Should we be building new railways?

[MerlinRail 804]

Interesting convo I just had with a friend. He’s going to Heathrow and I mentioned the OOC - South Ruislip link and the fact that one day it might be possible to get to Heathrow by train by just changing at OOC rather than having to go all the way into central London. That sparked an instant “we shouldn’t be building new rail lines”. He was talking about how building new railways and new trains is more disruptive and worse for the environment than just leaving things as is, but IMO the cost of leaving well alone in the current situation will probably be far worse. I talked about all the usual stuff: increasing capacity, making journeys simpler and more attractive, modal shift, etc, but he firmly believes we shouldn’t be running any more trains than currently (Chiltern struggle with overcrowding and run a thinner service than pre-COVID, I’m sure the story is the same in other parts of the country). I mentioned the Northumberland line, and its success, plenty others ready to go, but he just “didn’t want to hear it”, so yeah that was it I guess. One of the interesting things I realised just afterwards that HS2 (which he opposes), especially if built properly (cough cough Rishi…) would reduce the demand for the direct domestic flights such as Heathrow to Manchester and many others (which he also opposes!)

Interesting convo though. Should we be investing in, upgrading, and adding to the railways and make them better, or just leave the chaotic, and for some places useless, mess as it is?

 

[YorkshireBear]

There is a large portion of society who believe we should build nothing and people should just travel less. These people generally travel a fair bit in my experience.

Should we be reopening old rural lines, absolutely not in my view. Should we be targeting areas that are overcrowded and building new strategic routes yes.

 

[fandroid]

Surely the thing is that nothing actually stays the same, whether you build new or not. People will change their habits and requirements and the world outside of the railways is changing all the time. Responding to that is essential, whether in the form of new lines or upgrades.

 

[Mogz]

Yes, but not to cart fresh air around.

There are line closures that were short-sighted and could relieve pressure on the existing network, but many were closed because they simply had no passengers.

Those that had tourist/scenic value reopened as the wonderful heritage routes that we have today.

 

[VItraveller]

Let’s try running services along the newly built railways we already have before we consider opening new ones.
*cough cough east west rail*

 

[zwk500]

Should we be investing in, upgrading, and adding to the railways and make them better, or just leave the chaotic, and for some places useless, mess as it is?

We should be building new, upgrading existing, reopening old, and closing any of stations, routes, tracks, freight terminals, etc as demand changes.

Sometimes Upgrading Existing will mean building new (e.g. HS2).

 

[FMerrymon]

Interesting convo I just had with a friend. He’s going to Heathrow and I mentioned the OOC - South Ruislip link and the fact that one day it might be possible to get to Heathrow by train by just changing at OOC rather than having to go all the way into central London. That sparked an instant “we shouldn’t be building new rail lines”. He was talking about how building new railways and new trains is more disruptive and worse for the environment than just leaving things as is, but IMO the cost of leaving well alone in the current situation will probably be far worse. I talked about all the usual stuff: increasing capacity, making journeys simpler and more attractive, modal shift, etc, but he firmly believes we shouldn’t be running any more trains than currently (Chiltern struggle with overcrowding and run a thinner service than pre-COVID, I’m sure the story is the same in other parts of the country). I mentioned the Northumberland line, and its success, plenty others ready to go, but he just “didn’t want to hear it”, so yeah that was it I guess. One of the interesting things I realised just afterwards that HS2 (which he opposes), especially if built properly (cough cough Rishi…) would reduce the demand for the direct domestic flights such as Heathrow to Manchester and many others (which he also opposes!)

Interesting convo though. Should we be investing in, upgrading, and adding to the railways and make them better, or just leave the chaotic, and for some places useless, mess as it is?

The environmental reports for hs2 were misunderstood and they may be thinking about the 120 year figure for climate payback some took from it. Does concern me that many environmentalists do not seem to look at evidence properly and oppose projects that would help their aims (see nuclear power).

 

[LLivery]

A first I thought he was only saying no to new alignments, which I can kind of understand, but don't agree with. But saying we shouldn't run extra trains is barmy.

For new alignments, apart from High Speed lines, only maybe XR2, EWR and Braintree - Stansted, I think are worth doing. I'd much rather focus on reopening lines.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

There is a large portion of society who believe we should build nothing and people should just travel less. These people generally travel a fair bit in my experience.

The ultimate example being the multi-millionaires / billionnaires who attend COP gatherings in their private jet, while lecturing everyone else on living more frugally and travelling less!

 

[Sussex hammer]

He needed to use "transport" as he was going from somewhere to somewhere.

I am assuming he was flying somewhere as he was travelling to Heathrow. Where was he flying? Did he mention any environmental concerns about flying?

