Controversial railway opinions (without a firm foundation in logic..)

[Class15]

Disagree. Subsidised passenger services should be removed to make paths for freight when needed.

Have you seen the title of the thread?

 

[43096]

Have you seen the title of the thread?

Yes.

Hence why I made a controversial comment in response.

 

[stevieinselby]

Is there any evidence to suggest that Mallaig services are lightly used ?

If not, I wouldn't class it as a "basket case" service.

Mallaig isn't even well used by the standards of infrequent branch lines.
With under 100k passengers last year, it was well below Aberystwyth (276k), Oban (222k), Whitby (143k), Settle (134k) and Newquay (125k).
While trains themselves might be reasonably well used (at least in the summer), meaning that train operating costs might reasonably be covered, contributions towards the infrastructure operating costs (track maintenance, signalling etc) are only being made by a small pool of passengers. I don't know how much the Jacobite pays towards the infrastructure and whether that plugs any shortfall.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Mallaig isn't even well used by the standards of infrequent branch lines.
With under 100k passengers last year, it was well below Aberystwyth (276k), Oban (222k), Whitby (143k), Settle (134k) and Newquay (125k).
While trains themselves might be reasonably well used (at least in the summer), meaning that train operating costs might reasonably be covered, contributions towards the infrastructure operating costs (track maintenance, signalling etc) are only being made by a small pool of passengers. I don't know how much the Jacobite pays towards the infrastructure and whether that plugs any shortfall.

Interesting point. I don't know to what extent infrastructure maintenance costs scale with the numbers of trains. While each train might be well used, there aren't that many trains in the first place. I would assume that means the line would require much less maintenance/renewing than a line that has 10 trains an hour running over it, but I wonder how much less.

 

[yorksrob]

Mallaig isn't even well used by the standards of infrequent branch lines.
With under 100k passengers last year, it was well below Aberystwyth (276k), Oban (222k), Whitby (143k), Settle (134k) and Newquay (125k).
While trains themselves might be reasonably well used (at least in the summer), meaning that train operating costs might reasonably be covered, contributions towards the infrastructure operating costs (track maintenance, signalling etc) are only being made by a small pool of passengers. I don't know how much the Jacobite pays towards the infrastructure and whether that plugs any shortfall.

You're giving a Beeching type argument, whereby anything not reflected in the farebox is a nonexistent benefit.

The small pool of passengers clearly add to the local economy.

 

[Class15]

Yes.

Hence why I made a controversial comment in response.

Ahh gotcha! And there have been some rumours going round locally about Overground trains being removed to make way for London Gateway freights! Very speculative though haha!

 

[stevieinselby]

You're giving a Beeching type argument, whereby anything not reflected in the farebox is a nonexistent benefit.

The small pool of passengers clearly add to the local economy.

Nowhere did I say that the line was without merit or that we shouldn't be paying for it.
All I was doing was pointing out that yes, there is evidence that the line is lightly used, as per your question in #1400.

 

[DelW]

Yeah, it's a shame. Railway lines should of never closed. The Watercress Line / Alton Line used to provide a good diversion for SWML services.

It's one of those things that is frustrating from a transport point of view but reopening as a main line today would trigger a lot of concern over environmental heritage.

It provided a diversion and was indeed used as such, but whether it could be called "good" or "main line" is more debatable. West of Alton it was only ever single track with passing loops, and it was heavily graded either side of the summit at Four Marks, hence the steam crews' nicknaming it as "over the Alps". The loops at Itchen Abbas and Ropley were removed in 1931, leaving only those at Alresford and Four Marks, which must have further limited its capacity.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's one of those things that is frustrating from a transport point of view but reopening as a main line today would trigger a lot of concern over environmental heritage. At least it was preserved as a heritage railway. It was one of the first trips my late husband and I went on as a 'meet the parents' date with my folks, and my nephews used to go on it a lot when they were small and still loved Thomas the Tank Engine.

