Stagecoach press release link.
http://www.stagecoach.com/scg/media/press/pr2006/2006-09-22/

Below is the quote that worries me.

"The new franchise incorporates a multi-million-pound investment programme and will generate £1,191million (Net Present Value) in premium payments to the DfT over the 10-year period."

I wondered ... what does the 200m that the treasury has not received under this new system actually cosy in other terms?   Well if you look at
        http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/presspr/pressreleases/costiraqwar.htm
you'll find that the Iraq war was estimated - over a year ago - to be costing 7.5 billion.  That's about 40 TIMES what I'm suggesting should be used to fund a proper 10 years investment.  But you know, it's not even going to be that expensive.  Make that extra use of rail, you save on road building - it has a place but not a predominant place. You save on road fatalities. You save on environment. You save on time wasted in traffic jams.

Here is one of the aims of the "Growing the Railways" campaign :"Extra lines, links and platforms at Bristol Templemeads − a key transport centre for the South West, is urgently crying out for extra capacity."

The link below highlights the task ahead for Transport 2000 and their supporters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/F?thread=3372345

The re - shaping of Bristol Suburban rail services is , in fact , an extension of the DfT concept known as "demand management." This concept is explained by the following recent parliamentary written answer :

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage the use of public transport by bus.

Gillian Merron: Within the context of delivering our long-term strategy for improving bus services across the country, the most recent steps taken by the Government include:

Providing local authorities in England with the resources to support their Local Transport Plan strategies, a large part of which are related to improving bus-related infrastructure (some £571 million invested by local authorities between 2001-02 and 2004-05 in bus improvements);

The introduction of free local concessionary fares for older and disabled people from April 2006, and the announcement of free national concessionary fares from April 2008;

Up to £200 million per year of the Transport Innovation Fund (from 2008-09) has been made available specifically to support packages of measures that will address congestion in towns and cities through demand management and public transport improvements, including better bus services;

Allocating £20 million to fund 43 Kickstart schemes to pump-prime promising local bus services;

£54 million available for 2006-07 to support rural bus services.

Providing capital funding for major bus schemes, such as the £42 million contribution towards the Greater Bristol Bus Network scheme.

Over the coming months we will be looking at the success of these, and other initiatives, with a view to developing future plans to encourage bus use.

This concept is one of the reasons why , between them , The DfT and First have pledged to invest £62 million in the Bristol Showcase Bus Routes Scheme , and also why the SRA were keen on the aspiration of a Worle multi - modal interchange , whilst rejecting most of the other aspirations considered as part of the Great Western Main Line Route Utilisation Strategy  (links below.)
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=476.msg1408#msg1408
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=421.msg1243#msg1243

Another reason that the DfT and First favour a rail - replacement bus corridor (and see it as "best value") between Yate & Weston - super - Mare is because the northern section (Yate - Bristol) is proposed to run via Mangotsfield. This option is not available rail - wise because the Mangotsfield line was closed in 1966 (although the trackbed still exists , see link below.)
http://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/mangotsfield.php

Here are some quotes from the original Beeching Report :

"In most cases there will eventually be no passenger service of any description over the lines affected. In others, fast and semi-fast services using the same routes will continue to run. In still other cases it is intended to modify the pattern of services, both stopping and fast, in ways which will reduce the train mileage and cut out the more uneconomic portions of services and under-utilised stations."

"These proposals do not include all the stopping passenger services now running. Reshaping and streamlining the pattern of these services must be a continuing process. As this proceeds other services and stations will be added to the withdrawal and modification lists until a point is reached when what remains can be said to be viable."

"As in the case of London, fares on these services feeding other cities are low, sometimes very low, and none of them pays its way. There is no possibility of a solution being found, however, merely by increasing or by reducing fares. Increases in fares on rail services alone would drive traffic to available alternative modes of travel and yield little increase in revenue, if any. Decreases would increase traffic, but short peak periods of traffic at even saturation level would not support the services with fares lower than at present. Therefore, if the services are to be regarded as essential, the municipalities concerned must join with the railways and bus interests to evolve a co-ordinated system of services, with due regard to the economics of both forms of transport. It is, for example, illogical to operate subsidised municipal bus services in competition with unprofitable railway services, without any attempt to co-ordinate them."

"If, on the other hand, the services are not regarded as essential and coordination is not found possible, the sound commercial course is for the railways to risk pricing themselves out of the business and then, if necessary, close the services."

