Reopening Cullompton and Wellington stations (merged topic)

[whole diary]

[TonyK]

I'm a little shaky on Python these days, but can still do a passable Dead Parrot Sketch. THat apart, I tend to keep my Python hidden, except behind closed doors.

[Red Squirrel]

Something that would be harder to model would be the effect of overcrowding over time, though I think we know the answer: In the 'fifties, summer Saturday trains combined overcrowding with the worst rolling stock. Ten years later rail had almost completely lost the leisure market. Of course other factors - cheap package tours and better roads - played a part, but the fact that trains were slow and uncomfortable was surely a significant factor.

I find this a little worrying. The growth in demand for rail looks like it may be faltering; is the rail industry and the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) being complacent in thinking that people will continue to put up with overcrowding, or is it just inflexible or lacking in imagination?

[Red Squirrel]

Getting back a little closer to the original thread, I too have done some sums:

Cost of re-instating 30 miles of Waverley Route, Edinburgh - Tweedbank: ^300,000,000 = ^10,000,000/mile

Let's imagine it were possible to re-allocate the cost of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) (say ^50,000,000,000) to re-opening local lines. A reasonably equitable split would give the South-West about ^10,000,000,000 of this. Even if we put aside half this sum to upgrade existing lines and reopen closed stations on them, there would still be enough left over to re-open FIVE HUNDRED MILES of closed lines. By my crude reckoning:

Padstow	65 miles	^650,000,000
Bude	30 miles	^300,000,000
Ilfracombe	12 miles	^120,000,000
Bristol-Frome (B&NS)	25 miles	^250,000,000
Bath-Bournemouth (S&D▸ (Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway))	105 miles*	^1,050,000,000
Yatton-Witham (Cheddar Valley)	30 miles	^300,000,000
Bristol-Mangotsfield-Yate (Midland)	20 miles*	^200,000,000
Mangotsfield-Bath (Midland)	30 miles*	^300,000,000
Cheltenham-Kingham	25 miles	^250,000,000
Kemble-Cirencester	5 miles	^50,000,000
Kemble-Tetbury	8 miles	^80,000,000
Bradford-Patney	20 miles	^200,000,000
Total	375 miles	^3,750,000,000

* Assumes 40 miles of double track, rest single
** Assumes double track

I've got to the end of my shopping list, and my wish list, and I seem to have rather a lot of change. Anyone else got a pet scheme, or shall we give it to the consultants?

[JayMac]

Don't forget the rolling stock.

[Red Squirrel]

Don't forget the rolling stock.

Blimey, good point! Would one-and-a-quarter billion be enough to buy some of that?

Actually I'm starting to think my ^5,000,000,000 for re-opening Collumpton and Wellington may have been a bit generous; perhaps we could use some of that for Gloucester-Ledbury, Chepstow-Monmouth-Ross-Hereford, Pontypool-Monmouth... oh, and I've still got change.

[JayMac]

Creech St Michael - Chard
Curry Rivel Junction - Yeovil
Bridgwater - Shepton Mallet via Glastonbury and Wells (linking up with Bath - Bournemouth)
Norton Fitzwarren - Dulverton

[Red Squirrel]

I think I still have some change. Why stop at Dulverton?

[trainbuff]

Surely you must have some change for Meldon to Tavistock (once it has re-opened)!

[JayMac]

I think I still have some change. Why stop at Dulverton?

Barnstaple is already served, and the old route into Barnstaple has largely disappeared under road building from South Molton onward.

[Red Squirrel]

You'll need to think bigger if we're going to get through all this dosh. We can build beside the A361.

[grahame]

You'll need to think bigger if we're going to get through all this dosh. We can build beside the A361.

And you need to think forward to what will be used and make sense as a complete new network rather than re-instating sections that competed with each other.  I look at posts here and see four routes into Radstock, and wonder if they'll all be sustainable - even with rail traffic [prediction] being 5 to 10 times the level it was at the time of Beeching.   And I look to modern technology where sharper gradients are practical, and some things can be engineered now that would simply not have been possible.  You probably would end up using a lot of old infrastructure in places.  And you will end up enhancing lots of infrastucture at exisiting stations / junctions.

