My idea - re-opening lines in Central England ?

[HowardGWR]

I apologise to @Bald Rick as I thought his station was Fenny Stratford. So I hope he does call in to read that. I know that @The Planner seems fairly sanguine about locals sharing lines with non-stoppers, but I follow the progress of the improved Exmouth to Paignton local service occasionally and detect on RTT a lot of trains getting in each other's way with little room for minor upsets and with the said locals having to wait at Dawlish Warren loops for seven minutes on end sometimes. This is a level of service with which SE commuters would just not put up.

My notion of the East West service is that it would only stop at key centres - something like Bristol - Bath - Swindon -Oxford - Bletchley (or MK) -Bedford - Cambridge - Ipswich - Norwich. One would change for anywhere else between or further onto locals that would connect. Thus my worries though about the latter services getting in the way of the former.

Northampton to Peterborough and similar (the OP issue) does not seem to add to such a service as the E-W suggestion above, although the local service would fulfil a local need to some extent, - it's not what these extra cross country links are supposed to achieve, is it? Stopping such services at every farmyard is not going to divert pax from Swindon to Cambridge from travelling via London is it?

 

[A0]

My notion of the East West service is that it would only stop at key centres - something like Bristol - Bath - Swindon -Oxford - Bletchley (or MK) -Bedford - Cambridge - Ipswich - Norwich. One would change for anywhere else between or further onto locals that would connect. Thus my worries though about the latter services getting in the way of the former.

I don't believe EWR has ever announced an intention to run from as far west as Bristol or Bath to anywhere as far east as Ipswich or Norwich - can you point to where they've stated that's the intention or is it just another example of 'what could be done'?

The scheme was (to my understanding) always about reconnecting Oxford & Cambridge - the growth of MK in the intervening period means that linking it to Oxford and Reading clearly makes some sense - and can be done with essentially the existing infrastructure (albeit the Bletchley - Claydon section is mothballed).

 

[richieb1971]

If XC were interested in a South Wales to East Anglia run, or a Cornwall to East Anglia run, I would of thought it makes perfect sense. To have such services would increase summer holidays by rail (if cost effective). You would not believe how many 60-70 year olds tell me how they went on holiday by train in their youth. Today, you can't get anywhere from Bedford on holiday, except Brighton. And I have heard of people using that particular train to go to the beach.


The railways in general can only do one of three things. It can expand, it can stay as it is, and it can regress. Considering the traffic on roads is nigh on ridiculous in places ,and railways have historically regressed to alarming levels of funding in the past 3 decades, I believe its the railways turn to be in the lime light.

MKC should invest in a business centre shuttle that does the rounds from the train station. If a success any city that has above 500,000 people should be considered for a similar program. I would hope for a 20% decrease in road traffic in each city that develops this program. If necessary it can be paid for by local councils who make a congestion charge for any vehicle entering its city limits.

You may think my program idea is extreme, but nobody who drives today is going to get out of their cars and use the trains when it costs so much, and the train doesn't even take you where you need to go.

 

[PHILIPE]

Please don't mention XC again otherwise it could develop into yet another "my idea for XC" thread. !!!

 

[The Planner]

If XC were interested in a South Wales to East Anglia run, or a Cornwall to East Anglia run, I would of thought it makes perfect sense. To have such services would increase summer holidays by rail (if cost effective). You would not believe how many 60-70 year olds tell me how they went on holiday by train in their youth. Today, you can't get anywhere from Bedford on holiday, except Brighton. And I have heard of people using that particular train to go to the beach..

The world has changed since then. People who are 60 - 70 now who went on holiday in their youth were doing it in the 1960s when personal car growth was just beginning to grow. Id bet a fiver that as soon as they were mid twenties they were taking advantage of the new cheap package holidays abroad. You can get to places from Bedford, Luton Airport. If you could guarantee decent weather in the UK then more people would stay and holiday here and potentially use the train. It still isnt that cheap to holiday in the UK either, when people weigh it up against a fortnight in the sun they are going to get on a plane.