Does he have similar concerns when new roads are being built?

 

[HSTEd]

Personally I think we should be building new railway lines, but to some degree I think we need to be replacing legacy routes rather than simply "augmenting" them.

We should not get trapped into thinking that every route that survived from the Victoria period is sacrosanct, nor that they were optimum for the railway we need today.

 

[quantinghome]

In the short term we should be looking at building shortish (10-20km) bypasses and new connections that will give the most "bang for buck". Examples would be Morpeth bypass, connecting Nottingham to the ECML north of Newark, and a partially new route to add capacity between Leeds and Sheffield. The railway needs to show it can build things to an agreed budget and this would be an opportunity.

 

[frodshamfella]

We should build new railway lines where they are needed, and some of these will be lines that were closed down, places like Mold and Skelmersdale come to mind. I also think we need to do as much as possible to make rail travel attractive for those people who would never think of the train, and opt for the car. So cheaper, more frequent , clean and reliable .

 

[Zomboid]

We should certainly continue to invest in national infrastructure to meet the changing needs of the population, of which rail is an important part.

Never do anything will only lead to decline.

 

[yorksrob]

Those that had tourist/scenic value reopened as the wonderful heritage routes that we have today.

Wonderful heritage routes are well and good, but they're generally useless from a transport point of view. The hours of operation are too limited and the fares are too high.

IMO Generally we should be looking to re-link towns to the railway network where this would generate the use and the benefit.

This could be reopening a scenic rural route, such as Tavistock/Okehampton, or a brand new urban route, such as Skelmersdale.

I'd also agree with reinstating short missing links such as Uckfield - Lewes.

 

[MerlinRail 804]

He needed to use "transport" as he was going from somewhere to somewhere.

I am assuming he was flying somewhere as he was travelling to Heathrow. Where was he flying? Did he mention any environmental concerns about flying?

Does he have similar concerns when new roads are being built?

He’s going to New York. I did ask him would he prefer a new railway or a new motorway… he said neither.

Interesting thing is, he does actually use the train a reasonable bit - I’m not expecting him to know that Chiltern used to run more services than now but surely the fairly barebones weekend service is fairly noticeable. Might just be me tho

 

[Sorcerer]

In some cases the only way to properly increase network capacity is building new routes. The entire idea behind HS2 was to relieve capacity on the three mainlines heading north of London and segregate different kinds of rail traffic so they don't disrupt each other. As I understand it the Elizabeth Line was meant to fill a similar role for the Central Line by offering faster services stopping only at major focal points on route.

Japan realised this in the 1950s when they built the Tokaido Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka because the existing route was simply at it's capacity limits, and the Swiss have also done similar things by building new lines between Olten, Solothurn and Bern along with the Gotthard Base Tunnel that has increased route capacity for passengers and freight on the north-south axis. I think the objective answer to the original question is very much a resounding Yes!

 

[birchesgreen]

Yes, but not to cart fresh air around.

There are line closures that were short-sighted and could relieve pressure on the existing network, but many were closed because they simply had no passengers.

Those that had tourist/scenic value reopened as the wonderful heritage routes that we have today.

Though in some cases the settlements the lines and stations served when closed have grown quite a bit over the last 60 years. A blanket no is incorrect i think.

 

[frankmoh]

Yes, but not to cart fresh air around.

There are line closures that were short-sighted and could relieve pressure on the existing network, but many were closed because they simply had no passengers.

Those that had tourist/scenic value reopened as the wonderful heritage routes that we have today.

The Woodside & South Croydon being an example I can think of. In the modern day it would prove very handy for Southern (or perhaps Southeastern?) to have a diversionary line that reduces pressure on East Croydon and allows more Oxted line trains. The only problem is that when the line closed in 1983 the issues at East Croydon weren't nearly as bad and the line itself had abysmal passenger numbers. Somewhere in the region of 150 people a day, not even the capacity of a full 2-EPB as was used on the line.

Thankfully the line has been taken over partially by the trams so it's not all gone to waste, although now it has the opposite problem as more people are able to get to East Croydon and therefore use the already busy trains.

Repurposing closed lines is a very good idea in theory but the land where the closed lines sat often seem to be gobbled up by property developments with no foresight. One example being the Spa Valley Railway, where part of the line has to curve around new-build houses or how the station building at Tunbridge Wells West is now a restaurant.

