|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Westbury - Southampton Central Cancelled Service 18/12/2006 (Read 5553 times)
|
|
Lee
|
From the First Great Western Website :
11:06 Westbury to Southampton Central due 12:17
This train has been cancelled. This is due to an earlier train fault.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
I understand (but have not seen) that a 158 is sitting out of use in the sidings at Reading, 3 x 153 are out of use at Eastleigh, and an unspecified but plural number of 150s are sitting out of use at Cardiff. Can anyone confirm these sightings, and say whether or not the units in question were in those locations prior to the beginning of last week.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
15:39 Southampton Central to Westbury due 16:45
This train has been cancelled. This is due to an earlier train fault.
Have they given up? Maybe they would have more luck organising a "Bicycle Race"
Elsewhere , I notice that the 14:52 Newquay to Gunnislake due 17:20 has gone , as well as the 17:25 Gunnislake to Newquay due 20:18.
Also :
15:22 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central due 18:39
This train will be revised. It will additionally call at: Dunbridge and Dean. This is due to an unusually large passenger flow.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 18, 2006, 04:02:45 PM by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
Have they given up? The cynic in me suggests that by having a truely dreadful 2 weeks between the inroduction of the new timetable and Christmas, they'll be able to start the new year with a promise of improvements, and deliver, because they're starting from such a dreadful base. It reminds me of the "but we're improving things for travellers by putting in lifts at Bath next year". Yes, but after you've hit them once over the head with the need to change, a second time with an awkward change, a third time with an extended journey, and a fourth time with a fare rise. Four steps back and one forward; it's kinda hard to find words to praise the step forward when there have been so many avoidable steps back. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 19, 2006, 04:24:24 AM by Graham Ellis »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve35
Guest
|
I understand (but have not seen) that a 158 is sitting out of use in the sidings at Reading, 3 x 153 are out of use at Eastleigh, and an unspecified but plural number of 150s are sitting out of use at Cardiff. Can anyone confirm these sightings, and say whether or not the units in question were in those locations prior to the beginning of last week.
4 x 153 are off-lease at Eastleigh. They went off-lease at the timetable change. 8 x 150 transferred from FGW to Arriva Trains Wales at the timetable change. 1 x 158 is on temporary sub-lease from FGW to Scotrail. A number of 158's were apparently meant to be off-lease by now but aren't... yet. I think the DfT has a lot to answer for. The basic problem is that the privatised railway costs a lot more to run than the nationalised British Rail did. At current cost levels it isn't sustainable. One of the big costs is leasing of trains from the 3 rolling stock leasing companies (Roscos). The DfT thinks the Roscos charge too much. The Roscos (owned by banks) disagree. The DfT therefore appears to be launching an attack on the Roscos. In June 2006 the Office of the Rail Regulator received a submission from DfT "requesting ORR to make a market investigation reference to the Competition Commission under Section 131 of the Enterprise Act 2002." See http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.8421 Another line of attack appears to be to force the TOCs to return some of their trains to the Roscos. i.e. to put them off-lease. The thinking behind this is presumably that when the Roscos find themselves with a lot of off-lease units not earning any money they will decide to lower the leasing charges. Better to be getting a small amount of lease money than nothing at all. Remember that as well as deciding FGW's timetable the DfT also decides what units FGW can use to run that timetable. The DfT underwrites the lease agreements between FGW and the Roscos - if the DfT won't underwrite a lease then FGW can't lease the units in question. Hence why a number of units have just gone off lease. In fact a post by an 'insider' on another forum says it could have been a lot worse. FGW apparently managed to do a 'lease one, get one free' deal with one of the Roscos. Without that deal FGW would have had even less units than it has now. But sadly it doesn't end there. To quote the other forum again "we have been told to take 20 more 158 vehicles out of service. These twenty being the ones maintaining the service whilst the ex-Canton demics are being fixed". A 'demic' train in rail-industry-speak is one that is broken/not useable. A change that occurred with the new timetable was that FGW brought it's unit maintenace in-house. The 158's maintenance had been contracted out to ATW's Cardiff Canton depot prior to December 11th. FGW has extended it's Bristol St Philips Marsh Depot so that it can take on the maintenance of units such as the 158's. Allegedly according to other forums when the 158's got to St Philips Marsh from Cardiff they were found to be demic - which would explain all the cancellations since the timetable change. Now read the above quote again. No timescales I'm afraid for taking the 20 vehicles out of service (ie 10 2-car units or a mixture of 2 and 3-car units) but let's hope it isn't before the demics are fixed..... Another quote: "Do you honestly believe FGW want to throw away revenue? Do