Re-opening of rail routes

[A0]

Have you used the M25 on the sections that were widened to 4 lanes? They're chock a block, and congestion is as bad as ever, at a cost of many billions of pounds. Expanding the roads system doesn't work, is a waste of money and is outdated thinking. We need fresh thinking on managing wat we have and expanding the alternatives - which in many cases don't exist.

The original plan was the M25 would be one of three orbital roads around London - the inner was to be a combined North / South Circular, the middle the existing M25 and the third approximately 30 miles out of London.

The first has never been completed and the third never started - so the second is having to accommodate all of that demand.

Add in the fact the M25 also serves the UK's main airport and you can start to see where the problem is.

HS2 won't address that, nor will the myriad of other hare-brained schemes you and other crayonistas keep on peddling on these boards.

As Bald Rick has correctly called it "Equally, there are plenty of rail schemes that have not caused notable modal shift from road"

And as I've pointed out to you before, to achieve as little as a 2% modal shift you'd need to increase the rail capacity by 25%. That's HS2 quadrupled and then some. And given HS2 is likely to cost in excess of £60bn by the time it's finished, you're talking about having to spend £ 300bn or more to achieve the kind of shift you want - or about £ 10,000 for every ADULT (i.e. 30m people) in this country.

So frankly, you can dream on.

 

[yorksrob]

nor will the myriad of other hare-brained schemes you and other crayonistas keep on peddling on these boards.

There are many sensible and logical extensions to the railway network proposed on these boards and bu other organisations. Lumping them all together as 'hare brained' schemes dreamt up by 'crayonistas' does your argument no favours.

 

[muddythefish]

HS2 won't address that, nor will the myriad of other hare-brained schemes you and other crayonistas keep on peddling on these boards.

So frankly, you can dream on.

Same tired old arguments spattered with the usual insults.

Frankly, I don't care what you think.

 

[A0]

Same tired old arguments spattered with the usual insults.

Frankly, I don't care what you think.

Unlike your posts which are all emotion, I can back up the substantive parts of my debate with facts.

Luckily, my feeling about what you think is entirely mutual.

 

[bluenoxid]

A good use of the road money would be on bus priority schemes and park and rides.

There are places where road building is right particularly where traffic is causing issues with town and village centres but it should be limited.

 

[edwin_m]

And as I've pointed out to you before, to achieve as little as a 2% modal shift you'd need to increase the rail capacity by 25%. That's HS2 quadrupled and then some. And given HS2 is likely to cost in excess of £60bn by the time it's finished, you're talking about having to spend £ 300bn or more to achieve the kind of shift you want - or about £ 10,000 for every ADULT (i.e. 30m people) in this country.

In fact rail passenger-km have doubled since 1993 with relatively little investment. And car usage has been largely flat for the last 15 years. So the demand for travel is probably flattening out, with rail taking up what growth there is.

 

[A0]

In fact rail passenger-km have doubled since 1993 with relatively little investment. And car usage has been largely flat for the last 15 years. So the demand for travel is probably flattening out, with rail taking up what growth there is.

Not disputing what you say, but certain posters around here are virulently opposed to any road building to try to force motorists onto trains. What I keep trying to point out is to achieve even a miniscule shift would require a massive capacity growth - probably greater than that seen in the Victorian rail boom - and given the impact that would have means it's both unviable and unlikely.

 

[muddythefish]

Unlike your posts which are all emotion, I can back up the substantive parts of my debate with facts.

Luckily, my feeling about what you think is entirely mutual.

Selective "facts" dragged up from pro-road websites don't constitute an argument.

With all due respect (and in your case there is none at all), you need to rein in your abusive posts.

 

[A0]

A good use of the road money would be on bus priority schemes and park and rides.

Park and rides have only worked in a couple of places - Oxford and Cambridge being the obvious ones.

