Great Western Coffee Shop

From The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4215586/New-no-frills-trains-open-little-used-lines.html)


I have started a list:

Afon Wen to Bangor
Appledore to New Romney
Barnstaple to Bideford
Bedford to Cambridge via Sandy
Bere Alston to Okehampton
Bicester to Bletchley
Bodmin to Padstow
Boston to Spalding
Bourne End to High Wycombe
Brockenhurst to Ringwood
Cambridge to Huntingdon via St Ives
Carlisle to Tweedbank
Carmarthen to Aberystwyth
Chippenham to Calne
Cleethorpes to Firsby junction via Louth
Colne to Skipton
Craven Arms to Bishop's Castle
Devizes to Bradford-on-Avon via Holt
Eridge to Tunbridge Wells Central
Fleetwood to Poulton-le-Fylde
Gobowen to Oswestry
Guildford to Christ's Hospital West Horsham
Harrogate to Northallerton vid Ripon
Havant to Hayline Island
Hull to York via Market Weighton
Keswick to Cockermouth
Kidderminster to Ironbridge
LlanfairPG to Amwlch
Lowestoft to Great Yarmouth
Maesteg to Treherbert
March to Wisbech
Matlock to Buxton
Newcastle to Ashington
Portishead to Parson Street
Radstock to Frome
Redcar to Whitby
Robertsbridge to Bodiam
Rochdale to Bolton
Ruabon to Llangollen
Scarborough to Whitby
Seaton Junction to Seaton
Shanklin to Ventnor
Southport to Preston
Spalding to March
Stoke on Trent to Leek
Totton to Fawley
Uckfield to Lewes
Wareham to Swanage
Wymondham to Wells-next-the-Sea via Dereham
Yatton to Clevedon

But that's only 50 lines ... and if 5,000 miles are to re-open there will need to be a lot more - for they're much less than 100 miles long each.  Have I forgotten any obvious lines?  Can you spot the one or two sillies I have put in there to make reading it a bit of fun?

Portishead to Parson Street ... isn't that already being (albeit very slowly) reopened?  ::)

Indeed so. The "no frills" trains referred to are the Very Light Trains being developed by Warwick University - see  their website for the project (https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/wmg/research/hvmcatapult/research/rail/vlr/).

The trains could be smaller than a bus, with a maximum speed of 50 to 70 mph, and are intended for threatened or reopened branch lines. I am surprised to see Portishead in the list - not only will demand be very high, but the MetroWest Rail project envisages services from Portishead to Severn Beach and Bath. Both involve substantial mainline running, especially Bath.

In which case, I really do look forward to seeing some of those Very Light Trains running along the branch line between Yatton and Clevedon.  :-X

Craven Arms to Bishop's Castle was a basket case from opening and closed long before the Good Doctor came along.

My suggestions Longer restorations from your list

Brockenhurst to Ringwood onto Hamworthy and Poole also serves Wimbourne
Gobowen  to Oswestry onto Welshpool
Keswick to Cockermouth onto Whitehaven
Kidderminster to Ironbridge onto Shrewsbury
Stoke on Trent to Leek onto Uttoxeter/Macclesfield

Further Lines to Restore

Aberbeeg to Brynmawr
Arlesford to Winchester
Bishops Auckland to Penrith via Stainmoor
Brownhills to Walsall
Chepstow to Hereford via Monmouth and Ross on Wye
Christs Hospital to Shoreham via Steyning
Corwen to Barmouth
Dumfries to Stranra
Gloucester to Hereford via Ross on Wye
High Marnham to Lincoln
Kings Sutton to Cheltenham
Kings Norton to Washwood Heath in connection with a new Moor Street off this line.
Macclesfield to Rose Hill
M&GN
MSWJ
Newquay to Truro
Pickering to Malton
Pontypool Road Neath with connections to the valley lines.
Pontypool Road to Neath with connections to the Valley Lines
Penarth to Cadaxton
S&D
Stratford  to Cheltenham

Freight to passenger

Burton on Trent to Leicester
Shirebrook to High Marnham Lincoln
Shireoaks to Doncaster
Whichnor Junction to Brownhills

Restoration of through route

Ormskirk
Kirby?

