UK Railways consider biggest expansion in a century

It won't happem.Every so often the Government or the "Railways" will announce some "expansion" designed to either A) Wring votes from the electorate or B) Wring more taxpayers money out of the Government.In fact what will happen is that a few feasibility studies will be done and the money will then be spent on the roads.
 
Yes it is good to see that the railway compaines are seeing such a high usage and there is growth. Up here in this part of the Kingdom north of the Border we have had a number of lines that were closed in the state railway days under Beeching in the 60's. Soon there will actually be gthree lines between Glasgow-Edinburgh. However what concerns me locally is the utterly scandalous situation we have here in Glasow.

For over 20 years there has been a campaign to re-open a line over the Clyde to give full connection between the northside suburban eletrics and the southside. It would also aloow through trains direct from edinburgh to the West Coast. From a couple million all thos years ago estimates are now well over 20. The bridge is still there as is track and only a couple of hundred yards has to be put back, etc. This would revolutionise the suburban system which is the largest outside London. I emailed the PTE and got a gobblygook about stragegic plans, quangos looking into it and so on. London however wants a cross line and gets it whereas up here it goes on for decades. The Glasgow Crossrail is long overdue and just as important locally as some scheme down south.
 
Years of under-investment: Hmmm sounds more like Australia/NZ!

But the keywords I note are: "to commission a study" (let me guess, their has been several studies already, and how many studies do they need?),
the date - after several UK elections (in this case politics IS related to trains)!

Lewisner stated: "Won't happen,. . . more money spent on roads"

That's because governments get more votes from motorists, and most governments are too "friendly" with the oil companies - eg: Remember who the old Los Angeles street car system was sold to, and what the new "owners" did to it.

How many closed/out of use(1) lines could be upgraded to today's standard?

Beeching in the 60's: I just wish we wouldn't have certain MP's trying to follow is ideas - and one of them deals with would be one of the busiest (if not the busiest) outside a capital city!

1. Does a train line in the UK have to be "officially closed" by an "act of parliament" first for it to be considered completely closed, as opposed to just physically closed?
 
Last edited:
Are you listening US Congress? Oh, I thought not. The Airline and Oil Company's lobbiests are firmly in your back pocket.....typical.


The US NEEDS this too. We need proper investment in the Northeast Corridor, but also develop new corridors like Los Angeles to San Francisco, San Diego etc or St. Louis to Chicago to Milwaukee. Dallas-Fort Worth to Houston to San Antonio. We absolutely need to develop these out and create a solid rail network similar to what they have in the UK. Lets face it the distances between the cities I named above are about (give and take) the same as they are in the UK. (if you think I'm wrong about that, please pm me instead of getting into an argument on the forum, just to keep the mods bored :p)
 
I can't see it happen. I'm sure the railways have offered expanison before but it never happened. Also regarding he GWML route that they are considering, I would not want to be near live wires at Dawlish. Beeching closed a few mainlines like the Great Central which never reopened (I know it did to hertiage railways).
 
We need this but the west coast has just undergone a huge overhall (well the rail replacement busses are still operating some weekends between crewe and preston so we'll have another 5 years of getting off trains onto busses with hours wait, but hopefully after all this ends there will be an end to the seemingly British pass time of waiting for late trains or cancled trains :sleep:


:D Andy
 
1. Does a train line in the UK have to be "officially closed" by an "act of parliament" first for it to be considered completely closed, as opposed to just physically closed?

Act of parliament. Rail companies are obliged by law, to provide a minimum service. Which it states that a train must be provided at least once a day, quite how that fits in with the Stockport to Stalybridge line, is a different question, as that is once a week only and in one direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Regulation_Act_1844
 
...the so-called "ghost trains". I always thought it was once a week minimum. The Watford branch had the same once a week service.

It must be said we've been though a lot of this before, without any real improvements. I do think though, that the rising cost of oil, and increasing hard evidence of climate change makes it increasingly likely that it will happen one day. Here in Adelaide tha state government has just announced AUD2bn (GBP1bn) for (mostly rail) public transport. The nice thing about this, is that it was a budget statement with a time-scale, so it will actually happen, and it will start later this year...

Paul
 
Act of parliament. Rail companies are obliged by law, to provide a minimum service. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Regulation_Act_1844
Pity the minimum isn't at least three times a day!

Here is NSW's example of Act of Parliament about closing rail lines: http://www.nswrail.net/trivia/formally_closed.php
In NSW, closing a line requires an Act of Parliament, hence most lines which see no traffic are technically "out of use" (even the lifted ones).
And it lists just eight that have been formally closed. One of them that has mainly been turned into a pushbike/footpath is still considered "opened"!!
 
Well underpinning all of this has been the phenomenal (and largerly unforseen) growth in railway usage over the last 15 years in the UK. Passenger figures are the highest since the Second World War (with a network perhaps only half the size of the 1940s).

Major trunk routes like WCML, ECML, MML and GWML are nearing capacity and, if there's going to be expansion, eg. for freight, new lines will need to be built.

