the future v the past

Of all the rail closures in the UK, after the S&D, the Lewes-Uckfield was possibly the most insane. The line was a superb alternative for London-Brighton trains and should have been massively developed for this reason alone. It also serves a number of commuter towns.

This short stretch was closed in 1969 against huge opposition. It turned a through route into a branch line and I don't think it's stretching a point too much to state that the plan was to close the whole route, bit by bit.

With Peak Oil now upon us this line needs to be reopened NOW. The people of East Sussex have NEVER accepted this moronic closure, and never will, and since the day the line closed there have been calls for its reopening. The need now is greater than ever.

So get it open, double it throughout and electrify it, and start running some through trains from Brighton to London, and prepare for a freight boom.

And as for a road blocking a route 'forever' - forget it! This road will be empty within 20 years so the line can just be built across it. No one will care.

Labour Lords condemn rail-wrecking road by ‘greenest Government ever’

• 
• 

Published on Tuesday, 08 May 2012 08:10

“The DfT must overrule this further attempt to block forever the extension of the line to Lewes” – Lord Berkeley

Following the Labour Lords’ Chief Whip’s denunciation of East Sussex County Council’s damaging road proposal at Uckfield, Lord Berkeley has roundly criticized David Cameron’s Government for not only its support for the Tory-led county council’s intended gyratory scheme, but also its disinterest in reopening the railway south of Uckfield.

Labour Peer, Lord Berkeley, CEng; MICE; FRSA; FCIT; Hon.FIMechE; Hon DSc(Btn); OBE;  has had a distinguished career in civil engineering with firms such as Wimpey and culminating in ten years with Eurotunnel – undoubtedly the greatest UK transport project of the twentieth century. As he remarked to us: “I am a civil engineer who has built the odd road and railway!”

Writing in the latest (June) issue of The Railway Magazine, he draws attention to the Government’s encouragement to Network Rail to increase capacity by reopening lines where strategically important and asks – “So why is the Government apparently hell-bent on resisting calls to reopen the Lewes–Uckfield line?”

Lord Berkeley told the Wealden Line Campaign this week: “I have always suspected the business case for the reopening” and, like many of us, understands how it was gradually narrowed-down until it focused primarily upon usage between Lewes and Uckfield, thereby obviating its obvious regional function.

He added: “This completely fails to take into account not only the growth in demand from this part of Sussex to London, but also the fact that even now the existing line is operating at capacity. How otherwise will the network cope with the expected 20% increase in passenger traffic over ten years?”

Rail Minister Theresa Villiers, who is noticeably coming in for increasing criticism, admitted only recently that the Government has no long-term solution for the overloaded Brighton Line. Other than introducing a swingeing congestion charge for peak-hour travel, it has no idea how to expand capacity on busy routes from the south into London. This is an extremely important issue because rail projects take several years to complete and require leadership and strategic planning.

Turning to ESCC’s destructive road scheme, Lord Berkeley said in the Railway Magazine: “It appears that East Sussex County Council only believes in roads (the more the better) and its preferred option of cutting off forever any chance of reopening this line is by driving a new road at formation level through the middle of Uckfield, a plan that appears to be supported by the Tory-led Government, presumably on the basis that myopic localism by its car-loving residents takes precedence over the greener travel ambitions of the rest of the country and beyond.”

Two years ago David Cameron claimed he wanted the new coalition administration to be: “the greenest government ever” – but here we have transport policies belonging to the Beeching era and the car-crazy 1960s.

Lord Berkeley advised: “In any design of a new road across the rail formation at Uckfield, it is essential that space is left for a two-track railway and 12-car station, and that the road must bridge the route of the line so that, if and when the line is reinstated, no changes to the road will be necessary.”

As depicted here, Network Rail’s Engineering Study of 2008 shows how critical the station site remains to reopening the line to the Sussex Coast, not least because the present cramped, single-line terminus platform straddles the former Down Main Line.

Citing the Rail Minister’s backing for the road across Network Rail’s new station site and the trackbed, Lord Berkeley told us: “I cannot understand how Theresa Villiers can make these statements when it is clear that the line cannot be reopened with a decent station unless the County Council changes its ideas.”

Labour’s Chief Whip, Lord Bassam of Brighton, who has been similarly critical about ESCC, has said this week: “I believe Network Rail should be carrying out an urgent, detailed and independent assessment of BML2 – free from the influence of East Sussex County Council.”

