Here is the Rail Freight Group's response to the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (link below.)
http://www.rfg.org.uk/policy/responses/?edname=17459.htm&ped=17459Quotes from the above link :
"Portishead to Bristol - there would be no freight objection to running passenger trains on this line, although it should be recognised that freight traffic might well increase, and that passenger traffic should not impede freight."
"Suburban Bristol Services - over Avonmouth - Filton Junction route, and Bristol to Severn Beach passenger extensions. Again, freight may well increase on this route, and any passenger services will have to fit in - and pay for any enhancement required."
"We question where is the evidence of limited number and capacity of terminals constraining growth. There are some additional locations in the Severn Beach area not yet developed, and also the Bristol West depot. We are confident that, if demand increases for rail freight as we believe it will, then there will be sufficient terminal capacity in the area, subject to land use planning."
"There are gauge restrictions, which mean that 9' 6 boxes can only be carried on ‘well wagons’. However, these wagons are available and used, and are useful where demand is low. If it increases, then pressure can be put on the SRA to increase gauges. However, it should be born in mind that more than 50% of containers in use are smaller than 9‘ 6 high and therefore can be carried on standard wagons."
"As to ‘general capacity constraints and conflicts with passenger service,’ this appears to infer that passenger services have priority over freight, which is at best a nuisance. The capacity constraints are caused as much by passenger as freight trains and I do not believe it is helpful to use this wording. Unless it really is the policy of this Strategic Transport Strategy to give passenger trains priority over freight."
"We are surprised that no mention is made of the port of Bristol/Avonmouth and its transport needs. Current transport to the port includes a number of rail freight movements, for coal, automotive as well as other products."
"I enclose a copy of our Freight on Track papers which I hope provides some useful information to back up some of our comments, and which will enable you to produce a more balanced final document. We are of course at your disposal if you would like to discuss any of the issues further."
Here is the land up for sale by BRB (Residuary) in the Severn Beach area (link below.)
http://www.brb.gov.uk/property/property_listings/index_html?keyword=Severn+BeachThe Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study recommended building a guided busway over the Severn Beach line. I had a conversation with a very reliable source a few weeks ago who suggested that a Severn Beach - Bristol guided busway would not be feasible because there would be insufficient capacity on the main line section running into Bristol Temple Meads.
I agree. However , I do think that there is a dangerous possibility that a guided busway could be built over the line from Avonmouth to the road just after Montpelier station with buses then turning right towards Junction 3 of the M32 to join one of the proposed Showcase Bus Routes into Bristol city centre.
There is also a possibility that the HoldFast method could be used to "mothball" the rail route described above and turn it into an A4 toll relief road. The problem with this would be the tunnel sections. However , HoldFast must be confident that such obstacles can be overcome , otherwise they wouldnt have shortlisted the Portishead line (link below.)
http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=150802&command=displayContent&sourceNode=150790&contentPK=14561569&folderPk=84815Unlike the Portishead line , there is very little (if any) freight traffic that would displaced on the Avonmouth - Montpelier route.
As the link above says , HoldFast are on record as saying that they want to install their system on several other routes around Bristol.
Here is a link to the Rail Freight Group's Freight On Track campaign.
http://www.railfreightgroup.com/policy/campaigns/The Freight On Track campaign page contains a link entitled "Paper 7: The Essential Rail Freight Network" Click on this and note the map.
Then note the following quotes :
"Freight and passenger services - working in harmony.
Rail freight exists comfortably on the rail network alongside ESSENTIAL passenger services. Many freight trains can run in the evenings, during the middle of the day and at night when passenger demand is lower. Most freight trains run at average speeds which are similar to a semi-fast passenger service so their impact on network capacity is less than fast intercity or slow all-stations trains. Freight trains don’t use congested commuter lines during the peak periods."
"There is currently no gauge cleared route for high cube boxes from the port of Southampton - where rail moves up to 1000 containers every working day. At present, only one route is planned for high cube containers from the UK’s largest container port – Felixstowe - where rail moves over one quarter of a million containers every year. The route, connecting the port with the Midlands and West Coast Mainline, is due to be cleared by autumn 2004. Because it runs via heavily used and congested commuter lines in London, it will not be able to accommodate the forecast growth in container traffic. In any case, it makes sense to route freight, that doesn’t need to pass through London, onto more lightly used cross-country routes."
The accuracy of the above quotes can be judged by the service recieved by stations such as Dean , Dilton Marsh , Dunbridge & Melksham in the final FGW December 2006 timetable (link below.)
http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Documents/Custom/Rev%20Dec%20TTs/SX%20-%20Cardiff%20-%20Bristol%20to%20Weymouth%20-%20Portsmouth%20-%20Brighton.pdfHere is a link to the JSPTU Rail Vision.
http://www.jsptu-avon.gov.uk/publications/documents/railstrategy.pdfYou will notice from the Figure B map on page 5 of the link above that only certain stations were proposed to be served by First Great Western. The rest were proposed to be served by a "future local service TOC."
Does anyone honestly believe that such a TOC will be set up? The signs dont look good to me.
Here is a quote from the from the JSPTU Rail Vision.
"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."
