The general case for smaller scale investment in reinvigorated rail

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From Christian Wolmar

Railways are all the rage. Passenger numbers are at their highest level since the 1920s and there is no sign that recent growth, which has seen total annual number of journeys double over the past 20 years, is slowing. There is a real commitment among politicians to rail, as demonstrated by the all-party support for the new high-speed line linking London with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

But it is not all plain sailing for the HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) project. The cabinet secretary, Jeremy Heywood, is reviewing the project, reigniting doubts about whether spending £55bn on one scheme aimed mainly at business travellers in a hurry is the best strategy. There is an alternative. Around the country, dozens of campaign groups are pressing for the reopening of lines closed in the 1960s by the then chairman of British Railways, Richard Beeching.

continues

Edit to correct font / subj

[IndustryInsider]

One of the problems with lots of smaller reopenings is that they feed more passengers onto the trunk routes which are struggling to cope with this year on year growth - hence HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))'s capacity benefits.

I notice Wolmar has stopped predicting that growth would slow down or stop as he used to for several years in his RAIL 'Mystic Wolmar' predictions.  Indeed, his recent record has been pretty appalling, showing just how difficult it is to pin down what might happen to the industry.

[paul7575]

Wolmar should also realise by now that the HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) budget isn't earmarked for alternative use on the existing railway in the absence of HS2, it would go back to the treasury's piggy bank...

Paul

[grahame]

One of the problems with lots of smaller reopenings is that they feed more passengers onto the trunk routes which are struggling to cope with this year on year growth ...

Indeed.  I was looking at two suggested line re-openings yesterday (just reading up on them) within the economic zone of interest to TransWilts and in both cases the primary traffic flows were connectional / carrying on to destinations well beyond the end of the line.  Whether that extra traffic on the connecting services is a blessing (helping to cement their future and loading some of their lighter sections) or a curse (taking an already at-capacity service and shoving more onto it) is again a case by case study, and probably one without a clear black and white answer.

As an example (and people have moved to look at other solutions too because of various concerns, and because of the good requirement under GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) to establish and choose between options), take the idea of opening a new station at Royal Wootton Bassett and serving it with the regional train service that passes through - that's the TransWilts, rather than stopping long distance expresses there.   At first glance - "hey, great, more passengers to help justify the service".  On a more detailed look - "are you going to add an explosive number of passengers for the first 7 minutes out of Swindon, then leave a relatively empty train all the way to Westbury / Warminster / Whereever"?   Even more detail actually shows the busiest section of the TransWilts is Chippenham to Melksham so not quite such a big problem, by the way ... but there are overall better ideas!

I'll gamble a guess that Portishead's main traffic will be to Bristol, and Tavistock's to Plymouth; Minehead's would be to Taunton so each of those has limited overspill.   Padstow to Bodmin Parkway, Helston to Gwinear Road would be more like Newquay to Par where - as I understand it - most people transfer on to "the big train".

[Noggin]

One of the problems with lots of smaller reopenings is that they feed more passengers onto the trunk routes which are struggling to cope with this year on year growth ...

Indeed.  I was looking at two suggested line re-openings yesterday (just reading up on them) within the economic zone of interest to TransWilts and in both cases the primary traffic flows were connectional / carrying on to destinations well beyond the end of the line.  Whether that extra traffic on the connecting services is a blessing (helping to cement their future and loading some of their lighter sections) or a curse (taking an already at-capacity service and shoving more onto it) is again a case by case study, and probably one without a clear black and white answer.

As an example (and people have moved to look at other solutions too because of various concerns, and because of the good requirement under GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) to establish and choose between options), take the idea of opening a new station at Royal Wootton Bassett and serving it with the regional train service that passes through - that's the TransWilts, rather than stopping long distance expresses there.   At first glance - "hey, great, more passengers to help justify the service".  On a more detailed look - "are you going to add an explosive number of passengers for the first 7 minutes out of Swindon, then leave a relatively empty train all the way to Westbury / Warminster / Whereever"?   Even more detail actually shows the busiest section of the TransWilts is Chippenham to Melksham so not quite such a big problem, by the way ... but there are overall better ideas!

I'll gamble a guess that Portishead's main traffic will be to Bristol, and Tavistock's to Plymouth; Minehead's would be to Taunton so each of those has limited overspill.   Padstow to Bodmin Parkway, Helston to Gwinear Road would be more like Newquay to Par where - as I understand it - most people transfer on to "the big train".

It's what might be called a network effect, the more nodes you have on a network, the more appealing it is to users. This is particularly appropriate to public transport where transfers between modes (i.e. from train to bus/tram/car/bike/foot) are psychologically a bigger barrier than transferring between vehicles on the same mode.

To that you should add what might be called the 'rail effect' (vehicles that travel on rails are perceived to be more frequent, reliable and comfortable than buses), and if electrified, the 'sparks effect' (electrified services - even trolley buses, are perceived to be more frequent, reliable and comfortable). Finally consider what might be called 'the commuter effect', if you re-instate/upgrade a service so that it becomes useful for commuting, particularly to London, the effects will potentially be amplified as people and companies relocate to take advantage of it.

This is all particularly relevant to Portishead as, whilst the bulk of the traffic is likely to be to Bristol TM^‡(resolve), it's also possible that a lot of people will use it as a commute to places like Bath, Clifton, Bristol Parkway and London. Property in Portishead is relatively cheap in relation to Bristol, so there's the potential for a minor commuter influx. There is also the potential for a significant number of shorter hops as people from Pill can use the train to pop to Portishead, the improved frequency of journeys would make stations like Parson Street and Bedminster far more useful.


 

[Andy]

One of the problems with lots of smaller reopenings is that they feed more passengers onto the trunk routes which are struggling to cope with this year on year growth ...

