MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,856
.....
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Possible route reopenings
- Thread starter bailey65
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
fourwheelsteer
Member
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 19
Thanks for the info fgwrich. So it seems there are no technical obstacles to re opening the line from Stratford to Honeybourne. Whether there's a business case for re-opening the route is a different matter, although you can imagine plenty of tourists appreciating a direct rail service between Oxford and Stratford upon Avon.
Incidentally, I'm sure I recall a volunteer on the GWR saying that it is theoretically possible to extend the line to reconnect with the rail network at Cheltenham. Looking at the map it appears possible, probably not following the old route as I think bits of that in the town have been redeveloped but there is clear land around the outskirts of the town. But just because you can re-open a route I'm not sure it follows that you should.
Incidentally, I'm sure I recall a volunteer on the GWR saying that it is theoretically possible to extend the line to reconnect with the rail network at Cheltenham. Looking at the map it appears possible, probably not following the old route as I think bits of that in the town have been redeveloped but there is clear land around the outskirts of the town. But just because you can re-open a route I'm not sure it follows that you should.
Chris125
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2009
- Messages
- 3,146
Stephen55a1960
Member
Wetherby and Otley are none starters I'm afraid. Heavily built on already.
Mattmatt
Member
If anyone reads 'Rail' issue 686 Dec 29th 2011 - Jan 10 2012 there's a substantial write up about the link. A Steering group consisting of Stratford District Council, Oxforshire CC, Worcestershire CC, First Great Western, West Midlands PTE, London Midland, & others should have produced a business case by now, to go towards a GRIP 3 study.
It notes of the possible issues, i.e. Evesham Road crossing & southern relief road and Long Marston crossing being blocked, but a diversion across the fields next to Long Marston wouldn't pose any problem, as theres plenty of space.
The Shakespeare Line Promotion group http://www.shakespeareline.com/arl.htm Notes of a dive under, effectively missing out on Evesham road crossing altogether. I do believe there is quite a lot of support for this link to be re-instated. The Steering Group just need to convice Network Rail etc of its benefits.
Well, I take your point, but if, on the Burnley - Colne section, you're not goint to "break out" anywhere then you have to ask yourself what's the point of converting to a tram in the first place.
True, you might be able to achieve an increase in frequency, but surely the point of the branch is to provide medium and longer distance point to point travel (connecting in with the rest of the network) as well as shorter distance hops. Presumably there is already a bus running a little charabang service between Burnley and Colne at high frequency.
The sensible thing would be to upgrade the Colne - Blackpool service as a whole rather than splitting the branch off to be a tram. Oh, and completing the link by rebuilding through to Skipton.
They are lighter than an ordinary train and are accepted as being the likely successor to a Pacer unit. Considering this line is already Pacer, we are not going to be having Voyager units acting as their replacements.
The sensible thing would be to accept that the inter regional service would be better integrated into their respective local transport networks. Blackpool has a tram and Pendle users want better access to Manchester. Both have long single track sections that are hindering the reliability and punctuality of the service. They need to be split off at least to Preston and with a good strategy, both can link into our Intercity network. We have to accept that the rail network is going to change. It is entirely feasible that certain sections will have to accept some cuts or adapt to serve different networks.
This is the sort of nonsense that McNulty has churned out. No-one is suggesting that Voyagers will succeed Pacers on branch lines. An up to date equivalent of the 150 or 156 would be more sensible for this area.
These towns already have local bus networks - why try to replicate them. If the single track sections are the problem, a better strategy would be to re-double or build loops. Frankly the Colne line will be of far more value to the area fully integrated with the regional network towards both Manchester and Preston.
This whole tram-train idea seems to have no basis in any sort of strategic planning for the area and is nothing more then a cheapo alternative. And please don't bother wheeling out the old "The north can't provide a business case for replacement trains" line, because we all know that London Midland managed it with higher subsidy levels than Northern.
It is not the replacement trains that are the problem, it is the infrastructure that you want to see thrown in with no business case at all.
My concern is that SELRAP are too busy going for a ridiculous goal when the strikingly obvious is that the existing infrastructure and set up of contributory transport modes are slowing the development of the the branch. The operator is already turning some stops in the area into request stops. More could follow with Burnley Barracks and Brierfields prime candidates.
This country has been through this scenario many times.