 

[A0]

The world has changed since then. People who are 60 - 70 now who went on holiday in their youth were doing it in the 1960s when personal car growth was just beginning to grow. Id bet a fiver that as soon as they were mid twenties they were taking advantage of the new cheap package holidays abroad. You can get to places from Bedford, Luton Airport. If you could guarantee decent weather in the UK then more people would stay and holiday here and potentially use the train. It still isnt that cheap to holiday in the UK either, when people weigh it up against a fortnight in the sun they are going to get on a plane.

It also assumes that people once they've got to their holiday destination are happy to stay within the locality, rather than go off exploring the area.

I can't think of a family holiday where we've been happy to (or would have been happy) to have been confined in this way - instead we've covered areas which even if Beeching had never happened, would never have been connected by public transport. Add in kids and a dog and frankly the car is the only viable way for many people.

As you rightly say, yes people who are now in their 60s and 70s might well have gone on holiday by train - but the world has changed and with it so have people's expectations. To keep harking back to the 30s 50s or 60s and try to shoehorn what was 'normal' then into the modern world is laughable.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I don't believe EWR has ever announced an intention to run from as far west as Bristol or Bath to anywhere as far east as Ipswich or Norwich - can you point to where they've stated that's the intention or is it just another example of 'what could be done'?

The scheme was (to my understanding) always about reconnecting Oxford & Cambridge - the growth of MK in the intervening period means that linking it to Oxford and Reading clearly makes some sense - and can be done with essentially the existing infrastructure (albeit the Bletchley - Claydon section is mothballed).

The East West Rail Consortium has long had membership from Norfolk, Suffolk, Ipswich and Norwich in the expectation of through services at some point. However, membership seems to peter out in the west around Oxfordshire.

 

[A0]

You may think my program idea is extreme, but nobody who drives today is going to get out of their cars and use the trains when it costs so much, and the train doesn't even take you where you need to go.

I don't think it is extreme - it IS extreme.

Interestingly rail usage has grown even in the face of fare increases, so that rather defies your argument that people don't make the change - they do, when it suits them .

And when people have been surveyed about the use of Congestion Charging - as happened in Greater Manchester not so long ago, the public overwhelmingly rejected it.

So what should the politicians do? They can either push ahead - and run the risk of alienating voters which results in more people claiming politicians are out of touch OR they can do what they are meant to do which is LISTEN TO THE WISHES OF THEIR ELECTORATE.

Perhaps you need to accept that the views you hold are held by a tiny minority of people - and I'm afraid the way democracy works is the majority tend to carry the day.

 

[DarloRich]

I apologise to @Bald Rick as I thought his station was Fenny Stratford.

My station is Fenny Stratford. It wont be closing. Nor will nay of the other stations. E-W are suggesting the following service pattern along the Marston Vale Line:

1 x Bedford to Oxford "fast" ( calling only Ridgmont and Woburn Sands) in each direction per hour

1 x Bletchley - Bedford all stations (as now) in each direction per hour

Plus potentially 1 x freight in each direction and 1 x "XC" service per hour

 

[richieb1971]

I don't think it is extreme - it IS extreme.

Interestingly rail usage has grown even in the face of fare increases, so that rather defies your argument that people don't make the change - they do, when it suits them .

And when people have been surveyed about the use of Congestion Charging - as happened in Greater Manchester not so long ago, the public overwhelmingly rejected it.

So what should the politicians do? They can either push ahead - and run the risk of alienating voters which results in more people claiming politicians are out of touch OR they can do what they are meant to do which is LISTEN TO THE WISHES OF THEIR ELECTORATE.

Perhaps you need to accept that the views you hold are held by a tiny minority of people - and I'm afraid the way democracy works is the majority tend to carry the day.

Democracy's will vote themselves to doom. Sometimes it is the minority that should be listened.

Cars, as versatile as they are will never go faster than 70mph legally. Every single day, more cars are put on the roads and less are taken off. If you build motorways, bypasses and circle roads it just pushes the rush of traffic into the congested towns and cities which don't have the capacity for it. So the option of doing nothing just makes things worse even still.

If you listen to the electorate they will vote for more roads, cheaper fuel..

