Reversing Beeching

[lmsforever]

You only have to look at the costs involved with East West rail they seem to rise every time I read about it and they have cleared the vegetation at least twice and then done nothing ,this seems to be par for the course.

[Zomboid]

Vegetation clearance is often needed at early design stages, so the underlying ground can be properly assessed (and in some cases ruled out as a location to build something). It certainly doesn't mean something is about to be built, so don't read anything into it.

[The Johnster]

Many railway formations that have been abandoned for 50 or more years, the 'Beeching era', are not just overgrown and in need of clearance but the drainage has long ago failed, and the formation is saturated, especially in cuttings, or has subsided on embankments.  It may in some cases be easier and cheaper to build entirely new routes, but one imagines that in urban areas where land prices are astronomical, the better option is to retain and refurbish the old route.  But, either way, there is much more involved than just clearing the trackbed and relaying!

[rodent279]

Many railway formations that have been abandoned for 50 or more years, the 'Beeching era', are not just overgrown and in need of clearance but the drainage has long ago failed, and the formation is saturated, especially in cuttings, or has subsided on embankments.  It may in some cases be easier and cheaper to build entirely new routes, but one imagines that in urban areas where land prices are astronomical, the better option is to retain and refurbish the old route.  But, either way, there is much more involved than just clearing the trackbed and relaying!

Yes, I think in many cases it's more than just clearing vegetation & relaying track. When you get to renewing drainage & rebuilding formations, you are effectively starting from scratch anyway.

Even if & when HS2 gets built, the bits re-using the GC will not really see the GC reopened, it will effectively be completely new railway.

[Edwin_m]

In a sense it doesn't matter what the formation looks like provided it's not built over and preferably in public ownership and officially designated as a railway.  In that case quite a lot can be done within the boundary without going through the planning process, which is a far bigger obstacle than anything a bulldozer can overcome.  Unfortunately there are all too few disused routes where that is the case. 

[Mike Storey]

In a sense it doesn't matter what the formation looks like provided it's not built over and preferably in public ownership and officially designated as a railway.  In that case quite a lot can be done within the boundary without going through the planning process, which is a far bigger obstacle than anything a bulldozer can overcome.  Unfortunately there are all too few disused routes where that is the case. 

 

I partly agree, but with any formation that has been out of use for some time, grandfather rights are not to be assumed. It would at the very least be a "change of use". NR policy has for a long time been to apply for planning and environmental consents in all such cases. It even does so when changing the use of existing lines, for example where heavier freight trains are being introduced, to avoid litigation or compensation claims later.

[MarkC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't really know about the costs involved-but I would imagine replacing track is only one element in reopening a line, and not necessarily the most expensive part either. If it was due for renewal before closure anyway, or the trackbed needed renewal, then it's going to be replaced anyway.

I've siad earlier in this thread that closing lines is not the problem. The real issue is losing the right of way, and supermarkets etc being built over the formation. If current traffic patterns mean you don't need a line, then there's no point in diverting money & resources to it, but giving up a piece of physical infrastructure is depriving future generations of the means to reinstate it.

Exactly so.

[MarkC]

A connection to the national network on the York - Scarborough line is probably more useful than the one at Grosmont in terms of bringing in the punters. I can't imagine they get that many arriving by rail considering the service level on the Whitby line (where Middlsborough also isn't the tourist hot spot that York is).

 

I doubt they need the extra track and operational costs that would be associated with such an extension though. Probably wouldn't increase revenue that much.

Several factors at play -

3 level crossings to reinstate in Pickering, including one across the A170 Thirsk-Scarborough road, which is very busy.

No station at Rillington Junction, so all trains would have to go to Malton at least, if not all the way to York.

Stock operating on NR metals would have to be approved and fitted with the necessary electronics - the existing derogations in place for operations on the Esk Valley line to Whitby and  as far as Battersby would not be allowed - the EV is very much 'self contained', whereas the York-Scarborough line is not.

Central locking/secondary locking would be required on stock

Infrastructure at Malton and/or York would have to be much upgraded/installed to handle NYMR traffic

Extra costs involved due to more miles being racked up on locos/stock, including running at higher speeds than on the EV route

Crew availibility/costs issues

Cost of reinstatement of track, then its upkeep, on the Pickering-Rillington section

 

Never say never, of course, but as things stand this is very much a WIBN restoration.

