Reversing Beeching ???

[The Johnster]

If you compare Wantage to Llantwit Major on the Vale of Glamorgan line, small towns of similar size and population profile, Mike's points are well illustrated.  Like Wantage, the population of LM has increased, by a factor of about 4x, since the station was closed when passenger traffic ceased on the VoG in the 60s.  It was re-introduced 2005 on the back of the population increase, which was largely Cardiff dormitory, and the increasing road congestion it generated despite expenditure on road improvements on the western approach to Cardiff.  There had been talk of re-oponing LM almost as soon as it was closed.

 

The re-introduction was pretty seamless.  New platforms and shelters were built by subsidy and the old goods yard became a car park and bus stop, and, with freight services mainly to Aberthaw power station running down and a line speed of 50mph there was no problem at all in finding paths for the new trains until you got upline past Cogan Jc where they had to fit in with other traffic.  A timetable was published and the trains started running, dim problwm o gwbwl...

 

It is at this point that the similarities between LM and Wantage show up.  Wantage, similar in size to LM, was once connected by tramway to the GWML, but is high on the down and difficult to serve by 'full fat' railway.  The station is Wantage Road on the GWML, a busy main line with few paths available and high speed traffic mixed with slower heavy haul freight which should arguably have been quadrupled in the Churchward era when there was cash to do so.  Anything stopping at Wantage Road is going to be seriously in the way very quickly, and if the freights are held up they take a long time to get back up to speed, while high speed passenger traffic bunches up behind them.  And Didcot is close enough to serve as a railhead.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Obvious solution to serve Wantage/Grove is to put the station back where it was, at Grove.

 

But for most people in those places, it would not be much more difficult to drive to Challow where there is plenty of space and four tracks. Challow would also be good for Stanford and Faringdon.

[ess1uk]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51272817

 

here we go

[Godfrey Glyn]

Well the obvious thing now for the good residents of Devon, Cornwall and Somerset is to start voting for any party other than the Conservatives in order to install a sense of panic in the Government. On present form Mr A B Johnson might well start to throw money at the old LSW route round Dartmoor and other Roll back Beeching projects!!

On the other hand they probably ought to spend the money on getting rid of the so-called 'smart motorways'. Other schemes are available.

 

all the best

 

Godfrey

[Flittersnoop]

Still no danger of any actual practical work starting to get the trains back to Ashington or Fleetwood - just more consultants writing reports - how depressingly predictable. 

[jacko]

Listening to Radio 4 this morning, the most depressing thing (as a native of Blyth) was the presenter's appalling pronunciation of Blyth (especially as they spent nearly all of the dec 13 election day reporting from the sports centre).

 

[Andy Kirkham]

2 hours ago, jacko said:

Listening to Radio 4 this morning, the most depressing thing (as a native of Blyth) was the presenter's appalling pronunciation of Blyth (especially as they spent nearly all of the dec 13 election day reporting from the sports centre).

 

 

Perhaps you could enlighten us non-natives what the correct pronunciation is. I'm not sure I've ever had occasion to say the name out loud, but I've always supposed  that it rhymes with "lithe".

[jacko]

1 minute ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

Perhaps you could enlighten us non-natives what the correct pronunciation is. I'm not sure I've ever had occasion to say the name out loud, but I've always supposed  that it rhymes with "lithe".

exactly right.  A slightly stretched 'I' and a thickend 'th' .  radio 4 guy was exactly the opposite. 

[The Stationmaster]

On 02/12/2019 at 13:41, Joseph_Pestell said:

Obvious solution to serve Wantage/Grove is to put the station back where it was, at Grove.

 

But for most people in those places, it would not be much more difficult to drive to Challow where there is plenty of space and four tracks. Challow would also be good for Stanford and Faringdon.

This one is now a biy t stale but a few practical points -

1. The original platforms at Wantage Road are still largely there a d could be rebuilt/modified to fit better the present trackwork which has deeper ballast and a higher railhead level than was the case when the station was open.

2. The original yard area at Wantage Road is still in railway ownership and its area could be extended onto adjacent land.  Land acquisition on the Up side might not be difficult either.

