New Lines needed

[Oxfordblues]

Let's remember most of the Beeching cuts were actually enacted by the subsequent Labour government.

This is very true. Last Saturday 2 January marked the 50th anniversary of the closure by the newly-appointed Transport Minister Barbara Castle of the Wennington-Lancaster Green Ayre-Morecambe Promenade line. She had only been in office for ten days and had the opportunity to reprieve many vital links, but went ahead and shut them anyway. A bit like liberating a Nazi death camp but then continuing with the slaughter. It was an act of vindictive and unforgivable vandalism. In 2016 Lancashire County Council are now planning to withdraw subsidies to the bus services that were meant to replace the trains in 1966.

 

[exile]

Could it be that Fraser just wasn't a very able transport minister.

tbtc is right to point out that more lines were closed under the Labour Government, but still manages to miss the point.

Do you not think that allowing subsidy for socially valuable routes and urban railways is a substantial reversal of the Beeching-Marples philosophy ?

As apologists for the Beeching era are correct to point out, hindsight is a wonderful thing. We can't expect people to have known the future, but I do think we can expect people to have taken due care and attention and considered things in a pragmatic way. There are indeed many routes that Castle closed and shouldn't have, however at least she introduced the legislation that allowed the network we know and love today, to survive. (most of the train journeys I make every day wouldn't be possible without those pieces of legislation).

The change of policy on subsidy didn't come until 1968 - too late for most lines. Even after that a few lines fell through the net (eg Bolton-Rochdale)) when it was made clear no subsidy would be available for that particular line.

Beeching actually called for subsidy of suburban routes in his report.
"As in the case of London, fares on these services feeding other cities are low,
sometimes very low, and none of them pays its way. There is no possibility
of a solution being found, however, merely by increasing or by reducing fares.
Increases in fares on rail services alone would drive traffic to available alternative
modes of travel and yield little increase in revenue, if any. Decreases would
increase traffic, but short peak periods of traffic at even saturation level would
not supportthe services with fares lower than at present. Therefore, if the services
are to be regarded as essential, the municipalities concerned must join with the
railways and bus interests to evolve a co-ordinated system of services, with due
regard to the economics of both forms of transport. It is, for example, illogical
to operate subsidised municipal bus services in competition with unprofitable
railway services, without any attempt to co-ordinate them.
If, on the other hand, the services are not regarded as essential and coordination
is not found possible, the sound commercial course is for the railways
to risk pricing themselves out of the business and then, if necessary, close the
services.
The right solution is most likely to be found by 'Total Social Benefit Studies'
of the kind which are now being explored by the Ministry of Transport and
British Railways jointly. In cases of the type under consideration it may be
cheaper to subsidise the railways than to bear the other cost burdens which will
arise if they are closed. If this happens, however, there should be no feeling
that the railways are being propped up by such a subsidy because of a commercial
failure"

 

[6Gman]

The problem is that most councillors are easily influenced by remuneration from the so called influential people set whom a reopening may affect & will block such transport infrastructure improvements for short term political gain and they can't see any further than the end of their noses in most cases. They need to be reminded that we employ them, not the other way round.

What are you trying to say here?

That councillors are "influenced" by payment from "influential people"? Who are these "influential people"? And how do they "remunerate" councillors?

Who is it that's blocking "transport infrastructure improvements for short term political gain"? The councillors or the "influential people"?

 

[yorksrob]

The change of policy on subsidy didn't come until 1968 - too late for most lines. Even after that a few lines fell through the net (eg Bolton-Rochdale)) when it was made clear no subsidy would be available for that particular line.

