When the heritage line is in the way...

[HowardGWR]

A new bridge connection at Weston Bath from the old MR to the GWR line could open up services to North Bristol (and further), but would require commandeering the AVR at Bitton.

Such a scheme was mooted in Big Four days to avoid the Coombe tunnel S and D route out of Bath. There would have been a join north of Limpley Stoke to Midford to regain the S and D line.

 

[B&I]

An option might be for NR to re-purchase heritage lines, in return for a contribution to the expense of moving the heritage operation to set up on another line. For example, if Paignton-Kingswear was returned to mainline operation, the heritage line could be moved onto the Brixham branch. This way, heritage operations can continue and the overall network expands.

No doubt someone will point out to me in a moment the colossal practical drawbacks of this sort of plan.

 

[mr_jrt]

I've long advocated reopening East Grinstead to Hayward's Heath (coupled with 4-tracking Copyhold to Keymer Junction) as a BML relief line instead of the BML2 proposals. No interest thus far though

 

[HowardGWR]

An option might be for NR to re-purchase heritage lines, in return for a contribution to the expense of moving the heritage operation to set up on another line. For example, if Paignton-Kingswear was returned to mainline operation, the heritage line could be moved onto the Brixham branch. This way, heritage operations can continue and the overall network expands.

No doubt someone will point out to me in a moment the colossal practical drawbacks of this sort of plan.

The 'colossal drawback' would be that the Dartmouth line is not really a 'heritage line' (volunteers trying to preserve the past) but a commercial tourist attraction just like a seaside funfair. So it would need a compulsory purchase, (colossal compensation), for which there is no need, if commercial deals can be made with the present owner, as is the case at present.

 

[Cowley]

An option might be for NR to re-purchase heritage lines, in return for a contribution to the expense of moving the heritage operation to set up on another line. For example, if Paignton-Kingswear was returned to mainline operation, the heritage line could be moved onto the Brixham branch. This way, heritage operations can continue and the overall network expands.

No doubt someone will point out to me in a moment the colossal practical drawbacks of this sort of plan.

I’m not going to do that regarding the general idea of moving a preservation scheme onto a different line. But (here it comes), The Torbay and Dartmouth/Dartmouth Steam Railway (whatever you want to call it) would probably consider itself and its shareholders pretty hard done by if they were compulsorily forced to vacate one of the scenically finest (and profit making) sections of preserved railway in the entire country, and were then made to set up on a small branch line which disappeared decades ago.

Edit - And what Howard said.

 

[satisnek]

I don't think this line was ever double apart from a short section where sidings ran alongside at the Kidderminster end. It looks like the viaduct over the River Stour and canal may have been built with widening in mind however but Bewdley Tunnel was definitely only ever single. The single track might suffice however for an hourly National Rail service as long as that section was under NR signalling control, but I wouldn't want colour lights to take over Bewdley station as the SVRs most interesting signalling installation with its two boxes and AB section through the platforms. Hence I propose a branching chord (yellow) before Bewdley onto the Stourport alignment (orange) where a new 'parkway' station could be established near the A456/B4195 bypass roundabout which could help support options for housing development in fields nearby. A station on the former British Sugar site near Hoobrook to support nearby housing development would be a mistake in my opinion because it would be midway along the shared single track section, with impact on occupancy times and thus capacity and reliability for both NR and SVR, although a new passing loop might be built at this former sidings site to help alleviate this, at considerable cost however. For my Bewdley Bypass option I would also consider extending the line further, partway along the old Stourport line then branching off southward across fields (yellow) to make a new approach to the town centre near the River Severn bridge and Basin with a new terminus in the car parks thereabouts. It looks like such a route might be possible without any significant demolition. Station area signalling at Kidderminster and Bewdley would thus remain SVR administered mechanical as now with slots working to the NR control of the single line between. the shared single track would be about 3.8km in length or 2.4 miles. Even at a typical heritage speed of under 25mph this should be possible to traverse in under 10 minutes so an hourly NR service should be easy to accomodate amongst the heritage traffic. At commuter peaks, when there is usually no (or only limited) heritage running, the NR service could be strengthened to half hourly, although that might require an extra passing facility on the new branch. I'd envisage Stourport trains to be Birmingham - Kidderminster stoppers extended.