Edited December 9, 2017 by MarkC

[peanuts]

I partly agree, but with any formation that has been out of use for some time, grandfather rights are not to be assumed. It would at the very least be a "change of use". NR policy has for a long time been to apply for planning and environmental consents in all such cases. It even does so when changing the use of existing lines, for example where heavier freight trains are being introduced, to avoid litigation or compensation claims later.

regularly walk along and around the formation of the micklehurst loop which has had drainage into the Huddersfield canal below and it is for long after the lightest shower a sodden morras much of the remaining ballast is now washed away during the winter storms as the water finds its own route to the canal below . the drainage is long beyond saving would not want to be owners of the much muted housing scheduled to go on this site will need good flood insurance !

Edited December 9, 2017 by peanuts

[lmsforever]

When the route Bicester to Oxford was done they tore up the existing line and went down to a new base level so this will have to be done Bicester Bletchley ,when this section was open trains had to tread carefully! Alll the money that has been spent on studies before the okay was given could probably have paid for the line ,remember this all started twenty years ago when it was a relatively low cost project  but the delays caused by the treasury and daft have pushed it through the roof.Looking forward to first journey to MK and not having to drive as roads are awful from Aylesbury and buses take a long time.

[asmay2002]

Several factors at play -

 

No station at Rillington Junction, so all trains would have to go to Malton at least, if not all the way to York.

 

The Isle of Wight steam railway & BR built a completely new station at Smallbrook Junction where none had ever existed before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallbrook_Junction_railway_station

Rillington Junction actually had a station in the past. Reinstatement makes the other "factors" irrelevant.

[Mike Storey]

Several factors at play -

3 level crossings to reinstate in Pickering, including one across the A170 Thirsk-Scarborough road, which is very busy.

No station at Rillington Junction, so all trains would have to go to Malton at least, if not all the way to York.

Stock operating on NR metals would have to be approved and fitted with the necessary electronics - the existing derogations in place for operations on the Esk Valley line to Whitby and  as far as Battersby would not be allowed - the EV is very much 'self contained', whereas the York-Scarborough line is not.

Central locking/secondary locking would be required on stock

Infrastructure at Malton and/or York would have to be much upgraded/installed to handle NYMR traffic

Extra costs involved due to more miles being racked up on locos/stock, including running at higher speeds than on the EV route

Crew availibility/costs issues

Cost of reinstatement of track, then its upkeep, on the Pickering-Rillington section

 

Never say never, of course, but as things stand this is very much a WIBN restoration.

 

As in see my post above #130. Mouchel put forward an alternative, which would just re-open Rillington to a station just south of the A170 at Pickering, so few of the problems you state would be involved. It would also allow the re-opening of Haxby and Strensall stations. Work at Malton would be minimal (we re-opened the old platform in the 1990's with a temporary structure due to flooding issues, with only minor additional works). However, whilst York City were keen, NYCC prevaricated, as the BC was marginal, and the scheme never went any further,

[rodent279]

As in see my post above #130. Mouchel put forward an alternative, which would just re-open Rillington to a station just south of the A170 at Pickering, so few of the problems you state would be involved. It would also allow the re-opening of Haxby and Strensall stations. Work at Malton would be minimal (we re-opened the old platform in the 1990's with a temporary structure due to flooding issues, with only minor additional works). However, whilst York City were keen, NYCC prevaricated, as the BC was marginal, and the scheme never went any further,

Interesting, I didn't know that  reopening as far as south of the A170 was proposed. I suppose you've got Flamingoland as an attraction nearby as well.

You could even re-instate the crossing for occasional use, non-passenger, stock movements etc.

Edited December 9, 2017 by rodent279

[Mike Storey]

Interesting, I dodn't know that  reopening as far as south of the A170 was proposed. I suppose you've got Flamingoland as an attraction nearby as well.

You could even re-instate the crossing for occasional use, non-passenger, stock movements etc.