BML2

(Eridge 2.1.1973 copyright Rail Thing)

One of the craziest rail cllosures was that of Lewes-Uckfield in Sussex, a mad scheme to cut 8 miles of line and lose 2 stations but, most importantly, deprive the network of a genuine alternative route when the main Brighton-London line was blocked or suffering engineering works. It also created a new branch line, never a great idea economically or operationally.

Despite this line being clearly needed both then (1969) and even more so now they are STILL strugglling to get it open! It seems that this delightful part of Sussex still thinks its the 1970s.

The Uckfield line needs to reopen to Lewes, be double track throughout and electrified. There's no argument about this, just DO IT!

This is very relevant to us trying to get north-south modern transport in Somerset and Dorset as I suspect we will be in this position in a decade's time!

Latest from the people trying to get the politicians down Sussex way to accept 21st century realities.

South will stagnate without BML2

Source

• 
• 

Published on Monday, 27 February 2012 07:32

“There are many rail schemes, crying out for far smaller sums than HS2, which could offer a bigger impact pound for pound. An excellent example is BML2.”
- Christian Wolmar, Transport Writer and Broadcaster

Sussex railways are the most congested in the UK. Despite all Brighton Line trains being maximum (12 car) length in the next few years, demand is rapidly outstripping capacity. By 2020 even the longer trains – which will have less seating and more standing room – will be just as overcrowded as today.

Disruption on the Brighton Main Line (BML) will continue through train breakdowns, point failures, signalling problems, bad weather, accidents, suicides, engineering works, etc, etc.  It’s already impossible to run more trains, expand services to other towns, or offer passengers greater choice and much-needed alternative routes into London from the south.

Kent’s Tonbridge Main Line (TML), similarly described by Network Rail to be “a major barrier to growth”, is in the same invidious position. But between these two arterial routes into London is the former main line to Uckfield which, until 1969, ran directly into Brighton and into Tunbridge Wells. It is no coincidence that the BML and TML are now in serious trouble. The absurdly under-used Uckfield line is perfectly capable of being a main line once again and relieving both its neighbouring overloaded lines. It is a classic example of all that is wrong with short-term transport policy in England.

The blame rests squarely with Government intransigence. The Uckfield line is restrained by single-line sections due to ‘rationalisation’ in 1989 – approved by Mrs. Thatcher’s Transport Minister, Michael Portillo. This misguided attempt to avoid a growing backlog of track maintenance costs restricts the route to providing just a half-hourly service. Similarly, the stubborn refusal to electrify the 25 miles south of Oxted to Uckfield, let alone reinstate the seven miles to the coastal network, is another example of the Government seriously failing the south.

The Government is perfectly aware of how embarrassingly successful rail schemes have proved. Both Scotland and Wales have benefited enormously in the past decade. Every reopening and upgrade has far-exceeded the pessimistic passenger demand assessments.

Even the limited peak hour services running on the Uckfield line are now busier than they’ve ever been. Commuters have to increasingly stand in aisles, perch in luggage compartments, or drive elsewhere, but it’s pretty much the same everywhere. Some commuters head to Haywards Heath and other BML stations where they can park and have more frequent services. But railheading concentrates overloading and the BML can’t support any more trains – it’s a full-up railway.

Everyone seems to agree, train operators included, that more trains need to run between the Sussex Coast and London, as well as Tunbridge Wells and London to relieve the equally congested TML. Because the Government, the Department for Transport and Network Rail between them will not promote expansion of the south’s rail network, things can only get far worse as we head for stagnation.

The Government will not order any more new diesel trains to ease the crush. It won’t electrify, nor will it redouble the Uckfield line, even though it’s a trifling sum in transport budgets. It’s an unworthy don’t care attitude and a do-nothing transport policy. No vision, no ideas, no plan, no growth – and no hope.

Station parking at Uckfield hardly exists (approx 13 spaces) so commuters drive to the next station, Buxted, where they overspill into village streets and lanes. It is the same story at Eridge where most of the 220-plus cars park at crazy angles along the verges. At Uckfield, adjacent residential roads are clogged up. Nearby, the extensive goods yard and former station site has lain derelict for 20 years. This belonged to BR’s Property Board, now a ‘wholly-owned subsidiary of the Department for Transport’ – i.e. the Government. It has a price tag of between £3m - £4m but the Government says it wants the money from selling it to a developer – for housing.

