Local council wants to use East Lancs as a commuter line

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, adb968008 said:

The level crossing at Ramsbottom would fail, it is far too busy any day of the week. I’m surprised gates were allowed even back in 1991, unless grandfather rights applied and maybe still does. Minehead crossing is nothing compared to the traffic at Ramsbottom.

 

Townsend Fold is a sleepy back water, but a crossing none the less, Rawtenstall West is quite busy too.

But the commuters are at neither… they are all around the valley, upto Burnley and beyond, heading to Into a funnel road to Manchester.. not one of 4 ELR stations has enough demand, only a park and ride would solve the motorways problems, as a local “catch all” … unless that was addressed, it simply would not stack up… but “catching all” means major road works, as well as rail as well as the station, the track, signalling and of course rolling stock and maintenance.

As mentioned earlier the track is very old, I dont know when it was last replaced, but BR started running it down in the 1960’s, it wasnt lifted. I’m sure the ELR maintains it for its needs but I doubt its suitable for sustained daily higher speed running without entire replacement.

 

 

Our local branch line still has some sections of running line laid in the 1950s with bullhead rail.  While locos are a rarity (for engineering trains only nowadays) the line speed is 50 mph which the Turbos regularly achieve in order to maintain running times.  What counts is the level of maintenance required and undertaken - which obviously affects the cost.  If rail is up to standard it is not replaced although some has been - very recently in one case.

 

As far as the level crossing are concerned that is covered, very specifically, by the LRO which requires the crossing to be equipped and maintained to the standard set by the Secretary of State.  From what I have seen of it (admittedly a good number of years back) Ramsbottom Crossing probably now needs road traffic lights - it really did back then.  Gates  of the traditional type areperfectly acceptable otherwise NR would have got rid of all of its own - the main reason for changing them are need for renewal and reducing/simplifying maintenance (which wouldn't  be a bad idea in my view but that would cause an interesting debate about who pays for the work

 

One fascinating aside - the LRO does not permit the line to be used by electric trains unless they are powered by batteries.

[adb968008]

16 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

One fascinating aside - the LRO does not permit the line to be used by electric trains unless they are powered by batteries.

Thats interesting.

 

ive only been on two battery powered trains in this country, oddly 1 of them was this year, the other was at Bury… 30 years separate these images…

[The reason for this trip was the Railscene video filming, Railscene cabride from Manchester to Rawtenstall. That went beyond the operational stretch of line at that time, you hear my voice on the narration at times], even though it was a “works train” on a non open line,  it was packed.
 

The lesser used Stubbins Station..

 

and a year later.. 1991

 

 

Then roll on to July 2022

Edited October 13, 2022 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, eldomtom2 said:

You have completely misinterpreted my point. None of what you have said is a denial to the fact that running an effective commuter service would place the ELR under a great many exemptions it is currently exempt from. That heritage railways are required to follow many general safety regulations does not mean they are not exempted from many specific regulations.

So perhaps you could spell out for us exactly what these exemptions are?   Apart of course from the restriction of speed imposed by the LRO and the current situation regarding the running of heritage rolling stock stock which would not be permitted on the National Network except under special operational authorities.  I'm asking as much as anything else as matter of interest having in the past been very closely involved in the application of ROGS and various other safety related matters on a number of heritage/leisure railways and on major industrial sites accessed by trains running to/from the national network.  

 

BTW don't forget that the operator of the railway is not permitted in any case to apply several exceptions the Light Railways Acts allowed from what were normal stipulations in the Requirements.

 

[Michael Hodgson]

On 12/10/2022 at 12:20, e30ftw said:

A 142 would have been more fitting for north west england though😀

 

And preceded by a bloke in a frock coat on horseback carrying a red flag.

So as not to frighten the gricers.

 

[adb968008]

24 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

And preceded by a bloke in a frock coat on horseback carrying a red flag.

So as not to frighten the gricers.

 

whilst i’m wandering down memory lane, this is how it all began… at least crossing the roads..

 

Below is  NWGB No1, double heading with 32 Gothenburg with two breakvans and J94 No 8 (3776) at the rear on what would become the very first train to reach Rawtenstall since the final BR Railtour of 1981.

note NWGB no1 borrowed 193’s whistle, which itself was the whistle ex-A4 Dominion of New Zealand.

 

Townsend Fold crossing.

