|
Title: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: grahame on July 30, 2020, 21:11:06 One wonders whether, if the current "Reversing Beeching" movement continues to progress, and the associated government policies and local/regional aspirations and proposals to expand the national rail network progress with it, there might come a time where the likes of the West Somerset Railway, Bodmin & Wenford, Isle of Wight Steam Railway etc might end up being nationalised to smooth the way, with perhaps the odd "Steam Special" thrown in as a sop to their heritage past? I for one would LIKE to see the present WSR to become a part of the national network with a year round service of through trains to other parts of the national network. I appreciate that this may be a minority view, but we should remember that the ORIGINAL PURPOSE of the WSR was to run a year round service, similar to that run by BR before closure. I would hope that a heritage operation could co-exist. Similar arguments no doubt apply to other heritage lines, but I am more familiar with the WSR. Quoting (above) from the WSR thread ... Here are two dozen line end towns - 12 of them Network Rail / National Network, 12 of them heritage lines with main line connections (a couple of which stop slightly short of the towns named at present). The numbers are very, very rough population measures in thousands - and I'm aware just how misleading that number can be, and that some lines have intermediate traffic which dwarfs the terminus, other have wide catchments. Starting at the top of the list ... wouldn't it be good to see most of these with all year, all day services running through onto the national network or at very least connecting at the junction station 363 days a year, and with through ticketing and data available on journey planners? 44 Wallingford 34 Exmouth 26 Newport IOW 23 Seaford 22 Newquay 21 Falmouth 20 Hythe 20 Barnstaple 15 Lymington 13 Bodmin 12 Swanage 12 St Ives 12 Minehead 11 Shepton Mallett 7 Kingswear 7 Cowley 6 Okehampton 6 Looe 6 Chinnor 6 Alresford 4 Buckfastleigh 3 Severn Beach 3 Gunnislake 2 Parkend I would suspect that your view, Broadgage, is a majority one. However, the majority of people who are active in supporting rail in areas where there's a heritage operation are keen to protect it, and worried about the changes national network passenger trains sharing will bring ... Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: CyclingSid on July 31, 2020, 06:52:23 In the case of places like Alresford (birth place of John Arlott?) surely the logic would be to extend the line to its former extent, in this case to its junction with the Basingstoke to Winchester line.
Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: grahame on July 31, 2020, 08:22:29 In the case of places like Alresford (birth place of John Arlott?) surely the logic would be to extend the line to its former extent, in this case to its junction with the Basingstoke to Winchester line. It might be ... though I have tried to avoid newly rebuilt lines in my list. There are two where an extension of the heritage line would be part of the plan - an extra 1km or so from Mendip Vale to (?) the outskirts of Shepton Mallett, and rather longer the extension on the Isle of Wight from Wootton to Newport which I allowed myself as it has an element of DfT support via study funding, and it reaches one of the larger places on the list which is also an area's administration centre. (http://www.wellho.net/pix/20200731_shep.jpg) (http://www.wellho.net/pix/20200731_nptiow.jpg) Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Red Squirrel on July 31, 2020, 10:09:40 In the case of places like Alresford (birth place of John Arlott?) surely the logic would be to extend the line to its former extent, in this case to its junction with the Basingstoke to Winchester line. Sadly that logic is not shared by the local planning authority or the Mid-Hants Railway. But the obstacles wouldn't prove insurmountable if there was a will to do it! Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: johnneyw on July 31, 2020, 12:07:07 You could, sort of, add three more to Grahame's list as they are growing towns at the end of existing lines in a mixture of frieght and early heritage/local service status:
Yate to Thornbury Newton Abbot to Bovey Tracey Berkeley Road to Sharpness. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: grahame on July 31, 2020, 13:00:40 You could, sort of, add three more to Grahame's list as they are growing towns at the end of existing lines in a mixture of frieght and early heritage/local service status: Yate to Thornbury Newton Abbot to Bovey Tracey Berkeley Road to Sharpness. Keep going ... Fowey ... Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: johnneyw on July 31, 2020, 20:33:44 Yes, I suppose it's easy to casually drift off into all sorts of candidates, Totnes Buckfastliegh and so on, all the way down to Weymouth -Weymouth Harbour if I was nitpicking.....but I'm well into silly territory now! 🙄
Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: grahame on July 31, 2020, 20:46:54 Yes, I suppose it's easy to casually drift off into all sorts of candidates, Totnes Buckfastliegh and so on, all the way down to Weymouth -Weymouth Harbour if I was nitpicking.....but I'm well into silly territory now! 🙄 I had decided not to include those two in my dozen heritage and dozen other ... slightly illogical with Buckfastleigh as I included Parkend. Could add Poole Harbour and Bournemouth West, but perhaps they are too close to Poole and Bournemouth "Central". Now - about Mayflower, Southampton ... Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Electric train on August 01, 2020, 09:11:33 There needs to be a viable business case to make these off the ground.