I'm not sure what environmental heritage concerns would exist that you're thinking of? (What would happen to the Watercress line heritage trains would be a concern but not an environmental one).

I couldn't see a reopened Mid Hants (Alton-Winchester) line working as a main line, but I could imagine it attracting more than enough custom to justify its existence if it was reopened and used to extend either the London-Alton trains or possibly the Guildford-Farnham trains to Southampton (rather than having to change to a shuttle at Alton, as was the case before it closed in 1973).

 

[BazingaTribe]

I'm not sure what environmental heritage concerns would exist that you're thinking of? (What would happen to the Watercress line heritage trains would be a concern but not an environmental one).

I couldn't see a reopened Mid Hants (Alton-Winchester) line working as a main line, but I could imagine it attracting more than enough custom to justify its existence if it was reopened and used to extend either the London-Alton trains or possibly the Guildford-Farnham trains to Southampton (rather than having to change to a shuttle at Alton, as was the case before it closed in 1973).

South of here is a swathe of countryside that, while not being part of a protected national park, is extraordinarily beautiful and reasonably unspoilt. South of Alton you end up in an actual national park with the South Downs. The basic environmental reason for not rebuilding it is that you'd now have to dig up a sizeable chunk of countryside, probably drive a line through the post-war development of one of the signature 'new towns', disrupting not only natural habitat but human as well.

The government is generally focusing on development of brownfield sites. With road networks already in place, buses would be better to put on, but new build would cost more than just money.

It's not just about custom -- that was the philosophy of the pre-WW2 drive into Metroland, which was halted afterwards by the establishment of the greenbelt and then more careful thinking about using existing but derelict land for new development within London and expansion of satellite towns such as, well, Basingstoke. 'If you build it, they will come' led to the expansion of London in the 19th century, but I think the money to be made and the potential for the capital to spread out even more was a dangerous one that was ironically stopped by an apocalyptic event.

I know I was the one who proposed the idea back in November after it took me three hours to get home from working in Aldershot, but this is the controversial opinions thread. We definitely want more people to use public transport but there's a point where adding extra lines will just compound the ecological problems rather than ameliorate them.

Railways are great, up to a point, but they are also a very blunt tool, take up a lot of land, require a lot of building work over quite a few years, and not often the primary solution to public transport needs.

 

[yorksrob]

South of here is a swathe of countryside that, while not being part of a protected national park, is extraordinarily beautiful and reasonably unspoilt. South of Alton you end up in an actual national park with the South Downs. The basic environmental reason for not rebuilding it is that you'd now have to dig up a sizeable chunk of countryside, probably drive a line through the post-war development of one of the signature 'new towns', disrupting not only natural habitat but human as well.

The government is generally focusing on development of brownfield sites. With road networks already in place, buses would be better to put on, but new build would cost more than just money.

It's not just about custom -- that was the philosophy of the pre-WW2 drive into Metroland, which was halted afterwards by the establishment of the greenbelt and then more careful thinking about using existing but derelict land for new development within London and expansion of satellite towns such as, well, Basingstoke. 'If you build it, they will come' led to the expansion of London in the 19th century, but I think the money to be made and the potential for the capital to spread out even more was a dangerous one that was ironically stopped by an apocalyptic event.

I know I was the one who proposed the idea back in November after it took me three hours to get home from working in Aldershot, but this is the controversial opinions thread. We definitely want more people to use public transport but there's a point where adding extra lines will just compound the ecological problems rather than ameliorate them.

Railways are great, up to a point, but they are also a very blunt tool, take up a lot of land, require a lot of building work over quite a few years, and not often the primary solution to public transport needs.

I think that even in an area of natural beauty, reinstating a pre-existing railway on the balance of things isn't that damaging to the environment. It's not as though you're breaking untouched ground.

Such areas are already generally criss crossed by road, some of which will be more of an eyesore/noise generator than a railway line ever will be.

