Restoring your Railway Fund Update

[Bald Rick]

If it's treated like Portishead, the hurdles will be even greater........

the first hurdle is “where does the train service go, and is there capacity for it?”

 

[Mollman]

the first hurdle is “where does the train service go, and is there capacity for it?”

Indeed, no doubt the politicians will want a through service to Manchester Airport, but there isn't capacity for that. Most likely end up being a shuttle to Preston or part of the Ormskirk/Colne/Blackpool South group. What will be interesting is if the Blackpool South line gets the passing loop to increase frequency to every 30 minutes, then there will probably be a fight between Fylde and Wyre about who should get trains to where!

This goes back to trade offs - heavy rail will provide through services to Preston and perhaps beyond but only every 30 minutes at best and the station at Fleetwood won't be convenient. Tram or tram train will allow services to reach the centre of Fleetwood and run every 15 minutes but will involve a change at Poulton on to the main network.

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed, no doubt the politicians will want a through service to Manchester Airport, but there isn't capacity for that. Most likely end up being a shuttle to Preston or part of the Ormskirk/Colne/Blackpool South group. What will be interesting is if the Blackpool South line gets the passing loop to increase frequency to every 30 minutes, then there will probably be a fight between Fylde and Wyre about who should get trains to where!

This goes back to trade offs - heavy rail will provide through services to Preston and perhaps beyond but only every 30 minutes at best and the station at Fleetwood won't be convenient. Tram or tram train will allow services to reach the centre of Fleetwood and run every 15 minutes but will involve a change at Poulton on to the main network.

well this is one of them.

AIUI it’s a straight choice between: an hourly train to fleetwood or doubling the South branch. No capacity at Preston for anything else.

Alternatively serve Fleetwood by diverting existing services from Blackpool North, but that would surely cause a net revenue loss and a net economic disbenefit.

But the main hurdle is the business case, which is appalling, AIUI.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Optimistic reporting or is this where it's really at?

Fleetwood Poulton rail link: Plans to reopen line approved

The Department for Transport agrees to fund the development of the line after years of campaigning.

www.bbc.co.uk

The MP and media local to the proposed station at Haxby had the same problem (I seem to recall) - confusing funding for development work ie studies / business cases and so on, with funding for physical development.

well this is one of them.

AIUI it’s a straight choice between: an hourly train to fleetwood or doubling the South branch. No capacity at Preston for anything else.

Alternatively serve Fleetwood by diverting existing services from Blackpool North, but that would surely cause a net revenue loss and a net economic disbenefit.

But the main hurdle is the business case, which is appalling, AIUI.

Join / divide at Kirkham?

 

[Starmill]

Join / divide at Kirkham?

Are you suggesting that an electrified branch might be built? For one train per hour?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Are you suggesting that an electrified branch might be built? For one train per hour?

Only if Blackpool South is electrified, otherwise no need. Two trains per hour from Preston, for which @Bald Rick has stated there is capacity, dividing at Kirkham to run to Blackpool South / Fleetwood.

 

[modernrail]

Total pie in the sky that Treasury will approve any of this. Our interest payments are going up and rail revenue has gone down, a lot. We need to stabilise the existing railway.

Don’t get me wrong, there is lots I would like to see reopen but this is just expensive window dressing.

A couple of reopenings have managed to sneak through central approval as Tory bribery but that will be it for now unless there is a massive strategic need or the relevant regional authorities manage to piece something together. The latter is of course possible but it will mean that money not being spent on something else. As these things tend to be pretty capital hungry and have difficult opex lines even with before Covid, I really do question spending anything much on developing them without clearly explaining where the reserved pot of cash for implementation is coming from.

If we are going to reopen anything, my fave pie in the sky would be Malton to Pickering so that NYMR can run steam, diesel and hydrogen/battery services all the way to Whitby. Ideally a morning and evening service with full restaurant car and an ironed newspaper.

 

[Starmill]

Only if Blackpool South is electrified, otherwise no need. Two trains per hour from Preston, for which @Bald Rick has stated there is capacity, dividing at Kirkham to run to Blackpool South / Fleetwood.

It was in reply to a comment about a through service to Manchester. A through service to Preston is very easily delivered by simply not increasing the frequency on the South Fylde.

