|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: New DfT Closure Guidance (Read 2697 times)
|
|
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
That page states:
All alternatives are considered
A full consultation takes place and that this includes passenger groups
The current and future impact on passengers are considered as well as the safety, economic and environmental costs or benefits
In contrast with current procedures, where the Secretary of State determines closure proposals, the independent Office of Rail Regulation must be satisfied that a robust economic analysis has been performed.
I see it's heavy on the "considered", "consulted" and "analysis performed", but says nothing about the outcome of those consultantions, analyses and considerations forming any part of the decision - in other words, they can be just a paper exercise.
For example, if a passenger train service carried about 50 people on each of 10 daily 1-coach trains, but the stretch of line it ran over was single track and the capacity was wanted for freight, there would be nothing to stop the powers that be asking, listening, analysing, but then saying "we'll withdraw the service anyway". Lee - does that look like a plausible scenario to you?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
Yes , Graham , I am afraid it does. Here is a link to a January 2006 article by Christian Wolmar on the new DfT Closure Guidance. http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/independent/jan29,06.shtmlQuotes from the above link : "An army of consultants will decide whether lines should stay open or close. A law passed last year has reduced the right of passengers to object to closures." "The 83-page consultation paper uses a new kind of cost-benefit analysis, which, experts say, will highlight the economically fragile state of the network. Such analysis often penalises trains because it fails to take into account that they are environmentally friendly. As one senior rail industry figure put it last night: "The trouble with consultants is they will do exactly what ministers want them to do." Jacobs Consultancy would be front - runners to perform this task. Here is a link to the Greater Western Franchise Replacement Outline Business Case Report. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_foi/documents/page/dft_foi_612538.pdfJacobs recommended for progression or further work , closure or "parliamentary service" options for the following stations : Islip , Bicester Town , Tackley , Heyford , Kings Sutton , Combe , Finstock , Ascott-Under-Wychwood , Shipton , Shalford , Chilworth , Gomshall , Dorking West , Betchworth , Dilton Marsh , Dean , Dunbridge , Sea Mills , Shirehampton , Avonmouth , St Andrews Road , Severn Beach , Newton St Cyres , Yeoford , Copplestone , Morchard Road , Lapford , Kings Nympton , Portsmouth Arms , Umberleigh , Chapelton , Luxulyan , Bugle , Roche , St Columb Road , Quintrell Downs , Coombe , St Keyne , Causeland and Sandplace. Interestingly , the option to close intermediate stations on the Exmouth line was rejected. Also , several service options were considered for Devonport , Dockyard , Keyham , St Budeaux , Saltash , St Germans , Menheniot , Lostwithiel and Hayle (including closure) but Jacobs decided to reject ALL of them. Where Jacobs recommended closure options for progression or further work , they did so largely when a case could be made on the following grounds : 1) Reduction in costs or subsidy. 2) Improved performance or reduced journey times. Some believe that the DfT were intent on implementing Beeching 2 but were forced to back down by the adverse public reaction to the original FGW December 2006 Draft Timetable. If this is the case then they would appear to have failed to inform Network Rail. Have a look at the link below. http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=433.msg1285#msg1285And then the quote below : Here is a quote from the Network Rail Business Plan 2006. "Between Didcot and Oxford the mix of non stop passenger and freight services with local services calling at little used stations reduces the ability to maximise capacity." Like the SRA before them , Network Rail are concerned that a mix of freight and passenger trains (express , semi - fast and stopping) all travelling at different speeds reduces the opportunity to maximise capacity and improve performance. The Rail Freight Group take the same view regarding capacity (see quote below.) "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.pdfIn the final FGW December 2006 timetable , Dilton Marsh has 21 services in total and Dean & Dunbridge both have 20 services in total. Of these , 12 services could reasonably be described as being in the middle of the day or in the evening , when passenger demand is lower. The movement of the morning train yet earlier, and the evening train yet later, in spite of our consultation inputs for the reverse, looked like a slap in the face for Swindon to Melksham, Trowbridge and Westbury passengers. On my "blog" a couple of days ago, and in email too, I asked for the real reasons behind this - a bit of honesty - and I'm delighted to have received and answer from Andrew Griffiths. He writes.