The revenue to operate and maintain has to be in place; if the business case is based on ticket revenue alone they are likely to fail therefore long term subsidy would need to be in place. But I hear some shout but heritage railways manage on revenue, this is not strictly true mush of their operating and maintenance costs is gifted time by volunteers and posibly a small team of full / part time staff, which sustains the small operating season most have, also their operating day is quite short. Heritage railways also have access to charitable trusts and lottery funds where a commercial operation would not have such access. If a heritage railway has to close its operations for a period of time due to an engineering issue etc, whilst this is disappointing for the customers and frustrating for the volunteers its not critical to the customers so an alternative bus service is not needed. The current fright only lines maintained in most part by NR could be brought back into operation again the revenue needs to be in place, the cost to NR of maintaining and operating a freight only line is far lower than a passenger line. Having said all of the above it is an area that needs to be explored but lets ensure its sustainable Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Red Squirrel on August 01, 2020, 16:57:40 ...There needs to be a viable business case to make these off the ground... But how do you decide what's 'viable', and what's a 'business case'? I've heard some slightly unsettling stories where reopening projects, which we might have imagined to be done and dusted, have been called into question because their BCR is based on pre-Covid-19 loading and growth estimates. As others more cynical than I have suggested, the reality seems to be that first you decide to do it, then you ask some consultants to tell you that there is a business case. Being businesses themselves, they'll understand that they are more likely to get repeat work if they give you the answer you want. I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect that the nineteenth-century railway builders didn't conduct any such analyses; they were speculators who built lines and hoped they'd do well. Most did, many didn't. They were trying to make money by improving business connectivity and property values; today the objective is to rebalance the economy and shift people from more-damaging and exclusive to less-damaging and inclusive modes of transport. Put in this context, the BCR model seems rather outmoded. We need to find a new way to sell the bleedin' obvious! Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: eXPassenger on August 01, 2020, 18:10:37 Put in this context, the BCR model seems rather outmoded. We need to find a new way to sell the bleedin' obvious! Although these things appear 'bleedin obvious' to the enthusiasts there has to be some way of allocating the limited resources (capital and revenue support) to the projects that will derive the greatest community benefit. BCR does this and the issue is the weighting applied to less tangible benefits such as pollution, community transport, time saving. Issues around this weighting will continue even if BCR is replaced by another method or ranking a project's benefits. 19th century developers did estimate the costs and income from new tracks. They frequently got them both wrong and the railway either failed or was subsumed into a large railway with significant losses to the shareholders who had put up the initial capital. A recent example of that is the Channel Tunnel where costs exceeded estimates and revenue was down; the original shareholders were almost completely wiped out. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Robin Summerhill on August 01, 2020, 22:11:38 exPassenger has covered most of the points I would make in reply, so I will confine my comments to this:
As others more cynical than I have suggested, the reality seems to be that first you decide to do it, then you ask some consultants to tell you that there is a business case. Being businesses themselves, they'll understand that they are more likely to get repeat work if they give you the answer you want. When consultants are employed their remit is to provide a second pair of eyes to look over a proposal, and to pick up any problems or pitfalls that may have been missed by the exuberant proposers of any scheme. Their job is not to be “yes men” – indeed quite the reverse, because if something goes wrong with a project that they should realistically have noticed beforehand, they will not stay in the consultancy business for long. There is a lot more potential new business out there than there is repeat business, and glossing over a bad proposal that then goes belly up is a good way of making sure that nobody in the sector will employ them again. In addition, of course, no client is under any obligation to take their consultant’s advice. There is an old saying: “There’s a world of difference between healthy scepticism and paranoia” Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Umberleigh on August 02, 2020, 17:02:13 Is it correct to say that those reopening of passenger lines in Wales and Scotland that have been accomplished to date have gone on to far exceed their projected passenger numbers and revenue?
If this is correct, then this needs to be factored into decisions as it would appear projected figures for even successful projects are over cautious Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Robin Summerhill on August 02, 2020, 19:23:35 Is it correct to say that those reopening of passenger lines in Wales and Scotland that have been accomplished to date have gone on to far exceed their projected passenger numbers and revenue? If this is correct, then this needs to be factored into decisions as it would appear projected figures for even successful projects are over cautious It is not a given certainty that this will happen in all cases. The sorry saga of the Derby to Sinfin service is an example of loadings failing to reach expected levels, let alone exceed them, and the last I heard Aylesbury Vale Parkway was still not attracting its projected passenger numbers. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Red Squirrel on August 02, 2020, 20:59:01 Although these things appear 'bleedin obvious' to the enthusiasts... In this contect, 'enthusiast' could be taken as pajorative! Near where I live, there is a town of 25,000 people which is poorly served by road and sits at the end of an active freight line. Twenty years ago a feasibility study confirmed that a half-hourly passenger service was viable. Since then, a variety of professionals have drawn fat fees by confirming this. Funding has been found, lost and found again. And now there is a real danger that funding could be lost for good because we can't be sure of the long-term impact of Covid-19 on people's travel habits. This scheme is a perfect example of what I mean by "bleedin' obvious", and yet it may still fail. And if it does, it really doesn't look good for many of the others. When consultants are employed their remit is to provide a second pair of eyes to look over a proposal, and to pick up any problems or pitfalls that may have been missed by the exuberant proposers of any scheme. Their job is not to be “yes men” – indeed quite the reverse, because if something goes wrong with a project that they should realistically have noticed beforehand, they will not stay in the consultancy business for long. There is a lot more potential new business out there than there is repeat business, and glossing over a bad proposal that then goes belly up is a good way of making sure that nobody in the sector will employ them again. We may have to agree to differ on this. There may be some truth in what you say in the private sector, but in the public sector everything is political. Is it correct to say that those reopening of passenger lines in Wales and Scotland that have been accomplished to date have gone on to far exceed their projected passenger numbers and revenue? If this is correct, then this needs to be factored into decisions as it would appear projected figures for even successful projects are over cautious There was a debate on this topic here: http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=23778.msg291323#msg291323 Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: grahame on August 03, 2020, 11:33:33 Terrifyingly difficult to define "sustainable", "business case", "profitable" and other things in a common way. At one extreme, a heritage railway is a tourist attraction which must make a profit in its own right and relies on free labour to ensure that fare-box income exceeds operational and maintenance costs. At the other extreme, a branch line railway can be the only way to sustain the economy of a town, with each passenger journey costing far more to provide than the fare they pay, but without the service the town would become a sink and require so much more governmental funding, and the connecting mainline trains would have empty seats in place of passengers off the branch.