 

[BazingaTribe]

I think that even in an area of natural beauty, reinstating a pre-existing railway on the balance of things isn't that damaging to the environment. It's not as though you're breaking untouched ground.

Such areas are already generally criss crossed by road, some of which will be more of an eyesore/noise generator than a railway line ever will be.

I think it's the reinstating that's the problem -- the building methods would disrupt things. After 100 years nature has presumably reclaimed the beds and certainly Basingstoke is way bigger than it was back then in any event and paths through the town would be hard to find.

We can't turn back the clock on the road network, but we can approach any new building with more care than was taken previously. My parents live in a village south of Reading on the Berkshire/Hampshire border and although Reading is slowly stretching further and further out beyond the M4, there's a real push to preserve what's left of that countryside and prevent it from basically spilling over into Hampshire. In particular, we saw what unrestricted development did to the outskirts of Bedford in the 1990s (which was only really halted when the River Ouse flooded right up to the gates of a new housing development, at which point they built a golf course as a buffer) and so planning would be tougher to get and development focus would be targeted on brownfield rather than greenfield sites.

Simply saying 'well, we've already put roads through part of the South Downs, why don't we put a new railway there too?' is pretty much the antithesis of sensible development and current planning policy. We really need to be looking to make the most of what we have rather than just build new (reduce, reuse, recycle etc). We can't let our enthusiasm for railway transport get in the way of concerns other than our own.

 

[yorksrob]

I think it's the reinstating that's the problem -- the building methods would disrupt things. After 100 years nature has presumably reclaimed the beds and certainly Basingstoke is way bigger than it was back then in any event and paths through the town would be hard to find.

We can't turn back the clock on the road network, but we can approach any new building with more care than was taken previously. My parents live in a village south of Reading on the Berkshire/Hampshire border and although Reading is slowly stretching further and further out beyond the M4, there's a real push to preserve what's left of that countryside and prevent it from basically spilling over into Hampshire. In particular, we saw what unrestricted development did to the outskirts of Bedford in the 1990s (which was only really halted when the River Ouse flooded right up to the gates of a new housing development, at which point they built a golf course as a buffer) and so planning would be tougher to get and development focus would be targeted on brownfield rather than greenfield sites.

Simply saying 'well, we've already put roads through part of the South Downs, why don't we put a new railway there too?' is pretty much the antithesis of sensible development and current planning policy. We really need to be looking to make the most of what we have rather than just build new (reduce, reuse, recycle etc). We can't let our enthusiasm for railway transport get in the way of concerns other than our own.

I'm all for avoiding unnecessary urban sprawl and exploiting brownfield sites where possible. However, by their nature transport links have to link places through countryside.

Better transport links can improve the economic and social wellbeing of the existing settlements they link. We shouldn't let fear of urban sprawl prevent us from better serving those existing settlements. Sprawl should be addressed separately through the planning system.

A reinstated railway line is far less environmentally destructive than a brand new dual carriageway. Think of any number of beautiful locations with passenger railways running through them. Often the railway enhances that beauty (Ribblehead, the Cumbrian coast and the Marshlink spring to mind)

 

[HSTEd]

People often complain about the lack of a rolling programme of electrification, claiming it will reduce costs and the like.

How about a rolling programme of tunnel construction?
Keep some number of tunnel boring machines running continuously, and start replacing surface railways with underground ones built to modern loading gauge specifications and which are immune to tresspassers, extreme weather and the like.

If we copied the Barcelona Metro's approach and just ordered the biggest TBMs available, we could even put two platform stations in the running tunnels, needing only suitable surface access shaft(s). 19m diameter tunnel boring machines are now available.

 

[Bald Rick]

People often complain about the lack of a rolling programme of electrification, claiming it will reduce costs and the like.

How about a rolling programme of tunnel construction?
Keep some number of tunnel boring machines running continuously, and start replacing surface railways with underground ones built to modern loading gauge specifications and which are immune to tresspassers, extreme weather and the like.

