If you had £30bn to spend on railway infrastructure...

[stuu]

Electrify everything sensible i.e. more than 1 tph. With any money left over, build a station to connect the local lines through New Street to Hs2 in Birmingham, which is a lamentable oversight

 

[Austriantrain]

The Austrian projects stand out as being the best value, particularly the Koralmbahn.

So does Zurich. But all of it is really a lot of money.

From my very external point of view, if I had 30 bn to spend:

- electrify all main lines
- identify capacity bottlenecks and address them, wherever they are. Most are known anyway (central Manchester, Birmingham New Street etc), but there will be various junctions where grade-separation can help without building miles and miles of new railway.

To identify those pinch-points, define the required timetable and then look for the cheapest way to adapt infrastructure to it. That is the Swiss approach and I know of no better way to build rail infrastructure.

 

[bluenoxid]

£3bn to Leeds and Bristol for light rail with serious consideration for removing certain routes from Leeds railway station to enhance capacity

Rolling programme of work to provide zero tailpipe emissions on routes across the country

 

[yorksrob]

Before any of that, I would put the wires up on every line that has an hourly or better service, plus some that don't but are still important main routes or potential diversionary routes, such as the Highland Mainline. Alongside this, I would place a large order for both long distance and local EMUs (none of which would have 3+2 seating). Low-floor and level boarding on at least one vehicle would be a mandatory requirement.

The railway is in serious danger of losing its environmental credential, and this must be urgently solved.

I agree with this. Needs to be done on a rolling basis, starting from now.

Also i'd do a lot of platform extending to enable longer trains on many routes.

Maybe a few reopenings of lines and stations a well

 

[Ken H]

Loik at ways of eliminating odd manual signalboxes that are hard to staff and move to remote working.

Hellifield, settle jct, garsdale, arnside are the ones near me.

 

[yoyothehobo]

I would fix every last bit of earthworks infrastructure across the network and futureproof major infrastructure items such as bridges and tunnels network wide to reduce future maintenance.

 

[Techniquest]

There in itself is an interesting thought. We've all got a theoretical £30bn to play with, but no reopenings have really been proposed. I've got to say, given there's options out there, I'm not seeing any that I would immediately want to go and support. I really can't think of any routes even in my local area that I would re-open, given the opportunity, none of them that are even slightly realistic in terms of development. They all run through rural countryside, which would have zero hope in being all that useful. The places people actually go to, from those limited places of population, are not served directly by the old lines, so there's even less need for the old routes to come back.

The only one I'd see any benefit out of in my area would be the old GWR route from the south into Hereford, but its route is now a very well used shared-use path running past an awful lot of housing, schools etc. Which I can't imagine would be too popular to remove, and certainly would not be with me either, as it's a route I use myself! Then there's the weak bridge, not really fit for any trains whatsoever and would need replacing with a stronger, modern bridge which itself would see outcry.

Of course, even bigger than that would be the need to completely demolish Sainsburys and its petrol station, which is on the site of the old freight depot! The path continues past there and Aldi, but finishes in an area which is now built over with housing, so even just linking up to the long-closed freight branch is not an option.

So the only realistically useful old railway line in my area is just not happening. Everything else, including the old route towards Hay-on-Wye, runs through some of the least densely populated parts of Herefordshire there are, and that's aiming specifically for the villages and hamlets on the way. As a result, the route goes a fairly indirect way to the border town. Never mind the fact that the first few miles out of Hereford are all built over/in other use now.

So, there's no old routes I want back, and I've spent a fair bit of money on removing bottlenecks and decarbonising some more of the South Wales main line. Given the option, I'd also extend those wires to Carmarthen as a minimum and preferably further. The business case does reduce somewhat then though! Wiring up the Newport to Crewe line, which I think has a much better BCR (Benefit to Cost Ratio) if it was to be provided with electric trains for, that would be a major desire for me. That would involve resignalling the route north of Little Mill (Pontypool area) up to a short way north of Shrewsbury (Crewe Coal Yard Junction?) so that's getting expensive.

Hmm, now I think about it, I'm not sure if I'd like to do that first (admittedly in stages, it would be a huge undertaking) or resignalling the Hereford to Worcester area. Come to think of it, I'm not sure where the semaphores end in Worcestershire. I'm sure it's before Kidderminster, is it at the boundaries of the Droitwich Spa signalbox?

Ooh yes, talking of, let's finally do something about that frustrating single line section between Stoke Works Junction (a little south of Bromsgrove) and Droitwich Spa!

