UK Rail Network Reopenings: Realistic Prospects versus ‘Pie in the Sky’

[William3000]

We are consistently hearing about rail reopenings but which are realistic prospects and which are likely to be pipe dreams.

It seems to be that rail lines that are currently still operational for freight have the best prospects for reopening, followed my mothballed lines, and lastly dismantled railways.

I would therefore expect the Waterside Line, the Bristol to Portishead, the Burton to Leicester, the Northumberland Park to Ashington etc. I expect to come forward but beyond that, mothballed lines like March to Wisbech seem unlikely and dismantled lines like King’s Lynn to Hunstanton a pipe dream!

 

[zwk500]

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head - if the line is still at least nominally operational (i.e. the Junction with the main line is in the interlocking) then it's at least got half a chance. If it's been ripped up it probably isn't coming back.

Northumberland line has the strongest prospects - they're currently building the stations! Not sure exactly where Portishead and the Waterside line are now, but they've had positive noises from politicians. Burton to Leicester is less certain, as there's no obvious capacity to send the trains at either end anywhere useful. Derby is very busy and running to Leicester requires a reversal at knighton Jn.

 

[lachlan]

Has there ever been a route completely closed with rails lifted and then reopened in England, like the Borders railway in Scotland?

 

[A0]

Has there ever been a route completely closed with rails lifted and then reopened in England, like the Borders railway in Scotland?

Depends how you define it.

IIRC the Robin Hood line involved new track laying on old formations, so too did the East London Line extension which was new build from Shoreditch to around Bateman's Row where it picked up the old formation of the Broad Street line up to Dalston Junction.

And the trams in both Nottingham and Croydon have reused abandoned heavy rail lines as part of their routes.

Nowhere in England was quite so isolated following the closures of the 50s and 60s - I've pointed this out several times but places like Galashiels or Hawick were much further from the rail network than most places in England which lost their rail lines.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Has there ever been a route completely closed with rails lifted and then reopened in England, like the Borders railway in Scotland?

The Robin Hood line (Nottingham - Mansfield - Worksop) needed a cutting (which had been filled in) reinstating.

On a smaller scale, Bradley chord reopened for Brighouse in 2000 had been out of use with tracks lifted and trees growing in the trackbed despite only officially going out of use 12 years prior.

 

[stuu]

Has there ever been a route completely closed with rails lifted and then reopened in England, like the Borders railway in Scotland?

Moor Street-Smethwick is probably the most significant

 

[zwk500]

Has there ever been a route completely closed with rails lifted and then reopened in England, like the Borders railway in Scotland?

Unless you're being extraordinarily pedantic, EWR between Calvert and the sidings near Bletchley.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Unless you're being extraordinarily pedantic,

You do realise which forum you just wrote this on dont you?

 

[zwk500]

You do realise which forum you just wrote this on dont you?

 

[Silenos]

Interestingly, many of the most experienced and apparently knowledgeable posters in these forums seem to be of the opinion that we have, essentially, as good a rail network as can currently be contrived in this country, in terms of population density, economics, existing infrastructure and political realities. Sadly, this would imply that while some tinkering around the edges is possible, e.g new stations on existing lines, the age of large-scale extensions of the rail network is gone. So most schemes for rail reopening must necessarily be pie-in-the-sky.

 

[zwk500]

Interestingly, many of the most experienced and apparently knowledgeable posters in these forums seem to be of the opinion that we have, essentially, as good a rail network as can currently be contrived in this country, in terms of population density, economics, existing infrastructure and political realities. Sadly, this would imply that while some tinkering around the edges is possible, e.g new stations on existing lines, the age of large-scale extensions of the rail network is gone. So most schemes for rail reopening must necessarily be pie-in-the-sky.

There is a limit to what you can do in a small country with a dense population that values the countryside and is habitually connected to driving everywhere.

Political realities are the biggest sticking point though. There's a fair few new line schemes or major upgrades that would be possible with a kinder political environment.

