I'm not normally someone who majors on criticising weekend engineering work disruption. I recognise that the vast majority of it serves some useful purpose, and thus needs to be done. It is also obviously better than leaving the rail network to rot.
Indeed, Network Rail have just completed a set of clearly-defined and well-publicised engineering works on consecutive weekends between Bristol-Taunton and Bristol-Severn Tunnel Junction.
However, I hope I will be forgiven for being somewhat annoyed that a series of seperate engineering works on different sections of my route to Bristol combined to derail my travel plans for today.
I was considering a suggestion from the chairman of Friends Of Suburban Bristol Railways to attend a celebration of one year of improved services on the Severn Beach Line. However, to get there from Portsmouth would have involved me negiotiating:
- Line closure/diversions between Portsmouth-Southampton.
- Rail-replacement buses between Salisbury-Warminster.
- Trains avoiding Temple Meads.
I cant help but also ask why they chose to schedule three seperate engineering works on the same route on the same day as a new timetable came into effect.
As I like to make a day of it when looking around the FGW area, mucking about with the above plus arriving later than planned/leaving earlier than planned didnt really appeal to me.
So I wished FOSBR good luck with today, and hope it went well.
On a more positive note, I continue to be impressed by with how FGW are conducting themselves on the ground. Yesterday, virtually every FGW staff member seemed to be in a cheerful mood, and had a smile on their face.
Also, and not for the first time, an FGW guard offered his help regarding information about onward connections, with absolutely no prompting from me.
Now, I might not particularly need that kind of help, but if I appreciated being asked, then I'm sure a less seasoned passenger would have regarded this personal touch as a godsend.
To top it off, yesterday continued the trend of FGW trains I travel on being relatively on time.
If only they could combine with the other key players to offer a proper TransWilts service, then I could see myself becoming quite a fan...
Sunday, 17 May 2009
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Strategic Freight Network And The TransWilts Line
I have warned for some time that future increases in freight traffic over the TransWilts line could end up restricting the number of paths available for passenger services. With this in mind, I was interested to compare yesterday's DfT release entitled "Strategic Freight Network: The Longer-Term Vision" with previous rail industry statements:
Quote from Network Rail Strategic Business Plan Update 2008:
"To meet the challenge of increased growth in freight from the Southampton ports to the Midlands, the north of England and Scotland, we shall be re-evaluating elements of the former SRA Southampton – West Coast freight upgrade – capacity study, which included W10 gauge provision and revised layout options for Reading West Junction, including grade separation, upgrading and linking existing freight loops and providing additional loops at or between Didcot and Oxford. We are also evaluating the potential for an alternative route via Salisbury and Melksham to accommodate forecast growth."
Quotes from Strategic Freight Network: The Longer-Term Vision:
"As an operating principle, NR should aim to achieve through running of freight trains, seeking timetabling and signalling solutions in preference to looping. This has the potential to deliver significant environmental, operating and economic efficiencies, particularly if delivered alongside existing plans to reduce the level of delays to freight trains."
"New SFN capacity, particularly on key intermodal routes, will be required to meet industry growth forecasts, if this additional traffic is not to be forced onto the congested road network.
Routes for consideration for early capacity enhancement are likely to
include:
- Southampton to WCML – possibly with upgrades to routes and/or examination of alternative routeing options to provide capacity for growth"
Quote from the Future Of Transport White Paper:
"Because of the high up-front investment costs for rail freight, businesses using these services need to be sure about their access to the network. But this has to be balanced with the fact that freight users only pay for the cost of operating their services and not for the costs of the underlying infrastructure. Freight operators will be given greater certainty about their rights on the national network, and a group of key routes will be identified on which freight will enjoy and pay for more assured rights of access."
Quotes from Strategic Freight Network: The Longer-Term Vision:
"The 2007 Rail White Paper defined the SFN as: "a core network of trunk freight routes, capable of accommodating more and longer freight trains, with a selective ability to handle wagons with higher axle loads and greater loading gauge, integrated with and complementing the UK’s existing mixed traffic network."
"An ideal freight network would accommodate optimum size freight train travelling at appropriate line speed, without checks, over optimum routeing to commercially preferred timings. In practical terms this suggests that the SFN should:
- optimise the pattern of freight trunk routeing to minimise passenger/freight conflicts. This may lead to fewer, higher capacity trunk routes/diversionary routes but also to the definition of 'new' trunk routes. This would provide potential gains in reliability, environmental performance and operating cost savings"
So why am I particularly concerned about the possible impact on the TransWilts line?