3.  The original platform areas/footprints at both Wantage Road and Challow are adjacent to the current Relief Lines because I made very sure that they would be with my early 1990s  re-quadrupling scheme for the section between Wantage Road and Challow.

4.  While the Down side at Challow still has the original railway owned land footprint the Up side very definitely hasn't with the whole area turned over to industrial use.  There is barely sufficient room to construct a platform to modern standards west of the road overbridge and definitely no room to put any buildings or a footbridge on it.  The only way to sensibly provide a new station at Challow would be to purchase land to the east of the road bridge and develop the site from scratch.

5. Challow would be ideal for road access, on a good road, from Faringdon and Stanford and both have grown with new housing added in recent years.  Road access from Wantage is probably not as good to Challow as it would be to Wantage Road although the route is still much less heavily built up but the road between East Challow and Challow Station (as the location is still officially known from a non-railway viewpoint) is not a particularly good one being relatively narrow and bendy n between East Challow and the turning for West Challow.  And still not as good as it is on the Faringdon side of the railway between the West Challow Turn and Challow Station - traffic moves much more slowly on that stretch than it does on the Faringdon side. (I use the road a couple of times a year and have known the area since childhood although it is a long time since I walked from West Challow to the station).

 

Like so many railway/station reopening possibilities the practicalities can be quite a way from the bright idea to undo what Dr Beeching did and the costs tend to rise accordingly.

[Joseph_Pestell]

19 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

This one is now a biy t stale but a few practical points -

1. The original platforms at Wantage Road are still largely there a d could be rebuilt/modified to fit better the present trackwork which has deeper ballast and a higher railhead level than was the case when the station was open.

2. The original yard area at Wantage Road is still in railway ownership and its area could be extended onto adjacent land.  Land acquisition on the Up side might not be difficult either.

3.  The original platform areas/footprints at both Wantage Road and Challow are adjacent to the current Relief Lines because I made very sure that they would be with my early 1990s  re-quadrupling scheme for the section between Wantage Road and Challow.

4.  While the Down side at Challow still has the original railway owned land footprint the Up side very definitely hasn't with the whole area turned over to industrial use.  There is barely sufficient room to construct a platform to modern standards west of the road overbridge and definitely no room to put any buildings or a footbridge on it.  The only way to sensibly provide a new station at Challow would be to purchase land to the east of the road bridge and develop the site from scratch.

5. Challow would be ideal for road access, on a good road, from Faringdon and Stanford and both have grown with new housing added in recent years.  Road access from Wantage is probably not as good to Challow as it would be to Wantage Road although the route is still much less heavily built up but the road between East Challow and Challow Station (as the location is still officially known from a non-railway viewpoint) is not a particularly good one being relatively narrow and bendy n between East Challow and the turning for West Challow.  And still not as good as it is on the Faringdon side of the railway between the West Challow Turn and Challow Station - traffic moves much more slowly on that stretch than it does on the Faringdon side. (I use the road a couple of times a year and have known the area since childhood although it is a long time since I walked from West Challow to the station).

 

Like so many railway/station reopening possibilities the practicalities can be quite a way from the bright idea to undo what Dr Beeching did and the costs tend to rise accordingly.

 

Just had a look on Google Earth. A couple more sheds there since the days when I was visiting almost every day. But nothing very big or of such great value that it would prevent reopening on the same site or for the up platform to be east of the bridge.

 

Of course, there are now OLE masts in the way.

[rovex]

I'am constantly amazed at how much money is spent on reports before a single bit of actual work takes place!

Edited January 28, 2020 by rovex

[The Stationmaster]

2 minutes ago, rovex said:

I'am constantly amazed at how much money is spent on reports before a single bit of actual work takes place!

A reasonable number of years ago I had a job reviewing the review of a re-examination of the amended version of the original timetable proposals for a line it was proposed to re-open.  But lest you get worried I should point out that I came relatively inexpensively at a mere £250 per day (Note *)  and the job nly took me he equivalent of about 5 working days.  Remarkably that piece of railway actually (re)opened and has a decent train service nowadays.