you honestly believe that FGW want to take even more vehicles off lease when those same vehicles could be expanding services and earning more money? It's really simple, the DfT refuse to underwrite the leases, they are forcing TOC's, and FGW is just the first one, to put vehicles into store rather than have them pay what they consider to be excessive leasing costs. There are currently about twenty 158 vehicles running around on our services which will not be so for much longer. You may have to put up with Pacers now, or even solitary 153's. The DfT want you on a bus, or adding to the Treasury coffers by driving a car." And one final quote from someone else: "The Labour ones (MP's) will not criticise the Dft as it is run by a Brownite, and they want jobs in the future, the Conservative one's will not criticise, because much of what is going on is down to them, and they want the branches closed by this lot before they get elected again. The Liberals have bugger all to lose so will criticise everybody, and the no-hopers just want to make a noise. It isn't FGW's timetable. Think things are bad now? We now reckon only St. Ives and Exmouth branches will be open by 2009. The rest will be buses. Any Guardian readers here will know what I mean. Difference is we got it straight from a senior DfT woman official. Unless someone other than the government pays, many branches and some urban services are going to close." If you think that's a bit drastic ask yourselves why the Dft went to the trouble of putting new closure procedures in the Railways Act 2005. If closures weren't on the agenda they surely wouldn't have bothered. The old procedures could have quite easily been left in place.... So be very clear. The DfT is where you should be aiming your fire. Not FGW. The passengers and FGW are just pawns in the game. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 21, 2006, 03:15:40 AM by Steve35 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
Very well said , Steve. I have yet to read a post that more perfectly sums up the extensive research that I & others have conducted into this. The only things that I would really disagree with are :
1) That certain "political elements" have been far more helpful than you suggest.
2) That FGW , whilst working within limitations , could be far more helpful in resolving many issues.
Welcome to the forum.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 21, 2006, 11:13:04 AM by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
Indeed welcome, Steve. I wish I had much, mouch more time to write "hI" today but I've a very limited hotel access tonight. Will be back on Sunday.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Steve35
|
Very well said , Steve. I have yet to read a post that more perfectly sums up the extensive research that I & others have conducted into this. The only things that I would really disagree with are :
1) That certain "political elements" have been far more helpful than you suggest.
2) That FGW , whilst working within limitations , could be far more helpful in resolving many issues.
Welcome to the forum.
Fair enough. I'm fortunate to live nowhere near the FGW area so I don't have first hand experience of their services. I suppose the point of my post was to make sure that you understand the background to the current situation. Most people's reaction will be to just blame FGW - which no doubt suits the DfT just fine. The current timetable cuts could be interpreted as a classic 'closure strategy': They want to close some lines to save money but they can't because the services are too popular. Therefore they have to make the services unpopular. This is done through a combination of 1) reducing the frequency of trains, 2) running the remaining trains at unsuitable times and 3) making the remaining trains shorter so that more people have to stand. This hopefully has the effect of driving away most of the passengers. The DfT can then come along and say that because no-one uses the service it's going to be closed. I think 2007 is going to be the crunch year. There are two acronyms to watch out for: HLOS and SOFA. The funding requirement for the railway is determined every 5 years. Each 'block' of 5 years is known as a Control Period (CP). We're currently in CP3. Control Period 4 covers the years 2009-2014 and the process of determining the funding for CP4 has recently begun. This is where the HLOS and SOFA come in. The HLOS is the High Level Output Specification, which defines the kind of railway the Government wants to buy (eg service levels, train capacity etc), and the SOFO is the Statement of Funds Available, saying how much it is prepared to pay. It is then up to the ORR to try to match up the two i.e. is there enough money in the SOFA to pay for the railway specified in the HLOS? If there isn't (and this is the likely scenario) there then has to be an iterative process involving the ORR, DfT and Network Rail involving a trade off of service levels and costs until a compatible HLOS and SOFA emerge. So in a worst case scenario services could be cut and lines closed as a way of bringing the railway's costs down to the amount specified in the SOFA. The HLOS and SOFA are expected in Summer 2007. For background reading to the HLOS stuff and other issues I suggest looking at the back issues of Roger Ford's 'Informed Sources' column (published monthly in Modern Railways magazine). For starters: October 2005 http://www.alycidon.com/ALYCIDON%20RAIL/INFORMED%20SOURCES%20ARCHIVE/INF%20SRCS%202005/Informed%20Sources%2010%202005%20p4.htm"Periodic Review – the process starts now." "Developing the HLOS" February 2006 http://www.alycidon.com/ALYCIDON%20RAIL/INFORMED%20SOURCES%20ARCHIVE/INF%20SRCS%202006/Informed%20Sources%2002%202006%20p2.htm"Railway costs – struggling with the unknowns" "Railways in hock" August 2006 http://www.alycidon.com/ALYCIDON%20RAIL/INFORMED%20SOURCES%20ARCHIVE/INF%20SRCS%202006/Informed%20Sources%2008%202006%20p3.htm"DfT outlines the HLOS" And an article about Dr Mike Mitchell, the Director General, Rail at the DfT: April 2005 http://www.alycidon.com/ALYCIDON%20RAIL/INFORMED%20SOURCES%20ARCHIVE/INF%20SRCS%202005/Informed%20sources%2004%202005%20p4.htm"DG Rail – the axeman cometh" Quote: "‘If they are looking for a dour personality to close lines and reduce costs without a thought as to the social implications, they have got the right person'." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
