Woodhead is the way ahead for Manchester-Sheffield high-speed line

Regarding any prospect of reopening Woodhead ( RAIL 844): can you ever imagine the road lobby advocating the abandonment of a piece of modern highway infrastructure linking two major cities?

With an acknowledged lack of capacity across the national rail network, and an expansion of services forecast in the future, how can an asset of strategic national and regional importance just be dismissed?

Woodhead was not inefficient, but BR management of it was, exemplified by a lack of cooperation between the Eastern and London Midland Regions.

The present 52-minute Manchester-Sheffield end-to-end timing was achieved by re-routing trains off the Hope Valley to avoid the crawl through New Mills Central, plus the construction of the Hazel Grove chord. For the same investment, what journey reduction could have been secured via Woodhead?

The idea that the improved end-to-end connectivity target of 30 minutes would be met by the Hope Valley is pure fantasy. Its cramped formation, plus the small matter of three long Victorian tunnels, means the route is not conducive to high speed, along with eliminating electrification.

Electrification within Woodhead was once the future, and it still is thanks to the wide-open spaces of the Longdendale Valley, which screams out high speed and electrification restoration.

Tunnels? It would surely be cheaper to either restore the Victorian tunnels or opt for a new lane, instead of the seven-mile road tunnel proposed by Transport for the North. Why would the Peak Park object to the reinstatement of environmentally friendly electrification?

Road improvement calls stem from the absence of a rail alternative, which (if in situ) would reduce traffic on the M1, M62 and A628, and avoid the 600% increase in road traffic forecast associated with the road tunnel.

Let rail investment be the economic drawer to regenerate the long-neglected Upper Don Valley. It would liberate and transform this corridor.

Housing developments due in Deepcar, Oughtibridge and Stocksbridge demand transport investment to prevent gridlock. Manchester is near but inaccessible by public transport. These places could and should be in reach of the city in under an hour, therefore the reinstatement of a through route is vital and not a dead-end town-train link.

Is Woodhead set to become the latest rail sacrifice in a long list of routes to satisfy the road lobby?

A Oldfield, Sheffield

Why rail use has fallen

The RMT strikes on four rail networks prompted me to re-read Industry Insider’s article on identifying trends in rail use ( RAIL 843). It seems to me that the decline in rail usage must in some way be down to the uncertainty of being able to complete one’s rail journey.

There is a simple economic law which states that demand will slacken if the price of a product or service rises. Real wages have been falling since 2009, so the amount of a family or personal budget that can be allocated to discretionary travel will decline.

Work patterns are also changing. Flexible working allows some commuters to travel in off-peak periods, and working from home is becoming more popular for employers and employees. The present and potential franchise operators and the Department for Transport must have lost sight of basic economics if they believed that rail use would continue to rise each and every year.

While the rise in rail usage from 1997 has been large and possibly unexpected, the quality of the product offered did increase (although there are still too many old trains in use north of Watford). The late Lord [Bill] Deedes once suggested that the rail franchising system had the potential to be the ‘poll tax on wheels’, but that did not happen.

Some people may believe that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn will cut fares and provide new and better trains, but I do not see that happening unless Corbyn has a money tree next to a rail embankment.

Christian Wolmar persists in his belief that every problem is down to Brexit, and Corbyn believes that every problem can be solved by nationalisation.

Meanwhile, I see that Michael Portillo and his BBC camera crew are still travelling around the South East of England on off-peak trains with plenty of empty seats. I would like to join him, but I worry about getting home on RMT strike days.

Consequently, my use of the railways has declined in the past two years by significantly more than 3%. I am (I believe) not unique.

A J Slatter, Reigate

A brittle network

Christian Wolmar says Network Rail needs to “up its game” ( RAIL 844).

Every day brings a list of lines where NR failures affect services. I continue to wonder if ‘Notwork Rail’ is without a regular maintenance programme - content to allow breakdown, patch the defect, and let disruption ease slowly. How can any operator manage to run a regular, reliable timetable?

Surely this catalogue of failure must be the overwhelming NR concern. Spending lavishly on great schemes while system foundations crumble is folly.

Under NR, our network is brittle. It cannot ‘bend’ a little with a fault - instead it snaps, giving long-term dislocation.

NR is the one part of our national railway which is not run privately. If we take back the rest of the system into public ownership, will standards improve? The evidence does not seem to support this.

Ian S. Robertson, Hornsea

East West corridor

On East West Rail ( RAIL 841), Network Rail is clearly wedded to the old Varsity route for no reason other than ‘it was there before’. It adds no extra growth potential at all, while ignoring the future growth of the St Neots, Cambourne and North Cambridge corridor.

As Project Officer for EWR for some years, we realised that the old route was simply not viable because of entrenched resistance in the Willington area, East Coast Main Line paths, bridges under the A421 and on to the ECML, and the absence of any population growth. And we knew this from extended public meetings along the route.

Highways Agency was fine with my idea of building a trackbed alongside the (then) proposed new A421, but the DfT killed it and the road was built without that passive provision.

The space is still there, though. That would have placed EWR near St Neots and within 18 miles of North Cambridge in 2006, at no major cost to the Consortium.

When will we start building transport corridors and stop rail vs road?

Chris Hayward, Suffolk

Less and less yellow

I can only agree with John Gilbert regarding the current round of new liveries ( Open Access, RAIL 843).