An example of that latter - one of the key managers from way back at Wessex Trains (that shows you how long ago it was) stated that "even the Exmouth branch does not make a profit". But it does make a huge difference to Exmouth, its economy and future. My ex and her partners retired recently to Exmouth - they're a few hundred metres from the station, and planning to be making use of the public transport they have. So not a profitable service and no business case from the fare box, but one that is required by the whole fabric and economy of the area. In the year I graduated from University, I enquired about many permanent jobs via the "Milk Round" and other contacts I already had. And with several dozen options, I scored each of them on factors such as career opportunity, likely salary, where they were based, whether I thought they would be fun, whether I thought they would be motivating, whether I believed in the company, whether I liked and believed the people who I met there, whether their approach was professional, whether I was interested in what they did. And not taking just the "what does it pay" v "what is the cost of living going to be" but all those other factors, I scored and tuned the scores. Different factors applied to different score elements came up with different results, but the process certainly helped me clear out all but a handful of finalists as "not best for me". Of course, lots of the companies also helped me clear out by telling me they weren't interested. With such diverse models on current operation, such a scoring system - far more complex that BCR and no doubt subject to passioned argument - would seem to be a tool to help sort out the wood from the trees - the "blindingly obvious" from the "dunno" and the "Who do you think you are kidding". Hopefully in would highlight risks such as a station being opened to serve a factory which then contracted to a much smaller unit or even closed, and the risks of opening a station in land that was due to be developed, but the development is put back a few years. And hopefully someone would get on and do the blindingly obvious! Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Robin Summerhill on August 03, 2020, 19:46:00 When consultants are employed their remit is to provide a second pair of eyes to look over a proposal, and to pick up any problems or pitfalls that may have been missed by the exuberant proposers of any scheme. Their job is not to be “yes men” – indeed quite the reverse, because if something goes wrong with a project that they should realistically have noticed beforehand, they will not stay in the consultancy business for long. There is a lot more potential new business out there than there is repeat business, and glossing over a bad proposal that then goes belly up is a good way of making sure that nobody in the sector will employ them again. We may have to agree to differ on this. There may be some truth in what you say in the private sector, but in the public sector everything is political. At the risk of boring everybody else rigid, this answer intrigues me. I have worked as a consultant for both the public and private sectors (admittedly in building repair and maintenance rather than railways) but one could say that politics with a big or small P comes into much of it. A consultant is likely to upset somebody; be it the trade unions when you tell management that other organisations manage with less staff; be it a maintenance and repair workforce who are told that they aren’t as cheap and efficient as they thought they were when compared to other similar organisations; or indeed the client themselves when you tell them that their big new idea won’t work and, more importantly, why it won't work. In the public sector politics with a large P comes into it as the opposition party probably opposes what the ruling party are doing anyway. So perhaps you can clarify with an example or two? What railway reopenings do you know of that have been derailed because “everything is political?” Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Electric train on August 03, 2020, 20:02:37 ...There needs to be a viable business case to make these off the ground... But how do you decide what's 'viable', and what's a 'business case'? That is and has always been the difficult question. Its how you judge viable because it provides a social need Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Red Squirrel on August 03, 2020, 21:55:49 When consultants are employed their remit is to provide a second pair of eyes to look over a proposal, and to pick up any problems or pitfalls that may have been missed by the exuberant proposers of any scheme. Their job is not to be “yes men” – indeed quite the reverse, because if something goes wrong with a project that they should realistically have noticed beforehand, they will not stay in the consultancy business for long. There is a lot more potential new business out there than there is repeat business, and glossing over a bad proposal that then goes belly up is a good way of making sure that nobody in the sector will employ them again. We may have to agree to differ on this. There may be some truth in what you say in the private sector, but in the public sector everything is political. At the risk of boring everybody else rigid, this answer intrigues me. I have worked as a consultant for both the public and private sectors (admittedly in building repair and maintenance rather than railways) but one could say that politics with a big or small P comes into much of it. A consultant is likely to upset somebody; be it the trade unions when you tell management that other organisations manage with less staff; be it a maintenance and repair workforce who are told that they aren’t as cheap and efficient as they thought they were when compared to other similar organisations; or indeed the client themselves when you tell them that their big new idea won’t work and, more importantly, why it won't work. In the public sector politics with a large P comes into it as the opposition party probably opposes what the ruling party are doing anyway. So perhaps you can clarify with an example or two? What railway reopenings do you know of that have been derailed because “everything is political?” I actually argued the reverse, that schemes get the go-ahead because everything is political: ...first you decide to do it, then you ask some consultants to tell you that there is a business case. Being businesses themselves, they'll understand that they are more likely to get repeat work if they give you the answer you want. BCR is necessarily based on soothsaying, and it will always be possible to justify errors in hindsight: "No-one could have predicted the economic downturn" "Growth was stronger than anticipated" "There were unforeseen demographic changes" My real point is that without strong political backing, and a presumption that towns do better by almost any measure if they have a decent rail link, most of these schemes won't happen. How you prioritise is another matter, but at the moment there seems to be a dead hand at play. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: eXPassenger on August 04, 2020, 17:46:59 Although these things appear 'bleedin obvious' to the enthusiasts... In this contect, 'enthusiast' could be taken as pajorative! Near where I live, there is a town of 25,000 people which is poorly served by road and sits at the end of an active freight line. Twenty years ago a feasibility study confirmed that a half-hourly passenger service was viable. Since then, a variety of professionals have drawn fat fees by confirming this. Funding has been found, lost and found again. And now there is a real danger that funding could be lost for good because we can't be sure of the long-term impact of Covid-19 on people's travel habits. This scheme is a perfect example of what I mean by "bleedin' obvious", and yet it may still fail. And if it does, it really doesn't look good for many of the others. I did not mean it to be pejorative and I apologise if it seemed that way. I was looking at the BCR calculations which are a method of determining the viability. In the example you quote the problem appears to be political inertia and not the determination of the scheme's viability. I agree that where a scheme is viable and funding is allocated then it should be done. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Lee on August 05, 2020, 12:37:38 It is somewhat ironic that both the notions of "Reversing Beeching" and effective rail nationalisation were pretty fiercely resisted at Westminster during the 2000s and 2010s when the "business case" was king, but both are currently seen as essential for political and economic reasons.
