New North-South Wales Proposal

[Ben B]

Personally I'd love to see more investment into the lines in North and Mid/West Wales; it might not unify the country physically, but might help convince the population in North and Mid Wales to use public transport, and realise that transport policy isn't entirely centered on South Wales. Increased capacity on the Cambrian lines to accomodate more freight like the logs from Aberystwyth which I've heard seem to struggle for paths, and have to load in the run-round loop in Aber station (maybe subsidise the quick conversion of a couple more ERTMS-fitted locomotives too).

 

More capacity (re-instate passing loops) and a few more trains up the Cambrian Coast to tap the Midlands holiday traffic; I'm not deluded enough to think it'll be the 1960's again, but even in the early 2000's when I used to use the line for such purposes, there were plenty of day trippers from Wolvo and Brum going to the seaside.

 

Now Barmouth Bridge has been rebuilt, freight again (another log train? Plenty of felling over the last decade in the woods near Tanybwlch for example, all going out by road. Why not relay a goods loop and send it out via Penrhyndeudraeth or Porthmadog?)

 

Money to restore the freight onto the Conwy Valley, NR spend a fortune fixing the line after floods for a basic 4-trains-a-day-ish passenger service, whilst slate waste gets trucked up to Llandudno Junction. There's space for sidings at B. Ffestiniog.

 

Relay two tracks over Britannia Bridge? Could freight go to/from Holyhead and then to Ireland again? Even more, longer trains for the Coast line? The excellent North Wales Coast Railway Noticeboard often has stories of long-distance through trains being overcrowded 2-carriage DMU's.

 

I reckon improvements like that (without getting into 'nice to have' projects like rebuilding to Caernarfon or Amwlch, the latter I'd love to see, with my parents and sister living on the island) would be a better use of the funds than the north-south link. As others have commented, it seems like a hell of an effort so a sprinter can wind its way around valleys every few hours, and thats before bonkers non-starters like standard-gauge street running...

[The Stationmaster]

18 hours ago, woodenhead said:

If you tilted Wales so it was the same alignment to England as Scotland, you’d see a similar pattern of mainlines to each side to principal cities and not a lot in between.

 

However Scotland had the benefit of there needing to be lots of travel between Glasgow and Edinburgh plus a large industrial element in between, which has left Scotland with a very solid rail network.

Wales on the other hand had most of its industrial development in the south,  exports were to England or the empire so no need to build robust mainlines north within Wales, it was all to England or the ports after processing. 
 

One has to wonder what might have happened had Llanwern not been built as that’s where all the coal went once household and steam coal was no longer needed from the 1960s.  Without that steel industry all the mines and the valley lines would have gone quickly and likely now it would be just the GWML through Newport, Cardiff to Swansea that remained.

Alas you're somewhat wide of the mark regarding the destinations fro South Wales coal from the 1960s onwards.  Yes, the house coal market was in steady decline but coal and coke were going to many other places besides Llanwern and Port Talbot.  From the yard which I managed in 1973 we ran at least one block train of coal every week to a destination in the Newcastle area and several to Scunthorpe (Entrance E) plus some traffic to Margam for Port Talbot Abbey Works.  Regular trainload coke working to the West Midlands.  Coal for Uskmouth power station power station was another regular and of course while we didn't have any there were coal movements to Aberthaw power station passing through and, until the mid-late 1970s, steel was still being made at East Moors in Cardiff and the blast furnaces at Ebbw Vale remained in production until 1975

 

Well into the 1960s and early-mid  '70s there were still regular domestic coal trains running out of South Wales to concentration depots in England.   Shipment coal, latterly only via Swansea Docks, was still running into the early 1990s albeit on a sporadic basis and conveyed in the only completely unfitted freight trains then still running on the WR.  So Llanwern was a long way from being the only customer for coal in South Wales, and there were other industrial and domestic customers in England.