 

[Elecman]

Or a simple shuttle from Poulton to Fleetwood, no physical connection required ar Poulton so no resignalling/ pway costs

 

[Glenn1969]

I agree with Bald Rick that there is zero chance of many of these happening. I also think the 2019 election was so much based on Brexit that the Tories could lose 50 seats in 2024 inc all the ones mentioned here. But I know that is for a different discussion

 

[Starmill]

Or a simple shuttle from Poulton to Fleetwood, no physical connection required ar Poulton so no resignalling/ pway costs

Why would you need a railway for that though? Why wouldn't a bus suit? Indeed, why doesn't the 74 suit? Also how would you get the train onto the branch? Would you build a new platform too?

Total pie in the sky that Treasury will approve any of this.

Things which already have a full business case are likely to go ahead, including the Northumberland line and the new stations that have already started construction.

There's also budget set aside already for the other major things that don't fall under RYR, HS2 and East West Rail, plus anything the Scottish and Northern Irish governments have funded. So although it's not an enormous amount of work coming out in the imminent future it's still significant.

 

[Elecman]

I wouldn’t have it as heavy rail but as a tram extension

 

[Bald Rick]

Why would you need a railway for that though? Why wouldn't a bus suit? Indeed, why doesn't the 74 suit?

It’s a very good question, ie what is wrong with an express bus serving only Fleetwood and Poulton. Operstionsl cost would be about 20% for twice the frequency, and it wouldn‘t cost c£100m.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Total pie in the sky that Treasury will approve any of this. Our interest payments are going up and rail revenue has gone down, a lot. We need to stabilise the existing railway.

Don’t get me wrong, there is lots I would like to see reopen but this is just expensive window dressing.

A couple of reopenings have managed to sneak through central approval as Tory bribery but that will be it for now unless there is a massive strategic need or the relevant regional authorities manage to piece something together. The latter is of course possible but it will mean that money not being spent on something else. As these things tend to be pretty capital hungry and have difficult opex lines even with before Covid, I really do question spending anything much on developing them without clearly explaining where the reserved pot of cash for implementation is coming from.

If we are going to reopen anything, my fave pie in the sky would be Malton to Pickering so that NYMR can run steam, diesel and hydrogen/battery services all the way to Whitby. Ideally a morning and evening service with full restaurant car and an ironed newspaper.

The huge costs for EWR over an existing formation to Bletchley show that anything that involves a greenfield site hasn't really got much hope. The additional stations on existing routes are more certain if track capacity exits for services.

 

[Irascible]

I agree with Bald Rick that there is zero chance of many of these happening. I also think the 2019 election was so much based on Brexit that the Tories could lose 50 seats in 2024 inc all the ones mentioned here. But I know that is for a different discussion

My constituency just went from a 24,000 majority to a 6,000 deficit - there aren't *any* safe seats now, so I'm expecting aa lot of horse-trading, pretty words & consutant's reports.

 

[Occtraveller]

Also, the Unsuccessful Bids is quite brutal this time, with a number of proposals in the South West turned down - Possibly the biggest loser this time? One did catch my eye though, as a local to this area, can anyone tell me what the "To unlock capacity and services through Bramley (Hants)" idea was about please?

This is just a guess, but the imminent opening of Reading Green Park station is going to cause some delays. As I recall, it turns the Reading-Basingstoke services from barely viable turnaround to not really viable, although the 769s might help? Perhaps Bramley was identified as the bottleneck on this route.

There's some more informed speculation at https://anonw.com/2020/08/14/beechi...-capacity-and-services-through-bramley-hants/

It's absolutely typical that we could get a new station opened with no trains to actually serve it. Although the May working timetable does have Reading Green Park down as an unadvertised 1-minute stop, according to RealTimeTrains. The timing load is shown as 'diesel locomotive, trailing load 769 tonnes', which I think is code for 'Class 769', rather than the 165s currently running the route. The 165s don't seem to be having trouble keeping to time, though, mostly dwelling at either Reading West or Mortimer (the stations at either side) for a couple of extra minutes, or arriving early at the terminus.

Looking at the satellite view, I think the most practical way to get rid of the level crossing would be to run a new road north of Clift Meadow Park, cross the railway on a bridge, and connect up with Browns Close. The Street, having been bypassed, could be closed to vehicular traffic, with a foot/cycle bridge crossing the railway at the present level crossing. That's probably not cheap - and doesn't have much to do with 'Restoring Your Railway'!