They've also been a dismal failure in many, many others such as Bedford, Ipswich and Canterbury

 

[DarloRich]

Have you used the M25 on the sections that were widened to 4 lanes? They're chock a block, and congestion is as bad as ever, at a cost of many billions of pounds. Expanding the roads system doesn't work, is a waste of money and is outdated thinking. We need fresh thinking on managing wat we have and expanding the alternatives - which in many cases don't exist.

So what is your answer? Force people to give up their cars and join some utopia of public transport provision? You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that :roll:

We need infrastructure investment in this country including in the road network.

 

[yorksrob]

Park and rides have only worked in a couple of places - Oxford and Cambridge being the obvious ones.

They've also been a dismal failure in many, many others such as Bedford, Ipswich and Canterbury

Beg to differ about Canterbury. Have used the Wincheap one many times in the past and have always found it busy.

 

[DarloRich]

Park and rides have only worked in a couple of places - Oxford and Cambridge being the obvious ones.

They've also been a dismal failure in many, many others such as Bedford, Ipswich and Canterbury

I would say they work when advertised, located and resourced properly. The scheme in York is very good imo.

 

[A0]

Selective "facts" dragged up from pro-road websites don't constitute an argument.

With all due respect (and in your case there is none at all), you need to rein in your abusive posts.

Erm, these guys actually

http://www.railway-technical.com/statistics.shtml

Who say of themselves

"Railway Technical Web Pages is a website designed to inform and educate about railway technology and operations around the world"

So hardly a pro roads website.

I look forward to receiving your apology.

 

[bluenoxid]

I would say they work when advertised, located and resourced properly. The scheme in York is very good imo.

Elland Road in Leeds is taking off very well with substantial expansion to meet demand.

 

[Kettledrum]

to achieve as little as a 2% modal shift you'd need to increase the rail capacity by 25%. That's HS2 quadrupled and then some. And given HS2 is likely to cost in excess of £60bn by the time it's finished, you're talking about having to spend £ 300bn or more to achieve the kind of shift you want - or about £ 10,000 for every ADULT (i.e. 30m people) in this country.

So frankly, you can dream on.

There's statistics, damn lies and statistics. You could quote other statistics from one graph on the website this is taken from that shows rail journeys increased by 50% from 1995 t0 2005 - a huge increase!

When you think about it the 2% modal shift statistic originally posted, it is not surprising. Car use covers the whole country 24 hours a day. In some counties, railways are very few and far between, so 99% of all journeys will be by car.

It doesn't mean that investment in rail is a bad idea though.

 

[Bald Rick]

Have you used the M25 on the sections that were widened to 4 lanes? They're chock a block, and congestion is as bad as ever, at a cost of many billions of pounds.

Yes I have seen it. Indeed I saw it about 20 minutes ago. On some days I can hear it from my front door. I use it about twice a week. And congestion on the sections I use is definitely better than it was when it was 3 lane. That's not to say there isn't congestion - of course there is. But it is less in extent, and for shorter lengths of time.

Just one example: Sunday nights. Clockwise from M40. 3 lane - congestion. 4 lane - not.

 

[muddythefish]

So what is your answer? Force people to give up their cars and join some utopia of public transport provision? You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that :roll:

We need infrastructure investment in this country including in the road network.

Smarter traffic management, including better real time travel information, managed freight queues at peak times, and measures as simple as enforcing speed limits could all make a real difference instead of blithely expanding road capacity.

Increasing road capacity attracts more traffic with consequent impacts on air quality, road maintenance, noise and safety, and damage to the environment, while shifting the problem down farther down the road: all this at exhorbitant construction costs to the taxpayer that far exceed the benefits.

Hammond is apparently going to announce £1.8bn on road improvment schemes in the AS (and it's a surefire bet there will nothing for small rail schemes) but it will all be a colossal waste of money because it will solve nothing until there is a fundamental shift in thinking.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes I have seen it. Indeed I saw it about 20 minutes ago. On some days I can hear it from my front door. I use it about twice a week. And congestion on the sections I use is definitely better than it was when it was 3 lane. That's not to say there isn't congestion - of course there is. But it is less in extent, and for shorter lengths of time.