Did you say £30bn? I might need some deeper pockets than that

 

[zwk500]

Electrify everything sensible i.e. more than 1 tph. With any money left over, build a station to connect the local lines through New Street to Hs2 in Birmingham, which is a lamentable oversight

New Street will be all of 5 minutes walk from Curzon Street. There is no line that would give a more suitable station location.

Personal priorities would be to electrify Manchester, Birmingham, South Yorkshire and London commuter lines (Chiltern primarily). Also fill in the third rail gaps, then buy a proper fleet of bi-mode (ideally Battery/OLE) freight locos to get more use out of the OLE freight does run under.

 

[Bletchleyite]

New Street will be all of 5 minutes walk from Curzon Street. There is no line that would give a more suitable station location.

The disgusting road subway that is the shortest route, and feels unsafe at night, needs a proper refurb and 24/7 security presence, but that is probably Birmingham City Council's to fund as it doesn't belong to the railway.

 

[A0wen]

I would introduce a new 'M1' intercity service which linked the major cities and towns along the M1 motorway corridor, to provide a competitive rail alterative to the car, for travelling along this route. The railways shaped the economic flows of the 19th century, but the 20th and 21st century was shaped by the car and the motorway network, the lack of a rail route along this major economic route is a rather glaring deficiency.

This would need a new rail link south of Leicester, to connect the MML to the WCML at either Rugby (with a Lutterworth M1 Parkway) or Northampton, so allowing services south from Leicester to reach Northampton, Milton Keynes and into Euston and allowing services to the East Midlands to start from Euston. It would also ideally have a rail link between Luton and Milton Keynes, providing a rail service between these two major urban areas, and improving journeys between Luton to the West Midlands.

The majority of those are already linked either directly or by one change, so you've got a solution looking for a problem.

To give an example , MK to Leicester currently will take over an hour to drive by the M1 - see Google Maps. MK to Leicester by train is ~ 90 mins (so about 15 mins slower than driving) of which 30 mins is waiting at Nuneaton for the connection - far better to fix the connection time at Nuneaton. Add in there really isn't *that much* demand for travel between MK and Leicester.

You also overlook the fact that the M1 *misses* the main traffic destinations of Birmingham and Manchester, which the WCML doesn't - Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield aren't as significant as Birmingham / West Mids or Greater Manchester.

The *only* one I think you have a point on is MK - Luton but there's no viable way to do that - and there really isn't a path for a new build line without huge amounts of demolition which makes HS2 look like a drop in the ocean.

The disgusting road subway that is the shortest route, and feels unsafe at night, needs a proper refurb and 24/7 security presence, but that is probably Birmingham City Council's to fund as it doesn't belong to the railway.

*At the moment* - you don't seriously think such things wouldn't be addressed as part of the Curzon Street rebuild?

 

[Bletchleyite]

MK-Luton can be done via the Marston Vale, and would be less unpleasant if the work was to be done to allow direct services from MKC to Bedford.

There is also the 99 bus which is actually a railway creation (Virgin Trains started it) but is now a normal commercial Stagecoach service.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

The disgusting road subway that is the shortest route, and feels unsafe at night, needs a proper refurb and 24/7 security presence, but that is probably Birmingham City Council's to fund as it doesn't belong to the railway.

The subway is easily avoided by going "up and over" instead, past the Rotunda and in front of the Bullring, and the route is only slightly longer. But yes, if the subway is to be the suggested route from New Street to Curzon Street, something should be done to improve the environment and indeed the road crossings that are involved.

Also, with those crossings, the walk is likely to be more than 5 minutes... it can take 5 minutes to Moor Street and Curzon Street will be further.

 

[A0wen]

MK-Luton can be done via the Marston Vale, and would be less unpleasant if the work was to be done to allow direct services from MKC to Bedford.

There is also the 99 bus which is actually a railway creation (Virgin Trains started it) but is now a normal commercial Stagecoach service.

*Cough* capacity on the MML? As in, there isn't really any. Add in a low linespeed and the need to reverse at Bedford and Bletchley without a bunch of expensive new curves which would only be of use for these services?

Improving the 99 would be altogether easier and cheaper though.

 

[Clansman]

HSR in Scotland between Glasgow-Edinburgh-Newcastle, with spurs onto GARL, the WCML, Glasgow XR, and Edinburgh Airport to its original 2007 proposals.

If god had given Scotland a French and German government 20th century attitude to high speed rail then these would have most certainly been done by now.

As for the unrealistic, pump the 40bn into turning Mount Florida into the next Stratford by rebuilding it as a sporting and retail hub centred around Hampden with its own financial district for a post indy Scotland!

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I'd embark on a massive programme to improve connectivity by linking more towns to the railway, particularly in areas of road congestion and economic growth, with capacity and frequency improvements where needed.