New Line

Abergavenny to Brecon via the Usk Valley possibly onto Neath over existing alignment.

With the exception of Brynmawr and possibly Brecon all the proposals connect with existing lines at both ends. Thus providing an alternative route and allowing trains to originate and  terminate on other lines.

There is also the possibility of putting in spurs to connect to lines which meet but don't have a junction. Like the rationalisation  of Leeds and Lincoln.

That was the one that was added to see if someone would spot it.  Except that if Bishop's Castle has developed into or might into a major urban area (Archbishop's City?) the case could be there.  We should learn from history but not be governed totally by it!


All make common sense


There are some there which I really wonder about - restoring lines though sparsely inhabited areas which may provider shorter routes for what are quote obscure journeys, or duplicating existing provision.  Some duplication is desirable - one rail route to Plymouth is a very thin and shaky connection, for example, and in my view the strengthening of that into a second connection is more important that reducing journey time to Paddington to 180 minutes.


Some very good cases there.   Also one or to more "preserved" to "daily including commuters"


Yes and no.  You have routes which have a midpoint at which the traffic switches from being a major flow into something far less, and I really wonder if you want 'very light rail' sharing with frequent 6 car plus electrics.


Don't know it enough to comment


A common sense element, whilst at the same time being careful to avoid providing a line that's really healthy at one end, and a basket case at the other which pulled the whole thing down.


Provided you have services and flows, yes.


It was my list to start looking at what "5000 miles" could mean, and recent experience suggests to me that even the most unlikely cases has the distinct possibility of generating rather more traffic for something that's "smaller than a bus"  and runs - I presume - not very often using a single line.   In fact a huge concern must be the capital cost of setting up even very light rail and of maintaining it ... to some extent the concern is the cost per passenger, and to some extent the concern is a desire to over engineer and over complicate to the extent that something ceases to be viable.

Others I had, tongue in cheek in some cases, not yet mentioned included

Acton Town to South Acton
Alnmouth to Alnwick
Bristol to Radstock via Pensford
Bury to Backup
Dunton Green to Westerham
Fareham to Gosport
Halwill to Bude
Holborn Kingsway to Aldwych
Hull to Hornsea
Hull to Withernsea
Leuchars Junction to St Andrews
Lostwithiel to Fowey
Markinch to Leven
Merthyr Tydvyl to Brecon
Quainton Road to Leicester via Rugby
Skelmersdale to Somewhere
St Austell to Goonbarrow
Stanley to Forfar
Swindon to Cricklade (actually part of M&SWJ)
Thornbury to Yate
Walsall to Stourbridge via Dudley Port

And we're probably between us approaching the 5,000 miles - that's 100 lines of 50 miles average. And, yes, some of my latter list could also be extended to the junction at the far end.

My posts are "blue sky thinking" ... not what I expect to see, not a campaign base, but looking to work out what 5,000 more miles might mean.  I wasn't clear from the article if it was looking at re-opened route miles or track mies on re-opened routes, but as most would be single track, there's only going to be 10% difference.

From The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-frills-mini-trains-offer-route-to-reopening-lines-that-beeching-shut-qtcwpbrzh)


Pictured with the article - a streamline (not gangwayed) single carriage train marked "University" with a traditional wayside signal box in the background, gas lights on the platform, and a beautiful flowers cape of daffodils. Not sure that's a scene I would expect to see except perhaps where such trains are running on heritage lines outside heritage hours.

I can't disagree that reducing overheads would make it easier to maintain low passenger number lines, but reading the article carefully it does not suggest that rail chiefs are suggesting it could lead to re-openings; the paragraphs are separated.

Map with the article suggests:
Thornton to Leven
Newcastle to Ashington
Burton to Leicester
Portishead to Bristol
Bere Alston to Tavistock
Carmarthen to Aberystwyth
March to Wisbech
and "Lightweight trains may be tested by Northern Rail"

Unless running at a tram-like frequency of every 8 minutes or so, I don't see single carriage trains providing the capacity from Portishead into Bristol that could be anticipated on that flow ...