And all this before the recent massive hikes in oil prices which makes electified railways sourced from renewable energy seem a much better way forward for future public transport.

Trouble is, UK Government treats arguments based on 'economic growth' for new runways or new motorways as a 'no brainer' whereas the case for new railway lines is usually resisted on cost grounds. 'High Speed 1' from St. Pancras to the Channel Tunnel is the first new main line to be build in Britain in a century. I fear it will take another century before the UK Treaury consent to 'High Speed 2' from London to Glasgow via Birmingham and Manchester. :eek:
 
Although we had some savage cuts in the 60's with Dr Beeching's report we still have an extensive system. I often feel sorry for our cousins across the pond where the vast majority of the railway is freight orientated with a fraction passenger when it is the other way round here. The rail system in Scotland continues to expand with old defunct lines brought back. A few short years ago the senior line between Glasgow and Edinburgh service was increased to a tremendous 15 minutes during the main part of the day then 30 minutes in the evening such is the demand.

On the local services and urban lines the timekeeping has been remarkably improved and I have noticed this on a lot of my rail hopping since the present franchise company took over in Scotland.
 
Been recent talk about re-opening the route over Dartmoor that links Exeter and Plymouth, diverting some trains away from the sea wall. Good idea if you ask me, but politics ruined it again :o
 
We are now begining to take plans for the reopening of railway lines seriously as people find that the marginal cost of motoring is increasing to the point where they can no longer afford it. The more people that use public transport the greater the pressure on the powers that be to improve it.

If the car is the answer to ALL our tranport needs we are probably asking the wrong questions.
 
Trouble is, UK Government treats arguments based on 'economic growth' for new runways or new motorways as a 'no brainer' whereas the case for new railway lines is usually resisted on cost grounds. 'High Speed 1' from St. Pancras to the Channel Tunnel is the first new main line to be build in Britain in a century. I fear it will take another century before the UK Treaury consent to 'High Speed 2' from London to Glasgow via Birmingham and Manchester. :eek:
Not necessarily so,
HS2: High-speed rail network gets go-ahead
 
Hi Everybody
We are now begining to take plans for the reopening of railway lines seriously as people find that the marginal cost of motoring is increasing to the point where they can no longer afford it. The more people that use public transport the greater the pressure on the powers that be to improve it.

If the car is the answer to ALL our tranport needs we are probably asking the wrong questions.

I do not find the above quote entirely correct. The reason that people are returning once again to the British railways is the congested state of British motorways and major trunk roads.

As someone who travels at least two or three times a week on InterCity, regional or local railway services. the main reason I used the railway this morning morning his that I had a 9:30 AM meeting booked in Holbourn London. By road you cannot guarantee what time you are going to arrive even leaving Somerset at five or 6 AM in the morning, the motorway beyond Reading become so congested after 7 AM that it is in the proverbial lap of the gods as to what time you are going to arrive.

Commuters therefore use the railways because they can at least somewhat guarantee to be at their destinations on time and also they can work on trains while they are travelling.

I believe what regular railway travellers require is not trains travelling at 200 miles an hour and beyond but good clean punctual services where there are sufficient seats, the chance to get a cup of coffee and work. I paid £180 British Sterling for my return trip today and as usual catching the direct service in North Somerset I was able to get a seat. However, passengers boarding after Bath and Chippenham where as usual having to stand and still having to pay well excess of £100 for the privilege.

The money for the high-speed line conversions would be better spent on extending platforms, extending and modernising the present diesel consists along with better and quicker passenger handling at major terminus stations

Electrification of the Bristol to Paddington will cost billions of pounds it will save me fifteen minutes on my journey which I feel will make very little difference to my overall day. The reason is It makes little difference to me whether I catch I London train at 6:30 AM or 6:45 AM. What does make a difference to me is getting a seat and arriving at the stated time on the destination board in a relaxed frame of mind, ready for the day ahead.

Bill
posted from the 16.00 Paddington to Bristol service using Samsung Galaxy Tab.
 
I've commuted on the railways and I have commuted by car. I find driving stressful... Esp on the M5/M6 During peak times, its slow, accidents happen, delays and near crawling traffic most days! On the train... It's stress free, I don't need to worry about other drivers, I can relax, turn on my laptop and enjoy a cuppa tea.

Price wise... The cost was about the same in my small car but If I Had a gas guzzler the train would be a hell of a lot cheaper.


I think the government should increase investment in our railways and make it so people actually have a choice between, car, and public transport!
 
wholbr - well said!

There's plenty of infrastructure improvements that would make far more practical difference than this expensive flagship project.

Surely re-instating a link between Northampton and Bedford (16miles) would be of far greater benefit by allowing direct services from Birmingham New St to St Pancras. The convenience and time saved by not having to get accross London for those passengers wishing to continue on to the continent would surely compensate for the lower maximum speed of the journey, not to mention the benefits to local traffic and an alternative terminus for the WCML during engineering works. It wouldn't be rocket science to get back accross to the ECML from Bedford either, thereby creating the start of a useful cross country route as well.

Regards,

Anthony
 
Back
Top