House builders prefer the railways because you cannot buy a house for less than £220k in my neighbourhood that has a drive way. I don't know about you but I don't know any 20 year olds who are buying cars that can also afford a house to accommodate their cars. I would advise a policy to promote motorcycles in this country, but the weather doesn't really suit motorcycles.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And when people have been surveyed about the use of Congestion Charging - as happened in Greater Manchester not so long ago, the public overwhelmingly rejected it.

That by itself doesn't say much. Most people, given a choice, will vote for less taxes. They will also, if asked separately, vote for better public services, or for more railways, or for more roads and so on. But most people don't have to square the fact that delivering all those simultaneously is basically impossible.

So what should the politicians do? They can either push ahead - and run the risk of alienating voters which results in more people claiming politicians are out of touch OR they can do what they are meant to do which is LISTEN TO THE WISHES OF THEIR ELECTORATE.

To some extent. But when the electorate want policies that are not going to work or which are in some way ethically wrong, or will harm others, then politicians also need to be responsible enough to do what will work, rather than simply following the crowd. Congestion charging does appear to be an example of a policy that is always going to be unpopular (because people don't like paying for things) but which in many cases is likely on balance to benefit both the country and the people living in it.

Perhaps you need to accept that the views you hold are held by a tiny minority of people - and I'm afraid the way democracy works is the majority tend to carry the day.

I doubt it's a tiny minority. From what I've seen of what richieb1971 to have written, I'd expect quite a substantial number of people to roughly share his views (although admittedly possibly not a majority). Too many cars and too much congestion tends to make life quite unpleasant for a lot of people.

 

[yorksrob]

Herein lies the problem with all 'state' spending - everyone has their own pet area which "has" to be protected. Add in a generally inflexible workforce (both at the coalface and at management level) and alot of emotive talk on the media any time funding changes are discussed and you've got a situation which is virtually impossible to manage.

True to an extent, but I don't think it's selfish for someone to want a transport budget maintained, even when up against schools and health. The fact is, the economy relies on transport and many people rely on public transport.

 

[Bald Rick]

Democracy's will vote themselves to doom.

Labour Party please note.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Every single day, more cars are put on the roads and less are taken off.

And yet, in the decade to 2013, road traffic increased by a total of a whopping 0.4% (source, Transport Statistics, GB).

Rail in the same time approx 50%.

It would seem government policy in that time to promote rail might have worked? Or are these rather stark figures in spite of government policy, and just by chance?

HowardGWR - no need to apologise.

As for my E-W link, just work out the busiest station on the MML between London and Sheffield. And look east.

 

[richieb1971]

It doesn't matter that car ownership has stayed stagnant. Its far too high as it is. Why should London get away with all these ideas enforced and no other community gets to share in its good examples?

London employers never have to ask the applicant if they can drive or not. Because its irrelevant. If I was an employer in Northampton I would VERY much have to have someone who can drive. Because most of the jobs are in industrial estates which have no railways, or have had them uplifted. Barclaycard is probably one of the biggest employers and they run their own bus services to and from the town centre, but none of the other major employers do that.

I still believe that with people that frequent this forum that no railways would be built under their philosophies, guidance or leadership. So if any advancements are being put forward under this government they are making more of an effort to go against the grain than certain people on here.

 

[yorksrob]

Labour Party please note.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


And yet, in the decade to 2013, road traffic increased by a total of a whopping 0.4% (source, Transport Statistics, GB).

Rail in the same time approx 50%.

It would seem government policy in that time to promote rail might have worked? Or are these rather stark figures in spite of government policy, and just by chance?

HowardGWR - no need to apologise.

As for my E-W link, just work out the busiest station on the MML between London and Sheffield. And look east.

One might reasonably have thought that such a massive increase in passenger usage, as opposed to stagnating car ownership, might be an incentive towards using the transport budget for some modest extensions to the railway network, including extending EW rail to the major economic centre of Cambridge. But no, here in bizzaroworld, it's just another argument for further network stagnation.

 

[Trog]

On the other hand do the current difficulties not suggest that there is already more railway work going on than the available talent pool can carry out?

 

[HowardGWR]

I think it would be good if political parties would develop policies for semi-rural lines, such as Northamptonshire, as this discussion throws up that they are well-used but may need subsidy, unless there are other services such as freight or long distance sharing the line.

