Some thoughts on near and far future possibilities

[whole diary]

[mfpa]

Why can't all the local councils in the area covered by the franchise submit a combined bid, and effectively take the region's train services back into public ownership?

[The SprinterMeister]

Why can't all the local councils in the area covered by the franchise submit a combined bid, and effectively take the region's train services back into public ownership?

The councils would never agree on where services should be enhanced and limited resources allocated. In other words a bad idea.

[TonyK]

I would like to see the winner of the new franchise pay half of the cost of reopening the Portishead railway line considering they will be running the service when it does reopen.

Seems we have a choice. If the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) pays half, they will get it back by charging a premium on the ticket sold to the passenger (us). If central government pays it all, they will get the money from the taxpayer (us). If the local council, or group of local councils pay, they will get the money from the council tax payer (guess who!). National government paying spreads the cost over a greater number of people. But we are all already paying for Crossrail and a lot of other projects. Ticket prices rising to pay for it means only passengers pay, but may deter others if the cost is to high. Local government paying means those who do not travel by rail, but enjoy the resulting reduction in traffic and boost to the local economy, also pay.

My preferred solution? I don't care where the bl**dy money comes from, just get on with it for crying out loud! If a government minister lived in Portishead, it would have been done years ago.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thanks for your impassioned first post, Four Track Now! - and welcome to the Coffee Shop forum.

To be fair, we did have a Government minister living very near Portishead - and he does do a sterling job in promoting the line.

[TonyK]

For the welcome, many thanks. I had forgotten about that minister, and you're right, he did put the argument well, albeit without success. Or was it without success? He may have done more of the groundwork than meets the eye. Also, could North Somerset DC^▸ (Direct Current)'s failed application for funds to reopen Portishead have been a tactical move to remove the excuse for yet another rejection this time? I don't know enough about the way this works.

What seems remarkable to me is the strength of support for extra rail around Bristol that is building across party lines, both in local government and amongst the region's MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament). Hopefully, that pressure will lead to action, and not before time. I am aware, though, that everywhere has its own list of urgent projects. I remain optimistic.

[Zoe]

Why can't all the local councils in the area covered by the franchise submit a combined bid, and effectively take the region's train services back into public ownership?

It's explicitly prohibited by the Railways Act 1993.

[eightf48544]

Acts of PArliament are meant to be repealed.

[Zoe]

Acts of PArliament are meant to be repealed.

That's not the purpose of Acts of Parliament at all as if it was then there would be no legislation at all.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From The Hindu:

End of the line for Raj railway laws

U.K. to throw out laws relating to the establishment of railways in India.

A rich source material on the origins of Indian railways will be lost to historians for ever as the British government is set to scrap a large chunk of the colonial legislation relating to the construction and maintenance of the vast railways network across the subcontinent.

The move is part of a massive ^spring cleaning^ to get rid of more than 800 ^obsolete^ laws cluttering up the statute book. Some go back to the 14th century.

In a report, the U.K. Law Commission on Wednesday said it had identified as many as 38 Acts dating back to 1849 and 1942 and concerning the various railway companies that operated in colonial India and ^in the wider East Indies^.

^The Acts span nearly a century of railway enterprise, but all are now obsolete. They centred on the individual railway companies which originated in England, and on the projects they were created to deliver within the Indian sub-continent,^ it said.

Obsolete or not, they provide a rare glimpse into the origins of the Indian railway system, arguably one of the few beneficial legacies of the Raj. The first regular train service between what was then Bombay and Thane was established by the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company in 1854 under an Act passed in 1849 Act. It incorporated the company and gave it power to enter into contracts with the East India Company.

This Act is now on the chopping block as is a 1942 legislation enabling liquidation of the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway Company after its operation had been sold to the government. Other provisions proposed to be repealed include the Assam Railways and Trading Company's Act, 1897; Oude Railway Act, 1858; Scinde Railway Act, 1857; and the Great Southern of India Railway Act, 1858.

The Commission said: ^Today they have no practical use.^

A bill ^ the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill ^ expected to be introduced in Parliament this summer, is the largest the Law Commissions have ever produced. Sir James Munby, chairman of the Law Commission for England and Wales, said the idea was to get rid of ^statutory dead wood^ and help ^simplify and modernise our law, making it more intelligible^.

