A new Beeching-style report is needed, to refocus the role of rail

[Kilopylae]

The odds of a 1970s-style 'arms-length' organisation being created today and actually being left alone seem pretty long! - especially under a new Labour government keen to leave its mark/prove its point.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The odds of a 1970s-style 'arms-length' organisation being created today and actually being left alone seem pretty long! - especially under a new Labour government keen to leave its mark/prove its point.

BR was at its most successful under Thatchers tenure Major screwed it all up. Tories don't want a big civil service and much prefer to outsource delivery. Main problem of course now is this will time out even if Sunak limps on till 2024 so could be second half of the decade now before any clear direction is established.

 

[cactustwirly]

Do you think that the Abbey line and Thames Valley branches should be converted to busways?

I thought this thread was about cost saving, not arbitrarily picking lines to be closed

 

[778]

I thought this thread was about cost saving, not arbitrarily picking lines to be closed

I was not proposing them to be closed, I was replying to a post by A0wen. He says that the Dunstable and St Ives busways have been an improvement on the railways that they replaced (not directly, the lines had been closed some years before). I asked him if he thought that existing branch lines should be converted to busways.

Personally, I don't think existing railways should be replaced by busways, but they could be a good option in some cases as an alternative to re-opening lines.

What I don't understand about the dunstable busway, is that a single track railway has been converted into a 2 lane busway. I thought a railway formation would take up less space? A 4 track railway line is narrower that a 4 lane motorway.

 

[A0wen]

TfL could take over the Abbey Line now if they wanted (traditionally it was operated as part of the North London Railways network, not the Northampton Line as it is now, to use NSE monikers). They don't want, as it's not in London. Nor are a number of the other ones.

If we wanted to Beechingise some London routes that would deliver savings and operational advantage, the following might be good suggestions:

- West Ealing to Greenford - close entirely. It is poorly used, it serves little purpose, Drayton Green station is near West Ealing, South Greenford isn't far from Perivale and there's a 3bph TfL bus service (the E11) basically covering the whole route. This is not the sort of place where a 2tph branch line will ever be well used, particularly once the Central London connection was lost. Perhaps in compensation the E11 could be increased to 4bph and the line converted to a cycleway, which would be good given the significant popularity of cycling in London.

- Chiltern innersuburban stations. Keep West Ruislip as an outer Tube interchange. Close South Ruislip (has the Central), Northolt Park (lots of buses and not far from South Harrow Picc line), Sudbury Hull Harrow (has Picc line), Sudbury and Harrow Road (near Sudbury Town LU). Keep Wembley Stadium but to be served on event days only. This would make pathing on the Chiltern route easier and may allow a bit of a recast to the slower services.

Bit in bold - I doubt it. A line which operates 100% outside the Mayor of London's jurisdiction ?

Do you think that the Abbey line and Thames Valley branches should be converted to busways?

The Abbey line possibly - neither station at either end of the line are particularly well sited to the towns they serve. Extension of the line at either end is not viable and arguably the line should have closed under Beeching - it was solely that London Transport couldn't provide an alternative bus service.

The Thames Valley branches fall into a couple of categories -

There's Windsor which has alot of use, partly through Windsor as a tourist destination.

There's Henley and to a lesser extent Marlow which probably justify their use - Henley more than Marlow.

And then there's Greenford which given the plethora of other transport locally could probably lose its passenger service without anyone noticing.

 

[A0wen]

What I don't understand about the dunstable busway, is that a single track railway has been converted into a 2 lane busway. I thought a railway formation would take up less space? A 4 track railway line is narrower that a 4 lane motorway.

This has been discussed before - a railway line is wider than 4' 8.5" - there are clearances needed beyond that for both the rolling stock and the foundations. Road carriageways can be placed *much* closer together.

 

[Tobbes]

No one is going to close West Ealing to Greenford.

Why not?

 

[The Planner]

Why not?

Freight.

 

[HSTEd]

This has been discussed before - a railway line is wider than 4' 8.5" - there are clearances needed beyond that for both the rolling stock and the foundations. Road carriageways can be placed *much* closer together.

I believe there was a study for a possible Marylebone conversion to a bus station that had unguided buses passing inches apart?

You might get that close on Southern Region but you will need access walkways etc which busways don't have to have.

 

[Tobbes]

Freight.

But we could close the passenger service!

 

[The Planner]

But we could close the passenger service!

Then the line isnt closed then.

 

[HSTEd]

Freight.

Well if the freight operators are willing to pay the full commercial cost of keeping the line open.......