Certainly my local Weymouth to Bristol line is and it was packed when I used it last Monday (all the way, not just the Bristol area).

I was worried that this line sharing could lead to unreliability but @Bald Rick assures me that this sharing is OK for East West. I still have my doubts on this.

I don't agree with @AOWen about John Prescott. I don't agree he is unintelligent and I certainly don't agree that his efforts at Transport and Environment were in vain. We have many rural buses now that would have never existed without the rural bus grant, for instance. In my area, they started with the grant and now run commercially, so well are they used.

His C and ROW act was a good step in the right direction. He was left to hang out to dry after Blair panicked following the phoney 'fuel strike'. That latter achieved a lot didn't it (not)! Nobody understood that Regional Assemblies were a planning exercise, not a government. No wonder the NE one was not supported.

All power to colleagues who start promoting their Northamptonshire line. We need more Prescotts to achieve these things. My politics are a bit on the right, by the way, so no partisan comment is intended. We need strategic planning.

 

[DarloRich]

I still believe that with people that frequent this forum that no railways would be built under their philosophies, guidance or leadership. So if any advancements are being put forward under this government they are making more of an effort to go against the grain than certain people on here.

Right: For the 9 millionth and final time. If i was in charge i would be happy reopen lines IF you can could provide two simple things.

You need something called a business case (I saved of looking for what that is you a job as you cant seem to find details on the web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_case) clearly showing the costs , benefits and financial payback period and an identified source of funding.

What i wouldn't want to see are the fevered outpourings of a wibblish mind producing the railway equivalent of a who would win out of a fight from Superman and Batman question!

argh!

 

[yorksrob]

On the other hand do the current difficulties not suggest that there is already more railway work going on than the available talent pool can carry out?

Fair point, although it does suggest that the infrastructure provider needs to be in a position to develop this body of knowledge and increase the talent pool over the long term.

 

[richieb1971]

Right: For the 9 millionth and final time. If i was in charge i would be happy reopen lines IF you can could provide two simple things.

You need something called a business case (I saved of looking for what that is you a job as you cant seem to find details on the web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_case) clearly showing the costs , benefits and financial payback period and an identified source of funding.

What i wouldn't want to see are the fevered outpourings of a wibblish mind producing the railway equivalent of a who would win out of a fight from Superman and Batman question!

argh!

Business case business case business case.

Lets get some things clear. Nobody wants to use rail, everyone wants to use a car. Rail usage might have gone up 50% in so many years, but thats likely a forced issue rather than a choice of the customer. I do not believe any Tom, Dick or Harry has said "You know, I won't use my car anymore, I think I'll use the train instead"..

Although my case may not be feasible in a business sense, it might make more logical sense to assume that if the train was a more attractive option than it is now, that more people might want to try it out of free will.

My idea does not stem from profiteering, it stems from rethinking strategies about how to move X amount of people from point A to B that does not use roads. The infrastructure in place right now does not facilitate in any shape or form what I am visualizing. People need a car to get to the station, when they get to their destination station they need another car or a bus. Rail fails for this very reason and railways remain unattractive for that reason.

If rail usage has gone up 50% that means someone is profiteering. That money should be used like any other business would.. To expand it.

 

[A0]

Business case business case business case.

Lets get some things clear. Nobody wants to use rail, everyone wants to use a car. Rail usage might have gone up 50% in so many years, but thats likely a forced issue rather than a choice of the customer. I do not believe any Tom, Dick or Harry has said "You know, I won't use my car anymore, I think I'll use the train instead"..

Although my case may not be feasible in a business sense, it might make more logical sense to assume that if the train was a more attractive option than it is now, that more people might want to try it out of free will.

My idea does not stem from profiteering, it stems from rethinking strategies about how to move X amount of people from point A to B that does not use roads. The infrastructure in place right now does not facilitate in any shape or form what I am visualizing. People need a car to get to the station, when they get to their destination station they need another car or a bus. Rail fails for this very reason and railways remain unattractive for that reason.

If rail usage has gone up 50% that means someone is profiteering. That money should be used like any other business would.. To expand it.