 

This is what Rawtenstall looked like on the very first miserable winters day with pretty bad weather.

 

NWGB no1 was in a pretty poor condition, i recall its ticket was due to expire, it had only been used a couple of times since 1987. Missing vaccuum pipes and other bits. It was really pushed all the way due to lack of water, and had bags of coal on the footplate. It had to be watered from a pipe from no32 at Rawtenstall. When the whistle was blown the pressure gauge dropped. It was symbolic, as NWGB no1 was the ELRs first locomotive, so it had to be the first to reach the goal…

 

(I was fortunate to be on both the last BR service in 1981 and the first ELR train, indeed I was the kid in the rear cab of the class 105, and sounded the horn at Townsend Fold on that railtour in 1981, ive still got the golden ticket for that trip, amongst other things like the reopening day poster in July 1987).

 

no shortage of council support in those days.. they were in 100% and more..

 

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by adb968008

[eldomtom2]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Apart of course from the restriction of speed imposed by the LRO and the current situation regarding the running of heritage rolling stock stock which would not be permitted on the National Network except under special operational authorities.

Well you just admitted to the existence of a bunch of exemptions. Plus, of course, as you already mentioned there are things you can do at 25mph you can't do at the higher speeds necessary for a useful commuter service...

 

Besides, not every rail regulation has safety as its purpose.

Edited October 13, 2022 by eldomtom2

[woodenhead]

@eldomtom2 would you care to share your credentials for knowledge of railway regulations over that of the Stationmaster.

[eldomtom2]

4 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

@eldomtom2 would you care to share your credentials for knowledge of railway regulations over that of the Stationmaster.

Will he substantiate his claims that there is little that would need to be altered for the ELR to become a commuter operation?

[woodenhead]

2 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

Will he substantiate his claims that there is little that would need to be altered for the ELR to become a commuter operation?

Will you stop arguing with people please, there are nicer ways to debate stuff.

[woodenhead]

I've been wondering what alternatives there might be to using the ELR for a new commuter service from the Rossendale area or whether the ELR could do something interesting with support from the council so they would get some dedicated track back.

 

But there isn't much as the other alignments have been built over, am I correct that at some point in the past the ELR was looking at the Haslingden route before it got the rights to use Rawtenstall or have I imagined that?  Edit: Didn't imagine it, but it was Helmshore station the the early ELR preservation used, until the line to Rawtenstall became available and was a better option for a line, especially when Haslingden disappeared under a by-pass in 1980.

 

Then there was the old route to Bacup from Rochdale, but again it's built over in places making a business over using the ELR very problematic.  There is a nice nature walk along the route out of Rochdale, Healey Dell, will give a try soon, includes a viaduct from the old route.

Edited October 13, 2022 by woodenhead
Answered own question

[woodenhead]

8 hours ago, adb968008 said:

[The reason for this trip was the Railscene video filming, Railscene cabride from Manchester to Rawtenstall. That went beyond the operational stretch of line at that time, you hear my voice on the narration at times], even though it was a “works train” on a non open line,  it was packed.
 

 

I watched that recently on YouTube..

 

[adb968008]

3 hours ago, woodenhead said:

I watched that recently on YouTube..

 

Thanks, Gosh ive not seen that in years… 

 

The stop at Stubbins were they chased the dog was the “ all off board and have a nosey about” moment.. see the picture above, in the film you can see the difference in daylight at the restart…  There was still hope the station might reopen at that time, and a carpark had been tarmaced. Irwell Vale was brand new, its edging stones had been sourced from Bradley Fold station before a housing estate was built on it.

 

At Townsend Fold was the Benny Hill moment… the gates aren’t equal sized, so you have to open the Rawtenstall side one first. If you open the wrong one your only going to be in pain as they would overlap, that was 30 years ago, no idea if that changed.

 

The BEMU recharged itself in the reverse journey, as it was all down hill. The only seats in it at the time were two rows of meticulous Green first class, the rest of it was empty, except the guards area. 
 

ive a plan to do the BEMU as a model but was lacking the RTC text, I see that in the opening of the video !

Edited October 13, 2022 by adb968008

[adb968008]

12 hours ago, woodenhead said:

I've been wondering what alternatives there might be to using the ELR for a new commuter service from the Rossendale area or whether the ELR could do something interesting with support from the council so they would get some dedicated track back.