- The TransWilts line is shown in the SFN Freight and Passenger Network Interaction map as being "interaction with lower frequency services."
- The TransWilts line is shown in Network Rail's Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy Baseline Information as being a "peak only" route for passengers.
My big fear is that the rail industry is planning for a future that includes hardly any TransWilts passenger train services. Therefore, it is vital that we get a proper TransWilts passenger rail service established as soon as possible, before decisions are made that destroy the opportunity to do so.
Please help Save The Train to do that by signing their pledge at http://www.transwilts.org.uk/pledge.html
Quote from Network Rail Strategic Business Plan Update 2008:
"To meet the challenge of increased growth in freight from the Southampton ports to the Midlands, the north of England and Scotland, we shall be re-evaluating elements of the former SRA Southampton – West Coast freight upgrade – capacity study, which included W10 gauge provision and revised layout options for Reading West Junction, including grade separation, upgrading and linking existing freight loops and providing additional loops at or between Didcot and Oxford. We are also evaluating the potential for an alternative route via Salisbury and Melksham to accommodate forecast growth."
Quotes from Strategic Freight Network: The Longer-Term Vision:
"As an operating principle, NR should aim to achieve through running of freight trains, seeking timetabling and signalling solutions in preference to looping. This has the potential to deliver significant environmental, operating and economic efficiencies, particularly if delivered alongside existing plans to reduce the level of delays to freight trains."
"New SFN capacity, particularly on key intermodal routes, will be required to meet industry growth forecasts, if this additional traffic is not to be forced onto the congested road network.
Routes for consideration for early capacity enhancement are likely to
include:
- Southampton to WCML – possibly with upgrades to routes and/or examination of alternative routeing options to provide capacity for growth"
Quote from the Future Of Transport White Paper:
"Because of the high up-front investment costs for rail freight, businesses using these services need to be sure about their access to the network. But this has to be balanced with the fact that freight users only pay for the cost of operating their services and not for the costs of the underlying infrastructure. Freight operators will be given greater certainty about their rights on the national network, and a group of key routes will be identified on which freight will enjoy and pay for more assured rights of access."
Quotes from Strategic Freight Network: The Longer-Term Vision:
"The 2007 Rail White Paper defined the SFN as: "a core network of trunk freight routes, capable of accommodating more and longer freight trains, with a selective ability to handle wagons with higher axle loads and greater loading gauge, integrated with and complementing the UK’s existing mixed traffic network."
"An ideal freight network would accommodate optimum size freight train travelling at appropriate line speed, without checks, over optimum routeing to commercially preferred timings. In practical terms this suggests that the SFN should:
- optimise the pattern of freight trunk routeing to minimise passenger/freight conflicts. This may lead to fewer, higher capacity trunk routes/diversionary routes but also to the definition of 'new' trunk routes. This would provide potential gains in reliability, environmental performance and operating cost savings"
So why am I particularly concerned about the possible impact on the TransWilts line?
- The TransWilts line is shown in the SFN Freight and Passenger Network Interaction map as being "interaction with lower frequency services."
- The TransWilts line is shown in Network Rail's Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy Baseline Information as being a "peak only" route for passengers.
My big fear is that the rail industry is planning for a future that includes hardly any TransWilts passenger train services. Therefore, it is vital that we get a proper TransWilts passenger rail service established as soon as possible, before decisions are made that destroy the opportunity to do so.
Please help Save The Train to do that by signing their pledge at http://www.transwilts.org.uk/pledge.html
Monday, 11 May 2009
Rail Crisis? Who You Gonna Call, Dave?
As those who know me will tell you, I have been predicting that the day of reckoning will come soon, as the collapse of the franchise system sinks the rail budget. I have also predicted for quite a while that this could lead to a new "Beeching" scenario.
Here is a very relevant article (link below.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/10/first-group-rail-expansion-budget
Key points:
- East Coast/SWT franchises on the point of collapse.
- First may end FGW franchise in 2013, rather than taking up their option of extending it to 2016. This would save them £826.6m in franchise payments.
A quote from Imperial College transport professor Stephen Glaister neatly sums up the situation:
"The deal that the government had in divvying up the cost of the railway between the taxpayer and the farepayer will have to be revisited. Somebody will have to pay more than they thought, or the scale of the railways will have to be dramatically cut back,"
Here are some archive Glaister quotes, starting in January 2007 (link below) :
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/01/planes_trains_and_the_road_to.html
"One option put forward by some analysts is to reduce the amount of money spent on the relatively little-used rural services. The investment per passenger mile for these lines is huge, with many of the trains maintained to the same standard as 90mph mainline services.