Right - first things first - just because rail usage has gone up by 50% it doesn't mean someone's profiteering. The fact that usage has hit the highest level since 1948 YET there has not been a growth in the physical network suggests a couple of things:

1 - the existing network was being poorly / under-utilised.
2 - we may not have yet reached capacity on the current network.

In your quest to force 'mode change' (I hate that term), I'm guessing you've not considered what's actually needed - these guys evidently HAVE

http://www.railway-technical.com/statistics.shtml

And most telling is this: "Almost everyone thinks transferring traffic from road to rail is a good idea. It will reduce road congestion and carbon emissions, they say. BUT, in reality, it's not as easy as that. If just 2% of road traffic transferred to rail, rail capacity would have to increase by 25%. "

So to achieve even a small 'mode' shift will cost many hundreds of millions if not billions of pounds. And that's for a marginal change.

Frankly, you're living in cloud cuckoo land with your ideas. As long as you know and understand that, then fine. But don't come on these boards and expect those of us of a more pragmatic outlook to quietly sit back and nod without challenging your ideas. If you (and others) want to hurl insults back or accuse us of not being 'true believers' in rail - then fine, luckily I don't come on these boards to be popular.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Right: For the 9 millionth and final time. If i was in charge i would be happy reopen lines IF you can could provide two simple things.

You need something called a business case (I saved of looking for what that is you a job as you cant seem to find details on the web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_case) clearly showing the costs , benefits and financial payback period and an identified source of funding.

What i wouldn't want to see are the fevered outpourings of a wibblish mind producing the railway equivalent of a who would win out of a fight from Superman and Batman question!

argh!

Do you ever get the feeling you're banging your head against a brick wall where certain posters are concerned?!

Good post, BTW.

 

[DarloRich]

Business case business case business case.

Lets get some things clear. Nobody wants to use rail, everyone wants to use a car. Rail usage might have gone up 50% in so many years, but thats likely a forced issue rather than a choice of the customer. I do not believe any Tom, Dick or Harry has said "You know, I won't use my car anymore, I think I'll use the train instead"..

Although my case may not be feasible in a business sense, it might make more logical sense to assume that if the train was a more attractive option than it is now, that more people might want to try it out of free will.

My idea does not stem from profiteering, it stems from rethinking strategies about how to move X amount of people from point A to B that does not use roads. The infrastructure in place right now does not facilitate in any shape or form what I am visualizing. People need a car to get to the station, when they get to their destination station they need another car or a bus. Rail fails for this very reason and railways remain unattractive for that reason.

If rail usage has gone up 50% that means someone is profiteering. That money should be used like any other business would.. To expand it.

Why do you not think having a business case is important? Your suggestions would require billions of pounds of government money to achieve, That's tax payers money or if you like money out of my pocket and your pocket and the pockets of everyone else. When you spend your own money on your fantasy you can do what you like. When it needs money from the public purse you should have a cast iron business case and prove that the use of that money on your idea is better than all the other opportunities.

What happens in business is exactly what happens in relation to railways. Private companies exist to create a return for their investors. That is their primary purpose. After they have done that they will invest the surplus ( if any) in schemes that will, and here is the key point, IMPROVE THE RETURN TO THEIR INVESTORS! What they wont do is what you want which is the equivalent of taking all their money, piling it up in the car park and burning it!

That is the real world. I think you might be detached from that.

BTW guess what? - i don't have a car nor do i wont one. I got rid of it and use public transport. Lots of people do where it is possible. I did an analysis of my costs and public transport and taxis were cheaper than running a car.

Public transport over a year was cheaper than fueling, insuring, testing, repairing and taxing than a 1 ltr Seat Ibiza.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you ever get the feeling you're banging your head against a brick wall where certain posters are concerned?!

Good post, BTW.

As you can see my mind had melted with a rageful frustration leaving me unable to type coherently!

 

[A0]

Why do you not think having a business case is important? Your suggestions would require billions of pounds of government money to achieve, That's tax payers money or if you like money out of my pocket and your pocket and the pockets of everyone else. When you spend your own money on your fantasy you can do what you like. When it needs money from the public purse you should have a cast iron business case and prove that the use of that money on your idea is better than all the other opportunities.