Picture turns out to be Crowcombe Heathfield, which would be logical for a lightweight train operation - say 07:15, 09:15, 16:45 and 18:45 from Minehaed and and 08:05, 15:35, 17:35 and 19:35 from Taunton, with additional late morning and early afternoon round trips on days when the line's not in use for heritage train rides (the lightweight unit providing a shuttle from Taunton to Bishop's Lydeard on those days).

You've missed Kemble to Cirencester. Although very short, it is local and has been discussed here in the past.

Newton Abbot to Heathfield/Bovey Tracey?

I suspect the problem there, and with many other proposed reopenings, is that the cost of recovering the trackbed and reinstating the rails is so vast that issues of rolling stock are pretty minor in comparison. It would cost millions to rebuild Carmarthen to Aber as a cycle track, never mind as a light railway.

But I can see this idea working on short lines, particularly if they can be operated as "one engine in steam" or with some form of in-cab signalling. As soon as a reopened line requires interface with the national network then the costs will spiral. But something like Kemble to Cirencester, or Caernarfon to Bangor, could be run as a self-contained operation with lightweight trains.

There's probably still room to add them within the 5,000 miles.  But overall the whole thing should be planned as a network in the very unlikely event of a plan to actually go ahead and add 5,000 miles (with all the infrastructure and ongoing maintenance costs) rather than just talk about it.

I suspect Heathfield would be a branch to nowhere and ending up close to the A38 would be at a disadvantage with regard to its traffic to and from Exeter and Plymouth.  Of course, it might work wonders if ...
a) extended to Mortonhampstead or round the back to Exeter
b) Providing a park and ride with a through service to Kingswear (for Dartmouth)
c) A place on the line became one a new town / city / village under Andrew Adonis's plans

Cirencester a good call - except that there's also a M&SWJ call in and I don't think Cirencester would justify two lines.   If a Swindon, Blunsdon, Cricklade, Cirencester shuttle was running - much more expensive to set up but a lot more people / places served, then the line from Kemble would be hard to justify.

An open freight route, AIUI services will be fairly regular once the present conversion of Lynemouth power station to biomass is complete.  In fact Ashington's platforms are just about still in place.   

Hence the continuing local reopening demands even before this latest suggestion.  The difficulty for me is that the section from Benton Jn to Newcastle Central just gets busier and busier with ECML, XC and planned TPE and First open access, seems to me normal mainline standard trains and speeds would undoubtedly be required.

Paul

Not only on my list but on the article's very much shorter list too.    There's a lot of high level thinking going on without individual detail;  I suppose the light rail system from Ashington could turf out and turn around at Backworth of Benton - on indeed be a continuation of the Tyne and Wear Metro which to some extent is light rail (not my area of the UK, so making educated guesses!)

Allowing for the accumulated knowledge of this group, there are a few on Grahame's original list that would be more difficult than others. Havant to Hayling where I mis-spent my youth, would no doubt have the same issue that closed it. The bridge which was too expensive to replace and no only exists as row of stumps. In other cases it would no doubt to be dependent on the current state of the old track-bed, Guildford to Horsham (Christ's Hospital) where a tunnel has been fill with council waste, with the other half of the line (to Shoreham) it could be useful but it would need to be capable of running through whereas the previous layout was two separate lines that would have required reversing at Christ's Hospital. I presume the difficulty in a lot of cases would be where the track-bed has been sold off.

To some extent yes ... except ...

I'm minded that modern trains and tram-trains are a lot more versatile and powerful (so can take sharper corners and gradients) - noting in Oldham, for example, where the old tunnel that the trains used to go though has been replaced by a section of street running - steeper, sharper and serving more useful places.  (I'm assuming that's open by now - haven't been up there in a while!).   So the Hayling Billy, Mk 2, could share the road bridge; no need for engineering straightness and gradients for loose coupled trains with a puny locomotive on the front.