 

But there isn't much as the other alignments have been built over, am I correct that at some point in the past the ELR was looking at the Haslingden route before it got the rights to use Rawtenstall or have I imagined that?  Edit: Didn't imagine it, but it was Helmshore station the the early ELR preservation used, until the line to Rawtenstall became available and was a better option for a line, especially when Haslingden disappeared under a by-pass in 1980.

 

Then there was the old route to Bacup from Rochdale, but again it's built over in places making a business over using the ELR very problematic.  There is a nice nature walk along the route out of Rochdale, Healey Dell, will give a try soon, includes a viaduct from the old route.

The ELR was founded by some members off shooting from Buckley Wells Railway Enthusiasts. They set up and rented Helmshore station, which included 44806 (painted BR lined Green) amongst other bits and pieces.

 

When BR announced closure of the Rawtenstall line to passengers in 1972 it made no sense to stay at Helmshore, as they would be running to a freight only line at Stubbins… hence the move to Castlecroft yard and setting up Bury Transport Museum, home until 1987, with its 1/4 mile of siding used occasionally for breakvan rides, usually with MSC 70, named Phoenix, NWGB no1, Yates Duxbury 945 and RSH Ugly no62 for a short period. They also acquired RSH no1 Ex Meaford, and mk1 NE4350 which were part of the Boyne City Railroad plans (Another Meaford RSH and 3 coaches were exported and are still in the US).

 

The diesel shed was originally built to house D1041, D832 and D1048… D1048 just slipped through their fingers and never arrived from Horwich… a sliding doors moment that could have changed that locos preservation history. Later it housed 34027 until it went to the SVR.

 

Helmshore is long gone, built over. Thats never coming back. The lumb viaduct is impressive you can walk on it.

 

As for another route to Rossendale, it all revolves around the A56 / A682… those two roads fill up like a river from all minor roads from villages all up the valley and funnels to Manchester. There is no real alternative due to geology. If your coming from as far away as Skipton, or Settle by car to Manchester your routed this way.

Looking over the ELR route, to me the easiest & cheapest might be adding a fork to the Metrolink scissors at Bury interchange, running the tram along the old knowsley st goods yard, and sidings on the north side of the ELR.
Dropped pin
https://goo.gl/maps/NC2BnLAS4QdbihQS9
 

Then continue along the north side of the ELR formation upto the business park on the west side of the motorway, a distance of 1mile.

Then build out a multi-level carpark and level a platform.

The site is right by the motorway entrance, theres parking for over 400 cars right now, quite what for Ive no idea… on google maps its empty.

https://goo.gl/maps/9xytPbeowuV4JPYe6
 

 

That to me wouldnt interfere with the ELR very much at all, maybe shift their line from the current East up slow, to Down slow (it used to be 4 track in BR days) and then later uses one line of a short stretch of former double track, that I very much doubt the ELR would ever reinstate. Whilst cheap and non-instrusive to the ELR, it would still need modifications to Metrolinks crossing at Bury interchange, and of course, parking, station and maybe traffic light sequencing for the Motorway.

 

The same site could also maybe go the otherway, if a platform was added to the running line and head trains to Manchester via Castleton curve. That would be intrusive on the ELRs line to Heywood, and is complicated as the bridge over the motorway is single track and line at that point is 1 in 60, so branching to a siding in the park from the East wouldnt be as easy as a more nimble tram from the west.

of course $$$$.. I doubt Bury would pay for it, theres nothing in it for them, and I doubt Rossendale would pay for something outside their area, but it does solve the tailbacks and traffic that starts further down the motorway… but, and perhaps crucially, it doesnt get that photo opp for Rossendale politicians on their patch.

 

Edited October 14, 2022 by adb968008

[woodenhead]

I like that idea of the fork off the Metrolink to a new park and ride by the M66 - would be the least intrusive, but as you say, it won't be the coup that the Rossendale councillors want which to me points to a park and ride near Irwell vale which would be disastrous for the ELR.

 

If they went with a mainline park and ride going the other way I think the ELR would have to give up Heywood, but on the flipside they would gain a massive car park if they did put in a station alongside the mainline one, they'd also maintain a mainline connection too.

 

Personally I do wonder if a park and ride alongside the M65 between Hapton and Huncoat would better serve both Bolton and Manchester (and trains can go either way to Manchester via Blackburn or Todmorden), but again that isn't Rossendale Council....