A subject that I notice one of Steve's links touches on is the overwhelming political desire of the DfT not to be seen as "modern - day Beechings." The new procedure allows Network Rail , Train Operating Companies , or a rail funding authority (DfT , Scottish Parliament , Welsh Assembly , PTAs or the Mayor of London) to propose a closure. The decision to allow the proposal will be made by the Office of Rail Regulation & not the Secretary Of State. Against a backdrop of previously subsidised franchises now being let on the basis of unsustainable premium payments , the TOC's are likely to come under pressure from both shareholders within & others outside their organisations to swing the axe themselves. They may be willing to do this on "unsensitive" lines , stations & services (Arriva , for example , are already talking of making "cost savings" in South Wales , click on http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=859.msg2559#msg2559) , but could well baulk when it comes to (say) the Cornish Branch Lines or Heart Of Wales. Given little choice financially , Network Rail will be right behind them , ready to push the doomed subject over the edge. Either way , the DfT will be able to say "not us , blame them." Another thing that you may not be aware of is that SNCF (French Railways) , long - lauded as an ideal railway example , has been engaged in its own "Beeching" for a number of years (see below.) Here is a link to an article entitled "French trains? They're worse than ours." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/25/wrail25.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/25/ixnews.htmlHere are some quotes from it : "Britain has saved most of its network through an "enormous catch-up effort," but vast tracts of the French system are being ruined by a short-sighted repair policy, said Robert Rivier, a Swiss professor." "Mr Rivier, the author of a damning audit on the railway ordered by the French government, said track needed to be renewed and ageing or underused lines closed, rather than patching up infrastructure." "While the TGV network remained the envy of the world, the high-speed system only ran on 1,000 miles of track from a total of 19,000 miles. The smaller regional lines have been left by the wayside, Mr Rivier said." "He estimated that two thirds of the national network would be unusable by 2025." "In Great Britain, it took dozens of deaths, after which the British took remarkable action," he said." "They made choices, set out a long-term strategy and chose to scrap parts of the network. The French have that ahead of them." Here are a couple of quotes from the Network Rail Business Plan 2006 : "The creation of the Greater Western franchise in April 2006 will see the introduction of a simplified train service structure for the route, particularly west of Taunton, from December 2006. This will eradicate some of the current service duplication and better meet existing demand." "Expenditure The age of rail and sleepers on the route is amongst the highest on the national network and varies between 30 and 40 years old and to address this we are implementing a track renewals strategy which matches the traffic usage of the route. This will include the deployment of Network Rail’s new High Output equipment on the most intensely used part of the route, between Reading and Exeter, to deliver a higher track quality with absolute minimum rail failures; more conventional targeted renewals will be carried out on the less intensely used sections beyond Exeter, with patch repairs and renewals to maintain stable infrastructure on the more rural branch lines." It will not have escaped your attention that ALL of the Devon & Cornwall Branch Lines feature on the "least-used lines in Britain" list. Here is an example from the 1980's (BR days) of where such a track renewals strategy can lead (Visit the "Destruction of a railway" section of the link below.) http://home.clara.net/wealdenline/st_set.htmlHere is a quote from the above link : "With the closure of Tunbridge Wells West station in July 1985, it was with almost indecent haste that steps were taken to realise the lucrative redevelopment potential of the site by constructing a large shopping centre." "It is interesting to reflect that in this way, a transport site which had the potential to contribute to a reduction in local road traffic has now become a very significant local generator of such traffic." Here is a link that highlights how the closure process works today. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_railways/documents/page/dft_railways_039661.pdfHere is one that highlights how the closure process would work under the new DfT Closure Guidance. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/F3641215?thread=2441627A Huge THANK YOU to Chris Grayling and Michael Ancram for coming along today and giving us their support.