On the other hand, 60 years of no maintenance on cuttings and embankments would likely need a lot of remedial work or rebuilding.

Indeed we have a lot of experts here - my original post and suggestions was to try to put some sort of "handle" onto what 5,000 miles actually would represent.  I think it's something like a 50% increase on current route mileage?

Maybe:

Hayline? That's not right (and yes, my spelling probably isn't correct in places too)...

However: That was then. It is long since I was last down there, but I believe the remaining (road) bridge gets rather congested these days, which would perhaps justify a rail reinstatement. Also, I seem to recall Network Rail's route study for the area highlighted congestion issues on the railway in Portsmouth, so perhaps bringing back either the Hayling or Gosport routes, with a ferry link (or perhaps a bridge in Hayling's case) to Portsmouth would help tackle wider issues?

A silly idea if you ask me; The old line from Bangor to Bryncir looks like it could be useful if reinstated, but only if you build a brand new, direct, route to Porthmadog south of Bryncir. Otherwise, only the Bangor to Caernarfon section makes sense to reopen, going to Afon Wen is too indirect to be competitive I feel. If you want 5,000 miles of line, you could include my 'HS-Y' proposal for Wales (a 90mph spine up from Brecon to Newtown with an hourly service, with every other train carrying on to Wrexham (via Oswestry) and the rest reversing for Bangor) as shown here, although the spine (in red) isn't plotted in detail (http://rhydtest.web44.net/maps/railWales.html). South of Brecon an EMU would take you over the mountain pass to Cardiff. It would need quite a bit of work to existing lines too, including some clever passing loops in the Dovey Junction area and some way of pathing the EMU service south of Merthyr. I'm thinking along the lines of 158s and 377s here though, a Parry-People-Mover style solution is not appropriate.

The big silly though is the very idea of a train smaller than a bus. By all means try to design a lighter, cheaper-to-run, train, perhaps with a relatively low maximum speed, for lines like the Heart Of Wales (they would still need to meet national rail crashworthness standards though). But I think even that route can fill a 153 at times; if your demand won't fill a bus you'll never justify the infrustructure costs; just use one of the slimline Optare Solos seen on Bwcabus and the Pembrokeshire Coast Path buses.

The Robin hood Line has set a precedent with opening up Annesley tunnul.

Whilst the Bluebell cleared a whole cutting filled with waste.

Hopefully there were lessons learnt from Chiltern's  Evergreen projects, the Cotswald line and Swindon Kemble redoubling as regards to unused sides of cuttings and embankments. Plus the recent the recent cutting and embankment collapses, Dover Folkstone, Harbury and S&C.  

Hopefully those lesson haven't been lost.

You would have thought that with modern knowledge of soil mechanics, stabilising methods and heavy plant that building a railway line would be relatively simple compared with a much wider motorway.  Even if the existing infrastructure needs attention.  

It's *Hayling* Island, isn't it?

Indeed it is open - this photo is from a couple of years back when I visited the town where I was born. You can just make out the yellow tram at the new Mumps stop.

(http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/Boyamijealous_7108a707/BananasResting_zps90e214ee.jpg)

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/hayling.jpg)

Totally agreed.

I suspect that the "rail chiefs" quoted in the article are more looking at these small pieces of rolling stock in essence as 153 replacements, and as units where they can get away with cheaper maintenance on lines where traffic is slim.    Looking through last year's passenger entrances and exits, I came up with 6 termini that had fewer that 50,000 ticketed journeys in the year to March 2016, and a further 6 with 50,000 to 100,000 ticketed journeys.

50,000 journeys per annum represents 80 passenger arrivals and 80 passenger departures per day, six days per week (and assumes no Sunday service).  With - say - six trains each way per day (arriving and departing) that's an average of 14 people per service.

Just as with "5000 new miles" though, care needs to be taken;  some of the termini are at the end of branches with sparse intermediate traffic and a single vehicle would surfice. Others are at the end of branches will heavy intermediate traffic with good loadings most of the way, and the terminus is just one part of the equation and not the whole story.