Attempts to use the land for commuter parking have been consistently frustrated, not least by East Sussex County Council which will publicise plans in mid-March for a new road built across the trackbed as part of this development. A sop to commuters is the promise of a few public parking spaces (Network Rail discovered it was 38). This is for a town of 13,000 people. The site should be imaginatively developed for a proper double-track/two-platform station with multi-storey parking, an integrated transport hub with, most certainly, a new road, but one which includes a bridge over the railway. But this requires vision, good planning and consideration for the future.

This week it was announced that another 1,000 new houses will be built in Uckfield....

Network Rail told Tunbridge Wells Borough Council “Unfortunately High Speed One doesn’t put any more track into Tunbridge Wells.” It certainly doesn’t, but BML2 does. BML2 means reopening the Uckfield main lines into Tunbridge Wells and to Lewes, plus a new direct connection into Brighton and Falmer – the only way of relieving the Brighton Line. It is not just a reasonable and realistically affordable scheme, but one which supplies all the capacity the south needs. It also has practical solutions for opening new routes into London, new cross-connections and unlocking massive and exciting opportunities for future growth right across the south east as part of further Thameslink expansion.

But it seems the Government isn’t interested and won’t even listen to the case for BML2.

Instead, its preferred option is to attempt stifling demand by imposing punitive fares for travelling in the high peak hour. It’s an attitude which smacks of they’re only commuters after all and can’t do anything else but cough-up if they want to get into work.

Railways play a tremendously important role in the South East – outside as well as inside Greater London. Stifling growth and selling-off valuable assets for a mere pittance is not a transport policy.

It is no way to run a railway, let alone a country.

stating the obvious!

A Telegraph article stating the obvious but welcomed all the same. Clearly we're still not getting our message over strongly enough because the S&D isn't one of the five lines mentioned! We'd still love to have someone within the organisation whose sole responsibility will be publicity/lobbying for the S&D. If interested please email me at leysiner@aol.com

The most extraordinary thing that comes out of this article is that some councils are STILL promoting road schemes over rail reinstatement. What planet are they living on? I thought government had abandoned all road development in any case ...

Miles of rail line could be re-opened

Miles of railway line shut under the Beeching Axe could be reopened under an overhaul of the rail industry.

Work is already under way on reopening a rail line between Bicester in Oxfordshire and Bletchley in Buckinghamshire Photo: PA

By David Millward, Transport Editor

11:00AM GMT 09 Mar 2012

It has been more than 50 years since Dr Richard Beeching recommended the closure of hundreds of branch lines in his report The Reshaping of British Railways.

More than 4,000 miles of railway and 3,000 stations were closed in the decade following the report.

But now disused stations and lines could be brought back into life as the network adapts to shifts in the population over the last 50 years.

The move comes against a backdrop demand for rail travel, which has seen more people using the trains than at any time since the late 1920s.

Currently there are 1.35 billion journeys a year, nearly 500 million more than a decade ago on a network which has barely grown after the wholesale line closures of the early 1960s.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Commuters face peak rush hour rises under new proposals 
  08 Mar 2012

The change reflects both economic growth since the 1990s and a rise in the number of people wiling to commute by train rather than drive.

“It is clear that some lines were shut in the 1960s which should not have been shut,” Norman Baker, the local rail minister, told the Daily Telegraph. “There is a consistent drumbeat about lines which should be open.

“Re-opening lines helps local communities, gets people back onto trains which has economic and social benefits.”

Work is already under way on reopening a rail line between Bicester in Oxfordshire and Bletchley in Buckinghamshire.

Eventually, it is hoped, this could restore the “Varsity Line”, linking Oxford and Cambridge.

Other potential candidates include:

– The Lewes-Uckfield route in East Sussex, providing an alternative to the Brighton mainline.

– The line between Bourne End and High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire which would link the Great Western and Chiltern lines.

– The Okehampton-Bere Alstom link, which would provide a second route between Exeter and Plymouth

– The line between Stansted and Braintree in Essex.

Ministers hope that the Government's plans to cut industry’s running costs will make reopening lines more affordable.

Also plans to devolve control of local rail services to councils will enable them to identify candidates. especially with the Government planning to give them a greater say under how cash is spent.

Under the proposals published earlier this week, local authorities would be expected to fund the schemes for at least three years to prove they are viable, after which the Department for Transport would take over responsibility – subject to cash being available.