 

[generalnerd]

Interesting convo I just had with a friend. He’s going to Heathrow and I mentioned the OOC - South Ruislip link and the fact that one day it might be possible to get to Heathrow by train by just changing at OOC rather than having to go all the way into central London. That sparked an instant “we shouldn’t be building new rail lines”. He was talking about how building new railways and new trains is more disruptive and worse for the environment than just leaving things as is, but IMO the cost of leaving well alone in the current situation will probably be far worse. I talked about all the usual stuff: increasing capacity, making journeys simpler and more attractive, modal shift, etc, but he firmly believes we shouldn’t be running any more trains than currently (Chiltern struggle with overcrowding and run a thinner service than pre-COVID, I’m sure the story is the same in other parts of the country). I mentioned the Northumberland line, and its success, plenty others ready to go, but he just “didn’t want to hear it”, so yeah that was it I guess. One of the interesting things I realised just afterwards that HS2 (which he opposes), especially if built properly (cough cough Rishi…) would reduce the demand for the direct domestic flights such as Heathrow to Manchester and many others (which he also opposes!)

Interesting convo though. Should we be investing in, upgrading, and adding to the railways and make them better, or just leave the chaotic, and for some places useless, mess as it is?

I’ve never understood the idea that we should stop progressing to save face, even though what we are doing now is far worse than what we would be doing if progression went ahead.

when I studied geography (GCSE) and we learn about HS2, it was treated in a negative light by the teacher as it was harmful to the environment. So now, if you ask anybody in that class, they heavily disagree with HS2. I just thought that would be interesting to put out there as it’s maybe an indicator as to where this anti-development and anti-HS2 ideas come from.

 

[stevieinselby]

Interesting convo I just had with a friend. He’s going to Heathrow and I mentioned the OOC - South Ruislip link and the fact that one day it might be possible to get to Heathrow by train by just changing at OOC rather than having to go all the way into central London. That sparked an instant “we shouldn’t be building new rail lines”. He was talking about how building new railways and new trains is more disruptive and worse for the environment than just leaving things as is, but IMO the cost of leaving well alone in the current situation will probably be far worse. I talked about all the usual stuff: increasing capacity, making journeys simpler and more attractive, modal shift, etc, but he firmly believes we shouldn’t be running any more trains than currently (Chiltern struggle with overcrowding and run a thinner service than pre-COVID, I’m sure the story is the same in other parts of the country). I mentioned the Northumberland line, and its success, plenty others ready to go, but he just “didn’t want to hear it”, so yeah that was it I guess. One of the interesting things I realised just afterwards that HS2 (which he opposes), especially if built properly (cough cough Rishi…) would reduce the demand for the direct domestic flights such as Heathrow to Manchester and many others (which he also opposes!)

Interesting convo though. Should we be investing in, upgrading, and adding to the railways and make them better, or just leave the chaotic, and for some places useless, mess as it is?

It would be interesting to know his logic for that argument ... the fact that when you presented him with evidence he "didn't want to hear it" suggests it's more an emotional response than a rational one.

For people who genuinely believe in degrowth, and want us to meet our environmental targets by just travelling less, it may be a logically consistent position – but if he's travelling to Heathrow to jet off on a long-haul flight, that has a distinct whiff of hypocrisy to it. "Degrowth for thee, but not for me" is not a tenable or justifiable position.

On the other hand, if he doesn't believe that there is an environmental emergency and that we need to make significant changes in order to continue with a sustainable society (which is a distressingly common point of view) then he is just plain ignorant and needs to be educated.

 

[brad465]

I would build them to do any one or combination of the following:

-Relieve capacity on congested routes (like what HS2 is supposed to do)
-Connect major towns/business areas relatively close not well connected currently
-Link new towns to the rail network (EWR does this and point 2)

I'd also add urban tram networks should be widely pursued where not prevalent and where new heavy rail lines are not feasible, such as in Bristol.

 

[Lknowles78]

My issues with train travel which prevents me from using it as opposed to my car are that there are no direct east-west links which therefore means for me travelling from my home in Hertfordshire to my parents in the West Midlands a train into Kings Cross, a tube to Euston, train to Birmingham, train to Walsall then a bus. This makes the journey hours longer than the couple of hours in my car up the M1 (even in carpark conditions). Also it costs me £60 for a full tank of petrol of which this return journey only takes at most half a tank whereas the train is a hell of a lot more.

My point is we need to build more east-west links avoiding London that reduce journey times and that are affordable.

We should be rebuilding missing links like the Alban Way (Hatfield to St Albans) with links beyond or Walsall to Lichfield to bring about modal shift.

I also believe HS2 has tarnished rail line building in the UK. The farce of cancelling north of the Midlands, let alone the eastern leg and the fact that it never got planned to Scotland. Tory NIMBY Buckinghamshire put it in wastefully expensive tunnels, where the line isn‘t going also has opposition to the whole project. It’s no wonder the public are against building new lines!