Just one example: Sunday nights. Clockwise from M40. 3 lane - congestion. 4 lane - not.

4-lane section of the M25 around that area on Saturday was awful.

 

[RichmondCommu]

People are suggesting fanciful ideas to reopen new railways and yet as a nation we are struggling to fund the electrification of major Intercity routes.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The original plan was the M25 would be one of three orbital roads around London - the inner was to be a combined North / South Circular, the middle the existing M25 and the third approximately 30 miles out of London.

The first has never been completed and the third never started - so the second is having to accommodate all of that demand.

The bolded phrase shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how demand for travel works. Demand to travel is not some static thing - it's very largely a function of how easy/cheap/quick it is to travel. That's true of all forms of transport, including roads. Much (although not all) of the demand to drive on the M25 is created by the very existence of the M25. And the same would be true for the other unbuilt/partially built roads that you refer to. Once you have that understanding, it's apparent that the phrase I've bolded actually makes no sense (despite being grammatically correct) - because much of the demand you are referring to doesn't currently exist - it would only come into existence if those roads were actually built.

Add in the fact the M25 also serves the UK's main airport and you can start to see where the problem is.

Yes, much (though not all) of it is to do with the difficulty of getting to Heathrow from any direction that isn't East without driving - for which you can blame exactly the kind of focus on road investment that you seem to be proposing.

As Bald Rick has correctly called it "Equally, there are plenty of rail schemes that have not caused notable modal shift from road"

That's disingenuous. BaldRick was specifically talking about rail schemes in parts of London where driving is already very difficult and rail/public transport already has a dominant share of the market. That is not the case for the M25 (or indeed, for almost the entire rest of the country).

And as I've pointed out to you before, to achieve as little as a 2% modal shift you'd need to increase the rail capacity by 25%.

That's a fairly unremarkable consequence of the fact that far more journeys are made by car than by rail - so a small percentage of car journeys mode-shifting translates to a much higher percentage when compared to existing rail journeys.

The problem with quoting that statistic is that it's a statistic for the whole country. But with sensible transport policies, any reduction in car journeys won't be uniform - it'll be focused on urban areas, where congestion is worst, and where investment in rail is likely to have proportionately much larger benefits.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Presumably the "Woodhead" route between Sheffield and Manchester has dropped off the radar, despite having the expensive work already in being, ie the modern Woodhead tunnel, apparently only requires National Grid to move their cables into the old tunnel, and a route that would provide welcome additional capacity trans-Pennine, given that the Hope Valley route is near to capacity.

From what I understand the old tunnels are in a terrible state.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have just looked at various maps and aerial photography of the area, and it does seem a bit odd to me that the line between Walsall and Brownhills has been removed, leaving a stump down from Lichfield (to a depot perhaps, it just seem to peter out), whereas it would make a useful line for northbound freight from Bescot and other places around Birmingham. The trackbed seems to be intact. It makes me wonder why it was removed in the first place.

Similarly, the mothballed line up from Stourbridge through Dudley to Walsall would appear to be a useful line that would enable freight to avoid Birmingham.

Where is all this freight traffic coming from? Honest question here how much freight runs northbound from Bescot?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Where is all this freight traffic coming from? Honest question here how much freight runs northbound from Bescot?

Is it not the Marches Line where freight trains have an unfortunate happening of breaking down , disrupting normal passenger train services?

 

[markindurham]

The Leamside line is badly needed, more so now that it looks like HS2/3 as a new line is not going to happen in the North East.
If Leamside was re-opened the route from Stillington to Leamside could be designed in a way that avoids the need for Local services to use any section of the ECML.
I can see the new proposed "Northern Connect" service between Middlesbrough & Newcastle (via Stillington) being ditched once the feasibility study comes out next year, with the problems of access to the ECML at Ferryhill junction being cited as the reason why it's ditched.