We've tried replacing regional trains with a slower lower quality form of transport. It didn't work. We've tried getting rid of routes that don't make a profit at the farebox. It didn't work. We've tried getting everybody to rely on motor transport and building roads to match. It didn't work.
Experience tells us that our urban areas require a high quality public transport system connecting into the rest of the national network. The heavily populated area around East Lancashire in particular needs to be plugged into the national railway network, for it's own economic and social wellbeing. If the existing infrastructure needs to be upgraded to do this, then it needs to be upgraded. This is the business case.
Is this business case for...
Extend the M65 to Salterforth and provide a multistorey car park at Rose Grove?
Reopen Skipton to Colne
Better Buses to Burnley Manchester Road
Everything can be placed under your business case. Sadly, they are based on hard numbers. Value engineering will be key to regenerating this area, not some dream of a railway line that won't give those who need it the connectivity they need. We're not talking a posh area, we're talking a deprived area. They need little wins that improve connectivity. I see the Todmorden Curve as the first step to that. The second step is better connectivity to Rose Grove and Burnley Manchester Road.
My advice to SELRAP is this, get an operator on board, get through ticketing accepted, get a park and ride put in at Rose Grove. Such small ideas but actually much easier to deliver than this railway line.
Extend the M65 to Salterforth and provide a multistorey car park at Rose Grove?
Reopen Skipton to Colne
Better Buses to Burnley Manchester Road
Everything can be placed under your business case. Sadly, they are based on hard numbers. Value engineering will be key to regenerating this area, not some dream of a railway line that won't give those who need it the connectivity they need. We're not talking a posh area, we're talking a deprived area. They need little wins that improve connectivity. I see the Todmorden Curve as the first step to that. The second step is better connectivity to Rose Grove and Burnley Manchester Road.
My advice to SELRAP is this, get an operator on board, get through ticketing accepted, get a park and ride put in at Rose Grove. Such small ideas but actually much easier to deliver than this railway line.
And you think turning an existing through service into a disconnected tram will be a "little win" for connectivity ?
With or without the Skipton - Colne re-opening, the current rail infrastructure needs to be made fit for purpose, not further downgraded.
tbtc
Veteran Member
If you are so keen on the SELRAP proposals I presumed you'd know about the bus routes in the area (as they give an indication of the market that rail can tap into).
For example, Alloa to Stirling had ten commercial buses an hour (seven along the A907 and three the back route through Alva etc), so there was always going to be a market for public transport.
East Lancashire *is* connected to the rest of the national network. The current York - Leeds - Bradford - Burnley - Blackburn - Preston - Blackpool route is a key trans-pennine service, linking the areas to the ECML and WCML.
The point I was actually arguing with Bluenoxid was that the existing Colne Branch should not be downgraded to a tram and split off from the national network. As I have argued, the existing network should be made fit for purpose, not downgraded whether or not the extension to Skipton goes ahead.
However, rest assured, I am still keen on the SELRAP proposal, just as we argued to death some months ago. As we discovered in the Beeching era, a bus service is no adequate substitute for a rail link.
I am not sure this argument is born out by the experience of some of the lines converted for Metrolink: the Bury line for example. The service is more frequent and marginally quicker than the BR service. The ride may not be as good as national rail servics achieve, though I remember some really rough journeys on those old electrics towards the end of their life.
Whilst it would be nice to have direct trains from Bury to elsewhere, such as the airport, it is probably better to have a quick, frequent service with useful connections at Victoria, which will come when electrification and the Ordsall curve are complete.
The advantage the trams provide is twofold: quicker access to parts of Central Manchester that Victoria could never provide, and more frequent journeys encouraging greater local use. An example is more convenient travel from Whitefield and Radcliffe into Bury.
It is possible, though I don't know if it is practical, for a Colne - Burnley tram to end up at Burnley Manchester Road. Or, for a service via Rose Grove to serve Padiham and Great Harwood. This would significantly improve the current service if the trams were as frequent as Metrolink.
I often see proposals on here that wish for services from A to B when what we need to be thinking about is a network of services and interchange.
Yes, but at least the Bury route has the Metrolink network to feed into, which will arguably take the majority of the routes passengers into central Manchester, where a majority of them probably want to go. I suspect a far greater proportion of Colne line passengers travel further west from Burnley, than travel beyond Manchester from the Bury route.