Picking up some ideas that won't all happen in the CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014), CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019), CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) or CP7 ...

- Bodmin Road to Bodmin, Wadebridge and Padstow. Sorry - not via Camelford, although branch to Launceston from Tavistock, perhaps. From the implied Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton, and with new works at Lydford junction.

- Extra stations at Grove, Shrivenham, Royal Wootton Bassett, Corsham, Box,  Batheaston, Saltford, near Brislington  and St Anne's. (and that's going to require an overtaking loop for the fast London - Bristol via Chippenham service to get in front of the all stations service - at Swindon, perhaps, turning platform 4 into an island with platform 5 in front of it, or perhaps at Chippenham?

- Calne to Bristol local service via Chippenham, Melksham, Bradford-on-Avon, Bath, and Mangotsfield (approx 10 local stations served along the way; rebuild Calne branch, Bradford North curve and Midland from near Bath via Mangotsfield; new junction to the west of Bath to connect into this Bristol suburban line. Sorry - not re-opening Green Park in Bath.

- 15 car scheme on key routes. Every 30 minutes is fine for many services, but we need to get more people through and have the capacity for local trains. So use 5 car electrics as standard, and run up to 3 on key Paddington - Reading - Didcot - Swindon - Chippenham - Bath - Bristol Temple Meads services.

[Red Squirrel]

And you need to think forward to what will be used and make sense as a complete new network rather than re-instating sections that competed with each other. 

I agree. If you look at the way old infrastructure and assets have been re-used in London, it is clear that by inserting what are often fairly short links it is possible to considerably improve on what was there. However there are sound reasons to use the old alignments as a starting point:

• They connect to the existing network at their end points;
• They tend to pass through the towns we wish to serve;
• They follow the topography;
• We can use surviving tunnels, bridges and so on.

As a local example, the Bath-Midford section of the S&D^▸ (Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway) would probably be replaced by the old GW^▸ (Great Western) route from Dundas, with a new incline to get you up to the S&D at Midford.

However I didn't mean to go much beyond broad brushstrokes; my point was that for a share of the cost of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) we could re-open just about every viable missing link and local station in this region; by extrapolation that probably applies to the whole country.

Food for thought.

I was 109% sure that HS2 is a Good Idea, now I'm down to 108%.

[Kernow Otter]

However I didn't mean to go much beyond broad brushstrokes; my point was that for a share of the cost of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) we could re-open just about every viable missing link and local station in this region; by extrapolation that probably applies to the whole country.

Unfortunately this is not about what makes good sense from an 'investment in rail infrastructure' point of view, this is all about appealing to the North of England, and some of the more traditional Labour dominated marginal constituencies in the bigger Northern cities - and this approach from each of the main parties.

In the main, the west of england is not known for it's support of many Labour candidates, and indeed we do not host many key marginal constituencies which can be won over by the mere act of strategically dangling a ^ 40 Bn golden carrot in the right towns and cities.  The odds of the South West politically swinging anywhere is so slim, that successive governments have never felt the need to spend money here.  Take for example the recent move of so much of the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) to Salford at vast expense.  I can't believe that that was no more than the then Labour government with yet another sack of golden carrots.

Unfortunately, with both of the main parties blinkered in their desire to build HS2, they are unable to see the vast possibilities and regeneration that could result from the sort of considered local investment mentioned in recent posts.

[Red Squirrel]

Ah, that definition of 'good sense'... I am now down to 37% sure that HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) is a good idea.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

Kernow Otter is quite correct Decisions on transport infrastructure by politicians are determined by politics not by the best value investment. It is often about spending money in areas with higher unemployment levels where the investment could possibly create work and jobs for the unemployed. It has not been so noticeable in the last 30 years plus because there has been so little investment in rail but it has been particularly noticeable on road investment.

And - why do the politicians talk about spending on investment when so much is on dealing with past deferred maintenance. Such spending is just trying to restore past standards such as the money recently announced supposed to be used on filling the millions of potholes - badly needed but not investment.