My understanding is that the ECML, from Northallerton to Newcastle is going to "upgraded" as part of HS2/3, which is only going to reduce capacity for more local services. The North East already suffers from poor Local services due to lack of capacity along the ECML.

That probably wouldn't suit pax going to/from Durham - Belmont is really too far out for the city. However, in 2000, there was a plan to reopen the Leamside for these Middlesbrough-Newcastle services, with a station at Belmont. In the event, Hatfield happened, & then that scheme, along with many others, was put to one side and forgotten...

What difficulties are there at Ferryhill/Tursdale, by the way? I've been on a couple of railtours heading north from the Darlington direction which have turned across the Up Main onto what was the Down Leamside, then back out onto the main line at Hoggersgate (Tursdale), again crossing the Up Main to do so. (Both times, by creeping along once clear of the Up Main, were overtaken by the scheduled service, then got out again without stopping. Good work ). Coming off the Up Main, either to go down the Stillington branch or turn back onto the Up Main, is a move regularly used by steam services, as they take water there.

 

[ac6000cw]

Is it not the Marches Line where freight trains have an unfortunate happening of breaking down , disrupting normal passenger train services?

One reason heavier freight from the south west goes via the Marches Line is because it has less severe gradients than any of the routes through the West Midlands (i.e. via the Lickey, Old Hill or - when it was in use - Dudley), as well as less intensive passenger services.

I have just looked at various maps and aerial photography of the area, and it does seem a bit odd to me that the line between Walsall and Brownhills has been removed, leaving a stump down from Lichfield (to a depot perhaps, it just seem to peter out), whereas it would make a useful line for northbound freight from Bescot and other places around Birmingham. The trackbed seems to be intact. It makes me wonder why it was removed in the first place.

Similarly, the mothballed line up from Stourbridge through Dudley to Walsall would appear to be a useful line that would enable freight to avoid Birmingham.

The freight route via Sutton (Coldfield) Park duplicates the Brownhills route, and allows access to the line to Nuneaton as well as the Derby line, so why would you need the Brownhills route for freight?

Using the Stourbridge - Dudley - Walsall route for light rail (in a heavily urbanised area) would make far more sense than restoring it as a heavy rail route.

 

[The Planner]

And as discussed in other threads, it would be of no use to anyone until Worcester is resignalled.

 

[DarloRich]

Smarter traffic management, including better real time travel information, managed freight queues at peak times, and measures as simple as enforcing speed limits could all make a real difference instead of blithely expanding road capacity.

Increasing road capacity attracts more traffic with consequent impacts on air quality, road maintenance, noise and safety, and damage to the environment, while shifting the problem down farther down the road: all this at exhorbitant construction costs to the taxpayer that far exceed the benefits.

Hammond is apparently going to announce £1.8bn on road improvment schemes in the AS (and it's a surefire bet there will nothing for small rail schemes) but it will all be a colossal waste of money because it will solve nothing until there is a fundamental shift in thinking.

I will repeat that you are deluded if you think people will give up their cars.

I don't have a car because the train takes me door to door in an acceptable time. If my office were not located where it is I would drive. Many people still drive in despite good public transport links. The number of bus travelers is almost zero despite good service from many areas of the town.

People only use the bus out of necessity - it is seen ( outside of London) as a plebs taxi for poor people and chavs.

People want the freedom & flexibility a car brings. For many it is impossible to operate without a car and you will not reduce that demand by enforcing speed limits. :roll: We have tried forcing the price of fuel and tax high but that has had no impact on car numbers.

We need better connections in this country & punishing people because they don't have your zeal for public transport is bonkers as is your idea of not spending on new roads. I don't want to see all the money spent on roads but we have to accept the car is here to stay and people want and need to use them in growing numbers. We have to provide for this increasing use and that means spending money on new roads.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Leamside line is badly needed, more so now that it looks like HS2/3 as a new line is not going to happen in the North East.

No it isnt - why is it badly needed? We seem to have managed without passenger trains since 1941 on the southern section and 1963 on the northern section of the line.