With the Colne branch, there isn't really any prospect of developing a metro system around it, therefore the only alternatives are to have it properly integrated into the local railway network (including, hopefully one day towards Manchester when improvements to the route South permit it), or as a sort of isolated dog-end which doesn't take people to where they want to go.
MattRobinson
Member
Maybe what we should be doing is electrification? Electrify transpennine routes; the Midland Mainline (all the way to Leeds); and if there's any money left over the places served by XC trains.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
But as I recall when they built Metrolink, there was no loss of direct links. The old trains only ran from Bury to Manchester Victoria - the trams actually improved this by extending the line through to Piccadilly/Altrincham. That's the opposite to what seems to be being argued for Colne, where existing trains that link directly to Burnley, Blackburn, Preston and Blackpool would be replaced by something that is more frequent but which would lose direct journeys by going only as far as Burnley.
That's true. I should imagine a new service from Colne to Manchester through Blackburn and Bolton would be quite well received.
However, the point I am trying to make is that trams offer different opportunities - bringing the trams into town centres for example, a much more frequent service or more stops.
The service to Colne is hourly, one could expect a tram to run every 15 minutes. If there will be two trains each way every hour running from Todmorden to Blackburn, then a frequent tram connects into these services far better than the current hourly service.
The route goes from Colne through Nelson into Burnley, there is potential for more stops giving more people easy access into the network. Perhaps the trams could run on-street into the centre of Colne and possibly Burnley.
Personally, because of their relatively small size as much as anything, I think the infrastructure will be of more use to Nelson and Colne by linking them to the other population and economic centres in the region. That's not to say that the current hourly service is fit for purpose. I think the local network needs to be brought up to standard as a whole, including the route South to Bolton. Fifteen minute intervals would be overdoing it, but a half hourly service is certainly something those areas could aspire to.
ntg
Member
I'd really like to see the Welwyn Garden City to Hertford route reopen as far as Hertford North. The Stevenage to Hertford stretch is no where near capacity and it'd be a good way of circumventing the bottleneck at the two track stretch through the tunnels and viaduct between Welwyn and Stevenage.
There'd need to be one tunnel under a built on stretch in Welwyn much shorter and cheaper than the tunneling that'd be required to four track the main ECML through to Stevenage, and there would be need to be a few £million of compulsory purchase orders on five or six commercial properties in Welwyn itself, as well as one car park (and obviously the greenway which exists on the track bed), but I expect it'd be cheaper and locally more preferable than the alternative of installing a new "elevated" deck over the viaduct, completely rebuilding or closing Welwyn North and digging one or two new tunnels that would cause years of delays on the ECML rather than maybe a few months shared between the ECML and Hertford Loop.
There'd need to be one tunnel under a built on stretch in Welwyn much shorter and cheaper than the tunneling that'd be required to four track the main ECML through to Stevenage, and there would be need to be a few £million of compulsory purchase orders on five or six commercial properties in Welwyn itself, as well as one car park (and obviously the greenway which exists on the track bed), but I expect it'd be cheaper and locally more preferable than the alternative of installing a new "elevated" deck over the viaduct, completely rebuilding or closing Welwyn North and digging one or two new tunnels that would cause years of delays on the ECML rather than maybe a few months shared between the ECML and Hertford Loop.
IanBanks-Jones
Member
Bedford to Northampton should be reopened with wires. I believe it was once a promise of one of the failed thameslink bids. It would provide a better strategic link from the mml to daventry and the north
As a commuter from Crowborough I am not a great advocate of the re-opening of Uckfield-Lewes. The peak hour trains are already full by the time they leave Eridge and some are full at Crowborough. Extending the line to Lewes will mean they'll be full before arriving at Crowborough particularly as it will be a cheaper route up.
I also dont want the service electrified as the Turbostars are a lot more comfortable then the Electrostars, and also very easy to find in London Bridge!
Having said that the Uckfield Line must be a great plus for Southern. They introduced the new Turbostars and the numbers using the line have rocketed. Before Turbostars there were empty seats the whole way to East Croydon there aren't now. What the line has shown is that if British Rail had invested in it it would have thrived.
Network Rail have said there is no case for the Uckfield - Lewes line, British Rail said the same about Oxted to Uckfield and indeed single tracked it, circumstances have proved them wrong! So maybe the case for Uckfield - Lewes is there, but if doing please to Eridge - Tunbridge Wells as well but maintain the lower fares at Crowborough!