 

That was another option, but the BC was entirely negative at that point, due to the need to purchase the land now occupied by a supermarket and I think one or two others, plus closure of the road currently serving the Tourist Office, a hairdressers and the car park for what was Safeways and relocation costs etc for same (or demolition of the Old Pump House containing the former). It would have been based on a Cromer-style operation, so that inter-connectivity in signalling (the most prohibitive part) would have been unnecessary. Whereas Cromer (and Norfolk CC) was entirely supportive, the six millionaires in Pickering DC (who basically ran it in those days) and Whitby DC, would not go for it.

 

Of course, twenty odd years later, attitudes may be changing.

[DavidLong]

After all the years spent on the GRIP process, haggling over money, planning procedures, environmental audits and site preparation I'm always amazed at how quickly the track appears. We are still quite good at that bit!

 

David

[rodent279]

That was another option, but the BC was entirely negative at that point, due to the need to purchase the land now occupied by a supermarket and I think one or two others, plus closure of the road currently serving the Tourist Office, a hairdressers and the car park for what was Safeways and relocation costs etc for same (or demolition of the Old Pump House containing the former). It would have been based on a Cromer-style operation, so that inter-connectivity in signalling (the most prohibitive part) would have been unnecessary. Whereas Cromer (and Norfolk CC) was entirely supportive, the six millionaires in Pickering DC (who basically ran it in those days) and Whitby DC, would not go for it.

 

Of course, twenty odd years later, attitudes may be changing.

All of which goes to prove the point that it's not so much the physical state of the infrastructure, but that once you've given up the right of way, reopening is an order of magnitude more difficult.

[phil-b259]

The Isle of Wight steam railway & BR built a completely new station at Smallbrook Junction where none had ever existed before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallbrook_Junction_railway_station

Rillington Junction actually had a station in the past. Reinstatement makes the other "factors" irrelevant.

 

There is a big difference between the self contained Island line operation (where attracting tourists wanting to visit the IOWSR is significant to the lines survival) and the York to Scarborough mainline!

 

There is absolutely no way Network Rail or any of the TOCS would even consider building a station at Rillington in a million years - if by some miracle the NYMR did get there then they would find themselves in a West Somerset style situation.

[Zomboid]

If it were funded by a third party (NYMR in this case) NR would be fine with a station being built at Rillington. I believe that's exactly what happened at Southend airport. Stopping some trains at it would seem to be viable as TPE trains presently have 21 minutes to sit around at Scarborough, cutting that to ~15 for a few trains a day wouldn't seem likely to hugely impact reliability. Dwell times at Charing Cross are shorter...

 

It's not going to happen any time soon of course, but building the line through Pickering is probably the bigger obstacle.

[Edwin_m]

Any extra station stop involves lengthening the journey for other passengers, even if it can be fitted into the diagrams without needing more trains.  The business case for a station needs to consider how many passengers will be lost from through journeys (which are probably longer and therefore get more vehicle-miles off the roads) against the number of extra passengers the station will attract.  Thus even if someone built a station at no cost to the public purse, it might still not be worthwhile to stop trains there. 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Edwin_m

[locoholic]

Any extra station stop involves lengthening the journey for other passengers, even if it can be fitted into the diagrams without needing more trains.  The business case for a station needs to consider how many passengers will be lost from through journeys (which are probably longer and therefore get more vehicle-miles off the roads) against the number of extra passengers the station will attract.  Thus even if someone built a station at no cost to the public purse, it might still not be worthwhile to stop trains there.

 

This illustrates perfectly the "Can't do" attitude of today. You can't build an extra station because it will annoy the passengers when trains stop there. If that mentality had prevailed two hundred years ago no railways would ever have been built.

[Coryton]

This illustrates perfectly the "Can't do" attitude of today. You can't build an extra station because it will annoy the passengers when trains stop there. If that mentality had prevailed two hundred years ago no railways would ever have been built.

 

I disagree.

 

I'd say it that it illustrates the "Have to justify why doing it is the right thing" mentality.

 

But also perhaps the shift from a view of railways being a universal form of transport to one where they are seen as an alternative to the car (and to some extent the bus) and therefore can concentrate on the most popular journeys.