As a quick glance at the timetable will show, we've had to resource the Melksham service using the Stroud Valley unit - which is why the timings can't me moved as we all would like. With two sections of single line and a busy mainline in between pathing is very constrained. Melksham is to recieve a skeleton "essential" service , but only "essential" from an operating convenience point of view. For more analysis on the final First Great Western December 2006 Timetable , click on the link below. http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=357.msg1078#msg1078The freight operating company EWS is on record as having the same capacity concerns about passenger and freight trains sharing the Melksham line. The original Draft Timetable showed the morning train into Swindon arriving at 0803. Between then and 12 May 2006 this was changed to 0744. Finally , between 12 May 2006 and July 2006 this was changed again to 0750. I asked for the real reasons behind this - a bit of honesty - and I'm delighted to have received and answer from Andrew Griffiths. He writes.
As a quick glance at the timetable will show, we've had to resource the Melksham service using the Stroud Valley unit - which is why the timings can't me moved as we all would like. With two sections of single line and a busy mainline in between pathing is very constrained. The timings have been moved significantly TWICE , Mr Griffiths. The Jacobs report did not consider the closure of Melksham station as an option. They recommended for progression the sharing of unit costs with the Stroud Valley line as an option , based on the assumption that Melksham would retain a peak hours service. Unfortunately , as we know all too well , this did not turn out to be the case. Here is the answer : http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060426/text/60426w01.htm#column_1092Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is his policy to replace rail services with bus services on the (a) Par to Newquay, (b) Liskeard to Looe, (c) Totnes and Ivybridge to Plymouth, (d) Chippenham to Frome and (e) Severn Beach routes. [64774] Derek Twigg: Other than the continuation of existing arrangements whereby buses provide some services between Avonmouth and Severn Beach, there is no policy to replace rail services with buses on any of these routes. FROM THE CURRENT MONDAYS TO FRIDAYS TIMETABLE (up to December 2006) : Train - Trowbridge 0736 - Melksham 0745 - Chippenham 0800. Bus - Trowbridge 0740 - Melksham 0805 (schooldays) 0812 (non schooldays) - Chippenham Railway Station 0847 (schooldays) 0839 (non schooldays.) Train - Chippenham 1759 - Melksham 1809 - Trowbridge 1823. Bus - Chippenham Railway Station 1735 - Melksham 1802 - Trowbridge 1823. Train - Chippenham 2227 - Melksham 2237 - Trowbridge 2246. Bus - Chippenham Railway Station 2210 - Melksham 2230 - Trowbridge 2248. FROM THE DECEMBER 2006 MONDAYS TO FRIDAYS TIMETABLE : Train - Trowbridge 0708 - Melksham 0717 - Chippenham 0726. Bus - Trowbridge 0701 - Melksham 0721 - Chippenham Railway Station 0739. Train - Chippenham 1858 - Melksham 1908 - Trowbridge 1917. Bus - Chippenham Railway Station 1834 - Melksham 1856 - Trowbridge 1915. Looks like its SOMEBODY'S policy to me. Instead , Melksham has received a skeleton service outside of the peak , which is to be unfairly competed against by the same operators buses (see quote below.) It is also my view that those who decide these matters have decided to "do a Calne" on the Melksham train service (see quote below.) This is one of the aspects of the Melksham issue that concerns me most. It looks to me like First were conducting a usage survey. Journey Statistics Link. http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=233.msg589#msg5895% from and to Chippenham. Here is Map 3 of the original Beeching Report. http://www.shropshiretransport.info/beeching/report1/maps/Map03.htmDean , Dilton Marsh & Dunbridge all appear as red dots (£0 - £5000 per annum) yet none of them appeared on the closure list. They have survived to this day. Despite this , as Graham and others are aware , I am just as concerned about the future viability of the stations above as I am about Melksham. Melksham appears as a blue dot (£5000 - £25000 per annum) yet it both appeared on the closure list and was indeed closed. However , the most facinating line in the Southampton - Swindon area that was closed in the Beeching era was Chippenham - Calne. Calne appears on Map 3 as a green dot (over £25000 per annum) Have a look at the link below. Pages 2 & 3 show how Beeching assessed passenger train services. Interestingly , just as the DfT do today , Beeching used the average passenger per train method as part of the assessment process. http://www.shropshiretransport.info/beeching/report1/15%20Appendix%202.pdfThe information below comes from Page 4 of the link above. The Chippenham - Calne line contributed a massive £56900 per annum to the revenue of other services (the highest on the list) yet Beeching concluded that only £5700 of this would be lost if the line closed. This is because he was certain that the Calne line passengers would use the bus or other forms of transport to connect with trains at Chippenham instead. Here is a link to the North East Regional Planning Assessment. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_railways/documents/page/dft_railways_611452.pdfPage 41. "It is a feature of the North East that a significant number of people will drive some distance to join an express service on the East Coast Main Line, even where they have a local station in their own area, this practice is called ‘rail heading’. Railheading refers to driving further than necessary to reach a rail station in order to reach a more convenient service." Its a feature of Melksham passengers , for example , driving to Chippenham & elsewhere as well , especially if the service isnt as reliable as it could be. It will become more so if the proposed service cuts go through. Here is a link to a visionary November 2002 parliamentary presentation by David Redgewell of Transport 2000 (link below.) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmtran/125/125ap06.htmOne quote in particular stands out : "A degree of regulation should also be specified, for instance, that the train arriving in Chippenham from Bristol shall be met in the forecourt by a linked Rail bus—true bus/rail integration." One of the things that I have noticed recently is that we seem to be concentrating on post - December Melksham - London connections. However , the top destination for ticket sales both into & out of Melksham is Bristol. Here is the proposed peak - time bus / rail timetable from December 2006. This involves catching bus service 234 from Melksham - Chippenham Railway Station & then taking the train to Bristol. OUTWARD JOURNEY : Melksham depart 0721 - Chippenham arrive 0739 depart 0741 - Bristol arrive 0810. This connection looks tight , but judging by the rest of the 234 timetable , it looks like a few minutes recovery time has been built in to the schedule. The Bristol arrival time is , strangely enough , EXACTLY the same time as you would arrive in Bristol catching the 0717 train from Melksham. RETURN JOURNEY : Bristol depart 1700 - Chippenham arrive 1723 depart 1735 - Melksham arrive 1802. Bristol depart 1800 - Chippenham arrive 1823 depart 1834 - Melksham arrive 1856. No such luck for Melksham passengers who want to do the whole journey by train. They have to hang around in Bristol until 1830 to catch a train that will get them back to Melksham at 1907 , with a change at Chippenham. Passengers are likely to take the rail / bus option instead. In my view , Melksham is being lined up as one of the first tests of how the new DfT Closure Guidance will work in practice. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 26, 2006, 05:31:25 PM by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
Of course , much of the above post will be denied (or more likely , ignored) by those who decide such matters. Before you do the same , ask yourself the following questions. 1) Why was the following option included in the draft Jacobs report , but NOT included in the Greater Western Franchise Replacement Outline Business Case Report? I'm ... amazed .... Jacobs Consultancy report, dated November 2004, page 34 recommends that trains from Westbury to Swindon at 09:30, 11:30, 13:30 and 18:30, with return trips at 10:35, 12:35, 14:35 and 19:35 be provided IN ADDITION to the peak hour service. The MOIRA results indicate an overall revenue gain of £43k per annum, (£43k increases and no decreases), with only one significant individual revenue flow gain: Melksham – Swindon (£11k). This option is recommended for inclusion in the timetable specification. Other options - retiming the evening train from Swindon earlier (16:38 from Swindon) or later (18:38 from Swindon) were REJECTED, and rightly so. So how come we have ended up with the second of these options being ACCEPTED. It appears that the SRA commissioned an expert's report and then decided it knew better .... at the cost of a sensible service between Swindon and Westbury2) Why are First recommending the following to regular Melksham - Bristol commuters? 2. Buy monthly bus ticket to Chippenham, and monthly train seaon ticket Chippenham to Bristol as staff at Chipenham Railway station advise I can not get Busplus ticket to Bristol.  3) Can you REALLY believe that NO extra freight trains will be run on the Melksham line between 0730 and 1858 and after 2001 from December 2006 , and that the train paths will still be available for a restored passenger service next year? 4) Is Network Rail's main aim in removing passenger services to improve performance , or is it that they need to find room for the 120 extra freight trains a day mentioned in the link below? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2344709.htmlQuotes from the above link : "Announcing Network Rail’s frieght strategy for the next ten years, John Armitt, its chief executive, said: “We must maximise what rail can offer because otherwise we will end up with a lot more trucks on the road.” "He said that the increase in rail freight capacity would cost up to £500 million, which would have to be funded by the Government. Ministers are committed to expanding rail freight but have said that decisions on the future level of rail spending would be made next summer." I sincerely hope that the issue of what happens if the £500 million required DOESNT materialise will be addressed at the conference linked to below. http://www.transport2000.org.uk/news/maintainNewsArticles.asp?NewsArticleID=329 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
It does, indeed, seem very VERY odd that elsewhere some of the Jacobs cut recommendations have been reversed and yet here one of their very few suggestions for a service improvement has been replaced by a cut. Are there and other cases at all where they suggested that an existing service could/should be increased and instead it's been slashed?