 

[Silenos]

There is a limit to what you can do in a small country with a dense population that values the countryside and is habitually connected to driving everywhere.

Political realities are the biggest sticking point though. There's a fair few new line schemes or major upgrades that would be possible with a kinder political environment.

Indeed, although I would have thought that some density of population is necessary to provide the requisite passenger numbers. Presumably the Netherlands - small, and with a high population density, as well as an extensive public transport network - makes a reasonable point of comparison

I do think, though, that you are right in identifying the politics, and the addiction to car use - as the key factors. We know that neither of the main parties in the U.K. has much interest in a major investment in public transport, and certainly neither wants to offend drivers as a lobby. Whether that will change as climate realities become more apparent in the next 20-30 years remains to be seen.

 

[zwk500]

Indeed, although I would have thought that some density of population is necessary to provide the requisite passenger numbers.

It does - but along established corridors

Presumably the Netherlands - small, and with a high population density, as well as an extensive public transport network - makes a reasonable point of comparison

The Netherlands, being somewhat smaller doesn't have the more properly rural areas such as Cornwall, West/North Wales, and the Pennines. It's a good comparison for the developed bit of the country but doesn't have many empty regional routes (some exceptions aside). Although I've only been here 6 months and lived in the UK for 28 years before that so don't want to pretend I really know the Netherlands. There are a number of cultural and geographical features that do change the nature of the public transport use though - cycling being a big one. It's feasible for pretty much everybody to cycle nearly everywhere in NL, which isn't true of Sheffield or Bristol (to take just two examples) without e-bikes. This means the economics of providing bike shelters are completely different. (Maastricht, with 100,000 population, has a 800-space underground bike park that is staffed throughout the day by two people who also do repairs and services while people are off on their train trip.)

I do think, though, that you are right in identifying the politics, and the addiction to car use - as the key factors. We know that neither of the main parties in the U.K. has much interest in a major investment in public transport, and certainly neither wants to offend drivers as a lobby. Whether that will change as climate realities become more apparent in the next 20-30 years remains to be seen.

Indeed.

 

[Brubulus]

Line reopenings are an extremely popular policy on the constituency level for politicians. RYR failed due to Okehampton setting very high expectations (heritage line pretty much rebuilt as the plan was announced) and the lack of real commitment beyond a soundbite. A consistent budget for re-openings allowing around 10 track miles of new line each year, would be extremely popular politically, especially if initial investment was directed at swing seats. Further costs can be lowered by a consistent schedule of construction compared to current policies.

 

[zwk500]

Line reopenings are an extremely popular policy on the constituency level for politicians. RYR failed due to Okehampton setting very high expectations (heritage line pretty much rebuilt as the plan was announced) and the lack of real commitment beyond a soundbite. A consistent budget for re-openings allowing around 10 track miles of new line each year, would be extremely popular politically, especially if initial investment was directed at swing seats. Further costs can be lowered by a consistent schedule of construction compared to current policies.

A cynical answer would suggest that the *Issue* is more useful to the MP/campaign than any action on it. Any reopening will take longer than an election cycle, therefore any MP in a swing seat will be wary of handing his or her opponent a potential publicity coup by starting the reopening process, whilst also removing a very solid plank from their policy platform to Constituents. Lack of progress can always be blamed on delays in whitehall rather than lack of impetus from the MP themselves....

 

[Brubulus]

A cynical answer would suggest that the *Issue* is more useful to the MP/campaign than any action on it. Any reopening will take longer than an election cycle, therefore any MP in a swing seat will be wary of handing his or her opponent a potential publicity coup by starting the reopening process, whilst also removing a very solid plank from their policy platform to Constituents. Lack of progress can always be blamed on delays in whitehall rather than lack of impetus from the MP themselves....