So, roughly around here (the "greater Cotswolds"), that might mean:

• Reopen Wootton Bassett, build Swindon East Parkway, reopen Wantage & Grove; new service from Bristol or Wootton Bassett to Oxford; loops/four-tracking on the GWML where required.
• Reopen (Carterton–) Witney to Oxford; build Oxford South Parkway on the Cowley Branch Line; electrify Oxford–Didcot.
• Increase Gloucester–Worcester to hourly.
• Potentially increase Evesham–Worcester to half-hourly with some services continuing through to Birmingham.

All that sort of thing. I'm not qualified to pronounce on similar schemes further afield, but there's doubtless similarly lowish-hanging fruit – Leicester–Burton is one I do know about which should be a shoe-in.

I'd spend some of that £30bn on lobbying Government to introduce a Crossrail-like funding mechanism for this, but instead of a business rate uplift, it would be a surcharge on housing development in these areas, and potentially a small percentage of stamp duty for existing house sales. I'd spend some of it looking how to phase the work most effectively, to avoid feast-and-famine and the consequent high costs during the busy times. And I'd spend some on refining the revenue model for these schemes and the railway as a whole, so that ongoing operation is profitable rather than a further drain on the public purse.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...

 

[Bletchleyite]

*Cough* capacity on the MML? As in, there isn't really any. Add in a low linespeed and the need to reverse at Bedford and Bletchley without a bunch of expensive new curves which would only be of use for these services?

I wasn't suggesting running past Bedford, it's quite a decent connection at that end due to the high frequency of services. I do still believe there should be a new curve connecting the Marston Vale directly to MKC, missing out Bletchley. As we are talking about having £30bn available in this thread, I think I'd allocate some of it to that, with all EWR services to reverse at MKC P2A and none to run direct via Bletchley. I believe this, while it wouldn't remove subsidy requirements, would considerably improve the viability of EWR East and the Marston Vale. In particular, it should be accompanied by major development of "eco villages" around all Marston Vale stations to make good use of this new "metro service".

Improving the 99 would be altogether easier and cheaper though.

The problem with the 99 is the unreliability of the motorway. It's inconsistent enough that if going for a flight by car I always use the A5. There is also a bus to Luton that way, to be fair, but it's a slow stopping one which joins the Busway at Dunstable. A bus lane on the M1 is the only realistic way to solve that, but until then its main usage is actually between Kingston and the stop just off the M1 at Luton, mostly ferrying warehouse workers around, and the MKC-Kingston and M1-Luton-Airport sections are typically very quiet.

Perhaps oddly, those two stops were added for one purpose - to make the gap between stops such that it could be registered as a local bus service and be eligible for Bus Service Operators' Grant (i.e. fuel duty rebate) - in particular that's why the Kingston stop is a random otherwise-disused one near the five-ways roundabout rather than the Kingston Centre itself. Yet they have become the busiest.

 

[Purple Orange]

It’s interesting that many people suggest electrifying the current rail network, rather than being more radical like NPR and HS2 are meant to be, and suggesting building a completely new line elsewhere (be that heavy or light rail). Id argue that electrification of lines like the MML or Trans Pennine mainline would be outside the scope of the £30bn, because they are already planned alongside the NPR and HS2 east proposal.

However those two proposals do several jobs:

• Cuts Manchester-Leeds journey times by 15% vs a fully electrified line and 40% vs todays timings.
• Increases capacity for fast services between Leeds & Manchester to 8 tph.
• Introduces the possibility of Manchester-Leeds capacity being increased to at least 16 tph (8 to Victoria and 8 to Piccadilly) if the NPR line is built all the way to Leeds.
• Doubles Manchester-Liverpool capacity
• Trebles Birmingham-Leeds capacity
• Reduces Birmingham to Leeds by 25%-33%.
• Releases capacity in to St. Pancras (possibly 4 tph? Two from both Nottingham & Sheffield perhaps?).
• Reduce journey times from London to Nottingham by 38%.
• Reduce journey times from London to Derby by 33%.
• Reduce journey times from London to Sheffield by 26%.
• Increases capacity between Birmingham & Nottingham by 2 tph.
• Reduce journey times between Birmingham & Nottingham by circa 66%.
• Introduces faster North West - East Midlands journeys (with a change).

So, for £30bn, can that be spent in a different way that delivers better than the above?

 

[A0wen]

The problem with the 99 is the unreliability of the motorway. It's inconsistent enough that if going for a flight by car I always use the A5.

Presumably the same problem ? The A5 is no more reliable than the M1.