If a strictly railway intervention were suggested, there might be room for passing loops just to the south of Bramley station, where there's a stand of trees to the east of the line. I don't think it would solve the problem if the bottleneck is the crossing. It also couldn't be described as 'restoring' since I don't think passing loops have ever existed here.

 

[WesternBiker]

Also, the Unsuccessful Bids is quite brutal this time, with a number of proposals in the South West turned down - Possibly the biggest loser this time? One did catch my eye though, as a local to this area, can anyone tell me what the "To unlock capacity and services through Bramley (Hants)" idea was about please?

Network Rail’s 2015 Western Route Study suggested the provision of a grade separated junction at Southcote, with a third track to be provided between there and the Oxford Road Junction at Reading West to provide additional capacity for container trains. There was also talk of grade separation at Basingstoke, but that (and Southcote) would be eye-wateringly expensive and out of scope for this funding, I would guess. So maybe just the third track between Southcote and Reading West?

 

[D6130]

If a strictly railway intervention were suggested, there might be room for passing loops just to the south of Bramley station, where there's a stand of trees to the east of the line. I don't think it would solve the problem if the bottleneck is the crossing. It also couldn't be described as 'restoring' since I don't think passing loops have ever existed here.

Was there not at one time a shunting loop at the South end of Bramley station, giving access to the former military railway? I can't remember which side of the line it was on but, if the solum still exists, it could perhaps be utilised for a new - possibly bi-directional - running loop. It would have to be considerably longer, however, than the original loop in order to be able to recess freightliner services....and as these run at the maximum permitted line speed of 75 mph, there would be no real pathing advantage.

 

[Kite159]

This is just a guess, but the imminent opening of Reading Green Park station is going to cause some delays. As I recall, it turns the Reading-Basingstoke services from barely viable turnaround to not really viable, although the 769s might help? Perhaps Bramley was identified as the bottleneck on this route.

There's some more informed speculation at https://anonw.com/2020/08/14/beechi...-capacity-and-services-through-bramley-hants/

It's absolutely typical that we could get a new station opened with no trains to actually serve it. Although the May working timetable does have Reading Green Park down as an unadvertised 1-minute stop, according to RealTimeTrains. The timing load is shown as 'diesel locomotive, trailing load 769 tonnes', which I think is code for 'Class 769', rather than the 165s currently running the route. The 165s don't seem to be having trouble keeping to time, though, mostly dwelling at either Reading West or Mortimer (the stations at either side) for a couple of extra minutes, or arriving early at the terminus.

Looking at the satellite view, I think the most practical way to get rid of the level crossing would be to run a new road north of Clift Meadow Park, cross the railway on a bridge, and connect up with Browns Close. The Street, having been bypassed, could be closed to vehicular traffic, with a foot/cycle bridge crossing the railway at the present level crossing. That's probably not cheap - and doesn't have much to do with 'Restoring Your Railway'!

If a strictly railway intervention were suggested, there might be room for passing loops just to the south of Bramley station, where there's a stand of trees to the east of the line. I don't think it would solve the problem if the bottleneck is the crossing. It also couldn't be described as 'restoring' since I don't think passing loops have ever existed here.

The timetable has already been changed to take into account the new station, by using 3 trains instead of 2.

The only day where the timetable will have a risk of collapsing is on a Sunday when it's just one train going back & forth with hardly any recovery time

 

[cle]

Is there no scenario where they will look at upping the line speed on this line?

75mph for such a long, relatively simple route seems so low - especially with express XC services on it. Even 90mph would likely negate these turnaround issues by knocking 3-4 mins off. Wires might save 2-3 also, and again, benefit future bi-mode running.

 

[The Planner]

Is there no scenario where they will look at upping the line speed on this line?

75mph for such a long, relatively simple route seems so low - especially with express XC services on it. Even 90mph would likely negate these turnaround issues by knocking 3-4 mins off. Wires might save 2-3 also, and again, benefit future bi-mode running.

8 seconds a mile for 90 over 75, 4 minutes is going to need 30 miles so unless someone is moving Basingstoke you ain't getting that.

 

[cle]

I made it up, but the principle remains. Could, and really should be 100mph+ - it's on a core intercity route and is sustained at low speed.