As far as grahame's list goes, I am minded of the following quote from Wikipedia: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeching_cuts) Quote from: Wikipedia The Branch Lines Committee of the British Transport Commission (BTC) was formed in 1949 with a brief to close the least-used branch lines; 3,318 miles (5,340 km) of railway were closed between 1948 and 1962.The most significant of these was the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway, closed in 1959. This period saw the beginning of a closures protest movement led by the Railway Development Association, whose most famous member was the poet John Betjeman. They went on to be a significant force resisting the Beeching proposals. Economic recovery and the end of petrol rationing led to rapid growth in car ownership and use. Vehicle mileage grew at a sustained annual rate of 10% between 1948 and 1964. In contrast, railway traffic remained steady during the 1950s but the economics steadily deteriorated, with labour costs rising faster than income and fares and freight charges repeatedly frozen by the government to try to control inflation. By 1955, the share of the transport market from railways had dropped from 16% to 5%. "Reversing Beeching" proposals will be judged by a panel, and this may form a potential template going forward as - in theory at least - a wide range of factors beyond those examined in traditional "business cases" could be considered, and tailored to whether the proposal best fits the specific outcomes you want to acheive, as opposed to a BCR one-size-fits-all approach. If you substitute "end of Second World War" with "end of Coronavirus", then one wonders whether the time may turn out to be ripe for a new Branch Lines Committee, but this time with the opposite mandate to the original - ie tasked with how best to restore branch lines to the national passenger rail network, and how to get the very best out of those branch lines already part of that national passenger rail network, in the context of reversing those historical trends that the original committee helped set in motion, and what part those branch lines can potentially play in future regarding the twin challenges of securing economic recovery and combating the Climate Emergency. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: broadgage on August 06, 2020, 20:33:27 Roads minister "Humphrey, these calls for railway reopening are becoming tedious"
Humphrey "Yes minister" Roads minister "But what can we do about it" Humphrey "We must appear to support this sort of of thing, without actually doing to much. The Minister might wish to call for research into monorails, hydrogen power, guided buses, you know the sort of thing minister. And of course the usual studies, reviews and consultations" Minister "Good idea Humphrey, what about battery trains as well ?" Humphrey "Not certain if that is good idea, the boffins have demonstrated a battery train, what we really need is more research into new technologies, Minister" Roads minister "And our PM has announced that new housing estates are to be automatically given planning permission, perhaps they might build a few across the proposed railway route, and put a stop to this nonsense for forever" "Yes minister" Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Red Squirrel on September 13, 2020, 17:17:57 Forgive me if this has been posted elsewhere, but according to railnews.co.uk the following schemes have qualified for further development in this round:
Leicester to Burton; Bury-Heywood-Rochdale, Clitheroe and Hellifield; Sheffield and Chesterfield via Barrow Hill; New passenger services on the Totton-Fawley line; Reopening of branch lines on the Isle of Wight. Station re-openings in the running are: Meir near Stoke-on-Trent; Wellington and Cullompton; Lydeway, to serve Devizes. This means the following schemes are ruled out 'for the time being': Orbital passenger rail route between Stockport and Ashton; Keswick to Penrith; East Didsbury to Stockport; Maldon to Witham; Barnsley to Wakefield via Royston; Beverley-York; Oswestry to Gobowen; Reinstatement of the Peaks and Dales Railway; Newton Abbot to Heathfield; Lewes to Uckfield; Eridge to Tunbridge Wells; Tavistock-Okehampton; Wymondham-Dereham; Stratford upon Avon to Honeybourne; Bodmin Parkway to Wadebridge. The following stations are also excluded: Midge Hall; Ferryhill; Waverley (Yorks.); St Anne?s Park (Bristol); Belford (Northumberland); Goodrington; Churston; Charfield. Confusingly, Luke Hall (MP for Thornbury and Yate) declared in yesterday's 'Gazette' (https://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/18717195.re-opening-charfield-station-important-ever/) that Charfield is 'on track', giving the fact that it was on the shortlist as evidence for this: Quote We are on track to re-open Charfield Station and it remains a key pledge in my Positive Plan for Transport. I will continue to work alongside the village community to ensure this vital piece of infrastructure is delivered, in the best way possible. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: ellendune on September 13, 2020, 18:35:38 I note that with the exception of parts of the Isle of Wight all these are existing lines without a service rather than reconstruction projects. That probably means that they are more likely to actually happen than some of the others which involve relaying large sections of track; though I have my doubts about the Isle of Wight.
Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: paul7575 on September 13, 2020, 19:49:37 Forgive me if this has been posted elsewhere, but according to railnews.co.uk the following schemes have qualified for further development in this round: That list is a repeat of 9 of the 10 ?successful projects? that were already announced as having been awarded funding back in May. (It needs the Watford - St Albans branch adding.)Leicester to Burton; Bury-Heywood-Rochdale, Clitheroe and Hellifield; Sheffield and Chesterfield via Barrow Hill; New passenger services on the Totton-Fawley line; Reopening of branch lines on the Isle of Wight. Station re-openings in the running are: Meir near Stoke-on-Trent; Wellington and Cullompton; Lydeway, to serve Devizes. There are a few earlier reports on line, e.g. here: https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/10-rail-schemes-awarded-business-case-development-funding/56604.article ...but of course the DfT source page seems to have been removed. What DfT seem to have done is updated their web page date, having now included the list of failed proposals. But I suggest there?s no new ?good? news here, and IMHO this regular re-announcement of long lists of highly optimistic proposals (that are now mostly turned down) is just confusing the entire process. Paul Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: CyclingSid on September 14, 2020, 06:54:06 Newton Abbot to Heathfield. My first reaction is that is a line and half. Might help if we got into the habit of adding the county in cases of possible confusion. On reflection I realise you don't mean Heathfield (Sussex). Do you?
Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Red Squirrel on September 14, 2020, 09:05:30 Newton Abbot to Heathfield. My first reaction is that is a line and half. Might help if we got into the habit of adding the county in cases of possible confusion. On reflection I realise you don't mean Heathfield (Sussex). Do you? Just quoting railnews.co.uk, but ima guess they mean the one at 50?34′21″N 3?38′46″W ! Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: REVUpminster on September 14, 2020, 11:18:35 Heathfield _ Newton Abbot only likely to open as a heritage line. There is a very vociferous group promoting the line. Heathfield is just an industrial estate with a few houses. The major new housebuilding sites in Newton Abbott is going on in the North West of the town nowhere near the railway.
I think local MP's have been asked to come up with suggestions. Torbay MP has promoted Paignton to Goodrington, the limit of his constituency, and Edginswell Station. The Totnes MP has come up with Goodrington to Churston and the Primrose line to Kingsbridge but the only people who might use it are the wealthy of Kingsbridge and Salcombe, second only to Sandbanks in Poole. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Red Squirrel on September 14, 2020, 12:21:44 I've heard it alleged that one of the flaws in Beeching's methodology was that it looked at revenue in terms of ticket sales at stations. So seaside branches like Kingsbridge were sunk, because very few people buy tickets from resorts.
The 'wealthy of Kingsbridge' probably would use a re-opened line, but surely the overwhelming majority of users would be tourists coming in from elsewhere? Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: REVUpminster on September 14, 2020, 16:22:35 The tourist season is only June - September and Kingsbridge with a population of 6000+ will not generate much traffic whereas Paignton and Torquay has a combined population 120.000+ (3rd and 4th towns in Devon) and has become a commuter town for Exeter admittedly most by road.
Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: johnneyw on September 14, 2020, 21:37:54 Can I declare and interest? Kid brother now lives in the house we inherited in Salcombe so I am a tad biased but I think the line could work one day and there are higher priorities.
Now, on a Reversing Beeching theme, cop this from what the Dutch have done.. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/14/utrecht-restores-historic-canal-made-into-motorway-in-1970s?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco&fbclid=IwAR1N2oU9ENY6ihPkpUPOOSAJ6u4axdvI4OCm_bXssOlhhELCG8G7Mi35BXk Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: stuving on September 14, 2020, 22:46:00 On the other hand, in Japan, things are heading in a different direction ... (from the Japan Times (https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/05/18/nationalabandoned-rail-lines-japan-attracting-new-fans-seeking-nostalgia-scenery-fun/))
Quote ... But packed trains are mainly limited to urban centers. Like Kamioka and Takachiho, many railways connecting graying rural communities have been terminated as increased car ownership and migration to cities leads to dwindling passengers. According to the transport ministry, 71 out of 96 regional railway operators ? which excludes shinkansen and other routes run by the previously state-owned Japan Railways Group ? logged current account deficits as of April last year. Nationally, 39 train lines covering 771 kilometers shut down between 2000 and 2017. While new rail routes have been built, the total number of stations in Japan has dipped to 9,474 in 2016 from 9,514 in 2001. Symbolic of the struggles facing rural train lines may be the March 31 closure of the Sanko Line, West Japan Railways Co.?s 88-year-old route linking Shimane and Hiroshima prefectures. The closure of the 108-km line marked the first time a route measuring over 100 km closed in Honshu since the split and privatization of the Japanese National Railways in 1987... Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: johnneyw on September 15, 2020, 00:34:41 Heathfield _ Newton Abbot only likely to open as a heritage line. There is a very vociferous group promoting the line. Heathfield is just an industrial estate with a few houses. The major new housebuilding sites in Newton Abbott is going on in the North West of the town nowhere near the railway. I think local MP's have been asked to come up with suggestions. Torbay MP has promoted Paignton to Goodrington, the limit of his constituency, and Edginswell Station. The Totnes MP has come up with Goodrington to Churston and the Primrose line to Kingsbridge but the only people who might use it are the wealthy of Kingsbridge and Salcombe, second only to Sandbanks in Poole. Heathfield is no metropolis although there is apparently track bed to just South of Bovey Tracy which is in the process of significantly expanding with new housing soon which might change the game. From what I have heard from the group behind the initiative, heritage rail is secondary to a public transport service. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: WSW Frome on September 15, 2020, 12:01:58 Heathfield or Bovey Tracey are surely very low priorities. The route heads in the wrong direction for the majority travel demand. This I assume is to Exeter and beyond.