Beeching actually called for subsidy of suburban routes in his report.
"As in the case of London, fares on these services feeding other cities are low,
sometimes very low, and none of them pays its way. There is no possibility
of a solution being found, however, merely by increasing or by reducing fares.
Increases in fares on rail services alone would drive traffic to available alternative
modes of travel and yield little increase in revenue, if any. Decreases would
increase traffic, but short peak periods of traffic at even saturation level would
not supportthe services with fares lower than at present. Therefore, if the services
are to be regarded as essential, the municipalities concerned must join with the
railways and bus interests to evolve a co-ordinated system of services, with due
regard to the economics of both forms of transport. It is, for example, illogical
to operate subsidised municipal bus services in competition with unprofitable
railway services, without any attempt to co-ordinate them.
If, on the other hand, the services are not regarded as essential and coordination
is not found possible, the sound commercial course is for the railways
to risk pricing themselves out of the business and then, if necessary, close the
services.
The right solution is most likely to be found by 'Total Social Benefit Studies'
of the kind which are now being explored by the Ministry of Transport and
British Railways jointly. In cases of the type under consideration it may be
cheaper to subsidise the railways than to bear the other cost burdens which will
arise if they are closed. If this happens, however, there should be no feeling
that the railways are being propped up by such a subsidy because of a commercial
failure"

Well fair play - my commute might have survived. I do fear what would have happened to those "routes not selected for development" in the next report though.

I'm not making a party political point - there were plenty in Labour who would have happily seen the railway slashed. It is ludicrous that it took until 1968 for such legislation to come on line.

 

[deltic08]

I go through Catthorpe regularly (I have to because there is no equivalent railway line) and I have rarely been held up for more than 5 minutes. I know because I've timed it.

Perhaps you'd like to apologise before making presumptive statements.




You should take your own advice (see above)



Your replies usually include some childish insult because you don't like people who hold opposite views to your own. I'm not familiar with the exact phrase but aren't your sort called internet warriors or trolls?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



Agreed. Take note of your own behaviour.

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

I have yet to see any of them, such as AOwen et al, be constructive but obviously they are incapable of being. I know what I am campaigning for is right because of the support locally. I know my facts are right because I have done the door to door campaigning, site investigations, letter writing, emailing, face to face lobbying and engaged professionals such as Arup to verify data. I suppose that is open to attack from them too. I have ploughed thousands of my own money into this campaign in order to get match funding from others. My critics don't have the first hand facts, only what they have picked up on the internet, not always factual.

I have achieved in my professional life what only a fraction have achieved so I am very comfortable with my own ability so any criticism from those not qualified to criticise washes off me.

I was a founder member of the Dean Forest Railway in 1969(success), member of the Committee that saved the Settle-Carlisle in the 1980s (success) and will succeed with reinstating a railway to Ripon so criticise all you like.

Could be that they are jealous of others coming up with the ideas that all they can do is shoot down. Straw men.

We continually try to improve life for others with hours of unpaid campaigning and fundraising. These posters just sit on their fat backsides and whinge from the impression I get..

All I have stated on here has been supported by the Commons Transport Select Committee. I suppose they are wrong also.

It will be sad not to continue on this site as many on here are genuine. I have thoroughly enjoyed following the progress of the Lancashire Triangle electrification as contributors have been extremely active on our behalf, again at great cost in petrol and time, but I think it is time to break off and find a more friendly site that is more enjoyable to use and leave this site to the hyenas.

In time I hope to make the hyenas eat their words.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think that the second quote is more pertinent than the first (and even seventeen thousand is more than I’ve seen it quoted on some websites)...

Yes, famous people used to live there and there used to be a lot of soldiers there, but these things are pretty irrelevant when assessing the case for a railway in the twenty first century.

The number of people living there is what matters; seventeen thousand isn’t a huge number.

You’ve taken a line that has a potentially good case (a place on the outskirts of the Leeds “travel to work” commuter belt) but you’ve weakened the argument by throwing in a lot of “wibble” (to use a term popular on this forum) – forget about Wilfred Owen/ aspirations for TPE services/ Dr Beeching/ Lewis Carroll/ ECML diversions/ Hornblowers, direct services to Edinburgh or Liverpool / historic populations of barracks or a station at Lightwater Valley...

...focus on the straightforward (Ripon has a good commercial bus service to Harrogate/ Leeds which shows that there’s demand... Harrogate has similar demographics/ tourists and will get four trains an hour to Leeds before long... there’ll be regular services from Leeds to Harrogate that terminate there – so that there’s a practical service to run through to Ripon without needing more paths at any bottlenecks...).

It ought to be a simple enough case to make, but you’ve made it quite convoluted by adding a load of smoke and mirrors.

A very good representative sample because it tells you what you want to believe? Under five hundred people bothered to respond..