Generally speaking the M1 is fine - a bit slow at peak times, but not the gridlock many seem to think it is. I can remember when it used to be queuing from south of J12 from about 7.30 in the morning - not like that now as I understand it.

New Street will be all of 5 minutes walk from Curzon Street. There is no line that would give a more suitable station location.

Personal priorities would be to electrify Manchester, Birmingham, South Yorkshire and London commuter lines (Chiltern primarily). Also fill in the third rail gaps, then buy a proper fleet of bi-mode (ideally Battery/OLE) freight locos to get more use out of the OLE freight does run under.

Bit in bold - This. 100%. Especially the West Mids so the lines to Leamington, Stratford, Stourbridge, Kidderminster are all overdue wiring to replace DMUs on suburban services.

If anything the West Mids have seen less than the North West yet should probably have been higher priority given it has a number of contained suburban services which could easily have been converted from DMU to EMU operation if wired.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably the same problem ? The A5 is no more reliable than the M1.

A single carriageway road is better when making a super-time-critical journey, as if it is blocked one can always turn round and take another route (there are plenty of back-roads to avoid issues on the A5). On a motorway if the traffic stops you are stuck. Would still be a problem for a coach that can't easily do that, though.

 

[NoRoute]

The majority of those are already linked either directly or by one change, so you've got a solution looking for a problem.

And just look at the typical journey times for getting between them with one or more changes, hopelessly uncompetitive with simply using the M1.

You also overlook the fact that the M1 *misses* the main traffic destinations of Birmingham and Manchester, which the WCML doesn't - Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield aren't as significant as Birmingham / West Mids or Greater Manchester.

Birmingham and Manchester are served by the M6 motorway, which connects to the M1 near Rugby. The rail equivalent is the WCML. I didn't suggest closing any railways or removing services, merely pointing out that there's a major economic artery called the M1 motorway, running straight up the middle of the country but there isn't a competitive rail alternative for journeys along that route.

MK-Luton can be done via the Marston Vale, and would be less unpleasant if the work was to be done to allow direct services from MKC to Bedford.

Journey time via M1 around 35 mins, journey time via rail ~1hr 40 mins. Like I say, rail isn't competitive along the M1 corridor.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Journey time via M1 around 35 mins, journey time via rail ~1hr 40 mins. Like I say, rail isn't competitive along the M1 corridor.

The railway (other than HS2 type speeds) cannot compete with journeys which are mostly motorway, because you've got the bit at both ends (to/from the station) which by far offsets the slower journey by car for the vast majority of journeys. So this sort of trip is only really going to be for people for whom car isn't a viable choice (e.g. because airport parking is outrageously expensive). For MK to Luton Airport, the competitor is not really the private car, but the excellent value local minicab services. It's been about £40 for a minicab from MK to Luton Airport for years because these are so competitive - it was good value in 2010, it's excellent value now.

 

[A0wen]

The majority of those are already linked either directly or by one change, so you've got a solution looking for a problem.

And just look at the typical journey times for getting between them with one or more changes, hopelessly uncompetitive with simply using the M1.

But it *isn't* "hopelessly uncompetitive.

As I pointed out, Google Maps reckons 1h 15m centre of MK to centre of Leicester - the train is 1h 30m of which 30 mins is interchange time at Nuneaton. Drop that to 10 mins and it's the same if not better.

And certainly not enough to justify any form of new line.

I didn't suggest closing any railways or removing services, merely pointing out that there's a major economic artery called the M1 motorway, running straight up the middle of the country but there isn't a competitive rail alternative for journeys along that route.

But the M1 "artery" isn't as significant as the other areas - you only need to look at the places en route - Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and then Sheffield. There is reasonably good connectivity between those places, so from a regional perspective they aren't in a bad place.

You only need to look at the populations (all Metro area) - Leicester 836k, Nottingham / Derby 1.5m, Sheffield 1.5m - total about 3.8m

The Birmingham metro area is 3.7m on its own.

 

[NoRoute]

The railway (other than HS2 type speeds) cannot compete with journeys which are mostly motorway, because you've got the bit at both ends (to/from the station) which by far offsets the slower journey by car for the vast majority of journeys.

I'm not convinced because in the case of MK and Luton, we have two major towns just a short distance apart, there's no reason in principle why rail couldn't provide a competitive service between the two towns because that's exactly what it does for adjacent towns and cities with a rail link everywhere

The issue in this case is that the rail network in this area was built in the 19th century when the geography and population was quite different, MK didn't exist and Luton was a small fraction of the size. The 19th century network route doesn't reflect the needs of 21st century urban geography, it's become obsolete over time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not convinced because in the case of MK and Luton, we have two major towns just a short distance apart, there's no reason in principle why rail couldn't provide a competitive service between the two towns because that's exactly what it does for adjacent towns and cities with a rail link everywhere

The issue in this case is that the rail network in this area was built in the 19th century when the geography and population was quite different, MK didn't exist and Luton was a small fraction of the size. The 19th century network route doesn't reflect the needs of 21st century urban geography, it's become obsolete over time.