An annual budget for re-openings, with selection every 5 years (to align with NR control periods and the electoral cycle). Once a project has been selected it will effectively have to be done reducing this effect. The budget would solely cover re-openings of line to regular passenger service - not new stations or service improvements. Getting a line selected for re-opening could have the ability to pretty much ensure the re-election of an MP given that a surprising number of people care about rail at the constituency level, especially if they don't have a line nearby or regardless of if they actually use it.

 

[zwk500]

An annual budget for re-openings, with selection every 5 years (to align with NR control periods and the electoral cycle). Once a project has been selected it will effectively have to be done reducing this effect. The budget would solely cover re-openings of line to regular passenger service - not new stations or service improvements.

But the electoral cycle isn't every 5 years - it's UP to that, but since BR was privatised we've had elections in 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019. Intervals of 4, 4, 5, 5, 2, and 2. And the annual budget would have to be huge to cover the cost of a reopening.

Getting a line selected for re-opening could have the ability to pretty much ensure the re-election of an MP given that a surprising number of people care about rail at the constituency level, especially if they don't have a line nearby or regardless of if they actually use it.

Ah, but the problem is people will only care about it opening. The bump from getting approval will be moderate at best. It certainly wouldn't drown out another issue.

 

[tbtc]

An annual budget for re-openings, with selection every 5 years (to align with NR control periods and the electoral cycle). Once a project has been selected it will effectively have to be done reducing this effect. The budget would solely cover re-openings of line to regular passenger service - not new stations or service improvements

This should be a very popular policy on here as it appeals to the kind of people who see reopening an old line as a goal in itself, rather than as a potential tool to solve a particular problem with

There seem a significant number of people who are much more interested in a particular solution (e.g. “reopen Okehampton to Tavistock”) than they are at trying to assess what the bigger problems are and what the most appropriate proposals are to try to improve those situations

It’s why we keep seeing the same depressingly familiar list of suggestive cropping up time and time again, e.g. one minute Matlock-Buxton should apparently reopen to remove slow cement/quarry trains from the Hope Valley, the next it should apparently reopen as competition for the London-Manchester market…

Don’t question how a line that’ll need to be single track in places to accommodate the Monsal Trail can solve all of these Contradictory goals, because all that matters is that it gets reopened, the justification is irrelevant.

Who cares about reasons when you’ve already made your mind up (often decades ago)?

 

[simonw]

Unless you're being extraordinarily pedantic,

well if we are going to be pedantic, I think that it is highly unlikely that anyone will discuss reopening in Northern Ireland and thu s the thread should refer to GB not Uk.

 

[Dr Day]

Given current railway finances (revenue v operating costs, including infrastructure) I’m still surprised any new lines are being actively considered as this means further subsidies. Ok, there are more than financial considerations in a business case and local authorities may still be happy to pay if they have the revenue budgets but can’t see central government committing to more ongoing funding for operating new lines when existing services are being cut back.

 

[Magdalia]

This should be a very popular policy on here as it appeals to the kind of people who see reopening an old line as a goal in itself, rather than as a potential tool to solve a particular problem with

Yes, the first question is what is the problem to be solved, then whether heavy rail is a sensible answer to it. Reopening old lines can never be a goal in itself.

I think that the problems needing to be solved fall into two very different categories. One is economic regeneration for "left behind" places, the other is where economic success is being constrained by inadequate transport infrastructure. Northumberland is an example of the former, Cambridge is an example of the latter.

There is a limit to what you can do in a small country with a dense population that values the countryside

And this is where reusing old railway lines has a huge advantage over other new transport infrastructure, built on "green" land. People who would be very NIMBY about something completely new, driven across open fields and changing the view, are much less resistant to utilising existing trackbed that is already part of the landscape. Dartmoor is a good example: reopening the old line via Tavistock is broadly accepted as a good idea, but building a new alignment would be a definite no.