The whole thing does smell of "ulterior motive". I also look at the cancellation rates of up to about 40% of the evening peak train from Swindon, and ask "is this a co-incidence". At the rate it's happening, I don't think that it IS a co-incidence; just why / what it is I'll leave as an open question, but I personally get another funny smell.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
It does, indeed, seem very VERY odd that elsewhere some of the Jacobs cut recommendations have been reversed and yet here one of their very few suggestions for a service improvement has been replaced by a cut. Are there and other cases at all where they suggested that an existing service could/should be increased and instead it's been slashed? There is indeed such a case , Graham. From the draft report : All Weston-Super-Mare - Avonmouth services are extended to Severn Beach. This option re-instates those through services to Severn Beach which are assumed truncated in the Straw Man timetable. The MOIRA results indicate an overall revenue gain of £32k per annum, (£33k increases and £1k decreases), with no significant individual revenue flow gains or losses. This option is recommended for inclusion in the timetable specification. From the Greater Western Franchise Replacement Outline Business Case Report : Truncate Severn Beach Branch at Clifton Down. Our station usage analysis has revealed a very low level of daily usage (figures in brackets are number of passengers per day - Lee) at Sea Mills (68), Shirehampton (74), Avonmouth (90), St Andrews Road (4) and Severn Beach (70). Usage between Clifton Down and Bristol Temple Meads is much higher with e.g. Clifton Down having more than 250 journeys per day. In this option the service is cut back to operate hourly between Bristol Temple Meads and Clifton Down only but with an increase to 2tph in the peaks. The reduced running time to Clifton Down compared with Avonmouth will improve performance as the turnround time at Bristol will be significantly extended from the current off-peak norm of 4 minutes to 29 minutes. Alternatively, trains could operate through to e.g. Weston-Super-Mare. The principal barrier to implementation of this scheme would be the nature of the signalling at Clifton Down. Currently the station contains a passing loop on the single track section between Narroways and Avonmouth Dock Junctions. It is not possible for a train to return to Bristol without shunting as neither platform is bi-directionally signalled. If the route were abandoned between Clifton Down and Avonmouth then this could be resolved by removal of all signalling and by working of the line under one train operation. Whilst this would require some capital works, future maintenance of the route beyond Clifton would be avoided which includes the 1 mile long Clifton tunnel. This option effectively closes the low usage stations of Sea Mills, Shirehampton, Avonmouth, St Andrews Road and Severn Beach. Although there are no rolling stock savings associated with this option there are savings from the closure of these stations and mileage and staff cost savings that outweigh the revenue losses. This combined with the slight user and non-user benefits resulting from the increased frequency between Clifton Down and Bristol Temple Meads leads to an overall gain in net economic terms. Recommendation - Progress to next stage. This option should be developed as a project package, given that signalling alterations are required. Quotes from Friends Of Suburban Bristol Railways : "Stephen Williams MP and Kerry McCarthy MP launched Early Day Motions 1667 and 1702 in support of the Severn Beach Line way back in the Spring. Both MPs signed a statement in support of a half hour service on the Beach line. But instead of improvements, we are losing 20% of our suburban train service from 11 December." "On 22 July 06, shortly before departure of 18.01 for Severn Beach, the guard reported that passengers were required to leave the rear unit (143-617) because the lights had failed. This resulted in standing and could cause unnecessary overcrowding on a commuter train." "The Rail bus link run by First from Severn Beach has been too late to connect with the Avonmouth train 3 days out of 11 in July. Stephen Webb MP has received a letter from an angry commuter on this issue." "Having a train service to Clifton and Temple Meads was one our reasons for moving to Severn Beach. … I take the 0816 from Severn Beach to Clifton Down every weekday morning and have to use the bus replacement service which regularly lets people down. Here are some recent examples : 4 July 2006 Bus takes us to Avonmouth. Train does not arrive. Stranded. 17 July 2006 Bus did not arrive at Avonmouth on time. Train leaves before we arrive. Stranded in Avonmouth. 