This is similar very blue-sky thinking such as being applied to the Radstock to Frome route as a means to access Bath, Bristol and beyond. I am very surprised Heathfield has made it on to any short list, just as many feel about the Isle of Wight former line(s). Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: JackAtReopen on October 08, 2020, 12:14:40 Interesting to see that Graham's map of Shepton Mallet shows East Somerset Railway above the alignment west of Mendip Vale station. There's almost nothing on the web about the Restoring Your Railway Fund proposal To introduce a passenger service to Shepton Mallet in Somerset, other than the promoter is Mendip District Council, the sponsoring MP is James Heappey, and there are unconfirmed rumours of a proposed station at Cannards Grave. But who would such a station serve? Let's say you live in Wells or Glastonbury and need to travel to London. You drive to Cannards Grave ... and keep going along the A371 for another 10 minutes to reach Castle Cary, where there are direct trains to Paddington and no need to change at Westbury, where I imagine the Shepton trains would terminate, and where you can get a coffee from the Butty Box. Or is this scheme designed to address a Caste Cary car park capacity issue?
Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: grahame on October 08, 2020, 13:03:46 But ... where do people want to go to from Shepton Mallet - now and it the future? At present, "destination London" does not have the same overwhelming weight in considerations that it used to have and I'm not sure for the future that London will be the "all roads must lead to Rome" priority. From Shepton Mallet, key regional destinations are perhaps Bath and Bristol - and trains that head out to the east when they final destination is north north west start with something of a disadvantage. Factor in that you'll have 3 local trains an hour arriving in Westbury from the north east (two from Bristol and one from Swindon) and just two continuing (one to Yeovil and one to Southampton) and perhaps you have an extension to either Radstock or via Mendip Vale.
The other "player" at Shepton Mallet - Lee's comments earlier - is for a service to Bath via Masbury, Binegar, Chilcompton, Midsomer Norton, Radstock, Foxcote, Wellow, Midford and Limpley Stoke. Not what the DfT bid is about, much more expensive, much longer term - but much more providing the destinations that people may want in the future, and sharing the cost with those other intermediate communities too - some of which could become new towns; a really nice place to live, together with frequent rail travel into the cities of WECA. I seem to be moving ... from factual data on current plans to elements of design and speculation on a specific case, which is the very sort of thing I suggested we cover in the relevant thread. Never mind - I can split and join stuff up if it becomes sensible to do that. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: JackAtReopen on October 09, 2020, 13:36:54 Graham, I think we can file Shepton Mallet - Bath via the S&D route as a no-hoper. Too many obstacles, notably Radstock and Wellow. But for heritage enthusiasts, I can see the extension from Midsomer Norton South through the tunnel to Chilcompton happening. I was in Chilcompton a few weeks back (Redan Inn highly recommended) and delighted to find myself standing on the Chilcompton down platform (delicious diagram here: https://www.mnrjournal.co.uk/article.cfm?id=114287&headline=Residents%20invited%20to%20hear%20Chilcompton%20station%20rebuild%20plans§ionIs=news&searchyear=2018 (https://www.mnrjournal.co.uk/article.cfm?id=114287&headline=Residents%20invited%20to%20hear%20Chilcompton%20station%20rebuild%20plans§ionIs=news&searchyear=2018)).
Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Lee on October 09, 2020, 14:05:53 Graham, I think we can file Shepton Mallet - Bath via the S&D route as a no-hoper. Too many obstacles, notably Radstock and Wellow. But for heritage enthusiasts, I can see the extension from Midsomer Norton South through the tunnel to Chilcompton happening. I was in Chilcompton a few weeks back (Redan Inn highly recommended) and delighted to find myself standing on the Chilcompton down platform (delicious diagram here: https://www.mnrjournal.co.uk/article.cfm?id=114287&headline=Residents%20invited%20to%20hear%20Chilcompton%20station%20rebuild%20plans§ionIs=news&searchyear=2018 (https://www.mnrjournal.co.uk/article.cfm?id=114287&headline=Residents%20invited%20to%20hear%20Chilcompton%20station%20rebuild%20plans§ionIs=news&searchyear=2018)). If you read my original posts on the subject, solutions for both Wellow and Radstock are offered - see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=20967.msg257150#msg257150 Ive got a lot of respect for what you are doing Jack, so much so that I am actively looking inro your Maple Grove conundrum for you. However, Im afraid I do resent the automatic "no-hoper" tag, given the amount of research I and others have put into this. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: grahame on October 09, 2020, 14:57:47 One of the most difficult issues for Jack to address in where to draw the line as he looks further out into the future, and into the realm of schemes for which cases have not yet been made, not validated by the rail industry, depend on other things changing ahead of them being implemented, etc, etc.
In my youth, the idea of re-opening the Welsh Highland line would have been labelled a no-hoper, and I can think of other schemes and suggestions for which the answer was "that will never happen" - close to home, and shorter term, that view was expressd about servives calling at Melksham. Looking back 50 to 60 years, places were regarded so much as no-hopers that the lines were closed and trackbeds disposed of - yet half a century later trains once again run to Alloa, Ebbw Vale, Mansfield and other places. Jack's call ... but the least contentious place to draw the line would be to include schemes if there is an online case started / made such that failing to include it would result in a cry of "oy - what about this/us". I wonder about some sort of classification system but that's so subjective. A listing of significant support and goals achieved for each scheme in a common format might not go amiss. Looking to draw a tighter line quickly brings up differeces of opinion - and with Jack looking to document and not to judge, something to be avoided. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Lee on October 09, 2020, 15:24:05 It's not about whether a Shepton-Bath scheme should appear on Jack's website - I wouldn't expect it to at this stage, for the reasons grahame gave in his post.
