Why doesn't Ripon have a train line towards Harrogate or York?

[Bald Rick]

Is the track access charge the best way to ascertain it though.

Well it’s been the subject of multiple studies by various economists, engineers and finance people, both eithin the industry and the ORR. If there’s a better way, they’d be delighted to hear it I’m sure.

 

[NCT]

Yes, that's a fair point that wear and tear costs have to be identified. Is the track access charge the best way to ascertain it though.

What ever that amount/charge is called is irrelevant. It needs to be accounted for accurately. The manner of accounting for it would be subject to the same economic and engineering research and methodologies.

 

[yorksrob]

What ever that amount/charge is called is irrelevant. It needs to be accounted for accurately. The manner of accounting for it would be subject to the same economic and engineering research and methodologies.

That is true to an extent - insofar as it all comes out of the same pot.

 

[NCT]

That is true to an extent - insofar as it all comes out of the same pot.

It affects the size of the pot needed, which is what the Treasury cares about.

 

[yorksrob]

Well it’s been the subject of multiple studies by various economists, engineers and finance people, both eithin the industry and the ORR. If there’s a better way, they’d be delighted to hear it I’m sure.

Wouldn't a flat rate be less of a disincentive to operators running longer trains ?

 

[NCT]

Wouldn't a flat rate be less of a disincentive to operators running longer trains ?

That would penalise those rural services with no hope of going beyond 2 cars, and cripplingly so.

 

[Bald Rick]

Wouldn't a flat rate be less of a disincentive to operators running longer trains ?

There’s a fixed charge and a variable charge.

The fixed is intended to cover part of the fixed costs, the variable charge covers the variable costs per vehicle.

 

[yorksrob]

There’s a fixed charge and a variable charge.

The fixed is intended to cover part of the fixed costs, the variable charge covers the variable costs per vehicle.

Indeed, but the variable cost will still be dis-incentivising longer trains.

 

[NCT]

Indeed, but the variable cost will still be dis-incentivising longer trains.

A 9-car train incurs 9 cars worth of track wear and tear, and 9 cars worth of fuel and maintenance, and those 9 cars themselves. Which only makes sense if you know you will carry 9 cars worth of passengers.

Are you advocating 2-car rural trains paying 5 cars worth of track wear and tear costs in order to subsidise profitable long inter-city trains?

 

[Falcon1200]

What makes you think it was from elsewhere?

Because, unless the Ripon line's Army passengers and freight never went any further than York or Harrogate, which obviously would not be the case, the cost of their transit elsewhere would be part of (and for any journey of any distance, the far larger proportion) of the revenue received.

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed, but the variable cost will still be dis-incentivising longer trains.

Patently not, or all the train lengthening programmes that have happened over the years wouldn‘t have happened. I think just about every governement specified operator has increased the length of some of their servcies over the past 20 years.

What it does incentivise is producing vehickes that cause less damage to the track, and therefore reduces industry cost, which has to be a good thing?

 

[yorksrob]

Patently not, or all the train lengthening programmes that have happened over the years wouldn‘t have happened. I think just about every governement specified operator has increased the length of some of their servcies over the past 20 years.

What it does incentivise is producing vehickes that cause less damage to the track, and therefore reduces industry cost, which has to be a good thing?

Just because some train lengths have been increasing anyway, doesn't mean that there wouldn't have been more without the current system.

I do take your point regarding encouraging vehicles that are less damaging to the track.

 

[Bald Rick]

Just because some train lengths have been increasing anyway, doesn't mean that there wouldn't have been more without the current system.

Well, I am of the opinion that it does mean exactly that, ie that variable track access costs are not a deciding factor.

I have been involved in some way or other with several* train lengthening projects, and I can’t think of any point, in any of them, where there was a discussion that said “we’d like to do this, but variable track access is an issue”.

By far the greater costs in the mix for train lengthening are the costs of changing the infrastrcuture (longer platfroms, longer depots and sidings, power supply; sometimes moving signals, points, even neutral sections), additional train maintenance and cleaning, additional fuel / traction electricity, and of course the cost of the vehicles themselves.

*at least 10, probably more.

 

[Killingworth]

Track access charges are set out on pages linked from here; https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/information-for-operators/cp7-access-charges/7

 

[deltic08]

So to reinstate the railway there you'd have to demolish the houses as there's no way they could be accessed. And to reinstate the level crossing you would have to demonstrate there was no reasonably practicable alternative; given there is space to divert the lane and bridge across the railway, that would appear to be reasonably practicable, so that's probably what would have to happen.

Arup suggested a cut and cover tunnel to the left of the trees where the grass is for single track or under the highway as well for double track. There is room for a slew at each end of the row of houses where there re fields. A tunnel also solves a crossing of the road in the foreground. A tunnel depends on the water table which is reasonably high here as the land is low lying and near a river that regularly floods.

Because, unless the Ripon line's Army passengers and freight never went any further than York or Harrogate, which obviously would not be the case, the cost of their transit elsewhere would be part of (and for any journey of any distance, the far larger proportion) of the revenue received.

That was the figure we subsequently discovered 20 years after closure.

 

[quantinghome]

Arup suggested a cut and cover tunnel to the left of the trees where the grass is for single track or under the highway as well for double track. There is room for a slew at each end of the row of houses where there re fields. A tunnel also solves a crossing of the road in the foreground. A tunnel depends on the water table which is reasonably high here as the land is low lying and near a river that regularly floods.

That's a significant bit of engineering. If that's what's required to reopen the line then no wonder people question its feasibility.

 

[zwk500]

Indeed, but the variable cost will still be dis-incentivising longer trains.

Only if the additional income from the longer trains is less than the additional variable cost.

 

[SCH117X]

That's a significant bit of engineering. If that's what's required to reopen the line then no wonder people question its feasibility.

Indeed plus the post of digging cuttings either side. There also the adverse impact on the amenity of the Nidderdale Greenway aside from a train every so often the key feature of it, Bilton Viaduct, unless the Greenway crossed over and back again, would provide its users with a view to the west and a sewerage works rather than the Nidd Gorge to the east. If it was not railway throughout and it made use of 398s a number of issues could be mitigated incliding a stagger in the route at Littlethorpe to run on the existing through road pass the houses.