They take to Westmister with them a view of a service that show much that's good in secondary rail services - a real success story that's had traffic rise 8 fold in 5 years to 109,000 journeys per annum, through towns such as Chippenham (44,000) and Melksham (24,000) which are set to grow by 30% in the next few years.
Chris spoke of all the money being spent on the Railway Industry through Network Rail, much on big "showcase" type projects, where at the same time the DfT are "cheesepairing" and trying to save a few quid here and there on short term cuts to services which are getting more viable not less year on year, and will be sorely missed in 5 years time if they're axed in 5 months time. Problem is .... once you effectively scrap a service that's got 32 people per train riding, they'll melt away and NOT come back if you re-instate a year later. Problem is ... if you re-align the track away from the platform to allow freight trains to go through faster, you'll not simply be able to restart the service anyway. Chris also spoke of the excessive beauracracy involced in frachising and franchise admin with all the various companies involved, and how frankly impossible the civil servants who have to manage the system are finding it to do an effective job I may have paraphrased some of this badly ... will post up links to any other published comments later
More - MUCH more - to follow on the visit ...
P.S. Chris's message ... KEEP CAMPAIGNING ... all is not yet lost. Having got ourselves into a position where we could avoid the mistakes of our French counterparts , we would appear to be about to embark on a policy that would copy those same mistakes. Some "uneconomical" SNCF (French Railways) services have been replaced by SNCF buses in recent years. Many that still operate are , to a surprisingly large extent , dependent on the French equivalent of regional & local funding to survive. A sizeable number of smaller stations are served by a very limited train service as a result. For a French - style railway system to work for local train services in Britain , regional & local authorities plus PTA's would have to be encouraged to fund rail services. Here is a link from the Future Of Transport White Paper. 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." (The official name for the DfT Closure Guidance is "Railways act 2005: Implementation of network modification provisions." http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_railways/documents/divisionhomepage/611062.hcsp) "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." Future Analysis link. http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=421.msg1243#msg1243Just as I have got to know the Melksham area well over the last few months , I also know the Loudeac area of Brittany well , as I used to holiday there with my ex. Here is the current Loudeac - St-Brieuc Monday - Friday timetable. From Loudeac : 0652 Bus 0916 Bus 1413 Bus 1559 Train 1902 Bus 1926 Train From St-Brieuc : 0740 Bus 1015 Bus 1215 Bus 1423 Train 1734 Bus 1825 Train Up until recently the train ran onwards to Pontivy , but that section is covered by an all - bus service now. Here is the latest Bus / Rail December 2006 Melksham timetable , but as the link below points out , this may be subject to further change. http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/loncombined.html |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 22, 2006, 05:45:22 PM by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
My own view (backed up by evidence in documents & on the ground) is that the decision to cull a significant number of lines , stations & services has already been taken. BBC Article "Network Rail to seek extra £7bn" (link below.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5139746.stm"Network Rail receives about £5bn to run its network at present, but says this does not allow for improvements. The operator says it should be able to operate on £4bn at a future date, but this is still at the higher end of the Office of Rail Regulation's estimates." Save The Train quote based on the article "Britain Facing Biggest Rail Cuts Since The Beeching Era" : http://www.cilt-international.com/news-display.asp?ID=430&t=arc&m=10&y=2005
Quote from the link above :
"According to The Times, the director of rail projects at the DfT, Graham Dalton, told a recent conference of rail engineers that the Treasury wants to reduce the rail subsidy by between £1 billion and £1.5 billion. He said that the DfT was working on a statement about the size of the railway that would send a clear message that “there’s a budget set for rail and we’ve all got to work within it”.