20July 2006 No Bus. Stranded in Severn Beach 21 July 2006 I start using my car before losing my job. …….. If the train is not running the bus driver does not know and takes us there anyway as there is no communication between bus and train (despite both being run by First). If I get on a service to Clifton Down I expect to arrive there, not to be dumped halfway…………. On International Car Free Day last year (22/09/2005) one lady from Severn Beach ditched her car. Same story. Bus stuck in traffic. Missed train. Got a taxi. I’ve written to First about this issue for a second time." The above are not isolated examples of disruption on the Severn Beach Line. Here is another interesting quote : 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+BeachThere is a significant difference in emphasis between the draft Jacobs report and the Greater Western Franchise Replacement Outline Business Case Report. The draft Jacobs report has its focus on the potential revenue gain / loss of a particular option whereas the Greater Western Franchise Replacement Outline Business Case Report appears to focus on station usage and passenger numbers. According to the Network Rail Business Plan 2006 , low usage is defined as a station that has 90 or less passengers per day. Based on the latest publicly available ORR figures , Melksham is on 75 passengers per day. Had the Melksham passenger train service been left unhindered by cancellations , engineering work and proposed drastic service cuts , then I would have expected it to have broken through the "90" barrier by the time the next set of station usage stats are published. As for the Severn Beach line , usage at all stations west of Clifton Down is (officially , but not , in my view , truthfully , due to suspected fare evasion) shown in the ORR figures to be 90 passengers per day or less. Also , usage at every single one of them is marked as having declined. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
According to the Network Rail Business Plan 2006 , low usage is defined as a station that has 90 or less passengers per day. Based on the latest publicly available ORR figures , Melksham is on 75 passengers per day.
Had the Melksham passenger train service been left unhindered by cancellations , engineering work and proposed drastic service cuts , then I would have expected it to have broken through the "90" barrier by the time the next set of station usage stats are published.
At the average compound growth rate that was acheived for 5 years up to that publiched figure, following years would show 101, 136, 184 and 248 passengers per day. Demographic evidence and other indicators all show that without a major change (such as things you have mentioned) this would have been achieved. I'm going to add two more hinerances to your list - the lack of reliable information and marketing on the serives so that people can find them in the first place, and the removal of the certain fare options which are driving people away. Remember - these are just major changs and I'm saying nothing about all the golden opportunities pointed out but missed to go for even better growth. I (think) I hear what you say about Severn Beach; hasn't it ended up with a similar dreadful arrangement to the one it currently has rather than (as Melksham's case) seeing a dramatic cut in existing trains? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
The Severn Beach Line is currently served by 15 trains each way on Monday - Fridays. However , there is a catch. See links below. http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Documents/Custom/OT60479%20PTT%206%20to%20Southampton.pdfhttp://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Documents/Custom/OT60479%20PTT%206%20from%20Southampton.pdfAlthough all train services run between Bristol Temple Meads - Avonmouth , only 7 train services each way go on to serve St Andrews Road & Severn Beach. The remaining 8 train services each way run between Bristol Temple Meads - Avonmouth , where a connection is provided to St Andrews Road & Severn Beach by bus. Here is the proposed Severn Beach Line timetable from December 2006 (link below.) http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Documents/Custom/Rev%20Dec%20TTs/SX%20-%20Bristol%20to%20Avonmouth%20-%20Severn%20Beach.pdfYou are indeed correct , Graham , in that the number of trains & buses is to stay same. However , the time between the train arriving / departing at Avonmouth and the bus arriving from / departing to Severn Beach is a ridiculously tight 4 minutes. In addition , the turnaround time of the train at Avonmouth has been cut to 3 minutes. Reinstating the train service through to Severn Beach would have resolved these issues at a stroke. One of the major problems with the Severn Beach Line is that the connecting buses keep missing the trains at Avonmouth. As you can see from the post above , this is driving people away from the service and contributing to the decline in passenger numbers. Crucially , this , along with poor general Severn Beach Line reliability , and the associated knock - on effect , is dragging the stations west of Clifton Down below the 90 passengers per day mark. In my view , instead of improving the situation , the December 2006 timetable will make things WORSE. How is this relevant to Melksham : 1) It is a clear example of how poor reliability and poor organisation can constrain & reduce , and indeed , IS constraining and reducing passenger numbers where they should be growing. 2) The Severn Beach Line is a by - word for rail replacement bus operation. 3) The Avonmouth - Severn Beach section is crucial from a freight perspective , as are some of the lines near it. 4) Land is up for sale at Severn Beach station , and its value is a factor in the new closure guidance. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 28, 2006, 12:13:31 PM by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
 |