^We are committed to ridding the statute book of meaningless provisions from days gone by and making sure our laws are relevant to the modern world,^ he said.

John Saunders, head of the Law Commission's statute law repeals team, said that while Parliament was ^brilliant at making the laws, it is not quite so good at getting rid of them^.

^It's a sort of spring cleaning task we do every four years,^ he said.

[eightf48544]

Acts of PArliament are meant to be repealed.

That's not the purpose of Acts of Parliament at all as if it was then there would be no legislation at all.

Sorry my usual tounge in cheek what I meant to say was Acts of Parliament can always be changed by parliament they are not writen in stone.

[TonyK]

Taking an axe to the Acts? Why not? Repealed acts of Parliament are still there for researchers, and there's no chance of us ever running out of laws.
I'm not even an armchair anarchist, but some of these regulations do seem to slow down projects and add expense. Locally, reopening the Portishead line is a case in point. There must have been a Transport and Works Act when it was first built. The TWA obtained to reopen the line to Portbury Dock did not include powers to operate a railway. The GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) 3 report into reopening wasn't sure exactly what may still be needed, even though the route is intact, and a lot of rail is still in situ, albeit not fit for purpose.
So we need men with shovels, men with theodolites, and men in wigs to reopen a railway.* I suppose the original intention of the legal framework was to stop any old Tom, Dick or Isambard building railways wherever they wanted, but that's not a problem today. Maybe a reform of the Railways Act to take out a layer of unnecessary hindrance to new projects would be a good idea, but somehow I doubt it. Better the devil you know.

(*If this looks a bit sexist, don't worry. Section 6(a) of the Interpretation Act 1978 is on my side)

[JayMac]

Maybe a reform of the Railways Act to take out a layer of unnecessary hindrance

But, that reform would need to be drawn up by civil servants and lawyers. Just the sort of people who currently benefit from all the bureaucracy. Keeps the Sir Humphreys in employment and the legal eagles in fees. Reform to remove bureaucracy would be like turkeys voting for Christmas....

[ellendune]

Maybe a reform of the Railways Act to take out a layer of unnecessary hindrance

But, that reform would need to be drawn up by civil servants and lawyers. Just the sort of people who currently benefit from all the bureaucracy. Keeps the Sir Humphreys in employment and the legal eagles in fees. Reform to remove bureaucracy would be like turkeys voting for Christmas....

Before 1992 every new railway and every change to a railway (except a light railway) needed an Act or Paliament to approve it.  Almost every year British Rail had to sponsor an Act of Parliament to make alterations to the network. The Transport an Works Act 1992 did just what you say.  It allows this to be done bt a Transport and Works Act Order issued by the Minister instead. 

This procedure is being used for Chiltern's proposed Oxford Link, the Reading Station Works, the Hitchin flyover etc.

It wasn't being used for HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) and isn't being used for HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) as it was felt the necessary public enquiry would take far too long. So an Act of Parliament was/is used.

[TonyK]

It's a bit of a process even so. Orders made by ministers will still need careful drafting, with all manner of studies into the usual environmental and equality stuff. When made, they are subject to judicial review. Incredible though it may seem, I bet someone will object to the reopening of the Portishead line, although only time will tell how far they will take it. It is unlikely to have a rough passage once started, though, something that probably won't be true of Bristol's BRT^▸ (Bus Rapid Transit) plans.
To have truly comprehensive public transport needs a totalitarian regime, usually communist, happy to ride roughshod over anyone who objects.

[rogerpatenall]

It may be interesting see a Adelante service from Barnstaple to Paddington via Honiton and Yeovil

Guy

I'm a late arrival to this post. However, after Beeching I always wondered why they did not run the Padd-West of Englands fast from  Reading to Taunton, with a semi fast down the Berks & Hants thence Yeovil PM, Yeovil Junction and Exeter. Alternatively, run  all WofE fasts via BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) and close Cary to Cogload. Then either electrify  Waterloo to Yeovil Jnc or, more likely, electrify to Salisbury and close Wilton to Yeovil. Anyway, that is history, and things have moved on. However, elements of the plan, such as B&H^▸ (Berks and Hants - railway line from Reading to Taunton via Westbury) semi fasts to Castle Cary, Yeovil and Exeter still have attraction.