With four trains an hour from Leeds to Harrogate in the new Northern franchise (but only one continuing all the way to York), there’s certainly scope for a branch to Ripon.

It’s roughly thirty miles from Leeds, so should be decent enough commuter distance (albeit with a population of roughly fifteen thousand).

The trouble is that the idea of a spur from Harrogate to Leeds gets dressed up with a load of irrelevance (conspiracy stuff about Beeching) and crayonista aspiration (oh, it’s going to be a 125mph electrified railway from Harrogate to Northallerton, with regular services to Edinburgh/ Liverpool/ London? :roll...

Trying to give the impression that it’d be better for long distance services to run via Ripon instead of York (despite York’s significantly larger population)

See also the SELRAP claims about running fast trains from Hull to Liverpool via Skipton and Colne... which is my favourite bit of delusion!

Could Harrogate to Ripon sustain a half hourly service with a single track branch? It probably doesn’t need anything spectacular.?

The last Census was 5 years ago. Population of Ripon is 17.5k and rising fast. 1000 additional houses already in the planning pipeline for completion by 2018.

Local attractions and famous residents was in reply to Ripon being called insignificant. Because of them, Ripon has over a million visitors annually. Again you are doing what others do, twist posts for the benefit of your own argument.

The online poll was totally independent and done by the local newspaper. It is only non representative in that it is limited to those who read the local paper and those who are internet connected. Nevertheless it has been verified by experts that this was a good sample and very close to the door to door survey done only 12 years ago. Election opinion polls only sample twice this number.

Thank you for your advice but I am being advised by two firms of transport consultants on this matter. There is no wibble and no smoke and mirrors.

Yes, we know there are to be 4tph Leeds-Harrogate in 2017 as was suggested in the 2006 study and mentioned on here three or four times as improving the case and BCR only to be shot down as usual saying this makes no difference, but it does. Too complicated to explain yet again to the hyenas.

No, the population of Ripon is over 17,000 not 15,000 as you keep repeating. Even if it is only 15k, that is a large enough settlement according to ATOC to be rail connected.

Please read the posts and stop repeating drivel. I will say one more time. Please take it in. Beeching massaged the figures, I prefer lied, to make Harrogate-Northallerton look unprofitable when in fact it was profitable. No ifs or buts. It is in documentation that income from the army camps was not included in his profit/loss accounting for the line because it was not paid into Ripon booking office but to York HQ. He chose to ignore this fact. He also heaped operating costs of trains not stopping at Ripon as a loss. If he wasn't deceiptful then he was just plain incompetent and shouldn't have been appointed.

Where have you dreamt up this exaggeration? Harrogate-Northallerton was never mentioned my me as being 125mph. Harrogate-Ripon on the former trackbed can only be 100mph max due to curvature.

The original Ripon-Northallerton trackbed has been turned back into agriculture so could be new build in a straight line as it is flat with no large scale development or settlements in the way. 125mph would be possible on a straight alignment if this speed was required. Who knows in the future what may be needed.

There you go again trying posters patience with exaggerated statements. What an imagination. I have never said that it would be better to divert passenger trains via Harrogate and Ripon instead of York. I said that after statements put out by Network Rail in the Yorkshire Post that Leeds-Micklefield was approaching capacity and two trains an hour from Liverpool to Newcastle would be doubtful without £millions being spent on this route to increase capacity regardless of electrification, the possibility existed in diverting one or both the Liverpool-Newcastle trains via Harrogate without time penalty.

East Coast replied to my question about extending KX-Harrogate trains to Newcastle via Ripon if the link was there in a positive way.

Yes, in the 2006 report Arup stated that two trains an hour could operate from Ripon to Harrogate and Leeds with an extended siding operated as one engine in steam. BCR for this option was 1.3. It would have a very tight turnround at Ripon of only 5 or 6 minutes but if resilience was required then a dynamic loop would be needed halfway along or double track between Dragon Junction and Bilton Junction. BCR for this option 1.2.

No reason why Hull-Liverpool trains should not travel via Skipton and Colne if Leeds-Manchester is full of other trains. Don't know how they would route between Colne and Liverpool though. Leeds-Skipton is faster than anywhere between Leeds and Manchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A minimum cost scheme might well have a decent BCR, but some sort of excessive double track proposal is going to cost hundreds of millions and never break even.

