|
Pages: [1] 2
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Network Rail Boss Calls For Beeching 2 (Read 6967 times)
|
|
Lee
|
At last , some honesty (link below.) http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2006/12/take_a_taxi_in_the_country_say.html#moreI and others have been warning that these plans exist for quite some time. Here are some quotes : "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." "John Armitt, chief executive of Network Rail, said that running mostly empty trains was a waste of money and environmentally unfriendly. Instead, he wants to pump more money into overcrowded routes around and between major cities. Top of his list of priorities is an ambitious £3.5bn plan to treble services on the Thameslink London commuter franchise, which is now run by First Capital Connect." '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." 2 years ago , the Strategic Rail Authority identified the "60 least-used lines in Britain." They included picturesque routes such as Brockenhurst to Lymington in the New Forest , Exmouth to Barnstaple in Devon , and Oxenholme to Windermere in the Lake District. Several , however, were close to big urban areas , such as the one from Watford Junction to St Albans , and Chester to Manchester Piccadilly. Here are some examples : South West - Exmouth-Barnstaple South East - Ryde-Shanklin , Brockenhurst-Lymington Wales - Cardiff-Maesteg , Machynlleth-Pwllheli West Midlands - Paddington-Hereford East Midlands - Nottingham-Worksop East Anglia - Marks Tey-Sudbury North West - Oxenholme-Windermere North East - Saltburn-Bishop Auckland "Running empty boxes around is not very environmentally friendly or cost-effective,' said Armitt. In return for cutting government spending on under-used lines and services, Network Rail is asking for £8bn to spend on enhancements from 2009 to 2014." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
I and others have been warning that these plans exist for quite some time. Here are some quotes :
"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."
"John Armitt, chief executive of Network Rail, said that running mostly empty trains was a waste of money and environmentally unfriendly. Instead, he wants to pump more money into overcrowded routes around and between major cities. Top of his list of priorities is an ambitious £3.5bn plan to treble services on the Thameslink London commuter franchise, which is now run by First Capital Connect."
'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." Here is an archive Christian Wolmar article (link below.) http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/rail/540.shtml"As Darling announced just before his departure, the government is going to set out its strategy for the railways in a document next year which, presumably, will be published with the two others that it is statutorily required to produce - the High Level Output Specification (HLOS) that will set out its requirements from Network Rail between 2009 and 2014 and the Statement of Funds Available. The difficulty of this task, and the potential pitfalls for our cautious new minister, cannot be overestimated." "There is no doubt that this is a ridiculous way to fund a railway, but I do not want to bore readers by repeating this (see RAIL passim). Suffice to say that Alexander is stuck with it and has drawn the short straw, as he will have to be the man to make this system work. What, for example, if he decides that some branch lines are just too expensive to fund and that he wants to divert resources to the busy networks in the Passenger Transport Executive areas? He will face the full fury of the rail enthusiast lobby that will undoubtedly be backed by various newspapers." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graz
|
Although I can't comment directly on any of those mentioned lines, as I haven't been on any, it would be nice for Mr Armitt to mention some usage statistics instead of what I percieve as randomly choosing a rail line from a specific part of the UK and making sweeping and untrue statements such as 'empty boxes'.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trowres
|
The figures used in the 4x4 / rail comparisons need to be checked carefully, as they rely on a number of assumptions. However, it is true that rail has been losing its environmental competitiveness due to a number of factors, including the use of fixed-formation trains and heavier vehicles. The extra weight per seat arises due to a mixture of reasons, including double glazing, air conditioning, other onboard services, the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act, and crashworthiness. Modern trains are actually worse than the 156 used in the comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
It seems at times that rail has been "safeteyed", "luxuried" and "discriminated" out of the reach of everyone, doesn't it? Some of these are difficult matters to argue - the emotive words "one rail death is one too many" are indeed true, but then I suggest that 10 road deaths per day throughout the UK is also too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
Christian Wolmar was interviewed on this subject on Radio 5 last night. Can anyone find a link / recording?
Full SRA list of "least - used lines or services" :
South West
St Erth-St Ives
Truro-Falmouth
Par-Newquay
Liskeard-Looe
Plymouth-Gunnislake
Exmouth-Barnstaple
Bristol-Severn Beach
Bristol-Weymouth
Swindon-Southampton
South East
Ryde-Shanklin
Brockenhurst- Lymington
Twyford-Henley
Maidenhead-Marlow
Oxford-Bicester Town
Sittingb'ne-Sheerness
Brighton-Seaford
Turnbridge-Strood
Wales
Cardiff-Maesteg
Machynlleth-Pwllheli
Shrewsbury-Swansea
Cardiff-Holyhead
Wrexham-Bidston
Llandudno-Blaenau
West Midlands
Paddington-Hereford
Birmingham Snow Hill-Stratford-upon-Avon
Leamington-Stratford
Birmingham-Stafford
Eastern England
Marks Tey-Sudbury
Wickford-Southminster
Norwich-Sheringham
Norwich-Lowestoft
Norwich-Yarmouth via Reedham
Ipswich-Lowestoft
Harwich-Cambridge
Bedford-Bletchley
Watford Junc-St Albans
East Midlands
Derby-Matlock
Nottingham-Worksop
Crewe-Skegness
Grimsby-Newark
Cleethorpes-Sheffield
Yorkshire & Humberside
Middlesbrough- Whitby
Sheffield-Huddersfield
Cleethorpes- Barton-on-Humber
Hull-Scarborough
Leeds-York via Harrogate
North East
Saltburn-Bishop Auckland
North West
Chester-Manchester Piccadilly
Blackpool-Buxton
Preston-Ormskirk
Manchester Airport/ Rochdale-Southport
Rochdale-Kirkby
Blackpool South-Colne
Leeds-Heysham
Barrow-Carlisle
Leeds-Morecambe
Oxenholme- Windermere
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 18, 2006, 10:23:17 AM by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Field
|
Here is the link to the Five Live website, there is listen again buton which takes you into the BBC radio player. You may have to listen or scan through the whole 3 hour breakfast show as I cant (yet) see a specific link to the Christian Wolmar article
www/bbc.co.uk/fivelive
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
Sorry Nick , have edited above post because CW was actually on Radio 5 last night just after 2000.......