I don't doubt that there's demand, there wouldn't be commercial bus services if there wasn't - I'm just saying you are unlikely to get many who currently go by car unless you either sell the environmental credential (which means wire it from day one) or congestion is bad at the destination (it isn't in MK, I don't know about Luton).

 

[stuu]

New Street will be all of 5 minutes walk from Curzon Street. There is no line that would give a more suitable station location.

It's more than 5 minutes... and with £30bn I'm fairly sure the viaduct south of Curzon St could be widened so a station on the cross-city line could be built

 

[Randomer]

I pretty much agree with a lot of other posters. If the railways are to remain relevant in the low carbon transport future the majority of political parties agree is necessary (i.e. a change of government is unlikely to change policy significantly) then electrification as a rolling programme is the only possible good use for £30 billion that I can see.

No need to try and do everything at once just set a reasonable target for miles per year and get long term work for contractors with rewards for greater efficiency as more and more of it is done. I don't see even £30 billion reaching the level of investment necessary to follow the network decarbonisation strategy NR outlined previously but it would go a very long way towards it. The feast and famine of electrification projects currently isn't doing anyone any favours in terms of on the ground experience, planning or efficiency in general.

Aim for the relatively high frequency urban commuter lines around big metro regions first, then finish the cut bits of GWEP and look at the XC routes next. Being realistic we are never going to reach the total network decarbonisation strategy goals by 2030 anyway so a slow but steady start with funding that can't be cut at the whim of the DfT or minister is the way forward.

No trying to re-open old alignments or decrease journey times by changing current ones, no trying to up line speeds. Electrify what we have and let the greater capacity from better acceleration help where possible. I know that some areas are crying out for new platforms (see the cut Manchester Piccadilly platform 15 and 16) but this isn't going to move us away from running a diesel railway in an increasingly electrified transport world.

 

[A0wen]

I'm not convinced because in the case of MK and Luton, we have two major towns just a short distance apart, there's no reason in principle why rail couldn't provide a competitive service between the two towns because that's exactly what it does for adjacent towns and cities with a rail link everywhere

The issue in this case is that the rail network in this area was built in the 19th century when the geography and population was quite different, MK didn't exist and Luton was a small fraction of the size. The 19th century network route doesn't reflect the needs of 21st century urban geography, it's become obsolete over time.

I think on MK and Luton there is probably a market, however building a new rail link between the two isn't an easy one to resolve - the only vaguely obvious option would be something around Woburn or Millbrook and onto the Marston Vale. And that's before you even begin to look at available paths on the MML or WCML - both of which would be needed to serve both Luton and MK - unless you proposed digging up half of MK to get a new route in there ? And that would quickly swallow a good chunk of the £ 30bn......

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think on MK and Luton there is probably a market, however building a new rail link between the two isn't an easy one to resolve - the only vaguely obvious option would be something around Woburn or Millbrook and onto the Marston Vale. And that's before you even begin to look at available paths on the MML or WCML - both of which would be needed to serve both Luton and MK - unless you proposed digging up half of MK to get a new route in there ? And that would quickly swallow a good chunk of the £ 30bn......

Using 12xx today as an example, there are 6 trains per hour from Bedford to Luton, and 6 to Luton Airport Parkway, so that's a pretty good connection. It's the MK end, where (now the Southern has gone) there are just three from MKC to Bletchley, that a direct service would be more useful. It's not going to compete with the car, though it probably would compete with the bus despite being slower as many people simply won't use them.

Another view on the "Marston Vale eco-town" thing would be that what you in fact need to do is wire Bedford-Bletchley and run a half hourly direct service to London via Bletchley, as that would give you a much higher demand than to/from MK.

 

[The Planner]

It's more than 5 minutes... and with £30bn I'm fairly sure the viaduct south of Curzon St could be widened so a station on the cross-city line could be built

Not this old chestnut again. The gradients are too steep and the station would be within the second signal section out of New St. Nothing could depart New St station whilst a train was in the platform. By the time you walked down to ground level from a Proof House station and to Curzon St entrance you could have likely walked it from New St.

 

[MattRat]

*At the moment* - you don't seriously think such things wouldn't be addressed as part of the Curzon Street rebuild?

I do. Maybe I'm cynical, but massive oversights like that have happened in the past.