I have been asked to post this by the FOSBR folks , and am happy to oblige.

*10 reasons to invest in an extra train:*

1) It will cut congestion, which currently costs the Bristol economy £1 million a week.

2) It will reduce carbon emissions. Bristol City Council has signed the Nottingham Declaration, so has pledged to take action on climate change locally.

3) It is recommended in the Final Joint Local Transport Plan, and was recommended by Faber Maunsell consultants (commissioned by the JSPTU) in their 2003 study.

4) Bristol currently plans to underspend on public transport, spending £26 per head compared to the average of £47 per head. This investment will cost less than half a million out of a total of over £300 million, and it will show a commitment to local rail. Our calculations suggest that if Bristol gave public transport its fair share of the budget, this sector would receive an additional £8 million.

5) Hundreds of FOSBR campaign postcards have been sent to Carew Reynell as part of the Council's budget consultation. 3000 people signed our petition for half hourly services within the space of a few weeks (in 2006). 16 local organisations have backed our call for more frequent services. Our campaign is supported by Labour MP Kerry McCarthy, Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate for Bristol North West Charlotte Leslie and Lib Dem MP Steve Webb.

6) It will cut road accidents, which currently cost Bristol £1.8 million a week.

7) Promoting the service to Avonmouth will help push forward the reopening of the Henbury loop to passengers, strengthening the network as a whole.

8 ) More frequent services increase demand. Faber Maunsell suggested a half hourly service would increase demand by at least 36%. Transport 2000 believe the increase would be greater. Passenger demand has increased by 31% on the line in the last year, despite infrequent services, showing how badly people want to use the train. In Birmingham, where services are at least half hourly, 20% of the population commutes into the city by rail, compared to 1.6% in Bristol. This development will provide an example of local rail working well.

9) The line is under threat. A study done by the Department for Transport recommends doing signalling work at Clifton Down as a prerequisite to closing the line from Clifton Down onwards. More frequent services are needed to prove that the line reduces congestion and must not be closed.

10) Avonmouth is a big industrial area, with growth in housing development. It needs a frequent train service.

----------------------------------------------------------

*Technical issues*

*Summary:*

*The level of investment required for 1 extra train on the Severn Beach line is approximately £450,000. This investment would provide an increase in service frequency from hourly (or less) to every 30-40 minutes. FOSBR has suggested ways in which Bristol City Council should use the opportunity of setting the contract to ensure First provides value for money. *

*Investment:*

Investment required for 1 extra train is approximately £450,000.

This figure originally came from Keith Walton (Severnside Community Rail Partnership) and has been confirmed as broadly correct in FOSBR's discussions with First Great Western. We will ask First to give you the relevant confidential information if you require it. Liberal Democrat councillor Dr Mark Wright has said the figure required is £415,000.

The Council has privately acknowledged that the figure quoted by Barbara Janke and Dennis Brown in their letter to the Evening Post of 19/12/06 (at least £1 million) is incorrect, and relies on the assumption that FOSBR is asking for 2 extra trains. We are actually asking for 1 extra train, which would cost approximately £450,000, as we have said.

The Council cannot make wise decisions about the budget if it persists in overestimating the level of investment required for 1 extra train on the Severn Beach line.

*Frequency options:*

FOSBR is only asking for 1 extra train. First have confirmed that this would achieve at least a 40 minute service. The Faber Maunsell study of 2003 (commissioned by Bristol City Council) says that 1 extra train could achieve a 30 minute service. The Final Joint Local Transport Plan follows the recommendations of Faber Maunsell in aiming for a half hourly service to Avonmouth (presumably assuming 1 extra train is needed). FOSBR has 3 different timetables that could be used in order to achieve a 30 minute, 30/40 minute alternating or 40 minute service. We can give you this information if you require it. If a 30 minute service is impossible, a 40 minute service would be a big step in the right direction, and a big win for the Council.

*Conditions of investment:*

- The investment should entail some Council control over the train service provided. The contract should include a service level agreement which guarantees a specified level of reliability.

- Demand may increase more rapidly than expected. The Council should receive some of the revenue from the service provided if this revenue is higher than expected.

- The more frequent services should be widely advertised. The Council should arrange with First how this is to be done.

- The extra train should be in use from December 2007; the benefits of the more frequent service should be offered as soon as possible.

I think to be fair , a mix of service options as described above is a good thing , along with the active lobbying that is currently taking place. I do agree with you on the promotion front though. Interestingly , the JSPTU "Rail Vision" pushes this as well (link below.)

http://www.jsptu-avon.gov.uk/publications/documents/railstrategy.pdf

"The strategy is to promote an increase in rail use in offpeak periods that will increase train utilisation sufficiently to effect a steady reduction in external financial support. Because the stimulus of regular traffic congestion will not be here to move travellers from cars, the Councils will need to co-operate with train operators and community groups to build and market an attractive service."

And so they should , in my view.

Rail protesters demonstrated outside Bristol's Council House and called on the city council's ruling cabinet to ensure a half-hourly train service to Severn Beach is reinstated (link below.)
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/01/halfhour_train_campaign_on_sev.html#more

More than 50 people filled a crowded cabinet chamber last night as the campaigners protested against last year's withdrawal of a subsidy for the service , which left commuters with a less convenient hourly service.

Members of the Friends Of Suburban Bristol Railways were joined by representatives of campaign group Transport 2000 in calling for more regular trains.

They said the city council should work with other councils in the former Avon area as well as rail operator First Great Western to invest in the suburban services.

Rail user Bernard Lane , from Dursley Road , Shirehampton , lives in a home overlooking the railway station and is a frequent service user.

He said: "We would like to use it more but because of large gaps between train times we find we are often unable to.

"The promotion of the line would yield positive results and working together with the local community would make the service more attractive."

Here is the Half Hour Train Campaign briefing for Bristol City Council and First Great Western (link below.)
http://www.fosbr.org.uk/briefing.htm

There are some very interesting comments from Andrew Griffiths , especially on running trains all the way to Severn Beach , and Clifton Down signalling alterations.