[The Stationmaster]

12 minutes ago, Ben B said:

 

Relay two tracks over Britannia Bridge? Could freight go to/from Holyhead and then to Ireland again? Even more, longer trains for the Coast line? The excellent North Wales Coast Railway Noticeboard often has stories of long-distance through trains being overcrowded 2-carriage DMU's.

 

Freight can already go from Holyhead to Dublin, without any need to transfer from one sort of vehicle to another before joining the ship.  Railborne freight can hardly compete with that.  Which is why the Holyhead Freightliner service ended its days in 199.   'Green' aspirations might help get rail back into the game via Holyhead but will shippers accept the inevitable cost increases?1

[ruggedpeak]

3 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

 'Green' aspirations might help get rail back into the game via Holyhead but will shippers accept the inevitable cost increases?1

They probably won't have a choice soon, a new Government will simply legislate its rules into place regardless of cost, impact, usefulness etc.

[Mol_PMB]

This is a map of the population density from the 2011 census. As you can see, the more densely populated areas are in the South, on the Borders, and on the North Coast:

 

 

Based on 2021 survey data, the towns in Mid-Wales are remarkably small in the grand scheme of things, here are the few with populations over 5000:

Aberystwyth 14,640

Newtown (Powys)Y Drenewydd 10,885

Welshpool 5,455

Llandrindod Wells 5,430

 

Many well-known places like Llangollen, Pwllheli, Blaenau Ffestiniog, Tywyn, Porthmadog, Lampeter, Llanidloes, Builth Wells have populations around 3000, more village-sized though I admit their importance to the local economies is greater than a village would be, and their numbers would be swelled by tourists in summer. Machynlleth, Dolgellau, Criccieth are even smaller, around 2000. 

 

It would be interesting to see if there was any market for an 'express' road coach service on the proposed North-South axis, with just one stop in each big town, and going direct between towns. The existing long-distance bus services are very slow because they stop frequently and divert through every village rather than taking the bypass. That's necessary because they are often the only bus service on that axis.

 

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_built-up_areas_in_Wales_by_population

[Mol_PMB]

27 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Freight can already go from Holyhead to Dublin, without any need to transfer from one sort of vehicle to another before joining the ship.  Railborne freight can hardly compete with that.  Which is why the Holyhead Freightliner service ended its days in 199.   'Green' aspirations might help get rail back into the game via Holyhead but will shippers accept the inevitable cost increases?1

 

Since Brexit there has been a decrease in Europe-Ireland road freight coming via the UK, and an increase in direct Ro-Ro freight ferry services from Europe direct to Ireland. At least one major UK road haulier on this axis has gone bankrupt. So the North Wales Coast freight market has decreased too.

Containers can go by sea from Liverpool to Dublin on feeder ships which also serve the major European ports such as Rotterdam, Le Havre etc. I can't see it being efficient to rail them to Holyhead (where there are no longer any handling facilities) for a slightly shorter sea crossing.

[Ian Hargrave]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Alas you're somewhat wide of the mark regarding the destinations fro South Wales coal from the 1960s onwards.  Yes, the house coal market was in steady decline but coal and coke were going to many other places besides Llanwern and Port Talbot.  From the yard which I managed in 1973 we ran at least one block train of coal every week to a destination in the Newcastle area and several to Scunthorpe (Entrance E) plus some traffic to Margam for Port Talbot Abbey Works.  Regular trainload coke working to the West Midlands.  Coal for Uskmouth power station power station was another regular and of course while we didn't have any there were coal movements to Aberthaw power station passing through and, until the mid-late 1970s, steel was still being made at East Moors in Cardiff and the blast furnaces at Ebbw Vale remained in production until 1975

 

Well into the 1960s and early-mid  '70s there were still regular domestic coal trains running out of South Wales to concentration depots in England.   Shipment coal, latterly only via Swansea Docks, was still running into the early 1990s albeit on a sporadic basis and conveyed in the only completely unfitted freight trains then still running on the WR.  So Llanwern was a long way from being the only customer for coal in South Wales, and there were other industrial and domestic customers in England.