The Government’s proposals were welcomed by Stephen Joseph, executive director of the Campaign for Better Transport.

”I think it is now generally accepted that the Beeching report went too far. There are a number of sizeable places that aren't on the rail network where reopening lines and stations would make good economic sense, and there are also 'missing links' between key towns.

“Many of these places suffer from traffic congestion and people really want a choice in how they get around, rather than being forced to use cars.

“We hope the Government will find ways of helping local communities develop reopening schemes, as a first step we'd like to see possible reopening routes safeguarded in the planning system so they don't get built on."

Ralph Smyth, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, described the announcement as a “definite move forward”

But, he added, “The funding isn’t there and many areas are prioritising road schemes.

“The Government needs to tell councils to come up with rail schemes and change the funding rules to make it possible.”

alternatives

(Isfield 4.7.1977 copyright Steve Sainsbury)

When madman Beeching was cutting railways for no good reason really useful routes like Lewes-Uckfield which provided a superb alternative to the London-Brighton line were closed. Since closure in 1969 there have been endless calls for its reopening - perhaps the following will make that happen more quickly, because this really is a reopneing that is LONG overdue!

Chaos on railways causing cancellations

Published on Wednesday 15 February 2012 09:24

OVER-RUNNING engineering work is causing chaos and delays on the Southern Trains network this morning.

Southern have said the works being carried out at Balcombe are causing delays of up to 60 minutes on routes to Brighton, but passengers commuting through Horsham and the Arun Valley were experiencing long delays as well.

Trains running south from Horsham are currently running between 25 and 45 minutes late and some trains towards London have been cancelled.

Passengers are being warned of short notice alterations and cancellations and to check before they travel.