If we copied the Barcelona Metro's approach and just ordered the biggest TBMs available, we could even put two platform stations in the running tunnels, needing only suitable surface access shaft(s). 19m diameter tunnel boring machines are now available.

You win the thread, can we lock it now?!

 

[Krokodil]

People often complain about the lack of a rolling programme of electrification, claiming it will reduce costs and the like.

How about a rolling programme of tunnel construction?
Keep some number of tunnel boring machines running continuously, and start replacing surface railways with underground ones built to modern loading gauge specifications and which are immune to tresspassers, extreme weather and the like.

If we copied the Barcelona Metro's approach and just ordered the biggest TBMs available, we could even put two platform stations in the running tunnels, needing only suitable surface access shaft(s). 19m diameter tunnel boring machines are now available.

Isn't it a little early to be that plastered?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Isn't it a little early to be that plastered?

Are you suggesting that we plaster the walls of HSTEd's proposed tunnels? I guess if we did that, we'd be able to paint them in pretty colours. That would at least give people something to look at out the windows as they travel from London to Edinburgh in these long tunnels!

South of here is a swathe of countryside that, while not being part of a protected national park, is extraordinarily beautiful and reasonably unspoilt. South of Alton you end up in an actual national park with the South Downs. The basic environmental reason for not rebuilding it is that you'd now have to dig up a sizeable chunk of countryside, probably drive a line through the post-war development of one of the signature 'new towns', disrupting not only natural habitat but human as well.

Maybe I'm being too sensible for this thread, but I can't see how reopening the Alton-Winchester line to national rail would involve digging up a sizeable chunk of countryside. The line is already there between Alton and Alresford, and the trackbed is still there most of the way from Alresford to Kingsworthy, where it would rejoin the existing line. As far as I can see, the only place that would require major building work (more than things like making sure embankments are stable etc.) is to cross the M3, and that bit of countryside has already been hopelessly spoiled by - ummm - the M3!

 

[DerekC]

Close London Waterloo (maybe leave the International Station to handle the Windsor Lines) and Charing Cross, reinstate the link to Waterloo East as four track and run all services through London without the need to terminate. A nice moving walkway across a new Hungerford Bridge, sell the released land for development, Bob's your construction engineer uncle. Then we can all have a happy time redesigning the timetable to suit!

 

[Bald Rick]

Maybe I'm being too sensible for this thread, but I can't see how reopening the Alton-Winchester line to national rail would involve digging up a sizeable chunk of countryside. The line is already there between Alton and Alresford, and the trackbed is still there most of the way from Alresford to Kingsworthy, where it would rejoin the existing line.

To be fair (and even more sensible), the trackbed isnt there. The route of the trackbed is, but it is now largely open country (except where there are houses in the way, which there are). Just because a railway used to be there, doesn’t mean that nature hasn’t recovered it. Look at how much work went into EWR between Bicester and Bletchely - that involved digging up a significant chunk of countryside and the railway was very much still there as a railway, not just the route of an old trackbed.

Close London Waterloo (maybe leave the International Station to handle the Windsor Lines) and Charing Cross, reinstate the link to Waterloo East as four track and run all services through London without the need to terminate. A nice moving walkway across a new Hungerford Bridge, sell the released land for development, Bob's your construction engineer uncle. Then we can all have a happy time redesigning the timetable to suit!

There’s a thread on that “idea“ somewhere. This is definitely the right thread for it.

 

[yorksrob]

To be fair (and even more sensible), the trackbed isnt there. The route of the trackbed is, but it is now largely open country (excwpt where there are houses inn the way, which there are). Just because a railway used to be there, doesn’t mean thatnature hasnt recovered it. Look at how much work went into EWR between Bicester and Bletchely - that involved digging up a dignificant chunk of countryside and the railway was very much still there ss a railway, not just the route of an old trackbed.