 Not forgetting the Phurnacite of course…the poisonous  bane of my early years. More than 60 years on,its clouds of sulphurous fumes are still vivid in my eyes and smell.The vision from my bedroom window.Best “appreciated on a foggy day. ….

[Cwmtwrch]

33 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

Not forgetting the Phurnacite of course

Which also received pitch by rail as well as coal.

[Danemouth]

4 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 Not forgetting the Phurnacite of course…the poisonous  bane of my early years. More than 60 years on,its clouds of sulphurous fumes are still vivid in my eyes and smell.The vision from my bedroom window.Best “appreciated on a foggy day. ….

 

Here you go Ian, three images I took in the early 1970s

 

 

 

Dave

 

[black and decker boy]

8 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

Ah, now there's the problem. Rigid return on investment demands are what is killing infrastructure projects. Either through making sure they don't get off the drawing board or, as with HS2, the business case becomes so fragmented the overall purpose is lost.

The original builders of our railways used a business plan as they generally needed to secure private capital so had to show their plan to earn enough to repay it. (How many managed it is a different matter).

 

in public finance terms, there is a limited pot that has to fund all public services so there must be a means of prioritising and filtering use of those funds (though weighting can be applied to ensure funds do end up in rural area too)

 

This example is clearly bonkers and would never justify the very significant use of public money over schools / NHS / social care or other more beneficial transport projects. Adding capacity on existing lines would achieve far more for less outlay, for example.

[Ian Hargrave]

1 hour ago, Danemouth said:

 

Here you go Ian, three images I took in the early 1970s

 

 

 

Dave

 

So you can see I was brought up confronted with a vision of hell on a daily basis. Thanks for the reminder.

But I wonder how much of it I carried in my lungs….and for how long ? It was about a mile is so directly down the valley from Godreaman where I lived.

[KingEdwardII]

7 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

a map of the population density from the 2011 census.

Very neatly shows the vast areas of central and northern Wales which are dominated by sheep rather than human beings.

[Michael Hodgson]

On 25/06/2024 at 16:15, The Stationmaster said:

 

None of the routes within Wales from South Wales ever got any further north then Mid Wales although you could change trains - once or twice - to get from there into North Wales.  But I wonder how many people actually did so?

Perhaps they should complete the Manchester and Milford Railway with its connections ?

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, black and decker boy said:

The original builders of our railways used a business plan as they generally needed to secure private capital so had to show their plan to earn enough to repay it.

Not really such a thing as a business plan, in any modern sense. There was also no Government Capital until much later (for example the West Highland Line, & its extension).

 

Typical sequence of events back then:

 

-    Public meeting to discuss a Railway from X to Y

-   If enough interest (usually), raise money at, say 5p  (1/-) in the £ on a guesstimate of the nominal capital (usually grossly low) to fund a survey and cost estimate for constructing the line

-   Fight for an Act of Parliament (required to obtain both borrowing and compulsory purchase powers) against established interests and other schemes

-   (rarely) Return any unspent money if there was no prospect of building the line

-   (often) Agree to start building the line, extracting the rest of the 95p in the £ capital in stages from those who had signed up. Sometimes having been bribed with a discount.

-   (often) Run out of money, go back to Parliament for authorisation for more money, more time, or both

-   Start operating any railway that survived to at least partial completion

-   Passenger traffic starts almost immediately. Goods take 5-15 years to build up. Minerals were not dominant until the 1870s on most lines

 

Most of the ones that survived this process either succeeded, or got swallowed into larger enterprises called things like the Midland, the Great Eastern, the Great Western, the North-Eastern and so on.

 

[APOLLO]

As they say in Yorkshire, "Where theres muck there's money"

 

From Hull and Halifax and Hell good Lord deliver me (an old poem).