Edit to correct typo

Some of the national news articles resulting from this story have mentioned that the proposed stock could be used on the Northern Network that connects Manchester Leeds and Newcastle.   Thereby completely missing the point, that they are actually talking about random minor branches that are logically 'part of' the Northern TOC's geographic area.

(In fact Northern operate in the Newcastle area in isolation from further south, TPE and XC provide the long distance connections towards Leeds.)

Paul

Wouldn't want to visit those places, 72 passengers a day appear to go missing?

I have just corrected my typo in the original to make it read right.

There *are* some unbalanced flows around - I suspect more people arrive at the top station on the Great Orme than leave there - but this was a mistake on my part!

Technical point ............ Bourne End - High Wycombe was not identified in the Beeching Report for closure; it was closed in 1970 due to the cost of manning the 5 level crossings

Thanks for that, Electric train.  :)

Would it (theoretically) have been viable with automatic crossing barriers?

Difficult to say, I have always felt that if it had managed to survive for another 5 to 8 years it would still be here now.

Ripping up the guided bus between Cambridge and St Ives, which cost a metric lorryload of council cash, to re-instate the railway? How much of a climb-down/about-face would that be?
In practical terms, that line would never have been a contender for modern re-opening anyway, because of the number of level crossings.  The guided buses just become 'unguided' for a few metres when they cross these roads.

There aren't very many road crossings, and they could have been re-engineered to bridges with little additional cost.

This was one of the most overpriced projects that didn't end up with an electric railway, coming in at three times the original price, £180 million. Sadly, the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership (LEPERS) continue to cite Cambridgeshire's already crumbling and accident prone busway as the exemplar for MetroBust, despite the only similarities being lateness and over-estimate costing.

If they rip it up and relay the railway as trams (it happened in Edinburgh) it could be hailed as a success with very little spin.

One of the multitude of issues I didn't address when looking at 5,000 miles returned to rail at the 'top' of this thread was how we could/would get there from where we are today.

There's a further section of the guided busway to the new Cambridge North Station still to be opened - it's been some considerable time in the building (feels like that anyway - I have passed it so many times) and technology has already moved on for that section.   They've been able to reduce costs by dispensing with the vertical concrete sections along the length, and now haw a flat surface with a demarcation between the two directional section indicated purely by a broken white line painted on the surface (a.k.a. a road).    If the will was there, it might seem to be a route forward to lay guide rails within the surface where future extensions take place, and as the "already crumbling" infrastructure becomes life expired and needs to be replaced.

Umm I think there was a bi of the Edinburgh tram system that was to be build on closed railway, but I think that was the bit that never got built!  The bit that was built was either on street or on a new corridor. 

Sorry - another late nighter. I meant bus rabid transit. Part of Edinburgh's BRT route was used in the tramway.

Who knows what might be possible in the post-Brexit, post-truth world? With all the cash we save by ceasing to be a partner in the largest market in the world, we could probably afford to reopen all these lines and more. Or we could just say we'd done it, and who'd know we were lying?

You make I larf!  ;D

Yes, in Post-Briexit world we are opening and building huge railway lines - including the following

Slough to Heathrow Airport
Cambridge to Bedford via Sandy and Reading via Oxford
Crossrail
Crossrail 2 North London to South West London and Surry/Berkshire via Clapham Junction
Bakerloo Line to Hayes, Kent from Elephant and Castle
Thameslink 2000 now called Thameslink Project London St Pancras to Cambridge via a new tunnel which was live in 2015
and has not been opened until now and Finsbury Park
DLR Extension to Plumstead and Thamesmead
Barking to Barking Riverside
Electrification between Gospel Oak and Barking in London
London Northern Line Extension to Battersea Power Station
The rerouting of the Metropolitan Line to Watford Junction in Watford
HS2
HS3 Crossrail across the North of England

New old line that could open again is

Creigiau to Cardiff Central via Pentyrch, Llantrisant, Talbot Green and Cardiff Queen Street

Welcome to the forum, Josh Welby.  Your point that a lot of projects are on the books or proposal list is well made. Looking beyond the south east (where most of your listed projects are located) you also have electrification from London to Swansea Cardiff, Oxford Didcot and Bristol Thingley ... which is so much of a topic on this forum.