Note * - but of course my time was charged to the client at twice what I was being paid.

 

I don't know how ,much money has been spent over the years on reopening to Tavistock over the former L&SWR route but BR did a lot of work in the early '90s at outside party prices although i suspect most of the money has bneen spent buy local councils and not necessarily on outside consultants.  near 30 u years on from the time I was looking over the proposed method of working and 'signalling' system the line is even further from reopening than it was then,

 

I expect as much money will be spent on assessing what work needs to be done to reopen to Okehampton as will be spent on some physical aspects of the proposal - if it ever happens.

 

[Ben B]

Quote

Still no danger of any actual practical work starting to get the trains back to Ashington or Fleetwood - just more consultants writing reports - how depressingly predictable. 

 

I would be utterly amazed if any work starts on any of these projects...  The traditional way of things- ideas are free, then 'consultants' can make a ton of money writing endless reports saying how good an idea it will be, but then no practical work takes place unless there is no possible alternative option, and then if it does start, it will cost 8x as much as initially promised and take 8x as long as initially promised, and be built to such a restrictive scale that if it proves popular and busy, it will cost as much again to upgrade the infrastructure for anything more than a single track with an occasional class 158.  And the whole process is stopped as soon as some nimby who bought a house backing onto the trackbed a few years ago, and who's extended their garden onto it and walks their dogs along it every night, makes out the proposed 4-sprinters-a-day branch line is going to be Clapham Junction and complains to their local paper, and writes to their MP...

 

Sorry, that was a tad bitter and cynical.

[Northmoor]

3 hours ago, Ben B said:

The traditional way of things- ideas are free, then 'consultants' can make a ton of money writing endless reports saying how good an idea it will be, but then no practical work takes place unless there is no possible alternative option,

Actually politicians sometimes use these very reports precisely because they show what bad ideas they are, or at least a nice idea but will cost far more than the advocates believe and will earn a very poor rate of return.  Seeing the reports this morning, I remain amazed that Ashington isn't well on the way to reopening already (because it should be) and equally amazed that Fleetwood is high on anyone's priorities for reopening.  It's a town already served by a modern tram network allowing people to commute easily into Blackpool, the major population centre.  I can't see how a heavy rail link (probably only hourly) is going to make much difference.  Preston isn't much of a commuter destination and Manchester is too far away.

[Zomboid]

4 hours ago, rovex said:

I'am constantly amazed at how much money is spent on reports before a single bit of actual work takes place!

These are big projects with impacts far beyond the railway boundary. They have a significant early design phase which takes a long time and costs a significant amount of money, but which is also essential to ensure whatever gets built (if anything) does what is supposed to.

[corneliuslundie]

But in any case the amount on offer would not be enough to re-open anything significant anyway. 

It is more money for the consultant friends of our politicians and civil servants, not more money for railways.

Cynical, me, never!!! Well not ALL the time.

I have nothing against consultants in the right place. When I was working I used to know several from Arup and a few other building services consultancies and they were highly skilled, highly motivated and well worth their fees.

Jonathan

[lmsforever]

Fleetwood was on the news last night with the minister being very optimistic about everything so maybe lines will reopen.

[Wickham Green]

D'you reckon £500,000,000 will be enough to determine whether the Fleetwood line should be heavy rail or tramway extension ?

[ess1uk]

6 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

D'you reckon £500,000,000 will be enough to determine whether the Fleetwood line should be heavy rail or tramway extension ?

Tram train?

[whart57]

On 28/01/2020 at 17:08, Ben B said:

 

And the whole process is stopped as soon as some nimby who bought a house backing onto the trackbed a few years ago, and who's extended their garden onto it and walks their dogs along it every night, makes out the proposed 4-sprinters-a-day branch line is going to be Clapham Junction and complains to their local paper, and writes to their MP...

 

 

What of the ones whose houses are actually on the former trackbed?