 

Halifax.

 

 

Widnes (Lancashire)

 

 

My home town, 2 miles from home (now a pleasant green area)

 

 

 

Dowlais

 

 

Like it or lump it, this "filth" built the UK, all four countries.

 

Now the sooty crap has gone, the political crap has taken over.

 

And what has this to do with a proposed railway in rural Wales ?

 

Well, quite simple, WE BRITS cannot afford it, WE have lost / given away all the wealth creating industry we once had. WE are broke.

 

Brit15

Edited June 27 by APOLLO

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=334a9bda33585e15&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWIKmXaYtOMvU3mGnIQjjJ6MLeB4PtQ:1719553087367&q=Templeborough+rolling+mills&tbm=vid&source=lnms&fbs=AEQNm0Aa4sjWe7Rqy32pFwRj0UkWd8nbOJfsBGGB5IQQO6L3J_86uWOeqwdnV0yaSF-x2jpV_A7Qlhyckt3jQ2x2e6anbl1_pL7wxE1FNU4sxvSRetCwYtMktjiK4UlLVPOXO76zexD3wUgJdI9aPnBIyZhR3ZgrjcJfWwj_NMHrHvlUkAl8CWACsfqcc4xZsP4qrp53Xp-H&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixrse3yv2GAxWoTaQEHVnSCt4Q0pQJegQIDhAB&biw=1683&bih=849&dpr=1.13#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:bbb7dbf6,vid:fARQ5m8H4lU,st:0

 

Mike.

[Hroth]

12 hours ago, DenysW said:

Not really such a thing as a business plan, in any modern sense. There was also no Government Capital until much later (for example the West Highland Line, & its extension).

 

Typical sequence of events back then:

 

-    Public meeting to discuss a Railway from X to Y

-   If enough interest (usually), raise money at, say 5p  (1/-) in the £ on a guesstimate of the nominal capital (usually grossly low) to fund a survey and cost estimate for constructing the line

-   Fight for an Act of Parliament (required to obtain both borrowing and compulsory purchase powers) against established interests and other schemes

-   (rarely) Return any unspent money if there was no prospect of building the line

-   (often) Agree to start building the line, extracting the rest of the 95p in the £ capital in stages from those who had signed up. Sometimes having been bribed with a discount.

-   (often) Run out of money, go back to Parliament for authorisation for more money, more time, or both

-   Start operating any railway that survived to at least partial completion

-   Passenger traffic starts almost immediately. Goods take 5-15 years to build up. Minerals were not dominant until the 1870s on most lines

 

Most of the ones that survived this process either succeeded, or got swallowed into larger enterprises called things like the Midland, the Great Eastern, the Great Western, the North-Eastern and so on.

 

 

And often, small lines were "sponsored" by larger concerns, in a friendly manner, you understand, to penetrate areas which other railway companies considered their own (but had ignored). Sponsored lines might also be worked by their kind sponsors before being completely absorbed, which would get up the nose of the penetrated company, leading to all kinds of unhelpfulness...

 

[Mol_PMB]

1 minute ago, Hroth said:

 

And often, small lines were "sponsored" by larger concerns, in a friendly manner, you understand, to penetrate areas which other railway companies considered their own (but had ignored). Sponsored lines might also be worked by their kind sponsors before being completely absorbed, which would get up the nose of the penetrated company, leading to all kinds of unhelpfulness...

 

Agreed.

 

Another important influence with the promotion of branch lines was that many of the investors were local businessmen (mill/factory/quarry owners etc) who needed a rail connection for their own business to remain competitive. They weren't too bothered about whether the railway paid back their investment in its shares, they were more concerned that it enabled their own business to remain profitable. 

[APOLLO]

Many early railways were built for commerce, passengers being secondary for most, especially in industrial areas.