 

[sor]

It is nearly 40 miles Newquay to Truro by rail via Par, yet Mr. Google tells me it 13.2 miles (26mins) by car. I believe the proposal involves reinstating the second platform at Newquay and the passing loop at Goss Moor (ripped out in the 1980s) plus upgrading level crossings. This is welcome if XC can be bothered to serve the resort again, but it is difficult to see how it can be competitive for local journeys. The main flows from Newquay are to Truro and St Austell (both served by direct buses). Maybe its all about the threat of a LD revival in Cornwall?

As someone is from the area: maybe. Though I'm not sure who it panders to given that the line is going to move a lot more in and out of the constituency under the new boundaries, with Roche and Bugle both moving out of the St Austell constituency. There's also the recently approved bypass that will take a ton of traffic out of Roche and Bugle, which is well overdue (and the former Lib Dem council got positive noises and funding for initial planning from gov) but still feels a bit "political"

If it actually happens, I wonder if it'll induce some other improvements. Roche in particular is not a desirable station to use, despite the name it's actually a couple hundred metres outside the village and has no safe pedestrian/cycle access from the village itself. The aforementioned bypass might help a lot but currently you'd have a death wish to want to walk there at present, and if you're waiting for a bus you might as well just go to St. Austell station anyway.

I guess it also depends on how long those buses take. We lost the through service to Truro but when it was there you'd be on the bus for something like 2 hours vs bus 20 minutes to St Austell and then 15 minutes on the train.

 

[pdeaves]

I made it up, but the principle remains. Could, and really should be 100mph+ - it's on a core intercity route and is sustained at low speed.

Is that actually achievable? I don't know, but if line speed is increased but no trains can accelerate to the new limit, there is no sense in spending money on changing the limit. Don't forget, the faster you go the lower the rate of acceleration; you don't get an instantaneous benefit.

 

[GoneSouth]

The feasibility study suggested a single line with two platforms at the Fleetwood end.

Why would it need 2 platforms if it only has a single track? Surely there wouldn’t need enough trains heading that way to need it? No idea about the geography, could the tram use it to make a decent interchange?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Are you suggesting that an electrified branch might be built? For one train per hour?

Alloa says, "Hello".

(Yes, I know that were some freight benefits for a few years and it was diesel to start with.)

 

[Kite159]

Poulton - Fleetwood would be better served by trams in my eyes, at least they will be able to run on the streets in Fleetwood to serve more of the town (i.e could join up with the existing tramway, with them running into a terminus near Poulton station. Would serve the area better than an hourly train

 

[jayah]

All to do with a proposed nuclear processing site outside Mablethorpe

Rough translation: large hole into which lots of nuclear waste will be dumped.

As someone is from the area: maybe. Though I'm not sure who it panders to given that the line is going to move a lot more in and out of the constituency under the new boundaries, with Roche and Bugle both moving out of the St Austell constituency. There's also the recently approved bypass that will take a ton of traffic out of Roche and Bugle, which is well overdue (and the former Lib Dem council got positive noises and funding for initial planning from gov) but still feels a bit "political"

If it actually happens, I wonder if it'll induce some other improvements. Roche in particular is not a desirable station to use, despite the name it's actually a couple hundred metres outside the village and has no safe pedestrian/cycle access from the village itself. The aforementioned bypass might help a lot but currently you'd have a death wish to want to walk there at present, and if you're waiting for a bus you might as well just go to St. Austell station anyway.

I guess it also depends on how long those buses take. We lost the through service to Truro but when it was there you'd be on the bus for something like 2 hours vs bus 20 minutes to St Austell and then 15 minutes on the train.

It is a bit of a Jack of Trades cheap and nasty scheme.

Truro to Newquay is 12 miles on foot, 25 mins by car and 50+ mins by bus traffic permitting.

In theory it is about 32 miles by rail via St Austell with a reversal and about 42 miles via Par.

You could reopen and engineer the line via Foxhole, open up to a few modest settlements and provide something a lot more palatable than a 50mins bus ride, that will attract the few people who do that, and maybe few more.

Like Ebbw Vale it may also be discovered that a line from Foxhole to St Austell does not set the world on fire because everybody wants to go to Truro. And you are stuck with an expensive and even more underused line via Bugle.

If they could bridge the 10 lousy miles cross country and link Truro, Newquay and Falmouth probably it would be a big win and quicker than driving.

If not, there are probably 5 better schemes, just in Cornwall.

 

[fgwrich]

This is just a guess, but the imminent opening of Reading Green Park station is going to cause some delays. As I recall, it turns the Reading-Basingstoke services from barely viable turnaround to not really viable, although the 769s might help? Perhaps Bramley was identified as the bottleneck on this route.