Under the Treasury’s plan the subsidy would fall by a further £1.5 billion from 2009, leaving the rail industry with £3 billion ($5.5bn) a year from the taxpayer. "
A cut of £1 billion would be a cut of around 20% in the rail subsidy. At the time of this article (October 2005 , just after Etruria station was closed) , it was claimed that "damaging cuts are being planned for the five years from 2009, when a new budget will be set for the railways - the Department for Transport has begun secret negotiations about which services, stations and little-used branch lines will be eliminated." Quote taken from the recent John Armitt interview reports : "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." In effect , John Armitt is making the results of part of the CP4 funding negotiations public , possibly to test public reaction. Here is another interesting thing I noticed recently - a quote taken from a recent "No Beeching By Stealth!" letter from RMT general secretary Bob Crow , Bristol East MP Kerry McCarthy and Southwest TUC secretary Nigel Costley to Tom Harris MP , the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport (link below.) http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2006/12/bristol_to_host_public_protest.html"The consequences for passengers of overcrowding and packed trains leaving passengers behind will deter people from travelling by public transport, and force them onto the already heavily-congested road network, with all the outcomes for increased carbon emissions, pollution and road traffic accidents that this means." Quote from the original Beeching Report , which has its focus on the 'Total Social Benefit Studies' that were being conducted at the time (1963) : "It might pay to run railways at a loss in order to prevent the incidence of an even greater cost which would arise elsewhere if the railways were closed. Such other costs may be deemed to arise from congestion, provision of parking space, injury and death, additional road building, or a number of other causes." "It is not thought that any of the firm proposals put forward in this Report would be altered by the introduction of new factors for the purpose of judging overall social benefit. Only in the case of suburban services around some of the larger cities is there clear likelihood that a purely commercial decision within the existing framework of judgment would conflict with a decision based upon total social benefit. Therefore, in those instances, no firm proposals have been made but attention has been drawn to the necessity for study and decision." How did this turn out in practice? Lets compare some Greater Bristol suburban stations that survived the original "Beeching Axe"...... http://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/oldfieldpark.phphttp://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/keynsham.phphttp://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/severnbeach.phphttp://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/bedminster.phphttp://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/parsonstreet.phphttp://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/patchway.phphttp://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/lawrencehill.phphttp://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/stapletonroadstation.php(In my view , the Stapleton Road link proves that , the longer nothing is done , the more difficult & expensive any Yate - Weston - super - Mare capacity enhancement scheme will be to implement.) ......with some that didnt http://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/mangotsfield.phphttp://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/fishponds.phphttp://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/bathgreenpark.phphttp://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/henbury.phphttp://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/pilninglowlevelstation.phphttp://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/portishead.phpAgain , the longer nothing is done about Portishead.... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 27, 2006, 03:12:41 PM by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
Here is the section of the original Beeching report that deals with hardship :
"It would be folly to suggest that widespread closure of stopping train services will cause no hardship anywhere or to anybody, and the Transport Act, 1962 makes the consideration of hardship the special responsibility of Transport Users Consultative Committees, where objections to closures are lodged. For (he purpose of judging the closure proposals as a whole, however, it is necessary to have some idea of the scale and degree of hardship which they are likely to cause.
With the exception of northern Scotland, and parts of central Wales, most areas of the country are already served by a network of bus services more dense than the network of rail services which will be withdrawn, and in the majority of cases these buses already carry the major proportion of local traffic. With minor exceptions, these bus services cater for the same traffic flows as the railways, on routes which are roughly parallel. Taken as a whole, they have enough spare capacity to absorb the traffic which will be displaced from the railways, which will do no more than replace the bus traffic which has been lost over the last decade, and which will provide a very welcome addition to the revenue of the bus operators.
In all these areas, cases of special difficulty will be rare, but there may be localities where there is not already a bus service connecting places at present served by rail. If the traffic displaced from rail has a density of over 1,000 passengers per week it provides the basis for an economic bus service of about eight buses each way. Where the traffic displaced is less than 1,000 passengers per week, and where a bus service does not exist already, some special arrangements may be necessary. Roughly a quarter of the services proposed for closure have a traffic density below 1,000 but it is estimated that only 122 miles of these routes are not already paralleled by bus services. In most areas of the country, therefore, it appears that hardship will arise on only a very limited scale.