 

The first railway into Wigan was the Wigan Branch Railway, built just after the Liverpool & Manchester line from Parkside, and off it a branch to New Springs (from Springs Branch, hence the name) followed soon after. Both built for the then many Coal and Iron concerns around Wigan, and later many cotton mills with Liverpool being the point of import etc.

 

Other local lines in nearby towns followed and many were quickly swallowed up by the London & North Western Railway, the Lancashire and Yorkshire and Great Central following on a lesser scale. The early lines north / south - London & Birmingham, Grand Junction, L&M (Parkside to Warrington), Wigan Branch, Wigan and Preston, Preston & Lancaster & Lancaster & Carlisle were quickly absorbed into the L&NW railway West Coast main line.

 

This general scheme of things, very complex in many cases happened around the UK from the dawn of railways.

 

Looking forward from today the nations transport needs are very different and far more complex. As HS2 as shown, given todays financial position, we need to be very vigilant where we spend, especially with the net zero etc commitments we (rightly or wrongly) have made.

 

The next Government needs to be very careful and informed with transport (Road Rail & Air) - it is the lifeline of our nation and it's economy.

 

Brit15

Edited June 28 by APOLLO
add info

[Enterprisingwestern]

9 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

The next Government needs to be very careful and informed with transport (Road Rail & Air) - it is the lifeline of our nation and it's economy.

 

Who makes the decisions when it's an anarchy?

 

Mike.

[ruggedpeak]

11 hours ago, APOLLO said:

As they say in Yorkshire, "Where theres muck there's money"

 

From Hull and Halifax and Hell good Lord deliver me (an old poem).

 

Halifax.

 

 

Widnes (Lancashire)

 

 

My home town, 2 miles from home (now a pleasant green area)

 

 

 

Dowlais

 

 

Like it or lump it, this "filth" built the UK, all four countries.

 

Now the sooty crap has gone, the political crap has taken over.

 

And what has this to do with a proposed railway in rural Wales ?

 

Well, quite simple, WE BRITS cannot afford it, WE have lost / given away all the wealth creating industry we once had. WE are broke.

 

Brit15

You are right about the political crap but wrong on the affording it bit. The UK has plenty of money, it just spends it very, very badly, and no one in positions of power will make the necessary difficult decisions to get stuff done.

 

The tragedy is that the world's 6th largest economy couldn't find the money (if it wanted to) to build a simple (i.e. not high speed) railway through a relatively remote part of the country (so not having to buy up lots of expensive urban property).

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

And often, small lines were "sponsored" by larger concerns, in a friendly manner, you understand, to penetrate areas which other railway companies considered their own (but had ignored). Sponsored lines might also be worked by their kind sponsors before being completely absorbed, which would get up the nose of the penetrated company, leading to all kinds of unhelpfulness...

 

And in some cases to physical violence, track being laid and then being ripped out by 'the other lot', plus of course battles in Parliament over the promotion of rival schemes.  All we get instead of that nowadays are a bunch of nimbys although it looks as if some of them are turning to violence as well (albeit only against property so far).

[Cwmtwrch]

40 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

You are right about the political crap but wrong on the affording it bit. The UK has plenty of money, it just spends it very, very badly, and no one in positions of power will make the necessary difficult decisions to get stuff done.

Plenty of money, I'm not at all sure about that part. Poor spending decisions, yes, sometimes. Unwillingness to take difficult decisions undoubtedly, but then decisions are difficult when they are necessary but unpopular. The electorate is prone to severely punishing any party which does something it does not like, however necessary. The cost of social care has been an issue for years, but remains effectively unaddressed, largely, I suspect, because taking it into government control will be very expensive, and require major cuts in other areas to pay for it, which will be unpopular and thus have electoral implications. In the very recent past the government had to borrow on a fairly large scale to cope with the consequences of Covid, which it would not have had to do if it had money in reserve for emergencies.