What I would argue is that Jack has made a judgement that the scheme is a "no-hoper" based on viability grounds with particular reference to getting through Radstock and Wellow. I strongly disagree with that view, because I have personally spent the time visiting both places and working out potential solutions, which I detailed quite a while ago in the posts I pointed to. Jack may choose to accept my point of view, or he may choose to disagree with it, both of which are his right. I hope though, that I can at least shift him from "no-hoper" to "keep an open mind". Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Robin Summerhill on October 10, 2020, 12:44:49 Wherever reopenings have been proposed I like to bear in mind three things. Firstly, that everything is possible from an engineering point of view. Secondly, that a reopened railway does not need to religiously follow the exact route of the original.
Thirdly, and most importantly, it must be worth doing. It will resolve an unresolved problem; there are no cheaper/ more effective ways of doing it; and there is sufficient market demand and therefore revenue income to provide a return on capital employed. Any S&D reopening proposal can overcome the first two hurdles. I am not at all sure that it can overcome the third. There is already a quite comprehensive bus service between Norton Radstock and Bath, from which most of any future railway income would have to come from as this is by far the largest centre of population between Bath and Shepton Mallet, Those buses will still run because they have more stops in more areas of Norton Radstock than the railway could hope to have. They also serve the village of Peasdown St John, much expanded since the S&D closed and stations at Wellow and Shoscombe would be no substitute for it. The bus also serves the southern suburbs of Bath where the railway runs in a couple of holes where it is either not possible to provide stations, or at points such as Lyncombe Vale which, given the local topography, would be unlikely to be well-used. Similar statements could be made regarding future stations at Limpley Stoke and Bathampton; in the former case there would be little traffic and in the latter potentially providing a service to a proposed Park & Ride that could be provided by various other services. So it can probably be safely said that a reinstated railway would cream off some of the existing bus traffic, but clearly not all of it. So where is the required additional revenue to come from to make it worth going to the expense of building a railway? Perhaps with some traffic growth, but you would need a devil of a lot of it from a total population of c.25000. On another forum recently I watched a discussion develop over the Bodmin to Padstow reopening proposal. One of the most vociferous supporters (who, incidentally, lives in New Zealand so the likelihood of him contributing to the lines income was minimal) seemed to base his entire argument on the statement ?reopen the railway and the passengers will come.? I am sure that there were many who took that view during the Railway Mania and history tells us what happened to them... Finally and in relation to Jack?s database that reawakened this discussion, I am not a railway modeller but I understand there is in those circles something called Rule 1. That is ?it is my model layout and I?ll run what I like on it.? The same rule could apply to databases. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Richard Fairhurst on October 11, 2020, 11:28:48 In the Other Place, a poster coined "five golden rules of a successful rail reopening" which bear repeating here:
Not every scheme has to score 5/5, of course, but it's not a bad checklist. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Reading General on October 11, 2020, 12:37:16 Witney, Witney, Witney, Witney, erm........
Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: grahame on October 11, 2020, 17:37:58 In the Other Place, a poster coined "five golden rules of a successful rail reopening" which bear repeating here:
Not every scheme has to score 5/5, of course, but it's not a bad checklist. Let's try some out: 1. 10,000 residents at end of line. A further 10,000 at each of the two main intermediate stops 2. Around 40 minutes to a major employment city from the line end, and 55 minutes to a second city 3. Mainly unobstructed; there are a couple of places where workrounds will be needed, but seem practical 4. There is a new hourly service between places mentioned in (2) planned. This scheme is an alternative extension. 5. Not exactly a deprived area, but certainly held back significantly by limited public transport. 1. 12,000 residents at end of line, swollen by holidaymakers to approaching 24,000 for much of the year 2. 55 minutes to the county town at the start of the line. 3. Tracks in place. Unused this year; could do with some TLC. Summer daytime heritage operation. 4. Yes - an hourly regional service could easily extend and would have significant through regional traffic 5. One of the poorest and least connected places in the county. 1. 3,000 residents at line end, intermediate towns with 8,000 and 13,000; swells in summer with holidaymakers 2. 20 to 25 minutes on new section. But a further 40 minutes into a major city 3. There are shared use issued and a some obstructions out towards the 3,000 residents place 4. There is signiciant scope for an improved local service all the way to major city, where the station has capacity 5. The towns certainly suffer from the lack of swift public transport. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: AMLAG on October 11, 2020, 18:57:30 Well the Govt's objective to GWR/NR for a regular Okehampton to Exeter rail service, clearly fits the second of the three lists by Grahame and the railhead of Okehampton actually has a larger catchment area and population than that served by Galashiels/Tweedbank on the hugely successful Borders Railway.
