What is an abandoned railway that would be very easy to reopen, but has had little or no progress made?

[Acc3lerat1on]

What is an abandoned/freight only railway line that would be very easy to reopen/have passenger service added back, but has had little or no progress made?
I can think of the Portishead branch. Only about 1/6 of it is actually abandoned, the rest is a daily-used freight line to Avonmouth docks.

 

[YorksLad12]

York to Wakefield/Huddersfield via Castleford? The line's there, it's used for excursions and TPE diversions but no timetabled passenger services. Platform 2 optional...

 

[farci]

Glasgow Crossrail has been talked about for years. It's based on the existing City Union line which could form part of a Glasgow Metro

Years of prevarication by the city council and Transport Scotland - but it could still happen

 

[Sweetjesus]

Bordesley Chords - would bring two new routes into Moor Street.

 

[The Planner]

Bordesley Chords - would bring two new routes into Moor Street.

Errr, they have never existed.

 

[Hardcastle]

Blyth & Ashington plus Burton on Trent to Leicester & Exeter to Okehampton spring to mind.

 

[Alex27]

The Cowley branch line in oxford

 

[SussexLad]

I think guildford to Horsham along the old route is mostly empty (I believe it was called the Cranleigh line). I think it is actually now a very long footpath.

As well as the obvious, it would have the advantage of connecting Horsham to reading, a long diversionary route to Portsmouth, a diversionary route for reading to Gatwick services and maybe a few others

 

[Brush 4]

You seem unaware that Portishead is re-opening, slowly. Exactly halfway there. Opening delayed by Covid.

Timescales - Portishead Railway Group

Portishead Railway Group - campaigning for the reopening of the Portishead to Bristol Railway.

www.portisheadrailwaygroup.org

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I think guildford to Horsham along the old route is mostly empty (I believe it was called the Cranleigh line). I think it is actually now a very long footpath.

As well as the obvious, it would have the advantage of connecting Horsham to reading, a long diversionary route to Portsmouth, a diversionary route for reading to Gatwick services and maybe a few others

I didn't realise Horsham to Guildford was still intact. It should be re-opened to facilitate a Gatwick service to Guildford, Woking and the line to Virginia Water. In normal, non Covid 19, times, it would be busy.

 

[SussexLad]

I didn't realise Horsham to Guildford was still intact. It should be re-opened to facilitate a Gatwick service to Guildford, Woking and the line to Virginia Water. In normal, non Covid 19, times, it would be busy.

Those routes could easily be achieved with an upgrade to the North downs line. But yes I agree is a missed opportunity.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Aberdare - Hirwaun is one that will probably happen now that the line is owned by TfW. Similarly the Taff Bargoed line is now in TfW ownership although I doubt that the population justifies the reintroduction of passenger services.

 

[The Planner]

Aberdare - Hirwaun is one that will probably happen now that the line is owned by TfW. Similarly the Taff Bargoed line is now in TfW ownership although I doubt that the population justifies the reintroduction of passenger services.

I could probably find some old timetable reports on Hirwaun gathering technological dust on a network drive somewhere, that is another one that has been doing the rounds for a decade and more.

 

[swt_passenger]

Blyth & Ashington plus Burton on Trent to Leicester & Exeter to Okehampton spring to mind.

Ashington and Blyth is hardly being ignored. It’s further along the development process than almost all other regular suggestions.

 

[Bald Rick]

I didn't realise Horsham to Guildford was still intact. It should be re-opened to facilitate a Gatwick service to Guildford, Woking and the line to Virginia Water. In normal, non Covid 19, times, it would be busy.

It’s not intact, far from it!

To answer the OP - define “easy”.

If easy means: no need for any planning consent, land purchase, or orders to move public highways or rights of way, and no issues in terms of fitting the services on the reopened line into the timetable, then the answer is:

None.

 

[Ploughman]

Does Crossrail qualify?

 

[30907]

I didn't realise Horsham to Guildford was still intact. It should be re-opened to facilitate a Gatwick service to Guildford, Woking and the line to Virginia Water. In normal, non Covid 19, times, it would be busy.

It isn't, in the sense I think the OP meant: the trackbed is mostly traceable, though, and IIRC there have been suggestions for reopening Cranleigh-Guildford, the major issue would be platforming the trains at Guildford (pathing down to Peasmarsh Jn would merely be a challenge!).

 

[Whistler40145]

Walsall to Lichfield City via Brownhills, plus Bescot to Stourbridge Junction, mainly for freight

 

[The Planner]

Walsall to Lichfield City via Brownhills, plus Bescot to Stourbridge Junction, mainly for freight

What is easy about either of those? the first has no infrastructure at all left south of Brownhills. Bescot to Stourbridge would effectively be a new railway too.

 

[SussexLad]

It isn't, in the sense I think the OP meant: the trackbed is mostly traceable, though, and IIRC there have been suggestions for reopening Cranleigh-Guildford, the major issue would be platforming the trains at Guildford (pathing down to Peasmarsh Jn would merely be a challenge!).

