DfT Closure Guidance Example

In other words , the closure guidance example reaches almost exactly the same conclusion as Jacobs did in the quote below :

Quote from: Lee on October 26, 2006, 04:38:29 PM

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.shtml

Quotes 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.pdf

Jacobs 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#msg1285

And then the quote below :

Quote from: Lee on August 26, 2006, 01:12:44 PM

Network Rail believe reducing needless stops will streamline journeys (links below.)
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2006/08/rail_bosses_want_to_close_down.html#more
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2006/08/points_are_set_for_rail_shakeu.html

Key quote "For one [station] that is very lightly used, you have to question whether it should stay open. Some could be replaced with stations that are closer to communities and more integrated with buses." - Iain Coucher, Network Rail's deputy chief executive

Here is a link entitled "Stations At Risk."
http://www.theherald.co.uk/uimages/2408stations.PDF

This is why I worry when Franchise Agreements contain clauses such as this :

"(b) developing and promoting an interurban network for Cornwall to be known as "Network Kernow"

It should also be noted that "Option 3" requires one less unit than the existing service under consideration in the closure guidance example.