 

Back in 1945, National Insurance was intended to be just that, a scheme which was normally self financing, with occasional support from general taxation in bad years with the National Assistance Board (as it was then) to provide for emergencies. Nowadays the whole system has become entirely dependent on general taxation and its cost has greatly increased as a percentage of declining national income. Expectations have changed since then as well. I can't find it now, but earlier this year I read an article on the BBC website about child care costs; If I remember correctly, one married woman was quoted complaining that she and her husband worked full time but costs of childcare for their two children were now greater than her net income, which was causing difficulties with paying their other costs. Her remedy was that the government should increase the child care subsidy; I don't think she was untypical of the general taxpayer response in that and many other areas. Somebody else, usually, but not always, the government should pay, but without anyone, except perhaps the very rich, who can live anywhere convenient to them, having to pay more tax.

 

To me the overall picture suggests not a country with plenty of money, but one living hand to mouth [and possibly beyond its means], desperately trying to ignore the brick wall it is fast approaching. There is a saying that if you vote for the impossible, you get the disastrously possible instead; it may already be too late to avoid the crash.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Cwmtwrch said:

Plenty of money, I'm not at all sure about that part. Poor spending decisions, yes, sometimes. Unwillingness to take difficult decisions undoubtedly, but then decisions are difficult when they are necessary but unpopular. The electorate is prone to severely punishing any party which does something it does not like, however necessary. The cost of social care has been an issue for years, but remains effectively unaddressed, largely, I suspect, because taking it into government control will be very expensive, and require major cuts in other areas to pay for it, which will be unpopular and thus have electoral implications. In the very recent past the government had to borrow on a fairly large scale to cope with the consequences of Covid, which it would not have had to do if it had money in reserve for emergencies.

 

Back in 1945, National Insurance was intended to be just that, a scheme which was normally self financing, with occasional support from general taxation in bad years with the National Assistance Board (as it was then) to provide for emergencies. Nowadays the whole system has become entirely dependent on general taxation and its cost has greatly increased as a percentage of declining national income. Expectations have changed since then as well. I can't find it now, but earlier this year I read an article on the BBC website about child care costs; If I remember correctly, one married woman was quoted complaining that she and her husband worked full time but costs of childcare for their two children were now greater than her net income, which was causing difficulties with paying their other costs. Her remedy was that the government should increase the child care subsidy; I don't think she was untypical of the general taxpayer response in that and many other areas. Somebody else, usually, but not always, the government should pay, but without anyone, except perhaps the very rich, who can live anywhere convenient to them, having to pay more tax.

 

To me the overall picture suggests not a country with plenty of money, but one living hand to mouth [and possibly beyond its means], desperately trying to ignore the brick wall it is fast approaching. There is a saying that if you vote for the impossible, you get the disastrously possible instead; it may already be too late to avoid the crash.

Don't forget that National Insurance was introduced in 1911, originally as part of the introduction of a state retirement pension.  There were two separate schemes of payment, with separate stamps for each, but these were unified into a single scheme by the post-wtr Labour Govt,

[DenysW]

On 28/06/2024 at 08:30, Mol_PMB said:

They weren't too bothered about whether the railway paid back their investment in its shares, they were more concerned that it enabled their own business to remain profitable. 

I've seen this asserted quite often, and I still have trouble believing it as a generality*. It is simply that, when a laborer was getting £0.5/week (10/- per week in old money), railways were averaging £30,000 per mile to build and £3,000/mile for rolling stock. This is much more than even the moderately rich could afford, leading to the costs typically being split into £100 Shares. Even then, a read of the Midland's history reveals the existence of the 'Liverpool Party' - a group of financiers who owned a lot of shares and wanted them to pay proper dividends (5-7% at the time).

 

My belief is therefore that they all hoped that they were building the next Liverpool & Manchester, and would get 10%, but would probably be reconciled with getting 2-4% (same-as or better than government bonds) when building a line to connect their own industries.

 

*There's always examples where it did happen. The Duke of Sutherland and sections of the Highland Railway, for instance.