 

[Peter Wilde]

We should build new railways if they are genuinely needed. But a higher priority ought to be making better use of what we have. Like:

Electrification - especially of short links that would enable a large increase in electrically hauled freight;

Fares that would attract more custom (at least, to routes where there is capacity);

More frequent, comfortable, convenient services (ditto);

Policy changes to make more use of HS1 and the Tunnel; it is ridiculous that people who travel to places like Germany nearly always find that it’s cheaper to fly.

 

[Bevan Price]

The Woodside & South Croydon being an example I can think of. In the modern day it would prove very handy for Southern (or perhaps Southeastern?) to have a diversionary line that reduces pressure on East Croydon and allows more Oxted line trains. The only problem is that when the line closed in 1983 the issues at East Croydon weren't nearly as bad and the line itself had abysmal passenger numbers. Somewhere in the region of 150 people a day, not even the capacity of a full 2-EPB as was used on the line.

Thankfully the line has been taken over partially by the trams so it's not all gone to waste, although now it has the opposite problem as more people are able to get to East Croydon and therefore use the already busy trains.

Repurposing closed lines is a very good idea in theory but the land where the closed lines sat often seem to be gobbled up by property developments with no foresight. One example being the Spa Valley Railway, where part of the line has to curve around new-build houses or how the station building at Tunbridge Wells West is now a restaurant.

Apart from cost, houses in the way are not a problem if a Government is in favour of a major project.
Nearly 1000 houses will be "sacrificed" if a 3rd runway for Heathrow is approved..........
Hundreds of houses have been destroyed to make way for motoways.

 

[FMerrymon]

Incredible. Teachers should be encouraging pupils to form their own opinions not indoctrinating with their poor informed ones. The environmental movement/agencies/parties caused spme damage with their lack of support and the green party came round too late.

 

[quantinghome]

We should build new railways if they are genuinely needed. But a higher priority ought to be making better use of what we have. Like:

Electrification - especially of short links that would enable a large increase in electrically hauled freight;

Fares that would attract more custom (at least, to routes where there is capacity);

More frequent, comfortable, convenient services (ditto);

Policy changes to make more use of HS1 and the Tunnel; it is ridiculous that people who travel to places like Germany nearly always find that it’s cheaper to fly.

The problem is we don't have the capacity available in the existing network. The existing west coast main line WAS upgraded before HS2 was even thought about, but it quickly filled up again. The transpennine route is being upgraded. But it will only get you so far. Eventually you have to build new if you want more capacity.

Most advanced economies build new railway lines, just as they build new roads and towns and all sorts of infrastructure. But for some reason which I can't begin to fathom we've got it into our heads that building new railways is weird and a waste.

 

[MerlinRail 804]

On the other hand, if he doesn't believe that there is an environmental emergency and that we need to make significant changes in order to continue with a sustainable society (which is a distressingly common point of view) then he is just plain ignorant and needs to be educated.

He does, though he was arguing, it seemed, that we shouldn’t even build new trains because of emissions. I get what he means, but I don’t really see how 2 car asbestos ridden lumps of wood have much of a place on the modern railway. DGMW, he’s a great guy, but it was a bit of a bewildering 2 minute convo imo.

Yes electric isn’t completely perfect, but it’s still pretty good and surely any step forward is a step that should be embraced, which is what we haven’t really done apart from the most major corridors.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Electrify and fix what we already have before building new routes.

Climate change is going to force our hand on much of what we are doing

 

[stevieinselby]

He does, though he was arguing, it seemed, that we shouldn’t even build new trains because of emissions. I get what he means, but I don’t really see how 2 car asbestos ridden lumps of wood have much of a place on the modern railway. DGMW, he’s a great guy, but it was a bit of a bewildering 2 minute convo imo.

I agree that the most environmentally friendly train is the one you already have, and that replacing a train before it is life-expired on environmental grounds is unlikely to add up, but that doesn't preclude buying additional trains.
It sounds like you've got all the arguments at your fingertips, so I don't need to repeat them here!

Yes electric isn’t completely perfect, but it’s still pretty good and surely any step forward is a step that should be embraced, which is what we haven’t really done apart from the most major corridors.

Electrify and fix what we already have before building new routes.

Climate change is going to force our hand on much of what we are doing

In most cases, a well-used diesel train is still better for the environment than having everyone travel by car, even with a decent proportion of those cars being EVs. (Voyagers may be the exception to this!)

Shifting traffic (passenger and freight) from road to rail is a key element of decarbonising our traffic network, even if the trains are still diesel. If they can be made electric/battery then that is better still, but we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good by requiring too high a bar for rail. While I definitely want to see more of the rail network move to electric/battery, there is a decent argument that we would achieve more in terms of decarbonisation by using our engineering staff and resources to build new lines and increase capacity on existing lines before we electrify/batterify many more existing lines.