That's an interesting proposal... the original Stourport station was inconveniently situated back in the town's heyday as an inland resort (which yours, close to the bridge, isn't) but I would have thought that it would have considerable commuter potential today. My own solution is to build a chord north of Hartlebury to give trains from the Kidderminster direction access to the original route and, similarly, extend the Kidderminster terminators (although this would require at least one additional unit in practice). The only drawback is that either an inferior 'Stourport Parkway' station would have to be built on the wrong side of the canal (probably not practical at the end of Summerfield Road so it would have to be as far back as Wilden Lane) or the whole of Longboat Lane would need to be demolished in order to reinstate the station on its original site.

 

[apk55]

One of the more likely places where this may happen is the between Matlock and Rowsley as part of reopening the main line between Buxton and Chinley

 

[apk55]

One of the more likely places where this may happen is the between Matlock and Rowsley as part of reopening the main line between Buxton and Chinley. What would happen to peak rail?

 

[apk55]

One of the more likely places where this may happen is the between Matlock and Rowsley as part of reopening the main line between Buxton and Chinley. What would happen to peak rail?

 

[apk55]

One of the more likely places where this may happen is the between Matlock and Rowsley as part of reopening the main line between Matlock, Buxton and Chinley. What would happen to peak rail?

 

[CaptainHaddock]

One of the more likely places where this may happen is the between Matlock and Rowsley as part of reopening the main line between Matlock, Buxton and Chinley. What would happen to peak rail?

We heard you the first time!

 

[Cowley]

We heard you the first time!

Lots of posts on the forum seem to have posted twice this morning for some reason.

 

[edwin_m]

The screen doesn't seem to be updating after a new post is submitted, but it is in fact adding correctly.

 

[InOban]

The same is happening in every thread.

 

[Flying Claret]

Freight trains access the gypsum plant at East Leake over the GCR(N) from Loughborough. There have also been numerous railtours to or from heritage lines including Minehead, Alton, East Lancs. Not to mention the NYMR Whitby service. So it's entirely possible to run passenger trains although all of them have been aimed at tourists rather than regular travellers.


I did a feasiblilty study into this about 10 years ago. It would be a peak-hour commuter service such as MarkyT suggested above, but it's difficult to make the economics stack up on this basis.

What were the main issues? I would have thought that there would be demand during peak times. I commute along the M66 every day and there is plenty of manchester bound commuter traffic

 

[Flying Claret]

Freight trains access the gypsum plant at East Leake over the GCR(N) from Loughborough. There have also been numerous railtours to or from heritage lines including Minehead, Alton, East Lancs. Not to mention the NYMR Whitby service. So it's entirely possible to run passenger trains although all of them have been aimed at tourists rather than regular travellers.


I did a feasiblilty study into this about 10 years ago. It would be a peak-hour commuter service such as MarkyT suggested above, but it's difficult to make the economics stack up on this basis.

What were the main issues? I would have thought that there would be demand during peak times. I commute along the M66 every day and there is plenty of manchester bound commuter traffic

 

[edwin_m]

What were the main issues? I would have thought that there would be demand during peak times. I commute along the M66 every day and there is plenty of manchester bound commuter traffic

Long time ago and I only did the engineering investigation not the business case, but I think running at commuter times only would incur most of the costs of an all-day service but not achieve anything like the full benefit.

 

[adamedwards]

Good example - hadn't thought of that one! Did Ordsall Chord actually acquire land from MoSI, or was the compensation purely for severance of its main line access/shortening of the internal demonstration line?

The Ordsall Curve severed the link at a slightly different level, so it was quite controversial at the time.