Can you get travel times down 10-12 minutes one way from Harrogate to Ripon?

Yup, exactly right on both counts.

 

[The Planner]

I have achieved in my professional life what only a fraction have achieved so I am very comfortable with my own ability so any criticism from those not qualified to criticise washes off me.

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

 

[deltic08]

1. 17,000 is not bad but higher is better, especially as no intermediate population or stations.
2. Probably looking at 50-55 mins to Leeds with some demand to Harrogate as well.
3. Fair amount of trackbed available but at least 2 diversions needed en route, city centre station difficult to arrange and probably 5-10 new structures needed assuming that no level crossings will be permitted.:cry:
4. With a 4tph Leeds - Harrogate service coming this looks possible.
5. No - Ripon already a prosperous little city.:cry:
6. Some - New housing growth is planned but questions over scale and there doesn't seem to be a willingness by NYCC to leverage developer contributions to the capital costs. May help demand though.

I suspect the issue holding Ripon back is going to be the high capital costs. Arup in 2006 were quoting £46m for a BCR of 1.3 but I don't think that included any optimism bias. It also had some optimistic assumptions about level crossings, land acquisition, acommodation crossings etc. Add in construction inflation as well and you end up with more like ATOCs £100M in 2009 for a BCR of 0.6.

Deltic08 prefers to quote a BCR of 4.3 (exc capital costs) and potential capital costs of £36M but frankly I think £80m would be a bargain price for this scheme and I just don't see it ticking enough central government boxes to achieve that level of funding. NYCC don't have the money and are unlikely even to fund another study at present based on their latest minutes.

It's a sad truth that if the line were open to Ripon as a branch from Harrogate it would probably perform reasonable well. Getting it to re-open however is tricky at present, though a worthwhile aim to campaign for. North of Ripon is pie in the sky with no sort of viable business case whatsoever.

I am so weary of people ignoring what I post to support their own argument.

All along I have quoted £38m Ripon-Harrogate for a long siding (BCR 1.3) and £46m for some double track with full signalling (BCR1.1) but these were 2005 costs published in the 2006 report. Yes it will cost more to-day, but so do rail fares, The question is how much. Comparing costs of the Borders reinstatement the first option would be £45-£55m approx. but the hyenas don't know either for sure.

ATOC quoted 4.3 without construction costs BCR to prove the line would be operationally profitable and I was just repeating that. I ignored the 0.6 figure that everybody on here keeps throwing back as I had the more comprehensive Arup report that had calculated 1.3. The ATOC report was a back of an envelope study in comparison and had to be as they wouldn't have spent the money that the Arup report cost. A new study for the whole route about to be commissioned will give a more accurate figure so you can just be patient.

Reinstating to Northallerton will cost more but more traffic will be able to use it with additional income. Both ATOC and consultants advise that a through route carries a higher BCR than a stub, contradicted by some on here on. Contradict all you like. I prefer to believe the consultants. This would then allow ECML traffic to divert via Ripon in an emergency as Network Rail have been told by the Minister that it must become a 7-day railway. York-Ripon-Northallerton will create a diversion route that currently does not exist.

Hyenas, you can say all you like now as this is my last post and I am unsubscribing.

 

[Altfish]

What are you trying to say here?

That councillors are "influenced" by payment from "influential people"? Who are these "influential people"? And how do they "remunerate" councillors?

Who is it that's blocking "transport infrastructure improvements for short term political gain"? The councillors or the "influential people"?

Councillors are definitely influenced by the likes of developers and house builders; attendance at a Planning Meeting will prove the point.

 

[Altnabreac]

I am so weary when people ignore what I post to support their own argument.

All along I have quoted £38m Ripon-Harrogate for a long siding (BCR 1.3) and £46m for some double track with full signalling (BCR1.1) but these were 2005 costs published in the 2006 report. Yes it will cost more to-day, but so do rail fares, The question is how much. Comparing costs of the Borders reinstatement the first option would be £45-£55m approx. but the hyenas don't know either for sure.