I find it bizarre that the population will tolerate the presence of something like the M3 through the middle of their bit of countryside, yet have kittens at the thought of a modest Victorian railway being reinstated. Is it just a case of motorists being very keen to protect the countryside just so long as it doesn't affect their ability to travel unimpeded.

 

[LUYMun]

Sadly it's pie in the sky because it would involve bulldozing through Basingstoke

You say that as if it's a bad thing!

In seriousness though, the proposal for a Bordon station wouldn't have scuppered had the town's A325 ring road not been built on the same alignment of the military railway, which would've been a perfect site for a new terminus branching off the Alton line from Bentley, or alternatively a western approach by continuing it on from Alton.

 

[DerekC]

Talking Alton to Winchester, in fact I think there is only one pair of semi-detached houses in Alresford that would have to be demolished. Perrins School running track might have to be eased over sideways a bit, but the development on the old station site at Itchen Abbas would be easy to bypass on a new alignment to the north. And "just-loos.com" see to be using the alignment for parking portable toilets at Manor Farm. That all looks doable. However, apart from the crossing of the M3 which would cost a tidy sum, things would get very expensive when joining the main line north of Headbourne Worthy, because a grade separated junction would be essential. The bridge which once carried the main line over the Didcot, Newbury & Southampton wouldn't do because it's on the wrong alignment. And then what do you do with the trains at Winchester? Terminating and reversing in the through platforms is not on - the station is a bottleneck anyway, and there are no bays.

However this is supposed to be a controversial thread so I'm going to say it's a great idea and it's for others to find the solutions. I am sure AI will sort it out.

PS - since when did Alton to Winchester run through Basingstoke? Ah - now reinstating the Basingstoke & Alton light - that really is a great idea!

 

[Falcon1200]

Not only should Alton-Winchester be reinstated, but given the effective ban on new third rail the route should be electrified with 25kV overhead wires, and a fleet of new trains suitable for the route should be provided. When not required by National Rail the Mid-Hants Railway would continue use the line, and the electrification would allow preserved electric trains to operate.

 

[eldomtom2]

Not only should Alton-Winchester be reinstated, but given the effective ban on new third rail the route should be electrified with 25kV overhead wires, and a fleet of new trains suitable for the route should be provided. When not required by National Rail the Mid-Hants Railway would continue use the line, and the electrification would allow preserved electric trains to operate.

If we're suggesting nationalising preserved railways I propose that Transport for Wales nationalise the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland railways, upgrade the line speed, and run battery railcars. The existing steam services can continue as the Jacobite does on the Welsh Highland, and the preservation societies would retain ownership of all infrastructure not directly necessary for the railcar service.

 

[DelW]

I find it bizarre that the population will tolerate the presence of something like the M3 through the middle of their bit of countryside, yet have kittens at the thought of a modest Victorian railway being reinstated. Is it just a case of motorists being very keen to protect the countryside just so long as it doesn't affect their ability to travel unimpeded.

There was a great deal of opposition to the extension on the M3 south of the A303 junction! In particular there were extensive protests along the route around Winchester.

The M3 protest so iconic it still influences protest groups

A group called the Dongas set up camp to prevent the motorway construction

www.hampshirelive.news

The Twyford Down Association (TDA) was formally constituted in 1991 for the specific purpose to fight the proposed M3 project.
Their main request was to build the road underneath the site to preserve the natural habitat, but that option was deemed too expensive.

TDA proposed that a tunnel be built underneath the important site to protect it but the DoT determined that this was far more costly.
Friends of the Earth was then invited to the area to help challenge the project and in February 1992 several protestors occupied a bridge that was going to be demolished

They set up a protest camp and set up banners and chains around the site.
The group that set up camp to prevent the construction called themselves the Dongas Tribe.
They used Celtic symbols and earth-based spirituality to tie itself to a global struggle against the ecological destruction of indigenous people and their lands.
During the protests against the M3 extension, they would cast spells and use incantations to protect the landscape.