 

I happened to be walking along part of the Downslink footpath a few weeks ago (former Horsham - Guildford line) and noticed that the modern footpath keeps taking avoiding action to avoid buildings and businesses that weren't there fifty years ago. South of Horsham too, on the line to Shoreham, the former trackbed may well be a footpath, but that doesn't mean the track could simply be reinstated. At Southwater for example the road that formerly crossed the line by bridge now has a large roundabout at track level. There would need to be a lot of compensation paid out to reinstate these lines

[Markwj]

Part of the difficulty with Fleetwood is where could the station go because of building going on the station would be quite a way out of Fleetwood town centre. Despite this the A585 into Fleetwood which is not dual carriageway struggles to cope with the daily traffic so if anything could help relieve this it would be welcomed.

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, Markwj said:

Part of the difficulty with Fleetwood is where could the station go because of building going on the station would be quite a way out of Fleetwood town centre. Despite this the A585 into Fleetwood which is not dual carriageway struggles to cope with the daily traffic so if anything could help relieve this it would be welcomed.

From Google Maps I'm guessing the line would run on the East side of the A585 and terminate in the wasteland South of the Three Lights Roundabout.  Not right next to the town but actually quite convenient walking distance from the residential area.  This is important because the branch would likely be a source of traffic rather than a destination.  However I'm not convinced a town the size of Fleetwood will justify its own train service.

[The Evil Bus Driver]

On 28/01/2020 at 17:08, Ben B said:

 

I would be utterly amazed if any work starts on any of these projects...  The traditional way of things- ideas are free, then 'consultants' can make a ton of money writing endless reports saying how good an idea it will be, but then no practical work takes place unless there is no possible alternative option, and then if it does start, it will cost 8x as much as initially promised and take 8x as long as initially promised, and be built to such a restrictive scale that if it proves popular and busy, it will cost as much again to upgrade the infrastructure for anything more than a single track with an occasional class 158.  And the whole process is stopped as soon as some nimby who bought a house backing onto the trackbed a few years ago, and who's extended their garden onto it and walks their dogs along it every night, makes out the proposed 4-sprinters-a-day branch line is going to be Clapham Junction and complains to their local paper, and writes to their MP...

 

Sorry, that was a tad bitter and cynical.

Sounds like HS2

[The Evil Bus Driver]

2 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

What of the ones whose houses are actually on the former trackbed?

 

I happened to be walking along part of the Downslink footpath a few weeks ago (former Horsham - Guildford line) and noticed that the modern footpath keeps taking avoiding action to avoid buildings and businesses that weren't there fifty years ago. South of Horsham too, on the line to Shoreham, the former trackbed may well be a footpath, but that doesn't mean the track could simply be reinstated. At Southwater for example the road that formerly crossed the line by bridge now has a large roundabout at track level. There would need to be a lot of compensation paid out to reinstate these lines

The bridge is still there (complete with road on it)  Or rather it was when I was last there.

[The Evil Bus Driver]

On 28/01/2020 at 16:55, The Stationmaster said:

A reasonable number of years ago I had a job reviewing the review of a re-examination of the amended version of the original timetable proposals for a line it was proposed to re-open.  But lest you get worried I should point out that I came relatively inexpensively at a mere £250 per day (Note *)  and the job nly took me he equivalent of about 5 working days.  Remarkably that piece of railway actually (re)opened and has a decent train service nowadays.

Note * - but of course my time was charged to the client at twice what I was being paid.

 

I don't know how ,much money has been spent over the years on reopening to Tavistock over the former L&SWR route but BR did a lot of work in the early '90s at outside party prices although i suspect most of the money has bneen spent buy local councils and not necessarily on outside consultants.  near 30 u years on from the time I was looking over the proposed method of working and 'signalling' system the line is even further from reopening than it was then,

 

I expect as much money will be spent on assessing what work needs to be done to reopen to Okehampton as will be spent on some physical aspects of the proposal - if it ever happens.

 

Also known as "More paperwork than is good for you".  It's different for everyone, however in my particular case that starts and ends at writing my name.

 

That said "reviewing the review of a re-examination of the amended version of the original timetable proposals" sounds like a classic line from yes, Prime Minister

Edited January 29, 2020 by The Evil Bus Driver