The problem is richieb1971 is very socialist in his outlook - transport should be run on a social basis, regardless of the cost or even the demands of the individual.

That's why he doesn't think a BC is necessary or relevant. The problem with socialists, as someone wisely once commented, is they always run out of other people's money

 

[yorksrob]

You need something called a business case (I saved of looking for what that is you a job as you cant seem to find details on the web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_case) clearly showing the costs , benefits and financial payback period and an identified source of funding.

What's needed in this country is for a source of capital funding to be set aside so that when a good business case for an extension of the network comes up, there is something to draw down on.

At the moment, you can have the best business case in the world, but there's nothing to put in to build it. They seem to have found billions for HS2, why not Bedford - Cambridge. There would then be an incentive for local authorities to find more cost effective ways to get routes built.

 

[A0]

What's needed in this country is for a source of capital funding to be set aside so that when a good business case for an extension of the network comes up, there is something to draw down on.

At the moment, you can have the best business case in the world, but there's nothing to put in to build it. They seem to have found billions for HS2, why not Bedford - Cambridge. There would then be an incentive for local authorities to find more cost effective ways to get routes built.

At the risk of being provocative - I'm doubtful Bedford - Cambridge has a positive benefits case. Happy to be disproved if somebody can bring some figures to the thread - but I just can't see it - given the likely cost will be getting on for £200m.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Business case business case business case.

Lets get some things clear. Nobody wants to use rail, everyone wants to use a car. Rail usage might have gone up 50% in so many years, but thats likely a forced issue rather than a choice of the customer.

I want to use rail.

I quite often don't want to use my car, despite spending a considerable amount of money on such luxuries in recent years.

I can have a drink when I'm using the train, it makes life easier when going for a meal with colleagues or having a glass of wine over lunch. I can sit and review papers, literature or use my laptop when I'm not stuck in my car.

There is, contrary to your assertion, a huge number of people who like taking the train and many more who would do so given the chance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At the risk of being provocative - I'm doubtful Bedford - Cambridge has a positive benefits case. Happy to be disproved if somebody can bring some figures to the thread - but I just can't see it - given the likely cost will be getting on for £200m.

The BCR hasn't been fully worked out yet, but the revenue v operational cost assessment suggests it will return a premium. It's difficult to assess some of the benefits that will arise from a direct connection between Oxford and Cambridge, unfortunately, so it's always going to be, in pure BCR terms, a little risky.

 

[yorksrob]

At the risk of being provocative - I'm doubtful Bedford - Cambridge has a positive benefits case. Happy to be disproved if somebody can bring some figures to the thread - but I just can't see it - given the likely cost will be getting on for £200m.

I can't see it not quite frankly. On the one hand, you have Bedford, Bicester, Milton Keynes and Oxford, all important centres for employment and housing. On the other hand, you've got a major economic centre in Cambridge, Stanstead Airport and the rest of East Anglia. And inbetween that lot, you've got a small gap which means that everyone has to go via London and increase congestion on those services.

If they can't make a positive business case out of that lot, they've got their calculations wrong.

 

[DarloRich]

The problem is richieb1971 is very socialist in his outlook - transport should be run on a social basis, regardless of the cost or even the demands of the individual.

That's why he doesn't think a BC is necessary or relevant. The problem with socialists, as someone wisely once commented, is they always run out of other people's money

I am very socialist in my outlook ( i come from the North East so it is hard not to be!) but i also live in the real world! Of course there is a social case for public transport but that has to be tempered by some kind of real world pragmatism. There simply isn't the money to do everything, even most things. We have to use what money we have got VERY carefully. That means doing the most good for the most people with the minimum amount.

 

[yorksrob]

as someone wisely once commented, is they always run out of other people's money

And the problem with Conservatives is that they always run out of other people's things to sell off

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The problem with socialists, as someone wisely once commented, is they always run out of other people's money

Not particularly wisely at all really. I know quite a few right-wing people love repeating that quote (I have a friend who finds an excuse to re-post it on Facebook at least every month or so). Sadly, I'd say it's one of those quotes that sounds clever, but is based on a pretty poor understanding of economics and of history (and I rather suspect, an element of misrepresenting the beliefs of many of those on the left)