I know several people who can't wait to use Okehampton Stn instead of long car journeys from West Devon and North Cornwall to Exeter St D or Tiverton Parkway, where in normal times, parking is getting more difficult and costly. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Lee on October 11, 2020, 19:30:41 Well the Govt's objective to GWR/NR for a regular Okehampton to Exeter rail service, clearly fits the second of the three lists by Grahame and the railhead of Okehampton actually has a larger catchment area and population than that served by Galashiels/Tweedbank on the hugely successful Borders Railway. I know several people who can't wait to use Okehampton Stn instead of long car journeys from West Devon and North Cornwall to Exeter St D or Tiverton Parkway, where in normal times, parking is getting more difficult and costly. As close a fit as Okehampton is, I cant help feeling that grahame has somewhere else in mined... Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: ellendune on October 11, 2020, 21:53:55 As close a fit as Okehampton is, I cant help feeling that grahame has somewhere else in mined... Oh do tell... Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Lee on October 11, 2020, 23:02:45 As close a fit as Okehampton is, I cant help feeling that grahame has somewhere else in mined... Oh do tell... The clue is in my earlier smelling mistook... Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: Red Squirrel on October 12, 2020, 10:18:22 As close a fit as Okehampton is, I cant help feeling that grahame has somewhere else in mined... Oh do tell... The clue is in my earlier smelling mistook... Ah, so it was Hawick! Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: johnneyw on February 12, 2022, 11:48:25 The Facebook page for Heath Rail Link (the group campaigning to reopen the Heathfield to Newton Abbot mothballed line) has an interesting announcement.
It claims that following years of meetings and discussions that there is now a serious intention to reopen the line to passenger and freight traffic with GWR and NR/GBR very involved. The group themselves are also looking to be licensed to run services on the line, presumably heritage/tourist. The announcement is a bit hurried but also mentions potential running to the new Edginswell Station which suggests being part of the nascent Devon Metro. I would have thought this might be announced elsewhere soon if there is much substance to it. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: paul7575 on February 12, 2022, 17:38:54 Didn’t the Heathfield-Newton Abbot fail to make the cut in the “restoring your railway” final list last October? I don’t see how GBR can be involved either, if they aren’t set up yet…
Paul Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: johnneyw on February 12, 2022, 19:14:36 Didn’t the Heathfield-Newton Abbot fail to make the cut in the “restoring your railway” final list last October? I don’t see how GBR can be involved either, if they aren’t set up yet… Paul Yes, it looks separate from the "restoring your railways" thing. I've been following the FB page for the group. The announcement has quite a few comments in the form of questions that the group's founder has endeavoured to reply to. It is claimed that GWR are interested in running services through Newton Abbot to Torbay. The group say that while NR will be responsible for the track, the Heath Rail Link group will be entrusted with the stations and it's also implied (unless I've misinterpreted things) that they will have some track maintenance contributions as well. Check out the discussion on the Heath Rail Link FB page and see what you think. Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: ChrisB on June 20, 2022, 18:40:35 Final results from Restoring Your Railways (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/moving-ahead-to-reopen-railway-lines-and-stations-including-one-not-used-since-reign-of-king-george-v) funding....more failures than wins in our area!
Quote Moving ahead to reopen railway lines and stations including one not used since reign of King George V - government commits £15 million in funding to develop 9 Restoring Your Railway schemes - comes after the launch of Restoring Your Railway in 2020, as well as the successful reopening of the Dartmoor Line - schemes will receive funding to kickstart reopening and level up local communities across the country Rail Minister Wendy Morton has announced a further £15 million in funding to develop 9 Restoring Your Railway schemes across England to reopen disused railway lines, services and stations, including some that were axed in the 1950s and 60s – with one station taken out of use as far back as 1930, Haxby Station on the York to Scarborough Line. The Restoring Your Railway Fund was announced in January 2020 as part of the levelling up agenda when the government pledged £500 million to deliver on its manifesto commitment and start reopening lines and stations. The fund is kickstarting and boosting development on projects and has already seen success with the reopening of the Dartmoor Line. Communities across England are now closer to having their connections restored, improving access to jobs, homes and education. This funding will continue the development of some schemes identified through the Ideas Fund, which is providing early-stage development funding to 38 schemes in total. This announcement comes after the completion and reopening of the Dartmoor Line, which was delivered ahead of time and under budget. The restored line has been hugely popular, with more than 50,000 journeys undertaken in the first 20 weeks since the line reopened – more than double the number predicted. Rail Minister Wendy Morton said: This funding will reconnect communities long cut off from the railway. The last time you could catch a train from Haxby Station was 1930, George V was on the throne and The Times had just published their first-ever crossword. But now, thanks to this funding, communities across England could be reconnected to our railways once more. This fund is a great example of how we are committed to helping communities across the country level up and reconnect people and businesses to new opportunities. The 9 schemes receiving funding are: - Aldridge station and line upgrade in Walsall - The Barrow Hill Line between Sheffield and Chesterfield - The Ivanhoe Line between Leicester and Burton on Trent - Meir Station between Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire - Haxby Station on the York to Scarborough Line - Reinstating the Fleetwood Railway Line - Ferryhill Station in County Durham - The Mid Cornwall Metro, connecting Newquay, Truro and Falmouth - Devizes Station between Pewsey and Westbury in Wiltshire By funding development to reopen these lines and stations, the government is levelling up local communities, providing transformative opportunities for people to travel to work, get to school and see their family and friends. the full 22 page report isa attached to this post (hopefully) or can be found here (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1083756/restoring-your-railway-programme-update.pdf) Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: grahame on June 21, 2022, 00:01:54 And mirrored at http://www.passenger.chat/mirror/restoring-your-railway-programme-update-june22.pdf
Title: Re: Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the passenger network Post by: johnneyw on March 27, 2024, 22:43:20 There's been an interesting announcement on the Heathfield Rail Link Association Facebook pages. Apparently Lampitt Rail Services have surveyed the entire Heathfield branch line for Eversholt Rail and Revolution Vehicle Light Rail to look at the viability of turning the branch line into light rail infrastructure.
This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |