Definately Fleetwood, the track is still there and Thorton Cleverley's still has it's platforms.
Reopenings have worked in Scotland and Wales so why not England.
Reopenings have worked in Scotland and Wales so why not England.
ATOC calls for re-opening of 14 lines
PDF report: http://www.atoc.org/general/ConnectingCommunitiesReport_S10.pdf
The Association of Train Operating Companies has identified potential expansions of the rail network by reopening closed stations and lines, and running passenger services on freight lines.
![]()
The Association of Train Operating Companies has identified potential expansions of the rail network by reopening closed stations and lines, and running passenger services on freight lines.
Many past studies have looked at re-opening old railways, but this one looks first at the market, not the map. It starts with people, where they live and where they want to travel. The schemes identified in this paper as having a positive business case would provide access directly and indirectly for a million people not currently well served by rail.
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
i think its deffo a good idea...the town of Bollington near me used to have a line running thru it which closed in the 1960s...i think that should re open...
Nice idea but there's a reason those places were cut, and frankly there are so many shit lines with dodgy track, low linespeeds and shit signalling which exist in the places deemed important enough to retain a rail service which should be fixed first. Freight diversions (such as March - Spalding) are obviously very desirable though!
On the railway side of things, I definately think we should welcome some types private investment.
If the BCR is positive... then why not let them go ahead and open the lines and let them see if they can make a profit on them.
This is what should have happened in the first place. Any lines due to be cut by the t&@t Beeching should have been offered to the private sector, and if not taken, safeguarded.
If the BCR is positive... then why not let them go ahead and open the lines and let them see if they can make a profit on them.
This is what should have happened in the first place. Any lines due to be cut by the t&@t Beeching should have been offered to the private sector, and if not taken, safeguarded.
Beeching wasn't a t&@t, he saved the railways - before he took over, the money they were bleeding was eyewateringly spectacular. The private sector would not have taken any of the lines he cut.
Safeguarding would've been better in retrospect, but at the time there was no realistic prospect of *any* reopenings... remember, it was the era of White Heat Of Technology, Motorways Are Freedom, etc, and people didn't yet understand that public transport is the only viable way of creating urban and inter-urban transport capacity.
...and finally, nobody's stopping them. The problem is, +ve BCR doesn't mean profit potential: most of the returns go to society and can't be captured by the private operator.
Safeguarding would've been better in retrospect, but at the time there was no realistic prospect of *any* reopenings... remember, it was the era of White Heat Of Technology, Motorways Are Freedom, etc, and people didn't yet understand that public transport is the only viable way of creating urban and inter-urban transport capacity.
...and finally, nobody's stopping them. The problem is, +ve BCR doesn't mean profit potential: most of the returns go to society and can't be captured by the private operator.
There WERE question marks over how some of the passenger data was collected and a few service changes could have been experimented with on some lines before closure. Also, cost benefit wasn't considered nor the fact smaller lines are feeders to bigger ones.
When you have lines going through populated areas running skeleton services they won't make a profit but it doesn't mean there isn't more demand. You could also try to run underused lines as light rail.
The railways were losing money, true, but the then Minister of Transport who pushed it all through had BIG commercial interests in roads.
When you have lines going through populated areas running skeleton services they won't make a profit but it doesn't mean there isn't more demand. You could also try to run underused lines as light rail.
The railways were losing money, true, but the then Minister of Transport who pushed it all through had BIG commercial interests in roads.
Something had to be done about the network but there were still flaws in his report. I'll never understand the logic in retaining the line to Bere Alston to Gunnislake whilst cutting the link to Tavistock.
I'm sure I read somewhere that it was down to the replacement buses taking too long to get to Plymouth because of the roads in that area but am not sure.
I'd like to see reopened stations on exsisting lines first as thats maximising the current network.
I'm sure I read somewhere that it was down to the replacement buses taking too long to get to Plymouth because of the roads in that area but am not sure.
I'd like to see reopened stations on exsisting lines first as thats maximising the current network.
They will not make a profit. Most if not all of the schemes will require ongoing subsidy, which would have to come from the taxpayer. The vast majority of the UK rail network requires subsidy (i.e. revenue does not cover operating costs) and these proposals are no different. Even if there was no capital costs involved the proposal would require subsidy and public sector support. Throw in the initial capital expenditure and it's even worse.On the railway side of things, I definately think we should welcome some types private investment.
If the BCR is positive... then why not let them go ahead and open the lines and let them see if they can make a profit on them.
This is what should have happened in the first place. Any lines due to be cut by the t&@t Beeching should have been offered to the private sector, and if not taken, safeguarded.
The BCR includes social costs and benefits. Just because the BCR is greater than 1 doesn't mean it will make money......:bash:
I stopped reading here.Beeching wasn't a t&@t, he saved the railways
.
So you're saying the ATOC are just asking for more subsidies to get more profit...They will not make a profit. Most if not all of the schemes will require ongoing subsidy, which would have to come from the taxpayer. The vast majority of the UK rail network requires subsidy (i.e. revenue does not cover operating costs) and these proposals are no different. Even if there was no capital costs involved the proposal would require subsidy and public sector support. Throw in the initial capital expenditure and it's even worse.
The BCR includes social costs and benefits. Just because the BCR is greater than 1 doesn't mean it will make money......:bash:
Get the Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton line reopened (it should never have been closed as it wasn't making heavy losses!! and was a big express route), along with the branch to Masham and Pateley Bridge (get tourists into the Dales without needing a car).
Indeed, (Alfred) Ernest Marples is more to blame than Beeching imho. As MP for Wallasey he should have known better than to basically destroy the docks by his stance on railways - or should i say road building.The railways were losing money, true, but the then Minister of Transport who pushed it all through had BIG commercial interests in roads.
So you admit you're wilfully stupid, rather than just ignorant?I stopped reading here.
I agree, good reasons to re-open those lines. Harrogate-Northallerton could relieve the ECML, for example if Transpennine were to route their services via Harrogate/Ripon allowing for more NXEC (or whoever is operating the line then) services on the ECML. It could also mean that Transpennine could serve the airport via Horsforth station or a new airport station.Get the Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton line reopened (it should never have been closed as it wasn't making heavy losses!! and was a big express route), along with the branch to Masham and Pateley Bridge (get tourists into the Dales without needing a car).
Lines need to be re-opened in the Dales. Out of the two, I'd prefer the line to Pateley to be reopened- I see more people using that than to Masham. It's not easy to get to countryside without a car; I don't think that DalesBus is effective enough. Takes far too long to travel long distances by bus.
Same to you sir.So you admit you're wilfully stupid, rather than just ignorant?
No town in my view should be without some kind of rail connection, but I notice the reinstatement of Doncaster-Barnsley is missing, despite being an aspiration for at least 20 years.
Curious to know how costs are arrived at. The 7 mile line from March to Wisbech is costed at 12million - currently mothballed track and no station in Wisbech which would need to be built and new signalling, crossings and platforms at March, yet the line from Wymondham to Dereham - 11 miles is costed at 30million. The line from Wymondham to Dereham is already in use and carries non passenger trains at 40mph. The stations have all been restored - only requirement is some lights at level crossings at stations, and new turnout at Wymondham.
Not surprisingly the Dereham line does not quite make the cost benefit analysis - despite having the same population (20,000) and also being on the A47 which crawls to Norwich in the rush hour.
Not surprisingly the Dereham line does not quite make the cost benefit analysis - despite having the same population (20,000) and also being on the A47 which crawls to Norwich in the rush hour.
Beeching wasn't a t&@t, he saved the railways - before he took over, the money they were bleeding was eyewateringly spectacular. The private sector would not have taken any of the lines he cut.
Safeguarding would've been better in retrospect, but at the time there was no realistic prospect of *any* reopenings... remember, it was the era of White Heat Of Technology, Motorways Are Freedom, etc, and people didn't yet understand that public transport is the only viable way of creating urban and inter-urban transport capacity.
...and finally, nobody's stopping them. The problem is, +ve BCR doesn't mean profit potential: most of the returns go to society and can't be captured by the private operator.
I stopped reading here.
:cheers:
The problem with book-worms running businesses is that for them a return ticket from middle-of-the-woods to big-city and back would still be sold if middle-of-the-woods branch line to nowhere-in-between would be closed ... :lol:Beeching proposed that only drastic action would save the railways from increasing losses in the future.
However, successive governments were more keen on the cost-saving elements of the report rather than those requiring investment. More than 4,000 miles of railway and 3,000 stations closed in the decade following the report, a reduction of 25 per cent of route miles and 50 per cent of stations. To this day in railway circles and among older people, particularly in parts of the country that suffered most from cuts, Beeching's name is still synonymous with mass closure of railways and loss of many local services.
We suffered the same fate here in late 80's ... 1/3rd of the network closed (some very profitable branch lines were closed) and sudently the main lines started to go into the RED due to loss of income.
hno:Good ... 14 routes to reopen ... 4000 miles to go. :cheers:
I wonder if the line from Aylesbury to Buckingham (or even on to Banbury) was considered. Buckingham is one of the largest population centres without a rail connection, and it sits on a closed line that ends abruptly short and is operated by one of the most reopening-friendly TOCs out there.
Agree 100% LN1. The Transpennie should run through Harrogate and Ripon as it did in the past (in fact a very large number people who use the Transpennie service from Thirsk Station are actually from Ripon) and as well as relieving capacity problems on the ECML, the idea of serving LBA via a station near Horsforth/Bramhope Tunnel is a great idea. I don't see how anyone can disagree with the idea, especially when the economic and engineering reports state it would be beneficial to reopen the line. There could also be direct trains into the Dales on a circular route if the Wensleydale Railway was used and it was fully reopened to Gardale e.g Leeds-Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton-Bedale-Leyburn-Hawes-Garsdale-Settle-Skipton-Keighley-Leeds.I agree, good reasons to re-open those lines. Harrogate-Northallerton could relieve the ECML, for example if Transpennine were to route their services via Harrogate/Ripon allowing for more NXEC (or whoever is operating the line then) services on the ECML. It could also mean that Transpennine could serve the airport via Horsforth station or a new airport station.
Lines need to be re-opened in the Dales.
I'd certainly pay to do the whole circular route.
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
SkyscraperCity Forum
A forum community dedicated to skyscrapers, towers, highrises, construction, and city planning enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about structures, styles, reviews, scale, transportation, skylines, architecture, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Katarzyna DJ
7660 Replies
calatravavx
2300 Replies
Srdjan Adamovic
1699 Replies
Recommended Communities
Join now to ask and comment!