I'll gamble a guess that Portishead's main traffic will be to Bristol, and Tavistock's to Plymouth; Minehead's would be to Taunton so each of those has limited overspill.   Padstow to Bodmin Parkway, Helston to Gwinear Road would be more like Newquay to Par where - as I understand it - most people transfer on to "the big train".

How about if Padstow-Wadebridge-Bodmin Parkway peak services were extended to Liskeard, Saltash and Plymouth and Helston trains to Camborne, Redruth and Truro?

[Southernman]

The only problem with the great idea of getting back from Wadebridge to Padstow is, apparently, that there is now no route for a railway to be re-built! The old line was built over many years ago but a possible alternative was, in more recent times, also built on making Wadebridge the final future destination.

Unless someone knows otherwise of course.

[ellendune]

The only problem with the great idea of getting back from Wadebridge to Padstow is, apparently, that there is now no route for a railway to be re-built! The old line was built over many years ago but a possible alternative was, in more recent times, also built on making Wadebridge the final future destination.

You could run it across the Coop Car Park in Wadebridge (In might make it a bit tight to get in the door, but I am sure no-one would mind) then restore the old level crossing accross Molesworth Street (it didn't cause much traffic chaos when it first opened and I am sure people would put up with it now, and ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) are very keen on new level crossings aren't they?) then down the middle of Eddystone Road (Simply treat it like a very wide level crossing). 

Molesorth Street and Eddeystone Road are not important are they? (Only the main through route).

Alternatively you could  just knock the Coop down together with all the buildings on the East side of Eddystone Road and put it there with a simple restored level crossing.   

[Noggin]

Incidentally, if anyone is interested in understanding the costs of electrification and what £50k of consultancy buys you, it's worth taking at look at http://travelwest.info/project/extending-electrification-study. Whilst outwardly objective, I suspect it was skewed towards making do with cascaded DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)'s and leaving electrification until CP7, by which point the DMUs would need replacing and Westminster would hopefully pay for wholesale electrification to Weston, Yate and beyond.

Items that caught my eye were that a signal gantry costs £300k to replace and that the Bath Road bridge in Bristol would cost £5m to make compatible with electrification. I'd always suspected that it might be a little on the low side, I wonder how much by? God only knows how you'd replace it without bringing the complete city to a halt, particularly once they've built the arena and singled Cattle Market Road, so there are no convenient alternatives or worksites. I suppose the £5m could be just to lower the track...

[Red Squirrel]

The only problem with the great idea of getting back from Wadebridge to Padstow is, apparently, that there is now no route for a railway to be re-built! The old line was built over many years ago but a possible alternative was, in more recent times, also built on making Wadebridge the final future destination.

You could run it across the Coop Car Park in Wadebridge (In might make it a bit tight to get in the door, but I am sure no-one would mind) then restore the old level crossing accross Molesworth Street (it didn't cause much traffic chaos when it first opened and I am sure people would put up with it now, and ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) are very keen on new level crossings aren't they?) then down the middle of Eddystone Road (Simply treat it like a very wide level crossing). 

Molesorth Street and Eddeystone Road are not important are they? (Only the main through route).

Alternatively you could  just knock the Coop down together with all the buildings on the East side of Eddystone Road and put it there with a simple restored level crossing.   

I think I detect the merest hint of irony here. Actually, the only thing that makes such reopenings unlikely is the lack of political will. If we can find £1.85BN to build a 24km, 400kmhr^-1 tunnel under the Chilterns, then we can find a route through Wadebridge.

[ChrisB]

Slight difference in demand/numbers being carried methinks

[ellendune]

The only problem with the great idea of getting back from Wadebridge to Padstow is, apparently, that there is now no route for a railway to be re-built! The old line was built over many years ago but a possible alternative was, in more recent times, also built on making Wadebridge the final future destination.

You could run it across the Coop Car Park in Wadebridge (In might make it a bit tight to get in the door, but I am sure no-one would mind) then restore the old level crossing accross Molesworth Street (it didn't cause much traffic chaos when it first opened and I am sure people would put up with it now, and ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) are very keen on new level crossings aren't they?) then down the middle of Eddystone Road (Simply treat it like a very wide level crossing). 

Molesorth Street and Eddeystone Road are not important are they? (Only the main through route).

Alternatively you could  just knock the Coop down together with all the buildings on the East side of Eddystone Road and put it there with a simple restored level crossing.   

I think I detect the merest hint of irony here. Actually, the only thing that makes such reopenings unlikely is the lack of political will. If we can find £1.85BN to build a 24km, 400kmhr^-1 tunnel under the Chilterns, then we can find a route through Wadebridge.

Yes you could take an inland route and tunnel under the town. 

[Red Squirrel]

Slight difference in demand/numbers being carried methinks

Well yes. Perhaps that is inevitable given that we are comparing a massive project with small ones. Actually I'd go so far as to describe it as a huge difference, but perhaps less so if you aggregate all the small demands and costs.

Yes you could take an inland route and tunnel under the town. 

This time I'm not quite sure whether you're being ironic or not...

Incidentally, the cost difference between the CLT and the initial scheme is £485 million; that is to say that the cost of appeasing Chiltern voters would probably cover extending the Borders Railway to Carlisle.

As to whether it would be worth finding a rail route through Wadebridge - that's actually a fight in which I do not have a dog, but in general I do suspect that a large number of relatively small investments in expanding rail would probably have more positive impact on more people than focusing on one megaproject. But sadly, that's bad politics.

[ellendune]

Yes you could take an inland route and tunnel under the town. 

This time I'm not quite sure whether you're being ironic or not...

Nor was I.  I cannot really see another option. The river front is now well developed.  You either demolish buildings and have a level crossing, or you go further inland and tunnel under them.