lewes-uckfield - how it's being discussed at the highest level

Peers challenge the Government over BML2

In the House of Lords on 6 October, Lord Berkeley asked HM Government “whether they will safeguard Uckfield station and the rail track of the former Uckfield to Lewes route for possible future use to provide additional capacity to the main Brighton to London line”. Replying, the Government’s Chief Whip, Earl Attlee, said there were “no current plans to issue safeguarding directions” because the route was “safeguarded by both Wealden and Lewes district councils in their local plans”. Lord Berkeley then asked if he was “aware that East Sussex County Council has plans to build a road across the formation” and whether he was also aware that the former British Rail Property Board, which is being abolished, is trying to sell off all its surplus land, including the former Uckfield station? Because this land is “essential to the reopening of the line”, Lord Berkeley further enquired “Will he [the Minister] instruct the property board not to do that and to keep this and other similar pieces of land for future reopening?” Responding, Earl Attlee suggested one of the “benefits” of ESCC’s proposed scheme “is that it allows for the building of a bridge at a later stage” but omitted saying this substantial cost would be borne by Network Rail. He then claimed “the scheme makes it easier to open the line, should that be necessary, because to the west* of the proposed road crossing is a level crossing which would be unacceptable if you wanted to open the railway”. *[in fact it’s east - Ed] Earl Attlee said the Government would not direct the BR Property Board to safeguard the station site “It is not necessary. We are absolutely confident that nothing has been done that will compromise the ability to open the railway at some point in the future, should it be desirable to do so.” Lord Bradshaw then interjected: “Surely the land concerned should be vested in Network Rail, which in July last year pronounced the Uckfield to Lewes line of strategic importance”. He cited the enormous difficulties now faced by the ‘East-West’ reopening scheme between Oxford – Cambridge, made “almost impossible” because redevelopment required hugely expensive detours. Earl Attlee agreed it was important to ensure lines could be reinstated, but said the Secretary of State for Transport could only issue safeguarding directions “only if it is intended to reopen the railway, not to make it possible”. He warned that to do so could “result in compensation to developers”. Baroness Whitaker was unimpressed and asked: “My Lords, does the Minister accept that his words ‘at some point in the future’ are not very consoling to south-east commuters, of whom I am one, who regularly have to stand on overcrowded trains at certain times of the day?” Earl Attlee admitted she made an “extremely important point” adding that “We all know that at peak periods, the commuter railway lines south of London are all running at peak capacity”. He mentioned that one difficulty was increasing capacity at London terminals, but in the case of Lewes – Uckfield “one of the bottlenecks is East Croydon, so even if we increased capacity in that area on the south of the line, you would still encounter the bottleneck at East Croydon, and there is very little we can do about that”. Lord Dholakia referred to the problem of Gatwick Airport being a popular destination, with passengers increasing, whereby he asked “does not the maximum use of the line between Victoria and Brighton demonstrate the need to preserve an alternative method, especially when this expansion of the Brighton Line is exhausted?” Earl Attlee responded: “My Lords, I fully accept that the Brighton line is running at capacity, but this particular scheme will do nothing to relieve the bottleneck. For instance, the path between Sevenoaks and Orpington is just twin track and there are no more train paths available at the peak period”. Lord Berkeley expressed gratitude for the answers received, but concluded with his firm belief that recent interest in reopening Lewes – Uckfield showed “a lot of people in Network Rail must think that there is demand there”. Earl Attlee, for the Government, ended on a rather sour note for all those who are subjected to the south’s overcrowded services and the increasingly vulnerable Brighton Line by saying: “My Lords, we do not think that the route will need to be opened within the next 20 years”. The Wealden Line Campaign thanks those in the House of Lords who are prepared to challenge the coalition Government over this critically important issue. However, BML2 Project Manager Brian Hart said some important points need explaining. He said: “Be warned – Earl Attlee’s statement means no mothballed trackbed in the UK is now safe under the Conservatives. It hasn’t taken them long to get back to flogging-off important transport assets – as they were accused of doing when they lost power in 1997. But it’s the hypocrisy which I find so inexcusable. Not long before they took power last year, the Conservatives specifically identified Lewes – Uckfield as one of four national reopening projects and proclaimed a moratorium on strategic trackbed sales as part of their ‘Green Transport Strategy’. The Conservatives were also demanding to know from Labour ‘which 13 properties British Rail Property Board have disposed of which contain disused railway lines?’ – the person who tabled that question was the current Transport Minister for Rail Projects Theresa Villiers”. “Only in 2007 she tabled a question: ‘To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what work her department is undertaking on the possibility of reopening the Lewes to Uckfield railway link’ – so she is well aware of its significance. She also wrote warmly to me, just two years before gaining office, saying Lewes – Uckfield was ‘an issue of high importance’ – her words exactly. So, knowing how even busier the railways have become, why are the Conservatives now unwilling to pursue their ‘Green Transport Strategy’, let alone assist Network Rail in protecting its strategic interests?” “Worryingly, Earl Attlee is confused over where this road is going, whilst his suggestion that building another road on the level makes it easier to reopen is incredible. It merely loads the cost onto the railway and worsens the business case, otherwise why is Network Rail so worried and arguing that any new road must include a bridge over the trackbed?” The Campaign’s chairman, Duncan Bennett was equally forthright: “Lord Bradshaw is absolutely right that the ownership of Uckfield’s station site should be immediately transferred to Network Rail – that is what many of us have been arguing for some time. The land is desperately needed for commuter parking in the short term and not long ago Southern produced plans for up to 200 temporary spaces. Redoubling, electrifying and extending the Uckfield line to Lewes means this site is critical for a large station containing two 12-car platforms – as Network Rails’ plans of 2008 clearly showed. It is not only a nonsense that this site is being sold for about £3m, but an act of corporate recklessness which has far-reaching implications for the economic future of the south.” “One has to question the motivation behind current official thinking with regards to this particular piece of land. The story of the battle for its use for much-needed commuter parking – an issue I have personally pursued for ten years – would read like a fantastic tragi-comic soap opera script. This is effectively public land, the future development of which, to my mind, must unquestionably include consideration of the greater public good and not just a lucrative commission sale by the BR property board and its private land agents. Aside from its immediate use for parking, the land is critical for the future transport needs of Uckfield and the region. There is simply no other route providing alternative rail access between London and Brighton, whilst simultaneously offering huge capacity relief to the users of the other overcrowded passenger lines within the Kent and Sussex area. The development of this land should not be prejudicial to the current and future needs of the railway and there is, in fact, an enormous opportunity, through the use of imaginative design, to utilise the site not only for essential transport use, but also combined retail and commercial use. This is the thinking behind today’s modern transport hubs.” “Should this site be lost – all barring the so-called protected trackbed – and reopening proceeds, where would we put the necessary 12-car platforms and station for this expanding location? Where would we put the extra car parking, which is already woefully lacking? In short, in the myopic and self-serving clamour for a paltry profit, we would witness the utter destruction of all prospects for a transport infrastructure that is increasingly being seen as essential for our future”. The Campaign believes BR’s Property Board should never have become embroiled in negotiations to sell the site to the prospective developer – who should be told it is no longer for sale. It is clearly against the national public interest. The developer’s retail store, or doctors’ surgery, or sheltered housing, or whatever the latest plan comprises, can be built anywhere else in the town, but the railway simply cannot be diverted from its original course through Uckfield. If compensation is warranted, which we doubt, then let it be paid. Brian Hart added: “Network Rail needs to fight its corner and defend its industry interests. If necessary, lobby the Government and buy the land from the property board – it’s loose change and there will be no second chance. I also believe Theresa Villiers has a moral and civic duty to assist in persuading Phillip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport, to agree.” The excuse not to invest in reopening the southern end of the route due to a lack of London terminal capacity no longer applies. The Campaign has been advised by former senior management who worked on creating Thameslink during the 1980s that the developing Thameslink Programme will make BML2 more than viable with better deployment of existing pathways. The number of train passing through London, rather than terminating, will increase dramatically and many of these services could use BML2’s additional direct routes into both Brighton and Tunbridge Wells – radically transforming travel, opening up new destinations and solving rail congestion in the south. It follows that Earl Attlee’s briefing that “the path between Sevenoaks and Orpington is just twin track” and full up in peak periods is equally ill-informed. In fact, the problem is even more acute on the Tonbridge Main Line (TML) because it extends beyond Sevenoaks to Tonbridge. BML2 has the solution with reopening the former main line route into Tunbridge Wells from the Uckfield line, providing those much-needed paths and capacity into London and relieving the TML . BML2 is also the only means of solving the East Croydon bottleneck. No one disputes the size of the problem or that the DfT and transport planners have a huge problem on their hands, but it is not insurmountable. BML2 is a realistic and affordable solution which extracts the maximum possible use out of existing resources and infrastructure. BML2’s ‘Direct London Link’ is an under-used rail corridor between South Croydon and Lewisham. Trains could avoid the East Croydon bottleneck in exactly the same way as many Brighton Line services bypass Redhill and be within just two miles of Canary Wharf and the City of London. Whether there is a tunnel or surface line for a couple of miles to meet Crossrail, or whether we look towards an eventual bigger scheme, such as a future Thameslink to Stratford, is really not for us to speculate. The fact is that this immensely valuable corridor needs to do much more than be partly occupied by a tramway or an extension of the Bakerloo line to Hayes – everything can be accommodated – it is not beyond competent civil engineering. We simply have to make the utmost of our potential assets. The time has come to bring in professional companies to study BML2 with us and examine the massive potential it offers in freeing us from our otherwise inexorable course to worsening congestion, gridlock and economic stagnation. The future is bright and promising – but only if we grasp what BML2 offers.