[rodent279]

Yes, I agree. You have to be able to justify it, That means you have to take into account all the influencing factors, and all the possible knock-on effects. Longer journey times are one element, not necessarily a show stopper, but something that needs to be considered.

If it's just for the purposes of getting pax from Malton to a hypothetical new southern NYMR terminus, you'd probably be better off running a connecting bus. Maybe there'd still be benefit in having a minimalist mainline connection at Rillington, or wherever, but something like the connection to the SDR at Totnes, or Mdland Railway at Ironville. Something only used once in a while, under special arrangements.

[The Stationmaster]

I consider the problem is not that the declared costs being lower than the actuals, rather that the actual costs are so much more than they used to be and appear still to be in other countries.  "Modern Railways" recently quoted Denmark installing OLE to a similar spec to that on GWML (but with considerably less ironwork) and the cost, adjusted for inflation, was similar i nreal terms to that of the ECML scheme under BR.  Unfortunately we don't seem to have heard anything on the outturn costs of electrification elsewhere on NR so we can't tell if the problem is unique to the GWML or more widespread.  And with schemes now being cancelled it could be a long time before we get the chance to find out. 

 

What would be very interesting on GWML electrification would be to compare the estimated costs for each section/geographical area electrified with the outturn costs   Presumably there will be a substantial difference due to the ever increasing estimates for the scheme as work progressed (or didn't progress) and it would be educational to see where the variations have occurred although some of that has in any case been obvious from the pace at which things haven't happened.

 

The most noticeable change from what was said about how the scheme would be carried out to the way in which it is actually being done is the gradual introduction of an ever burgeoning fleet of road-rail vehicles and the later (in scheme timescale) appearance of lineside works sites which have obviously involved renting land plus the costs of making it suitable, constructing rail access and then eventually putting it back to how it was.  I wonder if that was in the original estimate?  Equally the abysmal productivity of various features and stageworks would be vey illuminating to track through the scheme.

 

But I doubt we'll ever get the chance to see that sort of detail or ask those responsible why things deviated so much from original planned methods and timescales.

[MarkC]

The Isle of Wight steam railway & BR built a completely new station at Smallbrook Junction where none had ever existed before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallbrook_Junction_railway_station

Rillington Junction actually had a station in the past. Reinstatement makes the other "factors" irrelevant.

Rillington did indeed have a station, but it was a simple 2-platform affair, albeit having a wonderful Andrews overall roof, not a 'junction/interchange station', per se. OK, IF you could purchase land for NYMR use, and that isn't a given, there's still the issue of infrastructure there. Yes, it could be done, that's not in doubt, but do the benefits outweigh the costs?

 

As others have commented, the BCR just wouldn't add up to building a new station - no disrespect to the good folk of Rillington, but it's hardly likely to produce much traffic from there, and what advantage would using a new station for, say, transfers to Flamingoland, have over using the existing Malton station? Then there's the additional times needed for station calls on the main line. As for the cost of building said station, even a basic one - you would be well into 7 figures, I would think.

 

You still have the issues of getting through Pickering too - they are hardly 'irrelevant' either.

 

As I said, at present it's very much WIBN, but at least the majority of the trackbed is still clear. Who knows what will happen in a couple of decades?

[rodent279]

What would be very interesting on GWML electrification would be to compare the estimated costs for each section/geographical area electrified with the outturn costs   Presumably there will be a substantial difference due to the ever increasing estimates for the scheme as work progressed (or didn't progress) and it would be educational to see where the variations have occurred although some of that has in any case been obvious from the pace at which things haven't happened.

 

The most noticeable change from what was said about how the scheme would be carried out to the way in which it is actually being done is the gradual introduction of an ever burgeoning fleet of road-rail vehicles and the later (in scheme timescale) appearance of lineside works sites which have obviously involved renting land plus the costs of making it suitable, constructing rail access and then eventually putting it back to how it was.  I wonder if that was in the original estimate?  Equally the abysmal productivity of various features and stageworks would be vey illuminating to track through the scheme.

 

But I doubt we'll ever get the chance to see that sort of detail or ask those responsible why things deviated so much from original planned methods and timescales.

Regarding the last point, FoI request surely would throw some light on it?