ATOC quoted 4.3 without construction costs BCR to prove the line would be operationally profitable and I was just repeating that. I ignored the 0.6 figure that everybody on here keeps throwing back as I had the more comprehensive Arup report that had calculated 1.3. The ATOC report was a back of an envelope study in comparison and had to be as they wouldn't have spent the money that the Arup report cost. A new study for the whole route about to be commissioned will give a more accurate figure so you can just be patient.

Reinstating to Northallerton will cost more but more traffic will be able to use it with additional income. Both ATOC and consultants advise that a through route carries a higher BCR than a stub. This would then allow ECML traffic to divert via Ripon in an emergency as Network Rail have been told by the Minister that it must become a 7-day railway. York-Ripon-Northallerton will create a diversion route that currently does not exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[The Ham]

Reinstating to Northallerton will cost more but more traffic will be able to use it with additional income. Both ATOC and consultants advise that a through route carries a higher BCR than a stub, contradicted by some on here on. Contradict all you like. I prefer to believe the consultants. This would then allow ECML traffic to divert via Ripon in an emergency as Network Rail have been told by the Minister that it must become a 7-day railway. York-Ripon-Northallerton will create a diversion route that currently does not exist.

Hyenas, you can say all you like now as this is my last post and I am unsubscribing.

A through route would only give a higher BCR if the costs are the same, if the costs are higher then there comes a point (depending on how much higher) when the BCR will be lower.

It also depends on what is at the other end of the line and if there is scope to serve other locations.

Something like the Ripon line would at first glance appear to be more sensible to run as a branch line. Yes by all means look at the costs and benefits of a through line. This then means that if it is viable (which is all people on here are questioning) then this option could be progressed further, although I would suggest that it may still be in a phased development depending on when extra capacity on the existing lines would be needed.

I think that if you post a suggestion on here that you have to accept that it will be questioned and people will ask difficult questions or will suggest reasons as to why it may not work as well.

People who make such suggestions need to answer in a polite and professional manner, not getting into mud slinging (regardless of who started it) this can be hard to do and is easy to be dragged into doing.

 

[AndyW33]

One other point about promoting new/reinstated lines, saying they'll be useful for freight is not going to convince anyone unless you can show which freight, in what volume, and why the companies who ship it would want to send it that way rather than any other.
There's also the important factor that unless a freight flow is confined to the reinstated line, it needs to get to/from the rest of the national network.
This is what I found unconvincing about the Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton proposal.
Is there a major untapped freight origin or destination between Northallerton and Harrogate that would switch to railfreight? Are there freight origin/destinations between Leeds and Harrogate which send or receive traffic by rail to/from points north, or might do? If not, we're talking about through freight, and here there is a major problem. To reach the freight terminals in Leeds itself, or to get to/from anywhere beyond Leeds, wouldn't that involve crossing the whole multi-track layout on the western approaches to Leeds on the flat? Easy at 3am, extremely hard at 3pm, and it's just as easy via York at 3am.

 

[A0]

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

I have yet to see any of them, such as AOwen et al, be constructive but obviously they are incapable of being.

No, not at all. What I and many others know is that there are no shortage of 'pie in the sky' schemes touted on these boards which stand precisely no scrutiny - all we're doing is pointing out exactly what any audit committee or accountant would do - where the facts / numbers don't add up.

As for your claim about "aggressive arrogance" - I have NEVER on these boards described somebody or a group of people as 'w******s' - which you have. Nor have I ever used some of the other insults which you have used against others who have challenged your arguments.

I know what I am campaigning for is right

What were you saying about "aggressive arrogance"?

because of the support locally.

OK - by that argument, nationally, according to most opinion polls we should reinstate the death penalty - correct?

I know my facts are right because I have done the door to door campaigning, site investigations, letter writing, emailing, face to face lobbying and engaged professionals such as Arup to verify data. I suppose that is open to attack from them too.

And, I strongly suspect, have ignored many others who have challenged your claims by either shouting them down (as you've tried to do with others on these boards) or just repeating the same old argument in the hope that eventually those opposing you will give up and go and do something else.

I have ploughed thousands of my own money into this campaign

Well, to quote Dr Bridges "a fool and his money are soon parted"

in order to get match funding from others. My critics don't have the first hand facts, only what they have picked up on the internet, not always factual.

Yet many of your "critics" actually post links to various documents on-line so their assertions can be challenged. Something you don't do because you have claimed "you don't know how".