By early summer it was reported that hundreds of people would join protestors at the weekend.
School children and adults alike joined the rallies and protests against the motorway extension.
However, after delaying construction with direct action it would be a violent eviction in December 1992 would be remembered in history.
Termed 'yellow Wednesday' private security guards were hired and forcefully removed the protestors. This was reportedly the first time security were hired to evict protestors.

Images from the time show protestors being dragged away from the site.
Over the next few years there would be a few more protests but the camp would be dispersed and the M3 would eventually be built.
In 1993, seven of the protestors were jailed for breaching an injunction.

 

[Bald Rick]

I find it bizarre that the population will tolerate the presence of something like the M3 through the middle of their bit of countryside, yet have kittens at the thought of a modest Victorian railway being reinstated.

The population very much did not tolerate it. However it was a motorway needed for strategic reasons for the country, ie access to Southampton Port and the Southampton conurbation.

I think most residents adjacent to the rebuilt EWR would contend with the point about what has been built as being Victorian.

 

[yorksrob]

There was a great deal of opposition to the extension on the M3 south of the A303 junction! In particular there were extensive protests along the route around Winchester.

The M3 protest so iconic it still influences protest groups

A group called the Dongas set up camp to prevent the motorway construction

www.hampshirelive.news

I remember that - Swampy and his colleagues.

That was cutting a massive chunk through virgin down land. Reinstating a pre existing railway is a different kettle of fish altogether.

The population very much did not tolerate it. However it was a motorway needed for strategic reasons for the country, ie access to Southampton Port and the Southampton conurbation.

I think most residents adjacent to the rebuilt EWR would contend with the point about what has been built as being Victorian.

Most of Alton - Winchester still exists in one form or another. Residents in Devon and Northumberland seem to have managed with their reopenings. I'm sure those of Hampshire could too.

 

[Indigo Soup]

To be fair (and even more sensible), the trackbed isnt there. The route of the trackbed is, but it is now largely open country (except where there are houses in the way, which there are). Just because a railway used to be there, doesn’t mean that nature hasn’t recovered it. Look at how much work went into EWR between Bicester and Bletchely - that involved digging up a significant chunk of countryside and the railway was very much still there as a railway, not just the route of an old trackbed.

Indeed, just about all 'reopening' proposals aren't any such thing. Unless the infrastructure is being actively maintained to run trains, it's really building a new railway. That railway may well happen to use most - or even all - the alignment of an old one. But there is no great advantage in sticking slavishly to it, especially if it's not suitable for modern requirements.

 

[Meerkat]

Indeed, just about all 'reopening' proposals aren't any such thing. Unless the infrastructure is being actively maintained to run trains, it's really building a new railway. That railway may well happen to use most - or even all - the alignment of an old one. But there is no great advantage in sticking slavishly to it, especially if it's not suitable for modern requirements.

Ashington and Oakhampton were open lines rather than line rebuilding on an old alignment - does this have implications in grandfathering? I’m thinking whether they can use the earthworks largely as is, but maybe if the line is closed then modern standards on cutting and embankment slopes would be required? It’s noticeable on things like Norton Bridge bypass how the space taken up is significantly wider than old lines.

 

[DelW]

That was cutting a massive chunk through virgin down land. Reinstating a pre existing railway is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Most of Alton - Winchester still exists in one form or another. Residents in Devon and Northumberland seem to have managed with their reopenings. I'm sure those of Hampshire could too.

Reinstating it in its original form (single track with passing loops west of Alton) wouldn't provide much benefit though. To be useful it would need to be double-tracked, which would be very much more disruptive, especially through Alresford where the existing cutting is very narrow. The outcome would be more like EWR than Watercress Line.

But what problem is it trying to solve? When the main line is closed, Southampton and Weymouth trains are diverted via Havant and Guildford, without too much of a time penalty. A reinstated Mid Hants would only bypass a shorter length of the main line, and offer little if any benefit over a diversion via the Direct.