Train lines closed in 1960s under Dr Beeching report could be reopened

[whole diary]

[grahame]

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corners and gradients) - noting in Oldham, for example, where the old tunnel that the trains used to go though has been replaced by a section of street running - steeper, sharper and serving more useful places.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?

[Rhydgaled]

I have started a list [snip] Can you spot the one or two sillies I have put in there to make reading it a bit of fun?

Maybe:

Havant to Hayline Island

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

However:

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.

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?

Afon Wen to Bangor

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^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services))-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. South of Brecon an EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) 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.

[eightf48544]

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^▸ (Settle and Carlisle ).  

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.  

[ChrisB]

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

[TonyK]

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!).   

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.

[grahame]

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

[grahame]

The big silly though is the very idea of a train smaller than a bus.

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

[paul7575]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s geographic area.

(In fact Northern operate in the Newcastle area in isolation from further south, TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) and XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) provide the long distance connections towards Leeds.)

Paul

[Adelante_CCT]

represents 80 passenger arrivals and 8 passenger departures per day

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

[grahame]

represents 80 passenger arrivals and 8 passenger departures per day

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!

[Electric train]

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

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thanks for that, Electric train. 

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

[Electric train]

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.

[rower40]

Can you spot the one or two sillies I have put in there to make reading it a bit of fun?

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.

[TonyK]

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.