between airports.

A.

I thought that but I see that national express run up to 5 coaches an hour between the two and 75 a day in total each way

 

[A0]

I thought that but I see that national express run up to 5 coaches an hour between the two and 75 a day in total each way

Usually as part of a longer distance route though.

So if you were running a coach from Birmingham to Gatwick, the logical route takes you right past Heathrow (M40, M25, M23). On that basis you'd not run a coach to Heathrow and another to Gatwick, instead you'd run it between the two, though the number of people travelling between the airports is marginal.

Someone else tried to claim there was a traffic flow between Luton Airport and Stansted Airport on the basis a couple of NX routes run between them, whilst overlooking the fact that the routes then continued beyond Luton to places like Oxford or Birmingham - so were actually the logical route to take to get to Stansted.

 

[The Ham]

????

Met from either Paddington or Baker Street to Farringdon, then TL from Farringdon.

Or anti-clock Circle from Paddington to Victoria.

Not sure why you think you need 2 tube trains?

Train line routes you via Victoria which TfL route planner suggests a change at Oxford Circus (14 minutes).

 

[Gwenllian2001]

As for the "sensational successes" in Scotland or Wales, let's see in 10 years time how much those have cost to run as to whether they've yielded any benefit. The heavy use in the first 3 months is no indicator of the long term trend and certainly shouldn't be used to predict.

An interesting point but let us examine the reality.

The 'experts' predicted that Ebbw Vale Parkway would attract up to 50,000 passengers annually, after five years. The reality has been somewhat at odds with this forecast and the figures put forward have proved to be hopelessly wide of the mark. The 50,000 target was passed inside the first three months. Well over a quarter of a million was recorded for the first full year of operation and has remained remarkably stable for the last five years or so. It's not just Ebbw Vale Parkway. Every station on the route has more than proved its worth with only Llanhilleth failing to achieve six figures. Even this station has a figure approaching 80,000. The latest available figures do not yet show the usage of the additional station at Pye Corner or of the extension to Ebbw Vale Town which serves a large complex of schools, a technical college and a Sports Centre as well as the Town Centre.

The reality is that miles of track that was singled prior to re-opening is now being re-doubled, at vast expense, thanks to the 'experts' and their desire to cut costs. Signals planted on, what was, the Down Line are having to be moved and additional platforms built, complete with disabled friendly access. The last full year’s figures show a slight downturn at some stations but this is hardly surprising since there have been a lot of weekend possessions to relay the missing track etc. People will not willingly use replacement bus service and choose not to travel.

It should also be noted that the original estimate of passenger numbers also included services to the important City of Newport, with a population of about 150,000. Although the trains penetrate the City they do not serve it or its Main Line connections to London; Bristol; Bath; The West Country; Portsmouth and The Midlands.

I have no idea how the re-opened stub of the Waverley Route will fare, in the long term but I wish it well. Those with local knowledge will have a much better idea than I but re-opened lines, so far, have done well. The reference to Scotland and Wales shows, in my opinion, a desire to belittle rather than give credit where credit is due. Members of the Scottish and Welsh governments have the same number of fingers and toes as anyone else and also have heads on their shoulders. They do not re-open railways just to be different but look at what is thought to be needed rather than what would be nice.

I have little doubt that there are people all over England who know enough about their own areas to see what could be done. Yes, there are dreamers out there and there’s nothing wrong with that

There were plenty of doom mongers and hand wringers ahead of the re-openings in Wales. I wonder where they all went. Perhaps they have retired to their keyboards to tell everybody why their railway should never be re-opened or perhaps converted into a guided bus way.

Now there’s an idea ……

 

[yorksrob]

And how many trains are diverted through it?
There will be almost no intermediate signals on this low cost route opening proposal - so you won't even be able to flight trains through the single track section.

If it was possible to run a significant fraction of the traffic on a four track part of the ECML on a single track line - it probably wouldn't stay four tracked.

That's not really the point though. The Great Western main line is a double track high speed line, yet the single track route through Honiton still forms a regular diversionary route.

 

[deltic]

An interesting point but let us examine the reality.

The 'experts' predicted that Ebbw Vale Parkway would attract up to 50,000 passengers annually, after five years. The reality has been somewhat at odds with this forecast and the figures put forward have proved to be hopelessly wide of the mark. The 50,000 target was passed inside the first three months. Well over a quarter of a million was recorded for the first full year of operation and has remained remarkably stable for the last five years or so. It's not just Ebbw Vale Parkway. Every station on the route has more than proved its worth with only Llanhilleth failing to achieve six figures. Even this station has a figure approaching 80,000. The latest available figures do not yet show the usage of the additional station at Pye Corner or of the extension to Ebbw Vale Town which serves a large complex of schools, a technical college and a Sports Centre as well as the Town Centre.

The reality is that miles of track that was singled prior to re-opening is now being re-doubled, at vast expense, thanks to the 'experts' and their desire to cut costs. Signals planted on, what was, the Down Line are having to be moved and additional platforms built, complete with disabled friendly access. The last full year’s figures show a slight downturn at some stations but this is hardly surprising since there have been a lot of weekend possessions to relay the missing track etc. People will not willingly use replacement bus service and choose not to travel.

It should also be noted that the original estimate of passenger numbers also included services to the important City of Newport, with a population of about 150,000. Although the trains penetrate the City they do not serve it or its Main Line connections to London; Bristol; Bath; The West Country; Portsmouth and The Midlands.

I have no idea how the re-opened stub of the Waverley Route will fare, in the long term but I wish it well. Those with local knowledge will have a much better idea than I but re-opened lines, so far, have done well. The reference to Scotland and Wales shows, in my opinion, a desire to belittle rather than give credit where credit is due. Members of the Scottish and Welsh governments have the same number of fingers and toes as anyone else and also have heads on their shoulders. They do not re-open railways just to be different but look at what is thought to be needed rather than what would be nice.

I have little doubt that there are people all over England who know enough about their own areas to see what could be done. Yes, there are dreamers out there and there’s nothing wrong with that

There were plenty of doom mongers and hand wringers ahead of the re-openings in Wales. I wonder where they all went. Perhaps they have retired to their keyboards to tell everybody why their railway should never be re-opened or perhaps converted into a guided bus way.

Now there’s an idea ……

Werent the forecasts for Ebbw Vale line based on the assumption that services would run into Newport - whereas running them into Cardiff made it a far more attractive

 

[exile]

Aren't company car drivers subsidised to the extent that their journeys to work are free?

 

[yorksrob]

Don't bet on it - people I know in the rail industry are highly sceptical that it will. As for the "sensational successes" in Scotland or Wales, let's see in 10 years time how much those have cost to run as to whether they've yielded any benefit. The heavy use in the first 3 months is no indicator of the long term trend and certainly shouldn't be used to predict.

It will be major folly if we don't open through from Bedford to Cambridge. Cambridge is already a major economic centre, with onward connections to Stanstead Airport. It makes sense to link major population centres such as MK and Bedford to it. Infact, the only argument against, seems to be "there's not congestion on the road between the two, therefore we don't need it", which completely ignores those who require public transport for reasons other than congestion (such as not owning a car in the first place)

A lot of the sensational successes in Scotland and Wales have been up and running for a lot longer than three months and are still proving vital to their communities.

 

[HSTEd]

That's not really the point though. The Great Western main line is a double track high speed line, yet the single track route through Honiton still forms a regular diversionary route.

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.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

Realistically though, diversions would only ever be part of the business case. The connectivity to Ripon would be the key driver, hence the interest from the local authority.

If 10% of trains were diverted, you would probably find a much greater proportion of diverted passengers travelling on those trains as people would be more likely to crowd onto a diversion.

 

[HSTEd]

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

 

[JohnB57]

Aren't company car drivers subsidised to the extent that their journeys to work are free?

Provision of a company car and (separately) fuel for private mileage is part of the remuneration package and is taxed as such. Travel to the normal place of work is considered private mileage, so no, it's not free.

 

[yorksrob]

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

I just think that overall, you'll be left with a more useful railway than a branch to Ripon. It may cost more but will be more sustainable in the long term.

 

[HowardGWR]

I just think that overall, you'll be left with a more useful railway than a branch to Ripon. It may cost more but will be more sustainable in the long term.

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'.

 

[HSTEd]

I just think that overall, you'll be left with a more useful railway than a branch to Ripon. It may cost more but will be more sustainable in the long term.

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.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

What other reopenings are there ? I think there need to be a few more to start off with before I start sacrificing things.

In truth, I'd be happy to see a branch to Northallerton to begin with, so long as passive provision is included for extension Northwards.
--- 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'.

This is a fair point well made !

I was thinking more of the sustainability of the route as a part of the wider rail network, however, I agree with the issues about the attitude to motor transport.

 

[lejog]

Aren't company car drivers subsidised to the extent that their journeys to work are free?

They're certainly not free where I work, you have to pay petrol costs for journeys to work yourself. You even have to subtract your normal mileage to work from any mileage claimed for business trips.

If the company does pay for fuel for journeys to work, it is taxed. Its a perk but a fully taxed one.

As an employer, if you provide company cars or fuel for your employees’ private use, you’ll need to work out the taxable value so you can report this to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

‘Private use’ includes employees’ journeys between home and work, unless they’re travelling to a temporary place of work.

 

[HSTEd]

What other reopenings are there ? I think there need to be a few more to start off with before I start sacrificing things.

This thread has thrown up several other proposals. And I am sure if we had a billion pound pot available we would be able to produce (re)opening proposals that could easily spend that much money.

In truth, I'd be happy to see a branch to Northallerton to begin with, so long as passive provision is included for extension Northwards.

But that is going to restrict the station site at Ripon to one on teh existing track bed - which will make it less likely to be succesful as it will be less convenient.

And lets consider an alternative universe where the railway never went to Ripon and this was a new line opening proposal - would you then be pushing for an extension to Northallerton?

I was thinking more of the sustainability of the route as a part of the wider rail network, however, I agree with the issues about the attitude to motor transport.

But the money for this extension could potentially pay for one of those new generation super lightweight tram lines.
Which would likely have far more benefits than this stretch of track through the middle of nowhere.

 

[exile]

They're certainly not free where I work, you have to pay petrol costs for journeys to work yourself. You even have to subtract your normal mileage to work from any mileage claimed for business trips.

If the company does pay for fuel for journeys to work, it is taxed. Its a perk but a fully taxed one.

Claiming mileage for your own car is a different scenario to using a company car. I take your point about taxation of fuel (how is this policed? does a company car owner have to calculate the fuel used on his/her commute?) but of course the total costs of owning a car are much larger than the cost of fuel.

Maybe things have changed - I used to use a pool car occasionally (20 years ago) and was never asked if I used it to drive home!

 

[yorksrob]

This thread has thrown up several other proposals. And I am sure if we had a billion pound pot available we would be able to produce (re)opening proposals that could easily spend that much money.

You'll note that only support some of the proposals suggested. However, I'm extremely disappointed at the lack of progress that has been made in England since privatisation, even on prioritising some projects and getting on with them.

But that is going to restrict the station site at Ripon to one on teh existing track bed - which will make it less likely to be succesful as it will be less convenient.

And lets consider an alternative universe where the railway never went to Ripon and this was a new line opening proposal - would you then be pushing for an extension to Northallerton?

I still think that would be best. Similar with Tavistock.

Geographically, if you were building to Ripon, I would think that continuing North to link with the mainline would be best, and Northallerton is an obvious place to do that.

But the money for this extension could potentially pay for one of those new generation super lightweight tram lines.
Which would likely have far more benefits than this stretch of track through the middle of nowhere.

I would have thought that the benefit of the Ripon scheme would be in providing access to York and Leeds and the railway network, rather than a local tram performing functions that the bus does just as well.

 

[JohnB57]

Claiming mileage for your own car is a different scenario to using a company car. I take your point about taxation of fuel (how is this policed? does a company car owner have to calculate the fuel used on his/her commute?) but of course the total costs of owning a car are much larger than the cost of fuel.

Maybe things have changed - I used to use a pool car occasionally (20 years ago) and was never asked if I used it to drive home!

Provision of the car and the fuel are two separate benefits. Of course, you can't have fuel without car, but in my case, for example, I choose not to take fuel benefit as it's not tax efficient for me (neither is the car, but that's not an option!)

Fuel benefit is based on an annual taxable amount based on the car specifics and has to be paid for the full tax year - i.e. you can't opt out even if you decide to lose the car part way through. As such, it's not necessary to declare commuting mileage as you're paying tax on it already.

In my case, I have to log my monthly mileage and mileage for all business journeys and then pay the company back an amount per mile on the balance that varies in line with fuel costs. It's self policing but subject to the usual periodic audits.

 

[HSTEd]

I still think that would be best. Similar with Tavistock.

Geographically, if you were building to Ripon, I would think that continuing North to link with the mainline would be best, and Northallerton is an obvious place to do that.

But why would you extend to a main line in the middle of nowhere.
Is there really going to be lots of traffic between the likes of Ripon and Durham/Darlington? For leeds traffic it is never going to be faster than the route via York.

I would have thought that the benefit of the Ripon scheme would be in providing access to York and Leeds and the railway network, rather than a local tram performing functions that the bus does just as well.

I am referring to the price of the section between Ripon and Northallerton.
Both access to Leeds and York would only make use of the section south of Ripon.
This provides very few major benefits - and any Leeds to ECML North capacity shortages could be alleviated by a curve on HS2 that would provide trains lots of paths between the Leeds HS2 station and York.

 

[yorksrob]

But why would you extend to a main line in the middle of nowhere.
Is there really going to be lots of traffic between the likes of Ripon and Durham/Darlington? For leeds traffic it is never going to be faster than the route via York.

I am referring to the price of the section between Ripon and Northallerton.
Both access to Leeds and York would only make use of the section south of Ripon.
This provides very few major benefits - and any Leeds to ECML North capacity shortages could be alleviated by a curve on HS2 that would provide trains lots of paths between the Leeds HS2 station and York.

Well, it's clearly not the middle of nowhere, it's Northallerton and the ECML North.

 

[HSTEd]

Well, it's clearly not the middle of nowhere, it's Northallerton and the ECML North.

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.

 

[lejog]

Claiming mileage for your own car is a different scenario to using a company car. I take your point about taxation of fuel (how is this policed? does a company car owner have to calculate the fuel used on his/her commute?) but of course the total costs of owning a car are much larger than the cost of fuel.

Maybe things have changed - I used to use a pool car occasionally (20 years ago) and was never asked if I used it to drive home!

I was talking about company cars not employee owned cars. Where I work, petrol for business trip mileage is claimed as a business expense against receipts (along with an employee's calculation of business miles as a proportion of total miles) and is subject to possible HMRC audit as any other business expense.

Yes as I said a company car is a perk, but they certainly don't provide free commutes as you posted. I've always taken the company car
allowance as extra salary (subject to PAYE/NI), getting a company car or moving up the car scale is just a pay rise to me.

AFAIK, ad hoc usage of pool cars isn't (and never has been) taxed. Your employers do not have to report usage of pool cars to HMRC and so you may get the occasional free commute.