I could not agree more. However , if a process of cutting services is embarked upon , then less passengers will use them. My belief that the current round of cuts mark the start of a continuing process is strengthened by these quotes from the Terms of the Greater Western Franchise Agreement :
"1.1 The Franchisee shall, as and when reasonably requested by the Secretary of State, provide information to the Secretary of State on the extent of the use by passengers of the Passenger Services. In particular and when so requested, the Franchisee shall provide information relating to:
(a) the number of passengers travelling in each class of accommodation:
(i) on each Passenger Service;
(ii) on each Route; and/or
(iii) at any station or between any stations; and
(b) the times of the day, week or year at which passengers travel."
1.3 The information specified in paragraph 1.1 shall be provided by the Franchisee:
(a) in such format and to such level of disaggregation as the Secretary of State may reasonably require in order to assist the Secretary of State’s decision-making on future service level commitments, infrastructure, station and rolling stock vehicle investment, the best use of the network and the alleviation of overcrowding."
Contributors to this forum have already witnessed such surveys being carried out. An example can be found in the link below.
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=249.msg659#msg659The DfT have lodged a complaint with the ORR about the prices being charged for leasing rolling stock (link below.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5123898.stmHowever , you need to bear in mind that , whatever the cost of hiring a unit , neither the DfT or First are likely to allow it to lie idle for large parts of the day while it waits to form a skeleton "essential" service.
They are very likely to withdraw such services instead.
Here is a link to the Rail Freight Group's response to the DfT Closure Guidance consultation.
http://www.rfg.org.uk/policy/responses/?pid=3284&lsid=3287&edname=21289.htm&ped=21289Quote from the above link :
"Increase in Freight Only Line Costs.
The costs of maintaining freight only lines are borne by the freight operators through access charges. These proposals are likely to increase such charges, by making lines which are currently shared into freight only lines, and in any cases where a passenger service is withdrawn and the line retained without any current freight use. In the latter case (which may be infrequent) there should be a mechanism to prevent the costs falling to the freight operators."
In two White Papers (Future Of Transport & Future Of Rail) the DfT effectively offered the railfreight sector the following deal :
Pay more and you can have assured rights of access to the rail network and to key routes on it. It says so in both White Papers. There are even grants to ease the cost burden (links below.)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_freight/documents/divisionhomepage/039481.hcsphttp://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_freight/documents/page/dft_freight_610669.hcspThe Future Of Transport White Paper also states that rail may not always be the best solution and that alternatives (both to existing and future rail services) should be considered.
One of these alternatives is about to become reality in the form of the Bristol Showcase Bus Routes Scheme (links below.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4747277.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/5157322.stmThe funding for this scheme is split as follows :
DfT £42 million.
First £20 million.
Private Developers £6 million.
As well as Showcase Bus Routes that parallel rail routes being approved to Keynsham , Oldfield Park , Portishead , Weston - super - Mare & Yate , two Showcase Bus Routes have also been approved to Norton Radstock , where a large housing development is being built on former railway land (link below.)
http://www.nrrcompany.co.uk/Burford Group (a property developer) owns the international railfreight terminal at Avonmouth. Here are some relevant links.
http://www.cabotpark.co.uk/pages/whychoose_cabot.asphttp://www.cabotpark.co.uk/pages/whychoose_track.asphttp://www.davidlawson.co.uk/Files/Rail087.htmFuture growth at this terminal is one of the main reasons behind this quote from the Network Rail Business Plan 2006 (Page 11 of the link below.)
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/3111_Route%2013%20Great%20Western%20Main%20Line.pdf"The rail freight industry has recently provided to
Network Rail a set of 10 year traffic forecasts, and
we are presently assessing their implications. The
key route section within this route that has been
identified as a fragile route and has clearly defined
additional tonnage/train numbers projected by the
industry is the Clifton Extension Line (Narroways
Hill Junction – Filton West Junction via Avonmouth)."
Unfortunately , this means that restored passenger services to locations such as Filton North & Henbury are likely to remain very much on the drawing board.
Here are some further references on related issues.
2006.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/3085.aspxhttp://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=334.msg958#msg958http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_railways/documents/page/dft_railways_611064.pdfhttp://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/south%20west%20main%20line/appendices/appendix%202.2.pdf2004.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_about/documents/page/dft_about_031273.hcsphttp://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_about/documents/page/dft_about_031274.hcsp1999.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_freight/documents/page/dft_freight_503891-07.hcsp1963.
http://www.piccadillypilot.co.uk/beeching/report1/15%20Appendix%202.pdfhttp://www.piccadillypilot.co.uk/beeching/report1/16%20Appendix%203.pdfhttp://www.piccadillypilot.co.uk/beeching/report1/17%20Appendix%204.pdfI believe that it is up to us as rail campaigners (for that is what we are) to do everything we possibly can to ensure that the above scenario does not come to pass. If we are to achieve a truly integrated public transport system which in turn helps to shift a decent amount of cars and lorries off our roads , then we need to ensure that ALL the available modes (including the current , and in future , an expanded passenger rail network) are used to ensure this.
I will end with the following quote from the link below.
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/rail/516.shtml"So there is an important regeneration point: should not these stations not be used as a regenerative tool to foster development rather than simply be abandoned leaving local residents facing the prospect of a railway line whose only purpose is giving them a nice view of Pendolino (or Adelante , HST , Voyager trains - Lee) trains whizzing past. What is unfortunate about the current state of the debate on the railways is that there is not even anyone asking such questions, let along providing any answers."
I would like to think that we are.
Author
Logged