 

[Flying Claret]

Thanks, thats interesting. As a regular user of the M66 and the ELR I've often wondered if a commuter service would be viable. Maybe an extension of metrolink instead. That would obvioulsy kill the ELR though...

 

[B&I]

I’m not going to do that regarding the general idea of moving a preservation scheme onto a different line. But (here it comes), The Torbay and Dartmouth/Dartmouth Steam Railway (whatever you want to call it) would probably consider itself and its shareholders pretty hard done by if they were compulsorily forced to vacate one of the scenically finest (and profit making) sections of preserved railway in the entire country, and were then made to set up on a small branch line which disappeared decades ago.

Edit - And what Howard said.

I was thinking more of the general idea. I used the Dartmouth Railway as an example because it had already been mentioned, because it is an obvious example of a heritage line which coild usefully be re-connected to the national network, and because there is a branch nearby which (I thought) could be usefully re-opened as a heritage line - Brixham's a fairly popular tourist spot too.

I wouldn't want heritage bods to feel they were being steamrollered, but rather that they were taking part in a process (with proper financial safeguards from.their point of view) to allow the expansion of the railway network as a whole

 

[jopsuk]

There's a few possibilities aren't there?
1. Heritage railway is a branch that could usefully have a weekday peak time "normal" service- possibility of upgrading the signalling system (which can be kept as semaphore!) and line speeds to support this, timetable carefully worked out to integrate with the "heritage" services and a ticketing arrangement arrived at.
2. heritage railway would form a useful part of a through reopening- more likely that the reopening project buys the railway out, possibly helping them find a new bit of line to restore and relocate to?

 

[B&I]

There's a few possibilities aren't there?
1. Heritage railway is a branch that could usefully have a weekday peak time "normal" service- possibility of upgrading the signalling system (which can be kept as semaphore!) and line speeds to support this, timetable carefully worked out to integrate with the "heritage" services and a ticketing arrangement arrived at.
2. heritage railway would form a useful part of a through reopening- more likely that the reopening project buys the railway out, possibly helping them find a new bit of line to restore and relocate to?

It's that second option that I was putting forward, but the first may be more appropriate in other circumstances eg a shuttle on the KWVR. Maybe we could even see more heritage running over quieter parts of the NR network at quieter times - doesn't DB permit that on some of its lines ?

 

[squizzler]

There could be a selection of options:
- build on a new alignment (given the likely level of work required to improve the existing route this may not be that much more, except into urban areas)

Agreed, it will be cheaper to buy green fields than an existing railway owned by somebody else. I also feel that it is rare that the historic trackbed alignment would be engineered to modern standards (level crossings, ground stability, curvature) and it would mostly be better to build anew. Hence the reason HS2 does not slavishly follow the Grand Central route.

Crossing built up areas would be an obvious exception to the rule, but I hazard that traversing difficult terrain, such as where there might only be a narrow pass through a difficult gorge, is another exception.

 

[tomatwark]

The Borders railway if it opened back to Carlisle would take out the Border Union Railway, although I think that it opening south of Hawick is a long shot.

 

[Chester1]

I'm sure there was something a few years ago about putting Rossendale (i.e. Rawtenstall) back on the National Rail map, which makes the East Lancs vulnerable (although that's probably too strong a word in practice). Of all heritage lines, I would think it's the one which serves the most populous area, after all.

Long time ago and I only did the engineering investigation not the business case, but I think running at commuter times only would incur most of the costs of an all-day service but not achieve anything like the full benefit.

Thanks, thats interesting. As a regular user of the M66 and the ELR I've often wondered if a commuter service would be viable. Maybe an extension of metrolink instead. That would obvioulsy kill the ELR though...