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Field
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 18, 2006, 10:33:56 AM by Nick Field »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
Todays Guardian leading article , reproduced here in full , courtesy of RMT Bristol Rail Branch :
Leader
Monday December 18, 2006
The Guardian
Winter is the right time for pruning, for lopping old branches off. Outrageously, it looks as though rural branch lines may be among those to be cut. Almost silently, Britain's transport planners are planning a bonfire of secondary services. In the Department for Transport and the offices of Britain's big private rail operators, plans are being drawn up to hack back the size of Britain's rail network, reducing services and closing lines, especially in rural areas.
John Armitt, the outgoing director of Network Rail, told the Observer yesterday that "we accept heavy rail is not always the best solution, particularly in some ... outer parts of the network". His polite language disguised a melancholy shift in government attitudes, in favour of reducing services on some routes. That has become easier with rules removing safeguards that protected lines from closure.
A product of the 2005 Railways Act, the rules nominally help transport planning and efficiency but, in reality, aim to save money from a rail budget bloated by the vast inefficiencies of privatisation. Virgin, whose west coast route was profitable under British Rail, was last week offered £1.4bn by the government to run services until 2012. GNER, which runs the east coast route, is in financial meltdown. None of this is the fault of Britain's local train services, most of which are busier than they were at privatisation. But they will be made the victim of cost-cutting, the easiest to shut, regardless of the consequences for passengers.
This threat was underlined in October by the publication of an extraordinary Department for Transport document, Railways Closures Guidance. It offers a step-by-step explanation of how to shut train lines, its thinking dominated by economics of the crudest and most-short-term sort. "Value for money is a central criterion in determining whether a proposal should go ahead." There is no requirement for anything more than token public consultation or any regular need to consider the environmental consequences. "Domestic air services may ... be a relevant alternative" to trains, it adds, a mockery of green thinking.
With malign ingenuity, rural closures are likely to be presented as environmentally wise, since empty trains pollute more than full cars. But no work has been done to test the implausible claim that passengers will club together to share their journeys, or switch to buses. Past closures suggest road traffic will grow and car-occupancy stay low. Many of Britain's remaining secondary lines boost tourism and employment. They survived Dr Beeching and Margaret Thatcher. It is incredible that a government which claims to put the environment first is even thinking about shutting down railways.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Field
|
Just listened to rhe Five live program. CW is on after about 13 minutes. CW makes a the case about the rural lines being a vital social service that dont need the same levels of high maintenance as the mian lines and therfore cost savings wouldnt be that high. He also thinks that it is a bit out of order for the Network Rail cheif to be making these suggestions just before he retires (and therfore not being around to deal with it if it did happen)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graz
|
^ Thanks Nick, yeah, I completely agree with CW. Again, it's just Mr. Armitt, the Government, and the SRA using broad brush strokes to define the entire network as the same, and not even considering the impact with their one-sided views. And speaking of that... Full SRA list of "least - used lines or services" : ...
...
Bristol-Weymouth
Swindon-Southampton
...
Putting such long rail lines in this 'list' is confusing, vague, and misleading, and whoever at the SRA put this list together needs to start again from the beginning. "Bristol-Weymouth" - including a ticket from, say, Oldfield Park to Trowbridge? or just Bristol to Weymouth tickets? and "Swindon-Southampton"- including tickets from Trowbridge to Chippenham? It really is quite worrying how they are bending the figures to suit their ideal outcome. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
"Running empty boxes around is not very environmentally friendly or cost-effective,' said Armitt. In return for cutting government spending on under-used lines and services, Network Rail is asking for £8bn to spend on enhancements from 2009 to 2014."
Here is another archive Christian Wolmar article (link below.) http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/rail/554.shtml"Not surprisingly, a little noticed part of the report reveals there is still overspending on the West Coast Main Line upgrade. Network Rail will, apparently, spend £300m more than the £3bn allowed by the Regulator, but that will be transferred from NR’s underspend of £390m on its regional renewals programme: so that’s OK then!" |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 18, 2006, 06:14:51 PM by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
|
|
 |
The logic of putting more cars on the road defies sensible reasoning. OK so a half empty train may be less environmentally friendly than a modern fuel efficient car or taxi but there is two sides to the coin. Firstly why not update the old multiple units to a more fuel efficient set of units, secondly what happened to the argument about taking traffic off the roads to relieve congestion, whether it's taxis, cars or buses it's extra traffic on the road. Beeching 2!! has the government/network rail gone stark raving mad? 