There's some more informed speculation at https://anonw.com/2020/08/14/beechi...-capacity-and-services-through-bramley-hants/

It's absolutely typical that we could get a new station opened with no trains to actually serve it. Although the May working timetable does have Reading Green Park down as an unadvertised 1-minute stop, according to RealTimeTrains. The timing load is shown as 'diesel locomotive, trailing load 769 tonnes', which I think is code for 'Class 769', rather than the 165s currently running the route. The 165s don't seem to be having trouble keeping to time, though, mostly dwelling at either Reading West or Mortimer (the stations at either side) for a couple of extra minutes, or arriving early at the terminus.

Looking at the satellite view, I think the most practical way to get rid of the level crossing would be to run a new road north of Clift Meadow Park, cross the railway on a bridge, and connect up with Browns Close. The Street, having been bypassed, could be closed to vehicular traffic, with a foot/cycle bridge crossing the railway at the present level crossing. That's probably not cheap - and doesn't have much to do with 'Restoring Your Railway'!

If a strictly railway intervention were suggested, there might be room for passing loops just to the south of Bramley station, where there's a stand of trees to the east of the line. I don't think it would solve the problem if the bottleneck is the crossing. It also couldn't be described as 'restoring' since I don't think passing loops have ever existed here.

There's no way you'd easily get a bridge through there - the new development on the west side (Clift Meadow Park) has rather taken up any available land for a bridge, and there's a large pond created from the development works there. On the east side (Browns Close), the railway sits on an embankment here with the close and houses being a few metres below the railway, So you'd end up having demolish a few rather large and expensive properties to do such a thing (You'd also end up having to take a pretty nasty Z bend along Sherfield Road, down Bramley Lane before you hit the bottom of Browns Close.

Realistically, any new bridge for the fairly busy Sherfield Road would have to bypass most of the village, going up Minchens Lane, follow the wires / Pylons across the railway on a bridge, then back down to Sherfield Road via Centenary Fields.

Network Rail’s 2015 Western Route Study suggested the provision of a grade separated junction at Southcote, with a third track to be provided between there and the Oxford Road Junction at Reading West to provide additional capacity for container trains. There was also talk of grade separation at Basingstoke, but that (and Southcote) would be eye-wateringly expensive and out of scope for this funding, I would guess. So maybe just the third track between Southcote and Reading West?

I'd forgotten about that third track scenario. Given the topography of Southcote Junction, I'd struggle to see how a Grade Separated Junction would easily be possible - and certainly not cheap at all. Basingstoke isn't too difficult to do if the (semi permanent) TSR ridden crossover is removed and the main junction shifted to the west of the station, any scheme doing this would also bring back the track through the North side of the station and probably rid NWR and SWR of the troublesome crossover.

Was there not at one time a shunting loop at the South end of Bramley station, giving access to the former military railway? I can't remember which side of the line it was on but, if the solum still exists, it could perhaps be utilised for a new - possibly bi-directional - running loop. It would have to be considerably longer, however, than the original loop in order to be able to recess freightliner services....and as these run at the maximum permitted line speed of 75 mph, there would be no real pathing advantage.

There was, and something short but similar in Chineham. Unfortunately though much of the former Bramley exchange site is now lost under modern housing (a very peaceful neighbourhood bounded by the railway and active MOD site!), while a lot of the line between there and the northern edge of Chineham / Sherfield Park is on a fairly steep sided embankment.

Is there no scenario where they will look at upping the line speed on this line?

75mph for such a long, relatively simple route seems so low - especially with express XC services on it. Even 90mph would likely negate these turnaround issues by knocking 3-4 mins off. Wires might save 2-3 also, and again, benefit future bi-mode running.

I cant see any linespeed improvements being carried out until Electrification to be honest, when the acceleration and deceleration of the EMUs would provide a small benefit. But, one thing that has always surprised me along the route, is a lack of emergency crossovers / bi-directional running - emergency crossovers would be a relatively useful feature given the unfortunately number of failures (mostly freight) that seems to happen along the route and would provide some resilience.

 

[quantinghome]

Looking at all the reopenings since the 1970s, it looks like there was steady progress made; on average about one line reopened to passengers per year up until 2015, when it came to a shuddering halt. Even the current committed plans don't envisage that level of progress. 'Restoring your railways' is so much fluff.