"The document deals with the Community Rail Development Strategy which is a Departmental Strategy to improve the value for money achieved from spending on local rail. It informs stakeholders of progress in implementing the Strategy." (link below.)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/strategyfinance/strategy/community/revcomrail

"Although there was a positive response, a few concerns were raised. A minority of people mistook the Strategy as a precursor to the closure of lines rather than the means for them to grow and thrive. The Strategy was based on the premise that these lines are of value to their local communities, and a programme of closures has never been part of the agenda."

Erm....






Here are some further quotes from the CRDS review :

"The Looe Valley story is less happy and demonstrates how increases to the number of trains do not guarantee improved patronage. The timetable on this line was changed in Summer 2004 to provide an hourly service. Initially this was followed by a drop in patronage – though this has been reversed in Summer 2006. The initial drop was believed to be partly due to changes in the local bus services which can provide access to the town centres of Looe and Liskeard and which are faster than the train service. Although this was disappointing, the trains are still often full during the summer – on a typical day in the summer around 600 journeys are made on the branch. Further work is being done on increasing capacity when the trains are full and the timetable is being re-focused on timetabled connections rather than more frequent services."

"In the South West of England there was extreme concern over proposed changes to the timetables on a number of lines at the time of re-franchising early in 2006. Some of these changes were driven by the Department seeking to improve the value for money of services on branch lines. The timetables as initially proposed did not meet local aspirations. The Department and the operator (First) actively sought the opinions of the partnerships and other local stakeholders and the timetables were thoroughly revised."

I will leave you to judge whether the above is a fair and accurate account of the events of the last couple of years.

There is more :

"For fares to or from community rail stations, it is intended that the cap on regulated fares increases on community rail services would be removed to allow flexing of fares on the route, and to encourage the introduction of local fares, including those interavailable with buses. On community rail services, between stations where there is a single franchised operator, local promotional fares can be introduced by the operator, at short notice if necessary, without the need to meet the normal timescale of the Ticketing and Settlement Arrangement (TSA) process, which requires considerable notice in advance of the offer. This dispensation would not apply between stations where alternative services are provided by other operators."

From FOSBR :

"Just to let you know that the curse of 'Worst group' have come to the SBL, in that the fares are set to rise by up to 114% for a 7day ticket between Stapleton Road/Lawrence Hill and Temple Meads

For a 'Day Return' between Clifton Down/Redland and BTM the increase will be 53% Stapleton Road/Lawrence Hill and BTM the increase will be 122% how will this inflation busting increase help to help increase the usage.

F.O.S.B.R have campaigned for years for a half hourly service and with Bristol council support the move is afoot to improve the service - but it seems the passengers are paying for the 'improvements'

Within the 'development plan' is the sentance "The advantages of rail - particularly speed - mean that it should command a premium price compared to the bus."

These fares are due to be implemented in May 2007"

It doesnt end there :

"For new or extended franchises, station operators should, where necessary, produce a plan of minor works that improve the accessibility in line with their franchise commitments and budget, with timescales for delivery. These measures should help improve the accessibility of the railways for all users and show that a reasonable approach has been adopted in terms of meeting the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act, 1995. In this context, where the costs of improving accessibility are unreasonably high in relation to likely demand (for example in relation to stations with low usage, which are commonly found on community railways), then alternative means of access to the rail network, such as a taxi to the next accessible station, should be identified where this is reasonable."

If that isnt "code for closures" , then I dont know what is.

Here is a challenge for you. Have a look at the following quote and then tell where the costs reffered to originally came from.

"One area of cost which is being tackled by Network Rail is station costs. Their analysis of historic and projected costs on one pilot line showed an average spend of £25k per station per year on lighting and structures. Given that this exceeds the revenue for most of the stations in question, this is not sustainable. We are advised that the Network Rail business planning process should pick up and challenge these costs."

Stumped? Need a clue? Have a look at pages 8 & 9 of the link below.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/september06/swindonwestburytrainsservice/bristolroute

"Marginal station running costs - £20k per station closure (based on escaping the lighting and routine maintenance costs of a small unstaffed halt)"

"The unit cost data is derived from benchmark values Jacobs Consultancy has access to from previous studies and from information supplied by SRA for this project. The following assumptions are made in calculating these values, based on our experience and knowledge of the businesses concerned."

The following link contains articles related to this.
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/04/few_signs_of_community_rail_ov_1.html#more

"Of those improvements to passenger services achieved over the past two years, many are the product of efforts by volunteers to improve marketing of train services or finding new uses for station buildings. The review acknowledges that financial support to improve community rail lines is required as well as "in principle" support, but reveals government expectation that local authorities will come forward to provide this, admitting that on two lines attempts to raise money have proved a major distraction from the core task of promoting and developing the railways. The review says: "Some local stakeholders - mainly local authorities - have been excellent in the level of financial support that they have provided; others have not."

Sorry Graham. I forgot that the DfT , Network Rail & others obviously have the best of intentions , and would never do anything to harm the viability of stations on the rail network. Melksham stands out as a shining example of their approach.

Its just that I get rather worried when the word "taxi" is used in this context. Have a look at the links / quotes below.

"Take a taxi in the country, says rail boss" (December 2006.)
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2006/12/take_a_taxi_in_the_country_say.html#more

"Rural train services should be replaced by buses and taxis and the money saved invested in busy commuter and inter-city routes, the head of Britain's railway system has urged."

"We accept heavy rail is not always the best solution, particularly in some of the outer parts of the network,' said Armitt. 'At the end of the day a bus or a train may not be the most cost-effective or environmentally effective solution.' In 'outer parts' of the rail network, cars 'with three or four people', small buses or taxis 'might be a better solution', he added."

"Empty seats spell end of the rural lines as 'Beeching II' cutbacks loom" (November 2004.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5068050-103630,00.html

"Last autumn the SRA's Wider Case for Rail strategy, admitted what government advisers had privately been saying for some time: 'Rail is best when it provides fast, long distance passenger services ... commuter services on busy corridors ... services to major airports [and] rail freight services for regular high volume flows.' It did not list rural services."

"Some rail leaders now privately admit that buses, shared taxis or other modes are sometimes as good as rail - a view confirmed by the success of some operators' own bus services and the choice of buses over tube trains by some London commuters."

My apologies for "mis - reading" this document , Graham.