I have achieved in my professional life what only a fraction have achieved so I am very comfortable with my own ability so any criticism from those not qualified to criticise washes off me.

For someone who claims that, you are remarkably thin skinned given your reaction to legitimate challenges to your postings.

I was a founder member of the Dean Forest Railway in 1969(success), member of the Committee that saved the Settle-Carlisle in the 1980s (success) and will succeed with reinstating a railway to Ripon so criticise all you like.

Time will tell - IF you are successful in your lifetime then I'm sure a number of us will happily apologise to you publicly on these boards. Equally if, on your deathbed it still hasn't come to pass, will you come on these boards and apologise to those you've shouted down?

Could be that they are jealous of others coming up with the ideas that all they can do is shoot down. Straw men.

Not at all - rigorous debate is the sign of a healthy democracy.

We continually try to improve life for others with hours of unpaid campaigning and fundraising. These posters just sit on their fat backsides and whinge from the impression I get..

Well, OK - let me offer it a different way - if you and 'muddythefish' get your way, we'd end up with rail lines serving all sorts of odd little places up and down the country. Let's say these lines cost £ 000s to run and don't cover their costs - so it then falls to the taxpayer to ensure they don't close again. Assuming most of the posters on here are taxpayers, care to explain how that "improves our lives" - given we'd end up being taxed more and get no benefit from how it was spent?

Similarly, I'm sure a high proportion of the posters on here are also car users - improvements to the road network benefit them - indeed you've stated a view on the A1 improvements around Dishforth, yet other posters have said the road needs improvement. You actually seem incapable of considering the needs of some groups - exactly what you claim others do.

All I have stated on here has been supported by the Commons Transport Select Committee. I suppose they are wrong also.

Provide a link to a document which says that.

It will be sad not to continue on this site as many on here are genuine.

I have thoroughly enjoyed following the progress of the Lancashire Triangle electrification as contributors have been extremely active on our behalf, again at great cost in petrol and time, but I think it is time to break off and find a more friendly site that is more enjoyable to use and leave this site to the hyenas.

More insults - even in what appears to be your departing post. Leopard, spots.

 

[JohnB57]

Hyenas, you can say all you like now as this is my last post and I am unsubscribing.

Very sad.

The frustrations of someone who has campaigned for almost thirty years for a cause without success. Someone who is undoubtedly well-read on rail matters but plants assumptions and suppositions and expects us to accept them as facts.

An example, off topic but from earlier in the thread. I can only find one source of reference that Alice in Wonderland was actually written in Ripon, and that's his own. The next closest I can find anywhere is a reference that a number of pages of Alice Through the Looking Glass - the next book - may been written there. As with many such assertions, it may be true, it may not. But there's no proof. Like BCRs for major projects, it's just supposition.

If you allow yourself to be described as "a foremost expert on Rail reinstatement", you really should avoid believing your own publicity or you may end up thinking it's ok to call your detractors rude names, doing your cause immense damage in the process, simply because they don't accept your "facts" at face value.

For better or worse, this is a debating chamber, not Hyde Park Corner. It's a shame that deltic08 has thrown teddy out of cot as, hysterics aside, I was finding the exchanges thought provoking and (with some additional research) informative.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I hope the Northern Powerhouse starts to address this issue rather than exacerbate it

The Northern Powerhouse- should it turn into anything more than a buzzword- will clearly be focused on south Manchester. Remind me again which part of the country Gideon Osborne represents?

</cynic>

As for re-opening lines, I'd agree that with hindsight many of these lines (e.g. the Waverley Route, Keswick, Ripon-Harrogate) should never have been closed. If they were still open now they'd be doing OK. But because they were closed the cost of re-opening them is huge. With the best will in the world, I don't think the benefits of re-opening a railway to a market city with a population of 17,000 are ever going to be sufficient to justify the cost.

 

[47802]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[The Ham]

Well, OK - let me offer it a different way - if you and 'muddythefish' get your way, we'd end up with rail lines serving all sorts of odd little places up and down the country. Let's say these lines cost £ 000s to run and don't cover their costs - so it then falls to the taxpayer to ensure they don't close again. Assuming most of the posters on here are taxpayers, care to explain how that "improves our lives" - given we'd end up being taxed more and get no benefit from how it was spent?