[Nick C]

On 12/10/2022 at 11:12, phil-b259 said:

The same would also apply if you were talking about the Mid Hants for example (Alresford is a pretty big town these days).

Alresford isn't that big - only around 5,000 people (around 2,500 of working age) - and given it's proximity to Winchester, Southampton and Portsmouth, I suspect a fair proportion of the workforce work in those cities rather than London. It's also got pretty good road links in both main directions.

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

 

 

If they went with a mainline park and ride going the other way I think the ELR would have to give up Heywood, but on the flipside they would gain a massive car park if they did put in a station alongside the mainline one, they'd also maintain a mainline connection too.

 

The thing with the rail idea, is why stop at the M66.. if the heavy rail solution used the same suggested tram formation, north side single track line at the side of the ELR, it could open up a new Mainline station / platform at Bury Interchange as well as the M66 park and ride  using the knowsley st goods yard and put Bury back on the rail map… in the whole of this Bury is probably the only locality that would make sense.

 

In this though the ELR would need to negotiate on what happens beyond the M66, but it wouldnt really be affected on the Bury -M66 stretch.
 

Anything starting by the M66 going eastwards isnt half going to sound nice though… at the 40’s at 40 gala they did just that, and went for it, for the next 3 miles… still havent forgotten it.

Just dreaming for a moment…

I always thought Castleton engineers yard would be a good home for a rebuilt Manchester Mayfield station, and serve as a preserved “major railway terminus”, and as museum.. but I know that kind  of money doesnt exist… but passengers using it wouldnt need a car park either if there was one at the M66.

 

If the ELR maintained the land to Broadfield, then split to 2 tracks, “Up” being ELR to Castleton yard, “Down” being Network Rail to Castleton triangle, 1 platform separately each at Heywood and a mega station/museum for the ELR at Castleton wouldnt that be nice ?

 

And with 2 East/West direction platforms at Bury Interchange at 20 minute service could be matched in on NR line, with the only contention being a short single track section over 2 bridges, M66 and Pilsworth rd.

 

end dream/ back to reality.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2022 by adb968008

[adb968008]

I found this today on Rossendale councils website…

 

https://www.rossendale.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/17777/rail_brochure_oct_2022.pdf

 

The scary part of this glossy brochure is the presumption that that the ELR will go along with it; that the ELR is not treated as an equal partner in this (its some what condescending towards the ELR suggesting issues of professionalism; whilst not recognising what value it actually already does, and could bring to the table, not least that it holds the lease to the line and owns the infrastructure on it they want to use!)

 

The document is very high level and is absent of the details, fanciful… the nitty gritty is just not there.

 

Therefore imo its not going to get very far, but it might be far enough to get to the next round of funding.. however at that point is where it would fail, and imo the ELR should make a definite stand to point out the issues..and put so e effort to showing how this is flawed. Maybe going as far to say if this was forced on them, then it would be game over for the ELR, and make it clear.

 

Some odd spots I noted…

 

Quote

In phase 1 we will use the existing heritage line between Rawtenstall and create a new rail platform at Bury Market Street station.

 

So the plan is to use the ELR as is.. without even going onto Manchester.

 

Whats missed by the stakeholders in this venture is that phase 1 is not needed / relevent and they are not adding any value in this proposal, because the ELR already do operate between Rawtenstall and Bury, any time they want to, any day of the week… if they felt a commuter service was of value, theyve already had 30 years to try it ( and i recall they did a few times), but it wasnt a success as the demand was not there. Of course at anytime in the last 30 years Rossendale council could have chosen to fund a commuter trial,  and the ELR would have benefitted… putting money into their own borough, rather than Systra etc.

If its that easy, why haven't they ?

 

I have to question how “Bury Market Street” could exist, approached from a West direction.. its on an inane gradient, to crossover Metrolink… involving a 1 in 36 approach and 1 in 41 descent.. As side of the technical challenge, walking from Bolton St to Interchange is a 5 minute walk, a mini bus shuttle if you must is surely better than a pie in the sky technically challenging station.

 

Is it even permissable to build stations on a 1 in 41 gradient in 2022.. @phil-b259 you seem to be clued up on this details do you know ?

 

Quote

Greater levels of current service at weekends to improve access for day visitors to East Lancashire

Coupled with an hourly service.. that puts the Heywood line beyond use for Heritage operations.. there isn't really the gap, it would need additional signalling at Heywood, and probably double tracking to Broadfield. (i note they weren't brave enough to suggest a station at Broadfield.. despite a sizeable population.. the natives are should we say “interesting”.).

it also proposes reopening Stubbins and Ewood Bridge. I cant see the benefit of Stubbins at all. It serves nothing other than a side road and 3 rows of housing.

Thats why it wasnt reopened and Irwell Vale built instead..its got access to the countryside. Even BR only ever built platforms on the Rawtenstall side, despite being a junction for Accrington.

 

Ewood Bridge is interesting.. as a park and ride and huge multi £mn investment in facilities.. yes maybe. But as a tourist station, again no.. there is nothing there, not even parking today.
 

But lets question the hourly service…

 

Metrolink runs every 7 minutes off peak from Manchester, how is hourly train from Manchester adding value ?

and

The ELR already runs hourly at a weekend anyway, so in what way is this hourly service adding value up the valley, as side of being direct ?

 

Quote

growing the visitor economy by at least 10-15% visitors annually – drawing up to a further 215,000 visitors each year

Would be difficult to justify, if the heritage railway no longer existed.

 

Quote

The proposal will require some improvements to stations and platforms along the route. This will focus on Rawtenstall, Heywood and new stations at Stubbins and Ewood Bridge. There will be no wholesale rebuild, rather focused specific improvements to platforms, signalling and signage.

It neglects “Bury Market Street”.. and fails to recognise the improvements are needed to stations at Stubbins and Ewood Bridge that essentially no longer exist… their just earth mounds.

It also goes onto propose a passing loop at Summerseat (imo a good idea, including reinstating the platform and goods loop would give this station its character back).. but fails to mention how this station really fits into a commuter plan (its too small and probably doesnt).

 

Its further completely at odds with its opening line…

 

Quote

Utilising existing rail lines along the route significantly lessens the cost of the overall project. It requires no significant overhaul or laying of new track and utilises existing train stations and signalling infrastructure 

 

 

 

About the ELR…

Quote

This is a significant asset for East Lancashire which we wish to retain, see thrive and have a sound financial future. It is an integral part of the local visitor economy and attraction loved by many local people and visitors. The ELR will retain control of all operations on its infrastructure. There is an opportunity with this proposal to expand its current role to also become a professional
rail infrastructure and operations organisation with a continuing volunteer element to operate the heritage train service. To do this ELR will need financial support and we are keen to explore the details of how this can be achieved, including the possibility to set up a new co-operative model.

i find this very condescending…

Its basically saying they want to take over, but yet states letting the ELR have control on what it already has (why would this be a benefit of this proposal, when they already have this today without this plan).

The ELR could be supported by directly injecting cash to a commuter trial, without needing these studies… indeed the cost of these studies could probably fund a trial for a year… Are they really just dancing behind shadows, and finding avenues to spend central government cash on studies for consultancies to benefit ?

 

so how about the numbers… (all from the proposal unless foot noted).

 

The article suggests 82.5k population of Rossendale

500k rail journeys could be achieved

250k car journeys (so a car journey is counted once, the rail journey of 500k is return )

216k are additional visitors…tourists generated by this proposal.

284k are therefore to be assumed to be Rossendales commuters

 

71499 The actual population of Rossendale (1)

35700 are actually employed.(1)

260 working days in a year.

8925 people daily commute to Manchester (Proposal states 1 in 4 commute to Manchester).. This assumes 5 days a week…

 

So the number are proposing…

284k / 260 = 1093 commuter singles per day (assumes 5 days per week).

or 

284k / 130 = 2186 commuters singles per day (assumes 2.5 days a week / wfh, 25 days vacation, bank holidays  etc)

 

wait a minute… thats singles….! Statistics lie…

 

546 returns on a 5 day week

1093 returns on a 2.5 day week

 

The proposal is built on 6%-12%  shift of commuters to Rail.. thats a very big assumption.

 

now what about the extra 216k single journeys ?

 

The ELR is connected by Metrolink, so how would a ride on a class 230 from Victoria via Heywood to Ramsbottom bring about 216k extra visitors that a Tram starting from other suburbs to / via Victoria cannot today ? - thats a very big question to understand what Metrolink is missing ?

 

 

and finally the costs…

 

£80mn (unquantified)

£5m. Operating costs…

 

if we assume full recovery over 25 years, no interest and no inflation…

£5mn x 25 years + £80mn = £205mn / 25 years = £8.2mn a year.

 

£8.2mn / 500k proposed number of journeys = £16.40 return…+ inflation, interest.

 

however if based on actual government employed figures of Rossendale, commuting 2.5 days a week with 1 in 4 people commuting doing the commute thats closer to 56k journeys a year… thats £146.42 per person…

 

one hopes those extra 216k (108k return) visitors who refuse to use a car /metrolink and dont want a ride on a steam train, preferring a class 230 to East Lancs, as that would reduce it to …

 

£50.61 for a return ticket…today, before interest and inflation in best case.

(£30.48 return if you ignore the £80mn investment).

Today Metrolink will charge you £7.10, the ELR £19.50, both are day tickets.

 

of course this means government subsidies to make it work, and I suspect the takeover of the ELR, but pretence of keeping it around is the justification for the proposal. They would load risk on the ELR and cost to keep it heritage as justification. Down the road, nudging the ELR out “to save cost” is very real, but by then the £80mn is sunk and the commuter running company has its costs/profit baked in.. they wont care what it costs to run, their income I am sure they would want guarenteed, due to the “risks” of the ELR at the early part of this venture.

in simple terms, this proposal says if the government pays for it and writes off £80mn,  they can rock up and run it at a profit…. I’m sure even a bunch “unprofessional volunteers” can do that.

 

So that brings it down to one last Question… if Rossendale council gave the ELR £3mn a year (£11k per day for 260 days)… what could they do with it…

 

(1) https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/1946157099/printable.aspx

 

 

 

It proposes class 230 as traction.

Edited October 15, 2022 by adb968008

[woodenhead]

The proposed service is 2 trains in peak and an hourly off peak service - doesn't leave much space the ELR and would doom any gala weekends I think.

 

I think the bits about ELR retaining control - probably of the yards around Bury, but once onto the ELR proper surely they will play second fiddle to any mainline service as it will be subject to strict timekeeping to integrate with the main network at Castleton.  To me the ELR will only be allowed to play in the gaps.  Would that be on the slot of the peak hour schedule, i.e. they get to run trains between Bury and Rawtenstall during the off peak on what would be the other mainline service in a peak?

 

They want to do this by adding in a new loop for passing trains, if they really wanted to keep the ELR as it is but add in a commuter service then surely the answer would be reinstatement of the second track which would lift capacity massively.  If the mainline offering is successful it only means more trains and eventually the ELR would be pushed out for good.

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

The proposed service is 2 trains in peak and an hourly off peak service - doesn't leave much space the ELR and would doom any gala weekends I think.

 

Its a take over bid.

 

pure and simple.

 

Theres as much heritage in this as there is on the Waverley route,.. a few initial railtours and game over.

 

At stake is, does this study have a friend in central government who has access to enough tax payers money, to wedge off cash to those proposing it…

vs

Can it be demonstrably shown its got too many holes in the plan and the bucket of cash is not big enough, so that its easier to pick a different idea.

its nothing about benefits to Rossendale.

Its got benefits to consultants, contractors edging for a slice of a government pot and seeking a project to justify it.

 

ignoring it isnt a sustainable strategy for the ELR, they need to come out fighting against it in a cost measured practical factual way.

 

1. Bury Market street on a steep incline thats further away to walk than Bolton St

2. New stations with populations of less than a few hundred and no parking.

3. Benefit of an hourly service over an existing every 7 minute tram service

4. Cost of operation (let alone infrastructure) is greater than the cost today.

5. Question the numbers, why would an extra 216k journeys  take an hourly train thats on a detour and slower with less stops.

6. Alternatives.. wouldnt it be cheaper if…

7. offer to hire them access to the ELR on the actual cost basis of the proposal,  to run a trial, test the numbers and see the demand... and of course pay for it !

8. TfGM is looking at a new Heywood station, how does this conflict and reduce the cost of this plan, how does Trams via Heywood to Bury via the A58 reduce the benefit of this plan ?
 

Keep the charity, heritage and emotion out of it.. it wont help the optics and it removes the “but it can be solved with cash to a charity” aspect of it, which is what their argument for funding is rooted on… At somepoint someone will walk around Bury with a bag of sweetners to talk the ELR round.. watch for it… and also look out for soft actvities like. “Jobs for the boys” and “i can hire you as a consultant if…”.