return to Evercreech Junction

My last trip to Evercreech Junction was in 1980.

It was good to see that the main station building is still standing, ready for purchase by the New S&D in the future.

This iconic location - and not just from an S&D perspective - is a sad sight today. It should be bustling with life with trains coming every half hour or so. There should be shops and restaurants serving the thousands of visitors coming by train. There should be trains running 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It underlines the utter desolation of certain places when they lose their trains and how desperately they need them back.

In fact the whole journey today from Bristol to the Gartell Railway underlined this economic apartheid. Binegar, Shepton Mallet, Evercreech Junction - all seemed dull and lifeless with few if any amenities. Conversely the two places we did pass through that are still served by trains - Castle Cary and Templecombe - seemed lively and alive. The car park at Castle Cary was packed on a Sunday.

This contrast will become sharper and sharper as the Energy Crunch bites harder. Those people clever (or lucky) enough to live on a railway will be able to continue to go about their daily lives. Their property prices will rise (or fall less) than those who suddenly find themselves out in the sticks, with just crumbling roads and hideously expensive cars and buses to rely on. There will be a shift away from these blighted areas to those that will have a bright future. Even today properties close to railways (or more precisely stations) are worth a good deal more than those that are bereft of modern transport.

This perception will ensure that as time goes by more and more people in these areas (which, currently, sadly includes most of the S&D route) will absolutely insist that their railways are returned. But they can't all be returned at once, there will be a distinct pecking order. We have every intention that the S&D will be up there with the usual suspects - Exeter-Okehampton-Plymouth, Oxford-Cambridge, Waverley route, Great Central, Skipton-Colne, Lewes-Uckfield etc etc.

everything's coming our way ...