Cutting rural lines would prompt accusations that the Government is repeating the act of Dr Beecham (their spelling mistake), who axed nearly one quarter of the system 40 years ago. But the Government should at least raise the issue by demonstrating to the taxpayer what some of these lines are costing them, according to Professor Stephen Glaister of Imperial College.Last year's Eddington committee, which examined the future of public transport, made the same observation."
And the following in August 2008 (link below) :
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2008/08/romantics_love_high_speed_trai.html
"Professor Stephen Glaister, a transport expert at Imperial College, said there was scant evidence of a market for high-speed rail. More than two-thirds of rail journeys originated and ended in London, which indicated that the capacity problem was on short-distance commutes and not long distance lines. In the 15 years it would take to build a high-speed route to Birmingham and beyond billions of pounds could be spent on improving the existing network.
"There is an argument for spending a lot more money on the existing low-speed railway service. There are not enough people making long journeys for high-speed rail to make sense."
Plus this from April 2009 (link below) :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/13/trains-railways-branch-line-closures
"Something has to give," says Stephen Glaister, a transport professor at Imperial College, London. "The sensible thing might be to reduce the level of service. That would save some costs. Or the taxpayer's contribution has to go up as clear as night follows day."
It is rumoured that the Conservative plan for dealing with the crisis is as follows:
- Give the TOCs far more freedom from the specification, thus allowing them to reduce services/service levels and improve their ability to afford the premium payments. Also, by putting service level policy in the hands of the TOCs, it means that a Conservative DfT could avoid blame for service/service level reductions.
- Cut out a large chunk of infrastructure expansion/improvement plans, blaming the financial situation they inherit from Labour.
I think a certain professor can expect a call from No10 soon after May 2010...
Here is a very relevant article (link below.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/10/first-group-rail-expansion-budget
Key points:
- East Coast/SWT franchises on the point of collapse.
- First may end FGW franchise in 2013, rather than taking up their option of extending it to 2016. This would save them £826.6m in franchise payments.
A quote from Imperial College transport professor Stephen Glaister neatly sums up the situation:
"The deal that the government had in divvying up the cost of the railway between the taxpayer and the farepayer will have to be revisited. Somebody will have to pay more than they thought, or the scale of the railways will have to be dramatically cut back,"
Here are some archive Glaister quotes, starting in January 2007 (link below) :
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2007/01/planes_trains_and_the_road_to.html
"One option put forward by some analysts is to reduce the amount of money spent on the relatively little-used rural services. The investment per passenger mile for these lines is huge, with many of the trains maintained to the same standard as 90mph mainline services.
Cutting rural lines would prompt accusations that the Government is repeating the act of Dr Beecham (their spelling mistake), who axed nearly one quarter of the system 40 years ago. But the Government should at least raise the issue by demonstrating to the taxpayer what some of these lines are costing them, according to Professor Stephen Glaister of Imperial College.Last year's Eddington committee, which examined the future of public transport, made the same observation."
And the following in August 2008 (link below) :
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2008/08/romantics_love_high_speed_trai.html
"Professor Stephen Glaister, a transport expert at Imperial College, said there was scant evidence of a market for high-speed rail. More than two-thirds of rail journeys originated and ended in London, which indicated that the capacity problem was on short-distance commutes and not long distance lines. In the 15 years it would take to build a high-speed route to Birmingham and beyond billions of pounds could be spent on improving the existing network.
"There is an argument for spending a lot more money on the existing low-speed railway service. There are not enough people making long journeys for high-speed rail to make sense."
Plus this from April 2009 (link below) :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/13/trains-railways-branch-line-closures
"Something has to give," says Stephen Glaister, a transport professor at Imperial College, London. "The sensible thing might be to reduce the level of service. That would save some costs. Or the taxpayer's contribution has to go up as clear as night follows day."
It is rumoured that the Conservative plan for dealing with the crisis is as follows:
- Give the TOCs far more freedom from the specification, thus allowing them to reduce services/service levels and improve their ability to afford the premium payments. Also, by putting service level policy in the hands of the TOCs, it means that a Conservative DfT could avoid blame for service/service level reductions.
- Cut out a large chunk of infrastructure expansion/improvement plans, blaming the financial situation they inherit from Labour.
I think a certain professor can expect a call from No10 soon after May 2010...
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
LTP3 Consultation Issues Paper - Could Wiltshire "Vote Radical" ?