Similarly, I'm sure a high proportion of the posters on here are also car users - improvements to the road network benefit them - indeed you've stated a view on the A1 improvements around Dishforth, yet other posters have said the road needs improvement. You actually seem incapable of considering the needs of some groups - exactly what you claim others do.

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

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

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

In doing so stations on the existing line may see an increase in frequency or (if they are fairly minor stations) could see the long distance services skip some stations to provide a faster journey time.

At first glance a possible place which would appear to be a potential would be a short branch (between 3km and 6km depending on station location) to Devizes (population circa 12,000) which is quite some distance from the nearest station (Pewsey about 20km away). Even if the station was located "badly" relatively to where it would ideally go (i.e. it was little more than a Parkway station, at least until such time as a better station location could be justified on cost grounds). It would probably attract a reasonable level of passengers and could make a sensible extension of the existing Bedwyn services providing Pewsey with a more frequent service.

Can anyone else think of an other such locations where something like that could be provided?

 

[HowardGWR]

I read this morning that Lanark wants direct trains to Edinburgh. Only needs a few hundred yards new chord. What do members think of that one?
I'm thinking @Altnabreach here.

 

[snowball]

I read this morning that Lanark wants direct trains to Edinburgh. Only needs a few hundred yards new chord. What do members think of that one?

Already under discussion in in the Expansions for Scotland's Rail Network thread:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=108662&page=16

 

[yorksrob]

Well, OK - let me offer it a different way - if you and 'muddythefish' get your way, we'd end up with rail lines serving all sorts of odd little places up and down the country. Let's say these lines cost £ 000s to run and don't cover their costs - so it then falls to the taxpayer to ensure they don't close again. Assuming most of the posters on here are taxpayers, care to explain how that "improves our lives" - given we'd end up being taxed more and get no benefit from how it was spent?

Similarly, I'm sure a high proportion of the posters on here are also car users - improvements to the road network benefit them - indeed you've stated a view on the A1 improvements around Dishforth, yet other posters have said the road needs improvement. You actually seem incapable of considering the needs of some groups - exactly what you claim others do.
.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Altnabreac]

I read this morning that Lanark wants direct trains to Edinburgh. Only needs a few hundred yards new chord. What do members think of that one?
I'm thinking @Altnabreach here.

 

[HSTEd]

With the collapse in the freight business I don't think slow freight paths are going to be in very high demand.

And given that this 100mph route will never be able to be faster than the route via York which has access to 125mph or even 140mph running, then the long siding option comes out ahead. [Remember that a report in 2006 would still have freight growing at a ludicrous rate due to the subsidy regime - with the end of coal and such this is no longer true].

As Deltic says the time could be got down enough that no signalling is required at all other than that required to protect the junction at Harrogate.
One axle counter, one point machine and a couple of signal heads.

Otherwise a long siding.
Job done.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well, OK - let me offer it a different way - if you and 'muddythefish' get your way, we'd end up with rail lines serving all sorts of odd little places up and down the country. Let's say these lines cost £ 000s to run and don't cover their costs - so it then falls to the taxpayer to ensure they don't close again. Assuming most of the posters on here are taxpayers, care to explain how that "improves our lives" - given we'd end up being taxed more and get no benefit from how it was spent?

While I don't entirely agree with muddythefish on this discussion, I think it's reasonable to point out that costs and benefits don't only include direct financial ones. The effects on the quality of life for almost everyone of having fewer cars on the road, and therefore less noise, less congestion, less pollution, less risk of being killed or injured in an accident, less frustration when you do travel, are all very real and significant, but extremely hard to quantify, and therefore almost invariably not considered in the raw figures that say whether a rail line requires a subsidy or not. Personally, I'm very happy to pay slightly more in taxes in order to get that benefit for my quality of life.