An annual budget for re-openings, with selection every 5 years (to align with NR control periods and the electoral cycle). Once a project has been selected it will effectively have to be done

This is an interesting idea worthy of further exploration, though the budget would need to be much more certain than annual. Something similar was done, for smaller scale projects, with the recently announced levelling up grant awards. It would be more important to be aligned with the Network Rail funding cycle than with the political cycle. It might need two separate categories as set out above. Network Rail might see better value in other projects that did not involve any reopenings, but, from a political perspective, it could be appealing.

 

[zwk500]

And this is where reusing old railway lines has a huge advantage over other new transport infrastructure, built on "green" land. People who would be very NIMBY about something completely new, driven across open fields and changing the view, are much less resistant to utilising existing trackbed that is already part of the landscape. Dartmoor is a good example: reopening the old line via Tavistock is broadly accepted as a good idea, but building a new alignment would be a definite no.

Only in certain circles...

Old alignments are arguably the most detrimental thing as they conjure false hope of an 'easy' reopening and yet people ignore the very reasons they closed.

 

[Elecman]

Unless you're being extraordinarily pedantic, EWR between Calvert and the sidings near Bletchley.

EWR was never officially closed merely OOU for several decades!!

 

[zwk500]

EWR was never officially closed merely OOU for several decades!!

I knew there'd be one.

 

[Magdalia]

Old alignments are arguably the most detrimental thing as they conjure false hope of an 'easy' reopening and yet people ignore the very reasons they closed.

But the lines closed a long time ago and those reasons don't necessarily apply now. For example, 50-60 years ago, when most lines were closed, Cambridge was a sleepy University City with no rampant economic growth and no congestion - things are different now, yet other people ignore what has changed.

 

[zwk500]

But the lines closed a long time ago and those reasons don't necessarily apply now. For example, 50-60 years ago, when most lines were closed, Cambridge was a sleepy University City with no rampant economic growth and no congestion - things are different now!

Indeed, but equally other lines have gone the opposite direction.

 

[stuu]

Reopening old lines is obviously going to be a popular on a rail forum, but I think some people somewhat overestimate how much the general public care. It's a good soundbite for local MPs but there will be many things much higher on the agenda when it comes to election time.

Rail investment should be focused on the strengths of railways, long distance passenger and freight, and short-distance, high volume urban passengers. Not reopening bucolic branch lines for the sake of it, which cost a fortune and achieve sod all

 

[AzureOtsu]

Has there ever been a route completely closed with rails lifted and then reopened in England, like the Borders railway in Scotland?

I'd suggest HS2 using the GCML

 

[yoyothehobo]

I'd suggest HS2 using the GCML

I would argue against that on the basis that it doesnt really

 

[Brubulus]

But the lines closed a long time ago and those reasons don't necessarily apply now. For example, 50-60 years ago, when most lines were closed, Cambridge was a sleepy University City with no rampant economic growth and no congestion - things are different now, yet other people ignore what has changed.

Regarding East Anglia, I have given an analysis of possible there are a couple viable reopenings but not many. Generally it would not be more than around 5 lines per region that are viable so could be a 20 year programme with annual funding in the region of £150million. Very high but still less than a tenth of HS2 or crossrails annual budgets, for far better political effects and significant localised economic improvements.

Looking at Haverhill-Cambridge, the route could easily justify a railway along the previous alignment. Given that it the 4 tracking on the cambridge end as part og EWR will unlock capacity there and there are major employment sites along the line (Granta Park/Babraham research Park and these can provide funding along with the economic benefits for Haverhill (28,000 pop, 10+ miles currently from nearest station by road) along with the line providing a link to the surrounding area. Wisbech-March is definitely more marginal given the number of level crossings and distance from Cambridge/Ely bottleneck so if it were to reopen, it would be light rail. Extending the MNR to Fakenham along with integrating the line into NR would be a great idea too given the existing infrastructure and providing a useful link to much of North Norfolk. Hunstanton-Kings Lynn, the line has been breached a huge number of times and the route is very seasonal, so unlikely to be viable. Braintree - Stansted is a good idea but the cost of double tracking the airport tunnel would make it unviable unless it could be done without that.