The LTP3 Consultation Issues Paper has now been published by Wiltshire Council.
Those who care about rail issues will probably be struck by how little they are mentioned. Indeed, the "Public Transport" section of the Consultation Issues Paper doesnt even mention rail once.
Cynics among you may also wonder whether some of the consultation questions have been framed to invite respondents to take a certain view. Examples of where cynics may find this to be the case:
Quotes from - WC LTP3 Consultation Issues Paper:
Question 6
Which of the approaches do you support and why? If you support the ‘Radical Approach’, how does the Council pay for some of the suggested measures (e.g. significant public transport enhancements) without damaging the local economy (e.g. by having to impose high parking charges)? Have we omitted anything significant from the three approaches?
Question 12
Given the difficulty in progressing rail freight policies and the fact that most freight movements in Wiltshire are by road, should the freight strategy be reoriented to focus more on road freight or should the rail policies be more aggressively pursued?
Question 15
Given Wiltshire’s predominantly rural nature and the need to support local businesses, do you think it is appropriate to increase demand management (e.g. parking standards and charges) and traffic management measures (e.g. onstreet parking) in Chippenham, Salisbury, Trowbridge and other large market towns to help encourage the use of sustainable transport modes?
Question 16
Should commuters and/or shoppers be particularly encouraged to use sustainable transport modes by the introduction of higher parking charges?
Question 17
With a limited budget to support public transport services, how can the Council best respond to continuing above-inflation cost increases? For instance, should funding for public transport be prioritised over other Council services (with possible adverse impacts on delivery)? Should parking charges be increased to provide financial support for public transport (with possible adverse impacts on retail centres)? Or should we accept that public transport services will have to be reduced further? If you think it should be the latter, where should these reductions be made?
The LTP3 Consultation Issues Paper comes with an associated questionnaire......
....and (before you ask) that doesnt mention rail either.
It does, however, pose an intriguing question for respondents, who are asked to choose between 3 different approaches:
THE ESTABLISHED APPROACH - Roughly translated as "Roads are great, we love roads, nobody uses public transport anyway."
THE BALANCED APPROACH - Roughly translated as "Lets see how little we can get away with on the public transport front, and pass it off as balanced."
THE RADICAL APPROACH - Roughly translated as "Good grief, we cant invest a significant amount in public transport enhancements. Vital services will collapse, our local economy will grind to a halt, and I wont be able to park my 4x4 outside the hairdressers."
Of course, several forward-thinking authorities are waking up to the fact that, far from being a ‘Radical Approach’, investing a significant amount in public transport enhancements is actually rather a good idea in economic, environmental and social terms.
In these areas, investing a significant amount in public transport enhancements has not caused vital services to collapse, has not brought the local economy to its knees, and, believe it or not, some people still park their 4x4s outside the hairdressers.
A large majority of the 276 signatories so far to the pledge for an improved TransWilts rail service come from Wiltshire. I suspect that an equally large majority of those would not consider themselves to be "radical", nor would they consider the act of signing up to be a ‘Radical Approach.’
I do, however, think that it could indicate a possible surprise for those processing the consultation results after it closes on 29th May 2009.
Will Wiltshire really "vote radical" ? We'll just have to wait and see.
Finally, a note for those who have made it this far, and are somewhat perplexed by the lack of my trademark links.
As Graham Ellis put it on the Save The Train forum:
"The LTP3 consultation link is now broken ... I have emailed Wiltshire Council to ask them to restore it as a matter of some priority, as there are links out there to it, and as it's during the consultation period the papers need to be available for people to consult."
Those who care about rail issues will probably be struck by how little they are mentioned. Indeed, the "Public Transport" section of the Consultation Issues Paper doesnt even mention rail once.
Cynics among you may also wonder whether some of the consultation questions have been framed to invite respondents to take a certain view. Examples of where cynics may find this to be the case:
Quotes from - WC LTP3 Consultation Issues Paper:
Question 6
Which of the approaches do you support and why? If you support the ‘Radical Approach’, how does the Council pay for some of the suggested measures (e.g. significant public transport enhancements) without damaging the local economy (e.g. by having to impose high parking charges)? Have we omitted anything significant from the three approaches?
Question 12
Given the difficulty in progressing rail freight policies and the fact that most freight movements in Wiltshire are by road, should the freight strategy be reoriented to focus more on road freight or should the rail policies be more aggressively pursued?