Much as the line is very close to my heart for sentimental reasons the communities of Shincliffe, Penshaw, Fencehouses and Leamisde hardly justify a service. What is the justification in your mind for this investment?

There is no freight to speak of and any there is comes out of Tyne and runs via the coast to the 4 track ECML at Northallerton.

In any event if it is wanted the local authorities need to pony up. They have always gone very quiet when it gets to cash on the table time.

If Leamside was re-opened the route from Stillington to Leamside could be designed in a way that avoids the need for Local services to use any section of the ECML.
I can see the new proposed "Northern Connect" service between Middlesbrough & Newcastle (via Stillington) being ditched once the feasibility study comes out next year, with the problems of access to the ECML at Ferryhill junction being cited as the reason why it's ditched.

Stillington will need some upgrades to provide this service in any event.

My understanding is that the ECML, from Northallerton to Newcastle is going to "upgraded" as part of HS2/3, which is only going to reduce capacity for more local services. The North East already suffers from poor Local services due to lack of capacity along the ECML.

Darlo, Durham and Newcastle are well connected by VTEC, XC & TPE trains. Middlesborugh is well connected to Darlington and has a decent service along the coast.

Where are these communities that need better and further services?

 

[glbotu]

No it isnt - why is it badly needed? We seem to have managed without passenger trains since 1941 on the southern section and 1963 on the northern section of the line.

I mean, it's 50-50. I'd say the northern section of the line could probably do with some services. The continuous-ish urban area from Gateshead to Washington (inc. Team Valley, Birtley etc) has exactly no railway services. Most of that population goes to either Pelaw, Heworth or Gateshead Metro stations by bus (or drives). Rail or Metro extensions to there could probably be fairly successful. Running the line all the way to Gilesgate and Ferryhill just doesn't seem useful. The current station in Durham is phenomenally well sited.

There is no freight to speak of and any there is comes out of Tyne and runs via the coast to the 4 track ECML at Northallerton.

In any event if it is wanted the local authorities need to pony up. They have always gone very quiet when it gets to cash on the table time.

There are about 2 freight paths an hour via Durham, of which about 1 path an hour is used regularly. However, that's not to say the North ECML is starved for capacity. The passing loops just North of Durham are pretty useful at getting them out of the way (they tend to get sent out just after the TPE service in the Southbound direction, as it's the slowest).

In fact, minimal upgrades to the existing line are needed for even the highest of the HLOS specs from Network Rail.

Stillington will need some upgrades to provide this service in any event.

Are you sure about this. I thought it was fitted with AWS etc. and as such was in fact fit for passenger use (slow passenger use mind, but still quicker than via the Durham coast).

Darlo, Durham and Newcastle are well connected by VTEC, XC & TPE trains. Middlesborugh is well connected to Darlington and has a decent service along the coast.

Where are these communities that need better and further services?

The main ECML service is indeed well served and will be better served in years to come. However, I'd suggest that Hartlepool, Stockton and Peterlee could do with being better served, as could Cramlington. Nothing to do with the Leamside line, mind, but still, it would be useful.

 

[bramling]

I'm sorry but that is a rather slanted view of things. There are countless road schemes that have reduced congestion; for example removing the at grade junctions in the A1 from Peterborough to Doncaster.

What frustrates me, is the A1 is now a superb road all the way from Huntingdon to Tyneside and beyond, yet the busiest section south of Huntingdon remains awful. Several roundabouts, plus the infamous two-lane section from Welwyn to Stevenage.

 

[DarloRich]

I mean, it's 50-50. I'd say the northern section of the line could probably do with some services. The continuous-ish urban area from Gateshead to Washington (inc. Team Valley, Birtley etc) has exactly no railway services. Most of that population goes to either Pelaw, Heworth or Gateshead Metro stations by bus (or drives). Rail or Metro extensions to there could probably be fairly successful. Running the line all the way to Gilesgate and Ferryhill just doesn't seem useful. The current station in Durham is phenomenally well sited.

By metro perhaps but not by heavy rail. It is up to the LA's to support and fund this.