Yes I was talking about the route not being built on. In terms of land ownership I believe it is all owned by a couple councils so probably not many challenges their. In terms of platforming at Guildford, you're right it is probably the hardest thing. However given the reasonably cheap cost of opening the line to Cranleigh (ref the ATOC report and various other studies). It would be perfectly reasonable to expand the scope of the project to include another platform and maybe a track (I am thinking move platform 7 & 8 into the car park so platform 6 & 7 has two tracks in-between them)

 

[Railwaysceptic]

It isn't, in the sense I think the OP meant: the trackbed is mostly traceable, though, and IIRC there have been suggestions for reopening Cranleigh-Guildford, the major issue would be platforming the trains at Guildford (pathing down to Peasmarsh Jn would merely be a challenge!).

Thanks for that. How much of the formation has been lost through new use or new buildings?

 

[SussexLad]

Thanks for that. How much of the formation has been lost through new use or new buildings?

Virtually none of it has been built on. The track bed was made into a footpath that is it.

 

[Harpers Tate]

There has been talk of resurrecting Shirebrook <> Ollerton; track intact and usable, but largely disused. I make no comment on the need nor desirability of this.

 

[Thebaz]

If the OP means track and signalling all exist and are in a usable state, and there would be no problems with platforming at either end... then I'm not sure what's really stopping the reinstatement of a regular daily service between Exeter and Okehampton. Apart from funding (I think Devon CC were funding the Summer Sunday trains) and COVID.

Also we have the Waterside line (Totton-Fawley refinery), and there appears to be a strong chance that this is actually going happen anyway.

Going to the other extreme of somewhere there is extant trackbed and nothing else, then Uckfield-Lewes probably. It's only 6 miles and Network Rail themselves said it was be a case of straightforward engineering when they did the study in 2008. The major issue would be what to do at Uckfield town centre if the presumption against construction of any more level crossings is to be adhered by.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The Horbury curve: trackbed intact, still under railway ownership, would allow a much-improved journey time between Huddersfield and Barnsley, Meadowhall and Sheffield. Also would be useful for freight (particularly cement traffic from Dewsbury), and the regular overnight diversions of South TPE services by avoiding the reversal at Wakefield Kirkgate.

 

[SussexLad]

If the OP means track and signalling all exist and are in a usable state, and there would be no problems with platforming at either end... then I'm not sure what's really stopping the reinstatement of a regular daily service between Exeter and Okehampton. Apart from funding (I think Devon CC were funding the Summer Sunday trains) and COVID.

Also we have the Waterside line (Totton-Fawley refinery), and there appears to be a strong chance that this is actually going happen anyway.

Going to the other extreme of somewhere there is extant trackbed and nothing else, then Uckfield-Lewes probably. It's only 6 miles and Network Rail themselves said it was be a case of straightforward engineering when they did the study in 2008. The major issue would be what to do at Uckfield town centre if the presumption against construction of any more level crossings is to be adhered by.

Brighton mainline two?

I digress. I agree it should probably be reinstated. At the very least to make Uckfield more connected to the rest of sussex. Currently a major pain to get to from near enough anywhere. I dont think you really need to use it to relieve the brighton mainline unless their is serious disruption. I do think it would be useful for Lewis passengers to get to more places and have more choice of what time train they want to get to london. So maybe useful for lewis to london service.

I know studies have been done on this but the last one was 2008 I believe. So hopefully once usage numbers return to normal and the green agenda kicks in the cost to benefit ratio of the relatively cheap project could get the green light.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Can someone provide a link to a reasonably recent document explaining how Uckfield-Lewes would be a "straightforward" proposition? From my own relatively superficial exploration of the area there seem to be several gaps/obstructions/level crossings towards the ends and in the middle?

 

[zwk500]

Can someone provide a link to a reasonably recent document explaining how Uckfield-Lewes would be a "straightforward" proposition? From my own relatively superficial exploration of the area there seem to be several gaps/obstructions/level crossings towards the ends and in the middle?

All the documents relating to the study are here: https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/roadsandtransport/roads/roadschemes/rail/

The trackbed is either a farm track, bridleway or railway for most of the length between the Uckfield Bypass and the former Hamsey junction. But the Lavender line is an important tourist asset, and Barcombe mills station is a private dwelling which has filled in the trackbed between the platforms. At Uckfield the trackbed is obstructed by the Bypass, and partially by a sewage farm and industrial estate. At Lewes the original route through the town is almost totally obliterated, so NR proposed using the original alignment via Hamsey, which is intact (but involves 2 level crossings or a realignment). This means a reversal beyond Lewes is necessary to reach Brighton. There's also the small matter of Isfield level crossing, which not only would cut the village off from the main road every time it closed but is very close to a T-Junction so risk mitigation would be very high (if allowed at all).
Not insurmountable obstacles, but not exactly a 'ready to go' project.

BML2, while a worthy suggestion, hinges on a 1.5 mile tunnel through chalk downland in the middle of a National Park. I imagine there have already been several threads on this forum about potential Lewes-Uckfield and 2nd Brighton-London connections so won't go off on one here.

@SussexLad, give your username you really should be spelling Lewes correctly!

 

[IanD]

Wolverton to Newport Pagnell

 

[zwk500]

Wolverton to Newport Pagnell

It'd be good to see this back as a tram, to enable it to properly serve both town centers and connect to central MK without needing to change to mainline trains or buses. Would also give more options for keeping the footpath that currently runs along the trackbed.