Question 15
Given Wiltshire’s predominantly rural nature and the need to support local businesses, do you think it is appropriate to increase demand management (e.g. parking standards and charges) and traffic management measures (e.g. onstreet parking) in Chippenham, Salisbury, Trowbridge and other large market towns to help encourage the use of sustainable transport modes?
Question 16
Should commuters and/or shoppers be particularly encouraged to use sustainable transport modes by the introduction of higher parking charges?
Question 17
With a limited budget to support public transport services, how can the Council best respond to continuing above-inflation cost increases? For instance, should funding for public transport be prioritised over other Council services (with possible adverse impacts on delivery)? Should parking charges be increased to provide financial support for public transport (with possible adverse impacts on retail centres)? Or should we accept that public transport services will have to be reduced further? If you think it should be the latter, where should these reductions be made?
The LTP3 Consultation Issues Paper comes with an associated questionnaire......
....and (before you ask) that doesnt mention rail either.
It does, however, pose an intriguing question for respondents, who are asked to choose between 3 different approaches:
THE ESTABLISHED APPROACH - Roughly translated as "Roads are great, we love roads, nobody uses public transport anyway."
THE BALANCED APPROACH - Roughly translated as "Lets see how little we can get away with on the public transport front, and pass it off as balanced."
THE RADICAL APPROACH - Roughly translated as "Good grief, we cant invest a significant amount in public transport enhancements. Vital services will collapse, our local economy will grind to a halt, and I wont be able to park my 4x4 outside the hairdressers."
Of course, several forward-thinking authorities are waking up to the fact that, far from being a ‘Radical Approach’, investing a significant amount in public transport enhancements is actually rather a good idea in economic, environmental and social terms.
In these areas, investing a significant amount in public transport enhancements has not caused vital services to collapse, has not brought the local economy to its knees, and, believe it or not, some people still park their 4x4s outside the hairdressers.
A large majority of the 276 signatories so far to the pledge for an improved TransWilts rail service come from Wiltshire. I suspect that an equally large majority of those would not consider themselves to be "radical", nor would they consider the act of signing up to be a ‘Radical Approach.’
I do, however, think that it could indicate a possible surprise for those processing the consultation results after it closes on 29th May 2009.
Will Wiltshire really "vote radical" ? We'll just have to wait and see.
Finally, a note for those who have made it this far, and are somewhat perplexed by the lack of my trademark links.
As Graham Ellis put it on the Save The Train forum:
"The LTP3 consultation link is now broken ... I have emailed Wiltshire Council to ask them to restore it as a matter of some priority, as there are links out there to it, and as it's during the consultation period the papers need to be available for people to consult."
A Day Out On FGW (01/04/2009)
Just had my first good look around on First Great Western in the Greater Bristol area for quite some time.
Pleasantly surprised by:
- Full car park at the continuing success story that is Cam & Dursley station.
- Stapleton Road, including new help points with built-in train running information screens, new floral displays, good market garden progress, new "cycle park" racks, new seating and a decent lick of paint all round.
- Mosiac at Parson Street is very effective.
- Like the look of refurbished Class 143 unit.
Not impressed by:
- Cancellation of 1706 from Bedminster, which left me having to double back to Nailsea in order to travel to Bristol Temple Meads and catch connection to Chippenham. There were significant signalling problems in the area, though.
Intrigued by:
- A Class 143 unit heading south of Salisbury at around 1034. Why & where was it heading?
Day ended with a very good Melksham Climate Friendly Group meeting. By the way, if you havent yet come across the pledge campaign for an improved TransWilts Salisbury-Swindon service, please consider visiting http://www.transwilts.org.uk/pledge.html and signing up.
Pleasantly surprised by:
- Full car park at the continuing success story that is Cam & Dursley station.
- Stapleton Road, including new help points with built-in train running information screens, new floral displays, good market garden progress, new "cycle park" racks, new seating and a decent lick of paint all round.
- Mosiac at Parson Street is very effective.
- Like the look of refurbished Class 143 unit.
Not impressed by:
- Cancellation of 1706 from Bedminster, which left me having to double back to Nailsea in order to travel to Bristol Temple Meads and catch connection to Chippenham. There were significant signalling problems in the area, though.
Intrigued by:
- A Class 143 unit heading south of Salisbury at around 1034. Why & where was it heading?
Day ended with a very good Melksham Climate Friendly Group meeting. By the way, if you havent yet come across the pledge campaign for an improved TransWilts Salisbury-Swindon service, please consider visiting http://www.transwilts.org.uk/pledge.html and signing up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)