I could also (just about & in an ideal world) see an extension of the metro from South Hylton to Penshaw and Fencehouses along the current footpath and the former junction with the Leamside near the Victoria Bridge

There are about 2 freight paths an hour via Durham, of which about 1 path an hour is used regularly. However, that's not to say the North ECML is starved for capacity. The passing loops just North of Durham are pretty useful at getting them out of the way (they tend to get sent out just after the TPE service in the Southbound direction, as it's the slowest).

In fact, minimal upgrades to the existing line are needed for even the highest of the HLOS specs from Network Rail.

Exactly - it is hardly bursting at the seams - Freights only have to get to Ferryhill before pulling over again for a break before Darlington ( and a break) and then Northallerton.

Are you sure about this. I thought it was fitted with AWS etc. and as such was in fact fit for passenger use (slow passenger use mind, but still quicker than via the Durham coast).

I mean it will be slow and limited capacity wise without an upgrade.

The main ECML service is indeed well served and will be better served in years to come. However, I'd suggest that Hartlepool, Stockton and Peterlee could do with being better served, as could Cramlington. Nothing to do with the Leamside line, mind, but still, it would be useful.

A better service might be useful. As you say it wont go anywhere near the Leamside
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What frustrates me, is the A1 is now a superb road all the way from Huntingdon to Tyneside and beyond, yet the busiest section south of Huntingdon remains awful. Several roundabouts, plus the infamous two-lane section from Welwyn to Stevenage.

try the A66! An important cross country trunk route linking the A1M & M6 hampered by silly single sections

 

[glbotu]

By metro perhaps but not by heavy rail. It is up to the LA's to support and fund this.

I mean, sure, but the North East is pretty heavily under funded. It could certainly do with a cash injection that it then decides to spend by itself. And the NECA report (the "wouldn't it be nice" report, posted a while back) isn't suggesting anything different from what we're discussing.

I could also (just about & in an ideal world) see an extension of the metro from South Hylton to Penshaw and Fencehouses along the current footpath and the former junction with the Leamside near the Victoria Bridge

I'm always a little sceptical about over-extending the Metro. It's definitely the "in vogue" solution to any North East capacity problems, but suffers from the fact that the single core is limited in capacity and that realistically, some of the distances it travels are pretty big for a light-rail service. I wouldn't say no to a half hourly 156 to Washington. I don't really see the material gain from the Metro, other than a theoretically better frequency. It could possibly be cheaper to have a DMU service, because no electrification would be needed.

I mean it will be slow and limited capacity wise without an upgrade.

For 1tph + Freight?

 

[edwin_m]

I will repeat that you are deluded if you think people will give up their cars.

I don't have a car because the train takes me door to door in an acceptable time. If my office were not located where it is I would drive. Many people still drive in despite good public transport links. The number of bus travelers is almost zero despite good service from many areas of the town.

People only use the bus out of necessity - it is seen ( outside of London) as a plebs taxi for poor people and chavs.

People want the freedom & flexibility a car brings. For many it is impossible to operate without a car and you will not reduce that demand by enforcing speed limits. :roll: We have tried forcing the price of fuel and tax high but that has had no impact on car numbers.

We need better connections in this country & punishing people because they don't have your zeal for public transport is bonkers as is your idea of not spending on new roads. I don't want to see all the money spent on roads but we have to accept the car is here to stay and people want and need to use them in growing numbers. We have to provide for this increasing use and that means spending money on new roads.

Actually something has arrested the growth in car use that took place from WW2 up until about 2000. Probably a combination of factors such as taxation, congestion, "green" awareness and even a better train service!

One possible factor that can largely be ruled out is increased bus useage, as this continues to decline nearly everywhere outside London. I probably won't get any kudos for saying this on a rail forum, but the easiest measures to secure large-scale reduction in car usage would be to encourage the bus aggressively with priority measures, proper integration and regulation. The few cities such as Nottingham that have done most of this have seen static or falling car useage.