I think part of the poor BCR was that any service would significantly reduce the contribution that the ELR makes to the local economy. The estimate for the opperating subsidy for a week day only service (allowing ELR to run at weekends) was pretty low, I think about £1m a year. GMCA is keen on linking up the remaining three towns of Greater Manchester (Leigh, Middleton and Heywood) to either Metrolink or heavy rail services. The guided busway was an interim solution for Leigh and a business case has been funded for extending Metrolink from Crumpsall to Middleton. The station at Heywood is not well located and a heavy rail service from Bury would abstract revenue from Metrolink. Anything further would basically wreck the ELR. It would be possible to build a new single platform station in Heywood, a single track link and reinstate the south south facing junction without affecting the ELR (it was a double track formation).

 

[RichJF]

I've long advocated reopening East Grinstead to Hayward's Heath (coupled with 4-tracking Copyhold to Keymer Junction) as a BML relief line instead of the BML2 proposals. No interest thus far though

Haywards Heath is a long term aspiration of the Bluebell. If it gets built it would be interesting to see if NR took it over or jointly used the infrastructure (say for TL peak trains from Brighton via East Grinstead for example).

I live in EGR & reckon if this & Tunbridge Wells - Three Bridges were still open then the town a lot less traffic/road problems and the lines would be popular!

 

[billio]

I'm sure there was something a few years ago about putting Rossendale (i.e. Rawtenstall) back on the National Rail map, which makes the East Lancs vulnerable (although that's probably too strong a word in practice). Of all heritage lines, I would think it's the one which serves the most populous area, after all.

I think the ELR is against any use of the railway as a commuter route.
However, I suggest a part of the ELR that might be used is as part of re-opening the line from Bolton to Castleton via Bury. Highly unlikely but this route provides a journey from Liverpool docks to Drax about 20 miles shorter than the route via Colne and Selby. It connects some large centres of population together on a route that by-passes Manchester: Rochdale - Bury - Bolton - Wigan - Liverpool.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the ELR is against any use of the railway as a commuter route.
However, I suggest a part of the ELR that might be used is as part of re-opening the line from Bolton to Castleton via Bury. Highly unlikely but this route provides a journey from Liverpool docks to Drax about 20 miles shorter than the route via Colne and Selby. It connects some large centres of population together on a route that by-passes Manchester: Rochdale - Bury - Bolton - Wigan - Liverpool.

Unfortunately some plonker built a housing estate on it at Bradley Fold.

 

[HowardGWR]

Unfortunately some plonker built a housing estate on it at Bradley Fold.

Don't blame the builder. More likely that a bunch of plonkers (councillors) gave permission to do so. In fairness, we were all plonkers in those days. No one envisaged the rail renaissance in 1965.

 

[snowball]

Don't blame the builder. More likely that a bunch of plonkers (councillors) gave permission to do so. In fairness, we were all plonkers in those days. No one envisaged the rail renaissance in 1965.

It as well after 1965 that the houses were built. If Picc-Vic had gone ahead as planned in the 1970s, that line (Radcliffe to Bolton) would have been part of its network. The houses are more recent than that.

 

[MarkyT]

An option might be for NR to re-purchase heritage lines, in return for a contribution to the expense of moving the heritage operation to set up on another line. For example, if Paignton-Kingswear was returned to mainline operation, the heritage line could be moved onto the Brixham branch. This way, heritage operations can continue and the overall network expands. No doubt someone will point out to me in a moment the colossal practical drawbacks of this sort of plan.

There's little unobstructed trackbed remaining on the old Brixham branch. The Terminus and about 1km on approach is completely built over. At the Churston end the first 350m is obstructed by expensive exclusive housing next to the golf course. That leaves about 1.5km across some fields, with no views and no main line connection. Hardly a great attraction for tourists or enthusiasts .

The 'colossal drawback' would be that the Dartmouth line is not really a 'heritage line' (volunteers trying to preserve the past) but a commercial tourist attraction just like a seaside funfair. So it would need a compulsory purchase, (colossal compensation), for which there is no need, if commercial deals can be made with the present owner, as is the case at present.

Quite. It's a fully commercial operation. The company also operates a large network of commercial summer leisure boats around Torbay and along the Dart as well as the Dartmouth - Kingswear passenger ferry.