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

On 13/10/2022 at 20:34, eldomtom2 said:

Will he substantiate his claims that there is little that would need to be altered for the ELR to become a commuter operation?

Maybe if you read my post you would know?

 

In the meanwhile perhaps you would care to answer the question I asked,  I quoted two things - which you seem to regard as 'a list', but what, please,  are all the others you keep referring to?  So far you are telling us nothing.

[eldomtom2]

41 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Maybe if you read my post you would know?

You have not substantiated anything. You have made a lot of insinuations but have not backed anything up.

Edited October 15, 2022 by eldomtom2

[woodenhead]

2 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

You have not substantiated anything. You have made a lot of insinuations but have not backed anything up.

And you have?

[John Besley]

Just to throw in my 2 pence worth, how will volunteer staffing work alongside of a full on commuter operation.... is that going to be the end of volunteer footplate crews, train staff... its a takeover by stealth.

 

On one hand they say there is no need to upgrade infrastructure and further down there's talk of track, signal, signage upgrades...

 

There was talk of this including a spur to Brixham on the P&DSR with Park and ride at Churston... that was knocked out as there is zero line capacity in the summer season as it is - there are only a few volunteer as station assistance that's it.  Right from day 1 the DVR was full time staff.

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, John Besley said:

Just to throw in my 2 pence worth, how will volunteer staffing work alongside of a full on commuter operation.... is that going to be the end of volunteer footplate crews, train staff... its a takeover by stealth.

 

On one hand they say there is no need to upgrade infrastructure and further down there's talk of track, signal, signage upgrades...

 

There was talk of this including a spur to Brixham on the P&DSR with Park and ride at Churston... that was knocked out as there is zero line capacity in the summer season as it is - there are only a few volunteer as station assistance that's it.  Right from day 1 the DVR was full time staff.

Economics dont stack to me.

 

it seems to be built on around 1200 -2400 passengers a day, return, on 260 work days a year, at a cost/revenue of c£11k -£22k per day. With an assumption of £80mn investment written off by the government.
 

Thats one very full class 230…for a few trains a day… or if its hourly (with 30 mins in peaks), its looking at circa 50 -100 passengers at c£15 a return seat, per train if it runs hourly from 6am to 11pm. Above £15 the cost of parking & driving, or taking a tram start to add up and against this proposal.

 

The earlies and lates will be near empty, but have to exist, there arent 2000 parking spaces any where in this equation, there isn't even a few hundred, so how does everyone get to the station ?

 

The benefit in this particular proposal.. Victoria to Bury is nil, imo.. tram wins everytime, afterthat a handful of passengers perhaps at Summerseat, Ramsbottom & Rawtenstall.. those lucky enough to get a * free * parking spot.

 

The car is going to beat this.. its door to office. The bottleneck is traffic by the M62 to Manchester. If there was a £15 return inc parking from m66 to victoria there might be a case, and it would pick up people from all over lancashire. It certainly wouldnt cost £80mn and it wouldnt affect the ELR that much.. but I doubt theres anywhere near the same amount of consultancy and construction revenue in it, nor is there potential to take revenue into a new entity…

but this isnt imo about profitable trains, its not even about running trains at all…

 

In this proposal ELR might have an illusion of full control ( in a NR style scenario which is the poisoned chalice of responsibility, risk maintenance and infrastructure costs), but who has influence over operations (TOC) when something is late or breaksdown ?… 

 

it feels like a trojan horse, Construction companies get the government cash, Tory politicians the photo ops, TOC pockets the franchise, nudge the ELR to manage itself into a hole.., “oh its such a shame but its all their fault and they are only volunteers”, transfer track to network Rail, TOC reshapes the operation, tax payer funds happily ever after.

if theres a silver lining in the last month, Tinpot Truss and Kamikazi Karteng have probably drained the swap of cash for this kind of fiesta.

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by adb968008

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

... does this study have a friend in central government who has access to enough tax payers money, ............ a slice of a government pot ......

Without getting into politics - specifically banned on RMweb - I think we should remember that the Government's pot runneth dry .......... with the gauge on negative for the foreseeable future.

 

 Thought I'd better check whether Liz Trump's still in No.10 before submitting reply - could've got overtaken by events.