Similarly, I'm sure a high proportion of the posters on here are also car users - improvements to the road network benefit them

That's a very questionable assertion. History (and a basic consideration of human behaviour) shows that people always adapt their travel habits according to the options available, and therefore that road improvements invariably lead to people changing their travel habits in such a way as to broadly cancel out the effect of the improvements. I would suggest that in most cases, the result overall tends to leave road users on average no better off than before (obviously, that's a very general statement that doesn't take into account individual cases). For example, for an improvement that improves capacity around a pinch point, those who drive through the pinch point will see some benefit (for a few years, until traffic levels catch up again), while those who drive on other roads in the area are likely to suffer as a result of the improvement, since their journeys will see greater congestion.

 

[A0]

While I don't entirely agree with muddythefish on this discussion, I think it's reasonable to point out that costs and benefits don't only include direct financial ones. The effects on the quality of life for almost everyone of having fewer cars on the road, and therefore less noise, less congestion, less pollution, less risk of being killed or injured in an accident, less frustration when you do travel, are all very real and significant, but extremely hard to quantify, and therefore almost invariably not considered in the raw figures that say whether a rail line requires a subsidy or not. Personally, I'm very happy to pay slightly more in taxes in order to get that benefit for my quality of life.

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

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

That's a very questionable assertion. History (and a basic consideration of human behaviour) shows that people always adapt their travel habits according to the options available, and therefore that road improvements invariably lead to people changing their travel habits in such a way as to broadly cancel out the effect of the improvements. I would suggest that in most cases, the result overall tends to leave road users on average no better off than before (obviously, that's a very general statement that doesn't take into account individual cases). For example, for an improvement that improves capacity around a pinch point, those who drive through the pinch point will see some benefit (for a few years, until traffic levels catch up again), while those who drive on other roads in the area are likely to suffer as a result of the improvement, since their journeys will see greater congestion.

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

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

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

 

[PHILIPE]

I'm just thinking this thread could go on for ever. We would all like to see new lines whether new or replacing closed ones.

 

[6Gman]

Councillors are definitely influenced by the likes of developers and house builders; attendance at a Planning Meeting will prove the point.

I was a member of a Planning Committee for 7 years. Of course members are "influenced" by developers and housebuilders.

They are also "influenced" by constituents, objectors, environmental groups, colleagues, and - most of all - by the advice of their professional planning officers.

That is all entirely proper. It's why we have planning committees.

The original comment referred to "remuneration", which would be entirely improper and - in fact - corrupt.

 

[matacaster]

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

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

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

In doing so stations on the existing line may see an increase in frequency or (if they are fairly minor stations) could see the long distance services skip some stations to provide a faster journey time.

At first glance a possible place which would appear to be a potential would be a short branch (between 3km and 6km depending on station location) to Devizes (population circa 12,000) which is quite some distance from the nearest station (Pewsey about 20km away). Even if the station was located "badly" relatively to where it would ideally go (i.e. it was little more than a Parkway station, at least until such time as a better station location could be justified on cost grounds). It would probably attract a reasonable level of passengers and could make a sensible extension of the existing Bedwyn services providing Pewsey with a more frequent service.

Can anyone else think of an other such locations where something like that could be provided?

....errr ... Otley???

 

[6Gman]

Hyenas, you can say all you like now as this is my last post and I am unsubscribing.

Since you seem to have an obsession with hyenas could I suggest trying the ZooChat Forum?

 

[A0]

Since you seem to have an obsession with hyenas could I suggest trying the ZooChat Forum?

<sniggers>
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm just thinking this thread could go on for ever. We would all like to see new lines whether new or replacing closed ones.

Agreed - though it has to be caveated as "within reason" for most of us.

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

I think that's where the majority of us actually are - it's, as ever, a small but vocal minority who seem to think every Beeching closure should be reversed along with most of the pre-Beeching closures for good measure.

 

[jayah]

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.

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

 

[HowardGWR]

As I said on the other thread. The service may have potential but would be more likely to happen running via Wishaw, Motherwell and Shotts with a much bigger population served and no capital expenditure.

Could happen in 2019 once Shotts is electrified.

Thanks very much and thanks to @Snowball for putting me right on that one. I admit that not every thread draws my attention. That does seem a pragmatic approach, but from the tone of the local councillors, as reported, it would seem a 'GWR' via Motherwell. As someone who's not local, Motherwell seems part of Glasgow to me. Could you estimate what roughly might be the difference between the overall times Lanark to Auld Reekie, between the two routes? I'll look out for any reply on the other thread if you like.