All of those projects were conceived long before the vote to leave let alone the actual date of Brexit. Some (eg Thameslink) will even be completed before Brexit.  And others are in a very early state of thinking and may not even happen. So it's a bit misleading to imply that they are the result of Brexit. The acid test will be whether or not they happen and how much Brexit influences the amount of funding available for them.

The comment about the tunnel to link Thameslink with the ECML is also misleading as it was always the plan to fit it out at an early stage of the Thameslink programme but it was never expected to be in service prior to Dec 18. The tunnel itself was constructed several years earlier again in anticipation of Thameslink.

I noticed the following on the DfT web site https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/595431/cambrian-railway-decision-letter.pdf. It seems that ORR believes that there should be no new (or reinstated) level crossings. Is this likely to affect any of the possible re-openings in the original list? It would seem to raise the financial difficulties considerably, especially for heritage railways. The replacement bridge for the Ufton Nervet crossing is reported to have cost £7m.

Having just read the letter, I would take a different view of what ORR said.  They were indeed opposed to the reinstatement of the level crossings on the A5 and A483 trunk roads.


Now I know the A5 and the A483 I agree these level crossings would no work on today's traffic. Indeed it seems Cambrian had already worked that ot for themselves. But the decision on the others it seems is still up for grabs.  The fact that ORR did not object to these at this stage suggests their mind is not completely closed and they would consider others on a case by case basis. 

Carmarthen-Aberystwyth would need a level crossing just outside Aberystwyth station as far as I can see, unless you significantly increased the length of the new tunnel you would need at the Aberystwyth.

Witney to Oxford  (Yarnton) to take pressure off the awful A40

It's affected the location of Portishead station and the crossing at Ashton Gate is potentially going to have to be taken out.

In the post-Briexit world, we will be in desperate need of a reopened line to Cheddar.
 ;D
^cheesy grin

I think the chances of that reduced significantly following the vote, but I don't think that is anything to do with the EU or being out of it!

Welcome indeed! Liking the list - but no HS4?

Robertsbridge to Bodiam was one of those odd ones I posted - a difficult line to see as a part of the daily network. Yet as a heritage line - could it make sense?

From The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5719665/Families-accuse-steam-railway-trying-grab-farm-land-7million-project.html) again


To make it clear ... the Kent and East Sussex railway is looking to restore its historic link along the old trackbed that was in use until 1961.

I may be getting confused here: am I right in thinking that one of the objectors is Amber Grob, formerly Minister for Undrinkable Coffee?

I think that's Parracombe on the Lynton and Barnstaple - though of course people who find themselves in this situation may look to other who have "been there" for advise and support. 

Robertsbridge to Bodiam - discussion continues at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=19800.0 - please follow up there!

That's Louise Grob, who lives in the house where Laura Dune was written by Frank Herbert as the fourth part of the trilogy.

Laura Dune? Didn't she play Lula in Wild at Heart?

This whole world's wild at heart and weird on top!

Literature wasn't my strong suit at school, and I don't watch that sort of film, thank you.  ;D

Now, now ... you're being naughty. In 2005, the Daily Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/3342564/Pioneers-who-blazed-a-trail-to-the-West.html) wrote


Their place was being offered for sale at £1.2 million at the time ... more recent activities suggest that no sale was made at that point, as Ms Grob continued to take very much of a local interest.

We're a bit off topic here ... not a Beeching closure.  General Manager Herbert Walker of the Southern Railway met the deputation who came up to London to protest the closure.  The story is that the deputation drove to London and that may have lost them their case.   To this day, Southern do not run any trains to Lynton; they seem to be struggling a bit on the Brighton line, so perhaps it's best left to a local operation.