In parts of Scotland, in particular, and to a lesser degree in Wales and the West country, road improvement or road construction may be necessary before adequate road services can be provided as full alternatives to the rail services which exist at present. Some of these road improvements are required, in any case, for development of the motor tourist trade, on which the future of these areas so greatly depends."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
The above quote contains links on the Regional Funding Allocations that were announced in the summer of 2006. As you can see , funding has been authorised for road - building and non - rail projects. However , according to Stephen Joseph of Transport 2000 , rail schemes were NOT ALLOWED to be included in the original RFA bids. Does this sound like "joined up thinking" to you? Either the DfT need some new special advisers , or something deeper is going on here. At the same time as the above funding was announced , the DfT awarded £42 million to the Bristol Showcase Bus Routes scheme. This was backed by £20 million from First Group and £6 million from private developers (link below.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/5157322.stmThe Bristol Showcase Bus Routes will run parallel to existing rail corridors. The Yate - Weston - super - Mare corridor suburban rail services have even been re - shaped to fit (links below.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4747277.stmhttp://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Documents/Custom/Timetables/December%202006/Book%20E%20REVISED%20(Bristol%20Area,%20Birmingham%20to%20Exeter,%20Cardiff%20to%20Portsmouth).pdfQuotes from the original Beeching Report : "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." 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." One of the reasons that the Campaign Against New Beeching Report (CANBER) motto is "THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW" , is because , when a classic closure strategy is spotted , we believe that it needs to be dealt a decisive blow before it can progress. What you witnessing in Bristol is the beginning of the end of the suburban rail service. Firstly , passengers will be forced of the trains by lack of seats. Secondly , as the construction of the Showcase Bus Routes reaches completion at the same time as the Greater Western Franchise profile moves from subsidy to premium , the DfT & FGW are likely to jack up the fares to get rid of the rest. This will lead to terminal usage decline which will in turn "justify" closure proposals. Conspiracy theory? Look around you and tell me that this process hasnt already begun. Bristol City Council must take their fair share of the blame for this. They justified their decision to withdraw the Severn Beach Line subsidy by claiming that FGW would take over responsibility for funding it. (link below.) http://www.rcas.org.uk/SevernBeach%20Rly%20&%20FirstGW.pdfIn the current climate , I would consider this an unwise move based on flawed assumptions. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
Moving back to the hardship question , there was a reason that Beeching didnt get things all his own way. Here is an example of a relatively successful (for the Beeching era) closure battle (link below.) http://home.clara.net/wealdenline/spages/hist_bkgrd.html"In December 1966, for reasons which are still not entirely clear, BR abruptly changed tack and proposed the closure of the lines from Lewes to Hurst Green and from Tunbridge Wells to Eridge. As might be expected, its plans met with vigorous opposition from local people, with the Transport Users' Consultative Committee (TUCC -- statutory counterpart of today's Rail Passengers' Committee and required to investigate hardship caused by rail closures under the 1962 Transport Act) registering nearly 3,000 written objections -- a figure described as exceptionally large. The TUCC held a statutory public hearing on BR's application to close the routes in April 1967 and submitted its report to the transport minister that June. Unsurprisingly, it recommended that all the lines should remain open because their closure would result in "very severe" hardship to a large number of rail users and "considerable" hardship to many more. It also warned that closure of the system would cause overcrowding on neighbouring lines, with the Hastings line being particularly hard hit -- prophetic words given what actually happened in the following years as the Uckfield line was run down and cut back. However, while Labour's transport minister Richard Marsh, took heed of the TUCC in respect of the Uckfield - Hurst Green and Eridge - Tunbridge Wells sections, he nevertheless gave his formal consent for the closure of the Lewes to Uckfield link in August 1968. In this decision, it seems likely that his department was influenced both by a county council eager to remove the railway and a BR which had obviously lost all interest in the local network." Here are some quotes from the seminal RMT critique of the new DfT Closure Guidance (link below.) http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/F3641215?thread=2441627"The new guidance scraps the current system where the regional Rail Passengers Committee produces a report on the hardship likely to be caused by the proposed cut. Under the rules to be scrapped final decision over closure rested with the democratically elected Secretary of State for Transport. For the future the new procedure will allow Network Rail, Train Operating Companies, or a rail funding authority (DfT, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, PTAs or the Mayor of London) to propose a closure. The decision to go ahead will be made by the unelected Office of Rail Regulation. The consultation process itself requires that notices are placed in both local and national newspapers and in the stations affected by the proposed closures. Organisations have 12 weeks after the second newspaper notice appears to respond. Trade Unions and local rail users groups are not in the list of bodies and organisations that have, by law, to be consulted with. Significantly there is no obligation that the consultation process holds public meetings or hearings to discuss the closure proposals. This is a serious omission. It is vital that local communities and trades unions are able to meet publicly and collectively in order to hold to account those who are proposing the removal of local rail services." One of the other reasons that the CANBER motto is "THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW" , is because , once closures start being proposed , they are likely to be very difficult to stop. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
Has anyone asked Passenger Focus what they make of the current performance levels? (And I noted that there's a misprint of the Passenger Focus number in a new timetable I picked up ... they're on 08453 022 022 and not 0845 022 022 - web site http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/) For those that dont know , Passenger Focus is a direct (and , some have suggested , neutered) descendent of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. It was set up by the DfT to replace the Rail Passengers' Committee. It is also funded by the DfT (see link below.) http://www.railpassengers.org.uk/about-us/our-role-and-history.aspHere is another quote from the RMT critique of the new DfT Closure Guidance : "Regrettably, the guidance once again raises the spectre of bustitution and makes clear that in addition to the money which could be saved by closure the potential value of the land which could be sold as a result of closure should be taken into account by the cost benefit analysis. Commenting on the procedures with specific regard to bustitution the highly respected Rail Business Intelligence journal recently said: "the fundamental problem is an underlying assumption that buses, which obviously incur negligible infrastructure costs, are in principle as good as the rail services they replace. The danger is that bustitution will inevitably emerge as the cheapest option for a substantial proportion of the network as the noose tightens" The DfT have posted a worked example of the new closure guidance on their website (link below.) http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_railways/documents/page/dft_railways_613611.pdfIn the example , they conclude that closing the LINE cannot be pursued because the retention of the current service yields a benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of 3.35. However , it is noted that option 3 would yield the highest BCR. Option 3 is a 90 minute interval , limited stop service with local stations closed. Quote : "It is for the funding authority to decide which option to adopt." It should also be noted that "Option 3" requires one less unit than the existing service under consideration in the closure guidance example. Taken from the same example : "Option 2" proposes the introduction of a bus service to replace the removed station stops. The provision of a bus service carries associated costs. These are detailed below : Bus purchase cost (for two single deck buses) = £197k in 2004/05 prices. Annual operating cost (including depreciation) of £145k in 2004/05 prices." If a similar option was considered for the Melksham line service , then it would be likely to yield the highest BCR. Why? Existing bus service 234 has already been re - routed via Chippenham Railway Station at peak & evening times , therefore the "introduction costs" would be vastly reduced. Here is a Wiltshire County Council Greater Western Franchise Consultation Response : "proposals to improve access to Melksham station are dependant upon provision of a suitable train service" What we have now is not a suitable train service. The land which could be sold as a result of closure , that would be taken into account by the cost benefit analysis , is the land mentioned in the link below. http://www.westwiltshire.gov.uk/keysite-melksham-railway-station.pdf"A significant part of the site is safeguarded for the future enhancement of rail services from the station. The District Council has wider objectives to improve rail services for Melksham. This includes the possible re-location of the Station to a site adjoining the former GEC site." "This is a well located site at an important gateway to the town. The comprehensive redevelopment of this site offers an opportunity to improve the local transport network, particularly the interchange from rail to public transport. Proposals seeking to redevelop the site would be required to improve accessibility to the rail network." 75% of the Melksham Railway Station "Key Site" is already up for sale by BRB (Residuary) (link below.) http://www.brb.gov.uk/property/property_listings?keyword=MelkshamQuote from David Redgewell of Transport 2000 regarding the closure of Etruria station : "Nowhere in Europe would the government close a railway station when they are building new houses right next to it." Anyway, in summary I remain a committed "don't know" on what / whether anything is going on behind the scenes. But I do feel that it's sensible for us to look at actions and lack of words as well as words, and to put out case based not only on what we're told officially but also on what we see around us. http://archive.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/2005/01/28/95103.htmlhttp://www.westwiltshire.gov.uk/print/keysite-melksham-former-gec-site.pdf |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 30, 2006, 04:07:47 PM by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
 |