But I think the branch is probably far better used as a testbed for driverless trains than outright closure. It's rather well used compared to many other lines we might discuss.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

This has been discussed before - a railway line is wider than 4' 8.5" - there are clearances needed beyond that for both the rolling stock and the foundations. Road carriageways can be placed *much* closer together.

Also a busway rigidly controls the position of the vehicle so passing clearances can be tighter just need to watch buses with those mirrors that are way outside the vehicle body.

 

[The Planner]

Well if the freight operators are willing to pay the full commercial cost of keeping the line open.......

But I think the branch is probably far better used as a testbed for driverless trains than outright closure. It's rather well used compared to many other lines we might discuss.

Network Code would make it very difficult to close, and unless a sudden change of heart on reopening Calvert to Claydon early happens then its incredibly unlikely.

 

[A0wen]

I believe there was a study for a possible Marylebone conversion to a bus station that had unguided buses passing inches apart?

ISTR the challenge with Marylebone was on the tunnel just to the north of the station.

 

[A0wen]

No one is going to close West Ealing to Greenford.

It *could* be closed to passenger though and left as freight only.

Pre Covid, the intermediate station usage was:

South Greenford c 29,000
Castle Bar Park c 80,000
Drayton Green c 30,000

Castle Bar Park is 1 mile from West Ealing
Drayton Green is less than a mile to either Hanwell or West Ealing
South Greenford is under a mile to Greenford or Perivale tube stations.

It's not like people would be left with no practical alternative and the services on the alternatives are quicker and more frequent to most places.

 

[Tobbes]

Then the line isnt closed then.

I was thinking of savings! But yes, true.

 

[stuu]

This has been discussed before - a railway line is wider than 4' 8.5" - there are clearances needed beyond that for both the rolling stock and the foundations. Road carriageways can be placed *much* closer together.

Exactly how is that possible? Busways can be narrower because buses are narrower than trains, but the clearances between them aren't any closer

 

[A0wen]

Exactly how is that possible? Busways can be narrower because buses are narrower than trains, but the clearances between them aren't any closer

The clearances are needed beyond the width of the vehicles, so whilst a train may be on tracks which are 4' 8.5" apart and a train may be about 9' 3" wide (using a Cl 165 as an example) there then needs to be clearance beyond that for things like signalling, OHLE gantries etc, before you get to the boundary fences to keep the public out. Put it in context a regular

I can't find the previous post on this now, but I think it was @Bald Rick gave some numbers which explained it. IIRC once those factors had been accounted for a single track rail formation was pretty much the same size as a single carriageway road (i.e. a normal, road with a lane in each direction) - and because it was only single track it had less capacity than a single carriageway road, where vehicles can pass each other.

 

[snowball]

The relative widths of a road and a railway can be compared by reflecting that in some places a former 2-track railway has been converted to a single-carriageway 2-lane road with one or more overbridges re-used; this is usually a tight fit and generally involves some compromise of the usual standards for road design.

 

[stuu]

The clearances are needed beyond the width of the vehicles, so whilst a train may be on tracks which are 4' 8.5" apart and a train may be about 9' 3" wide (using a Cl 165 as an example) there then needs to be clearance beyond that for things like signalling, OHLE gantries etc, before you get to the boundary fences to keep the public out. Put it in context a regular

I can't find the previous post on this now, but I think it was @Bald Rick gave some numbers which explained it. IIRC once those factors had been accounted for a single track rail formation was pretty much the same size as a single carriageway road (i.e. a normal, road with a lane in each direction) - and because it was only single track it had less capacity than a single carriageway road, where vehicles can pass each other.

That's not the same thing at all, you said road carriageways can be closer together. Being narrower than trains is not the same as being closer together

 

[Bletchleyite]

The clearances are needed beyond the width of the vehicles, so whilst a train may be on tracks which are 4' 8.5" apart and a train may be about 9' 3" wide (using a Cl 165 as an example) there then needs to be clearance beyond that for things like signalling, OHLE gantries etc, before you get to the boundary fences to keep the public out. Put it in context a regular

I can't find the previous post on this now, but I think it was @Bald Rick gave some numbers which explained it. IIRC once those factors had been accounted for a single track rail formation was pretty much the same size as a single carriageway road (i.e. a normal, road with a lane in each direction) - and because it was only single track it had less capacity than a single carriageway road, where vehicles can pass each other.

This is false, a single carriageway road to modern specification does not fit into a single track rail formation unless you want to have to have a give way gate at every bridge. Indeed it was quoted as being one reason the Cambs busway is guided, as vehicles can pass closer at speed when guided.