"The right solution is most likely to be found by 'Total Social Benefit Studies' of the kind which are now being explored by the Ministry of Transport and British Railways jointly. In cases of the type under consideration it may be cheaper to subsidise the railways than to bear the other cost burdens which will arise if they are closed. If this happens, however, there should be no feeling that the railways are being propped up by such a subsidy because of a commercial failure."

This process is currently taking place in places such as Liverpool (where First are now recieving subsidy for running certain bus services where none was needed before) and Sheffield. Fast , minimum - subsidy , inter -urban & suburban services are replacing , or will replace , slower , more traditional suburban services which are more heavily subsidised and take up more capacity. Many smaller suburban stations either have had , or will have a reshaped , reduced or withdrawn service as a result (links below.)
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16847372&method=full&siteid=50061&headline=train-fares-set-to-rise-but-station-closures-ruled-out--name_page.html
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2006/08/we_dont_need_the_200mph_rail_l.html#more
http://www.stopthetrain.org.uk/newfare.cfm
http://www.stopthetrain.org.uk/beeching.cfm
http://www.firstgroup.com/ftr/ourpartners/index.php

Expect this to happen in Bristol as the Greater Western Franchise profile moves from subsidy to premium and the business profile of the bus network moves in the other direction.

This approach is entirely consistant with the provisions of the Future Of Transport White Paper (link below.)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_about/documents/page/dft_about_031274.hcsp

"5.17 We intend to give Passenger Transport Authorities the ability to choose whether to channel subsidy towards rail or other forms of public transport. In some cases, buses might provide both a better service and better value for money."

"5.18 We recognise that Passenger Transport Authorities may not be willing to consider this unless they can be certain that bus routes, timings and fares will meet passenger needs and work well with the national timetable. We will amend the Transport Act 2000 to make it easier for Passenger Transport Authorities to introduce Quality Contracts as part of a strategy that includes modification of rail services."

"5.19 Passenger Transport Authorities will be able to decide whether to take greater control of their bus routes and associated budgets by deciding which rail routes are best value and which would be more efficiently replaced by bus services."

Both Liverpool & Sheffield are part of an area of the North that is extremely important from a railfreight perspective , as is Bristol from a South West railfreight perspective.

Network Rail consider capacity between Yate & Weston - super - Mare to be a major issue. A railfreight terminal has been approved for Exeter , and sites for other such terminals have been proposed in or at Cornwall , Plymouth , Weston - super - Mare , Severn Beach and Yate (Westerleigh.) In addition to this , freight traffic from Avonmouth & Portbury (on the Portishead line , click on the link below) is likely to increase.
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=455.msg1327#msg1327

All of the above will require train paths on the same lines as are used by the services contained in the quote below.


Re - shaping the above services as described would , according to SLC2 , free up no less than 69 train paths per weekday.

The challenge for "Growing the Railways" will lie in exerting enough influence & pressure on the DfT , in order to force them to change their current policy direction to such an extent that the aims of the campaign can be fulfilled.

Not an easy task.

Melksham is about to have its train service reduced to two round trips a day , despite a rise in passenger numbers from 3,000 to 27,000 in 5 years. I would suggest that an excellent way of "Growing the Railways" would be for Transport 2000 to make a public demand to the DfT to provide a 2 - hourly Westbury - Swindon service from December 2006. In my view , this would make the perfect centrepiece of the early part of their campaign.

I will be watching for such an announcement with great interest.

How much of the stock cuts are due to government edict / wanting to send trains to provide extra services in places such as Ebbw Vale and Aberystwyth, and how much is due to the punitive cost of a train leased from the ROSCOs, I'm not sure. I do know that a startling amount of evidence is being gathered of short formation trains and cancellations due to lack of available stock, with a possible competition review of the whole business in the offing.

From the Ivybridge Rail Users Group website (link below.)
http://www.irug.ik.com/

"A recent announcement by the DfT has declared that SWT has won the franchise to operate trains in the south of England. Also the proposed loss of services west of Exeter expected soon after the the new franchise begins will now not take place until 2010 whilst improvements to the line and track dualling east of Honiton are under way. These improvements are not expected to be completed until 2009 at the earliest. This is good news for Ivybridge and other stations west of Exeter as it means the SWT services will continue to serve Ivybridge for at least another 3 years."

This DfT press release does appear to confirm this (link below.)
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=228996&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False

Quotes from the above link :

"* Services will run west of Exeter (to Plymouth and Paignton) as today, to be reviewed when the hourly Waterloo - Exeter service commences."