Move to reinstate lost rail lines

Train operators are calling for widespread expansion of the existing rail network, with 14 extra lines and about 40 new stations proposed.

The Association of Train Operating Companies said there was a need for expansion to cope with rising demand.

It said the expansion, which would cost £500m and possibly reuse lines closed under the 1960s Beeching cuts, could serve more than 1m extra passengers.

Any decisions on future expansion rest with government and Network Rail.

Atoc chief executive Michael Roberts said: "Record passenger numbers and rising demand require us to plan for the long term, while climate change and population growth make it vital that in doing so, we adapt the rail network to meet tomorrow's needs.
"Providing attractive new services and easier access to the rail network will encourage passengers to switch to rail from other, less green, modes of transport.
"We have established that there is a strong business case for investment to bring a number of towns back on to the rail network.
"Now we need to safeguard these routes and develop the detailed case for investment."

The Beeching report by Dr Richard Beeching in the 1960s resulted in the railway network being cut by a third, closing 2,000 stations and 5,000 miles of track.

The Atoc report says 40 towns not currently on the rail network could benefit from the 14 new lines.

Freight potential

It says the new stations could be operational within five to 10 years.

Any decision on whether any of the plans get the go-ahead would be taken by local and regional government, Network Rail and the Department for Transport.

Atoc argues infrastructure from some of the old lines closed in the 1960s could be refurbished to form part of the new network.
Freight lines could also be adapted to serve commercial routes, it said.

Transport Minister Chris Mole said the government would consider the findings of Atoc's report.

"The government's priority is to bring about changes, such as capacity improvements, which will deliver benefits for rail passengers now," he said.

"For the longer term, we will work with local authorities who want to improve links to the rail network, and will plan to make funding available from 2014 for successful schemes which demonstrate value for money."

Financial constraints

Shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said the research was "interesting" and made "an impressive case" for reopening disused rail lines.

She added: "Conservatives recognise the value of these transport corridors, which is why we have called for a moratorium on building on any disused rail lines still in public ownership.

"Certainly, housing growth and the need to cut emissions from transport and tackle road congestion means that all political parties should look seriously at the ideas put forward in this report, though it is clear that the state of the public finances will put constraints on what is possible over the next few years."

Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport union, said: "RMT has repeatedly called for an expansion of rail services to create green jobs and green transport options as part of our campaign for a people's railways.

"However, any expansion should be publicly-owned and free from the chaos and profiteering of the privatised franchise system."

The areas which would be served by the 14 possible new lines identified in the report are:

• Cranleigh in Surrey
• Bordon, Hythe and Ringwood in Hampshire
• Brixham in Devon
• Aldridge and Brownhills in the West Midlands
• Wisbech in Cambridgeshire
• Leicester to Burton in the East Midlands
• Fleetwood, Rawtenstall and Skelmersdale in Lancashire
• Washington in Tyne and Wear
• Ashington and Blyth in Northumberland

Thanks to all of you who brought this to my attention. It has also been on the News24 Channel all day, though sadly accompanied by imagwes from the 50s and 60s, which rather misses the point!

Note that Ringwood is included - though not Wimborne! Of course we want this section restored to give us a second outlet in the south eastwards towards Southampton, we already have a line monitor for this section.

This is still only a tiny step in the right direction, and most of these routes have had agitation for restoration for years, which shows how important it is to get organised - notice the S&D ISN'T on this list! Note also the surprising omissions of Bere Alston-Tavistock and Lewes-Uckfiled - perhaps these are already considered 'in the bag'.

Things are clearly moving our way - remember that this is a response to capacity restraints, Peak Oil and - except for one tiny quote - even Climate Change are not mentioned.

The problem with the Beeching Report was that it was totally inflexible. It assumed that - for some peculiar reason - rail traffic would continue to decrease and that - somehow - roads would be able to cope. We all now know that isn't true at all, and that the roads are beginning their slow decline into history whilst rail can only get stronger and stronger as it ticks all the boxes - fast, clean, puctual, efficient, flexible, sustainable, cool, profitable. It's amazing how quickly things have changed in just a few short years. People used to think I was mad proposing a rebuilt S&D just five years ago - now I'm having a job keeping up with you lot!