They vary from insipid (Thameslink) to the incomprehensible (TransPennine Express). Additionally, it would appear that those responsible have not yet realised that gloss finishes always look better than matt.

On a slightly different track, why has the decision been taken to delete the yellow end panels on powered rolling stock?

These first appeared in the 1950s with the switch from steam to diesel and electric traction, because

these new quieter trains did not have the visual indicators of steam and smoke associated with steam trains.

While enthusiasts were unhappy, the powers-that-be eventually decided that even a small panel was insufficient, and full yellow ends appeared. Over time the yellow panels have again been reduced in size, and have become part of the design of vehicle ends.

The decision to remove the yellow completely comes at a time when trains are getting even quieter, with more and faster electrics replacing diesels and the introduction of battery power and hydrogen cells.

I feel sure that the instigator of the ‘yellow withdrawal’ has never worked on the track, or they would soon return to full yellow ends.

I am disappointed, as a lifetime railwayman, that the trade unions do not appear to have taken this up as a health and safety issue.

John Burrows, County Durham

Company co-operation

Cliff Perry says “geographically based railway barons prevented the operation of a decent cross-country inter-city service under BR”, and would not have been able to create Operation Princess ( RAIL 842).

This statement is a sad slur on the organisation of the original ex-Midland Railway NewcastleBristol and ex-Great Central Railway York-Bournemouth services, which required considerable inter-company co-operation between the NER/ GCR/MR/LNWR/GWR and LSWR. These services required cooperation after the grouping between LNER/LMSR/GWR/SR, and after nationalisation by the regions.

In the 1970s, when I was in the Sheffield Division, BR Eastern Region, an inter-regional organisation existed, entitled the North East-South West Investigatorate. Its Chief Inspector was located at Derby, and there were NE/SW inspectors (based at York and Bristol) responsible to him directly, for ensuring that crosscountry services were being given correct attention.

This operation was supported by an inter-regional committee that met regularly. The regions took it in turns to chair the committee. This NE/SW organisation was a direct descendent of an original Midland Railway company initiative, whereby MR cross-country services that involved running powers over another company’s tracks required special attention.

I do not deny that following the Operation Princess exercise, the cross-country network has developed with regular interval services to Cambridge/Cardiff and to Scotland (and so on), over both the East and West Coast Main Lines. However, to say this would not have happened without privatisation is, in my view, questionable.

David Wrottesley, Sheffield

Falling passenger numbers

Some 24 of my friends and I are travelling to Manchester Airport at the beginning of May. Ordinarily we would go by train. This year we are booking a small coach.

In the current environment, I cannot forward-book a train ticket with enough certainty that my train will run.

I am not prepared to buy a ticket only to find there is likely to be yet another strike on my day of travel.

This sort of reaction to the apparent strike ethos is surely not limited to myself and my colleagues, it must be reflected in the whole travelling public. Therefore, the continuing industrial disputes are not only losing passengers on the days of the strike, but also on ‘normal’ days.

I feel this is a major factor in the reversal of passenger growth. It is just too convenient to blame passenger loss on Brexit, and both unions and management are culpable in this deceit.

A J Mayo, Ulverston

Lack of forward thinking

I read with interest the plans outlined for the King’s Cross remodelling scheme ( RAIL 843), and in particular the reopening of Gasworks Tunnel 3rd bore and relaying of the twin tracks through it.

As a fairly regular traveller from Kings Lynn, it really beggars belief why it was abandoned in the first place? What a sheer waste of public money, ripping up the original tracks. Why wasn’t it just mothballed, just in case?

It’s pretty obvious to anybody using King’s Cross that the extra capacity is badly needed. But what I don’t agree with are the plans to reduce the platforms from 11 to ten - the trains from Kings Lynn normally arrive at either Platform 9,10 or 11, so surely that’s reducing capacity?

Another proposal that’s on the cards is redoubling of the tracks from Littleport to Kings Lynn. Again, this amazes me as to why this section was singled, only for yet more money to be spent relaying the second track again.

Finally, the plan to reopen the line from Kings Lynn to Hunstanton ( RAIL 843) is an excellent idea, bringing this lovely seaside resort back onto the rail map. I assume the plans include electrification as well?

Personally, I don’t see this happening because of the infrastructure problems already outlined and the huge cost in completing it. But I will be watching this project with keen interest.

Chris Gordon, Dereham

Better guard deployment

As a regular traveller on the Merseyrail network, I seldom see a guard.

For a six-coach train, the guard can only be in one half of the train. Stops are too frequent for guards to be visible, as their focus is on opening and shutting the doors, often locked away from passenger sight. Liverpool deserves better.

I am looking forward to our new trains with their new technology and features. Open carriages offer greater security. Driver Controlled Operation (or Driver Only Operation) may lead to reduced dwell times, and bring us in line with other modern Metro networks operating successfully without guards.

I, for one, do not want guards retained in their current roles as overpaid doormen. But with a job guarantee, I suspect some of them will be deployed on trains, where they will be able to interact with members of the public. Who knows, some of them might even enjoy it.

Mark Walas, West Kirby

Future East West links

An added benefit to the East West Rail link at Sandy is the northbound wartime spur.

If this was reused, passenger trains could start from Peterborough or Huntingdon and provide a useful freight route. It would allow the new line to be operational in advance of the line connecting to Cambridge.

Peter Armand, Reading

WHAT’S YOUR VIEW? Email: rail@bauermedia.co.uk