I also dont want the service electrified as the Turbostars are a lot more comfortable then the Electrostars, and also very easy to find in London Bridge!
Having said that the Uckfield Line must be a great plus for Southern. They introduced the new Turbostars and the numbers using the line have rocketed. Before Turbostars there were empty seats the whole way to East Croydon there aren't now. What the line has shown is that if British Rail had invested in it it would have thrived.
Network Rail have said there is no case for the Uckfield - Lewes line, British Rail said the same about Oxted to Uckfield and indeed single tracked it, circumstances have proved them wrong! So maybe the case for Uckfield - Lewes is there, but if doing please to Eridge - Tunbridge Wells as well but maintain the lower fares at Crowborough!
It would be interesting to see what demand would be on this line if season ticket prices were equalised with the Brighton and Hastings routes. Anecdotally there are a good few folk who drive some distance cross country to Uckfield / Eridge etc as the tickets are so much cheaper and there is a (much) better chance of a seat. Annual seasons to London Bridge: Uckfield £2564, Burgess Hill £3264 (FCC only) / £3760 (any permitted), Stonegate £4236. Serious wedge difference.
Incidentally all of these look like great value compared to St Albans - St Pancras at £2988 for a journey of considerably less than half the distance *looks up Uckfield estate agents*
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
But Uckfield only gets 1 train/hour (OK, more in peak hours). I'd imagine it's a fairly safe bet that if Uckfield-Lewes was built, the new passengers would mean the frequency on that line would go up considerably, which hopefully would cancel out concerns about overcrowding.
I'm intrigued by your comments about the low season ticket fares. I didn't realize there was such a discrepancy with the main line. Wonder why that is the case - my first guess would be: Are Southern deliberately using differential fares to try to ease congestion on the main Brighton line? (If they are, that would seem to give a strong argument for building Uckfield-Lewes in terms of even greater potential for using fares to ease main line congestion.
Two further questions to satisfy my curiosity... Is it only season tickets that are so much cheaper on the Uckfield branch or are normal day tickets cheaper/mile too? And how does the Uckfield line compare with the East Grinstead line in that regard.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Interesting parallel with South West Trains, where I find the diesels on the Salisbury line far more comfortable than any of SWT's other trains. I had assumed though that was just because of softer seats rather than anything directly to do with them not being electric.
Last edited:
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
+1 from me
I think Northampton-Wellingborough would be much more useful and, at about half the distance, about the half the price.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Yes, I agree that trams do offer different opportunities. In the end both are important: Having the high frequency and ease of access right to where people want to go that trams offer, and having the direct trains that reduce need to change. (I think the latter shouldn't be played down. I can think of have friends I have who go to a lot of trouble to avoid having to change trains and on occasions simply refuse to make journeys if they'll need to change.).
In the case of Burnley-Colne. I'm not overly familiar with that area, but had a look on Google maps last night. My impression from that is that the current railway tends to avoid populated areas rather more than would be desirable for a tram, especially between Burnley and Nelson. For a tram, you'd probably want to reroute quite a bit, as well as extending into Colne itself (the station's right on the edge of the town), and probably in Burnley to connect to Manchester Road station. In an ideal world that'd be great, but it seems an awful lot of building work to serve towns that aren't exactly huge. For that reason I'd be more inclined to agree with yorksrob, that upgrading the line to get at least a half hourly service would be a better bet. Perhaps hourly to Blackpool, hourly to Manchester via Blackburn, and putting some decent quality trains on it . Certainly, the current arrangements are ridiculous given the population - I'd be fairly sure the current poor service is significantly depressing patronage over what it would otherwise be.
I wonder whether the low number of trains has the effect of depressing demand. I only mention this because the Uckfield route passes closer to the main population areas south of Tunbridge Wells than the Hastings line for example.
Good luck with that one. The formation is long gone in Wellingborough. The A45 is over the site of Wellingborough London Road station and housing has been built over it closer to the MML. No chance of that one coming back.
Bedford Northampton makes a bit more sense, but I think some of the formation has now been lost at Olney. Also it doesn't serve anywhere that sizeable en route, Olney and Turvey are the largest places, but they're both very small towns / large villages so won't attract that much custom
- Status