Trains are wider than buses, but it is only about a foot - typical train 2.8m, typical bus 2.5m.

You could use narrower buses with 2+1 seating (e.g. there is a narrow Optare Solo for tight lanes) but this adds to the cost as it is non standard.

It's possibly the case that taking an embankment to ground level or filling in a cutting would give you enough on that section, but that isn't the same as converting a whole line to a busway.

Double track can and lots have been, look for roads named e.g. Beeching Way. And many single track lines are on a double track formation.

 

[A0wen]

This is false, a single carriageway road to modern specification does not fit into a single track rail formation unless you want to have to have a give way gate at every bridge. Indeed it was quoted as being one reason the Cambs busway is guided, as vehicles can pass closer at speed when guided.

Trains are wider than buses, but it is only about a foot - typical train 2.8m, typical bus 2.5m.

You could use narrower buses with 2+1 seating (e.g. there is a narrow Optare Solo for tight lanes) but this adds to the cost as it is non standard.

It's possibly the case that taking an embankment to ground level or filling in a cutting would give you enough on that section, but that isn't the same as converting a whole line to a busway.

Double track can and lots have been, look for roads named e.g. Beeching Way. And many single track lines are on a double track formation.

But the Dunstable busway *was* built on a single track formation.

Yes, over bridges or tunnels are too narrow, but the width of the formation needed for a single railway line is closer to a single carriageway road than you're claiming.

 

[rapmastaj]

A busway is not a single carriageway road. The clearances are considerably narrower than would be possible in a public road, because the buses run in a guided fashion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the Dunstable busway *was* built on a single track formation.

It wasn't. It took more land than the original railway formation.

Yes, over bridges or tunnels are too narrow, but the width of the formation needed for a single railway line is closer to a single carriageway road than you're claiming.

It can be as close as it likes, but it doesn't get there.

A busway is not a single carriageway road. The clearances are considerably narrower than would be possible in a public road, because the buses run in a guided fashion.

That too.

 

[geoffk]

I've just read in the "Railway Observer" that £1.3m has recently been spent on rebuilding Barrow Haven station which, in 2019/20, was used by 2,310 passengers or 44 a week. Could this be the last little-used station to receive such treatment?

 

[yorksrob]

I've just read in the "Railway Observer" that £1.3m has recently been spent on rebuilding Barrow Haven station which, in 2019/20, was used by 2,310 passengers or 44 a week. Could this be the last little-used station to receive such treatment?

These sorts of costs really do need to be wound in. Not just for Barrow but for all station refurbishments.

 

[A0wen]

These sorts of costs really do need to be wound in. Not just for Barrow but for all station refurbishments.

To what though ? On what basis are you saying that ?

You can't just let an itinerant band of builders rock up and re-lay a platform.

As @DarloRich and others have pointed out, the costs pertaining to H&S in particular are there to stop people getting killed - and you'd be the first to complain if the railway did it "on the cheap" and somebody was killed in the process. You can't have it both ways. Also things like disability access rules have changed - it's no good harking back to the 70s and 80s when BR sent a gang out with a load of timber, screws, Postcrete and fencing from Texas Homecare and spent £ 3.50 putting up a station which was easily accessed if you were fit and able but if you were even slightly disabled, forget it. Those rules were put in place to ensure access was available to all - many of us warned about the consequences of such measures at the time, but were shouted down.

The work itself was taking ~3 months, which I presume means demolishing the old platform removal of old materials (legally, rather than fly-tipping them) and other works.

 

[mike57]

I've just read in the "Railway Observer" that £1.3m has recently been spent on rebuilding Barrow Haven station which, in 2019/20, was used by 2,310 passengers or 44 a week. Could this be the last little-used station to receive such treatment?

Found this on street view, dated July this year, surely a simpler cheaper solution could have been found.


This is what it replaced (2009 picture)

There doesnt look to be much wrong with it, but even if there were invisible issues spending 1.3m for 44 people a week...

 

[squizzler]

How many reports have we had since privatisation? How many more do we need? We have just had a major report in the form of Williams / Shapps, whose implementation is yet to happen, never mind the subsequent bedding down to see where things stand before we think of committing another one.

The OP puts me in mind of a gambler who wants to have yet another throw of the dice. Here's an idea: if we want to see savings on running railway why not stop wasting money on consultants to produce yet more reports to gather dust? These reports are a distraction.

Gerald Feinnes famously said in I tried to run a railway - "when you reorganise you bleed". So to answer, no, another report is not needed for another decade at least as that is how long GBR will take to bed in. Proposed alterations to the physical network can be considered on an individual basis under the current "reversing beeching" programme.