IRJ: £1.2bn rail upgrade proposed for southwest Britain

[whole diary]

[Pb_devon]

It is totally impractical to have tram tracks as well as cyclists on the same formation, in fact very dangerous. Not only the traffic interface (as mentioned), but also cycle wheels getting into the rail groove.

[PhilWakely]

reinstatement of double track between Exeter, Yeovil and Salisbury (£382.3m)

A very welcome plan, but have they included the huge disruption caused by having to demolish and rebuild the M5 bridge to the east of Pinhoe?

Can they not just move a future track south of the existing track? Does not have to be a double track tunnel here.

Possible, but difficult. Not only would they need to tunnel under the M5, but would also need to bridge a lane - and probably annoy some new homeowners as the land immediately to the east of the current M5 tunnel and south of the railway has just been given planning permission for new housing (much to the annoyance of my Scout Group!). They would also need to cut down an ancient oak tree.

[onthecushions]

The idea of reversing Beeching is surely flawed and backward looking.

What is needed is identification of, and methods to provide for potential passenger and freight flows. As rail is for high volume traffic, this generally rules out small settlements (and difficult civil works).

Looking at parts of the WC^▸ (Wiltshire Council (Unitary Authority)), we have examples of populations:

Newquay c20k
St Austell c20k
Bodmin c15k
Wadebridge c11k
Padstow  c3k
Tavistock c11k
Oakhampton c6k
Launceston c9k
Illfracombe c11k
Bideford c17k
(Melksham c15k!)
etc etc etc.

I would be guided by the size of the settlements as to priority. As  NR^» (Network Rail - home page) virtually rebuilds from scratch, it would also be worth surveying optimum routes for modern purposes without always following existing trackbeds, as most lie in cheap open countryside.

OTC

edited as noted

[chuffed]

I would love to see what a forpot ential passenger looks like !

[Lee]

(Melksham c15k!)

Looking forward to grahame's trademark stat-based response to that one 

[grahame]

Looking forward to grahame's trademark stat-based response to that one 

The population of the CITY of London is 9,400.  The population of the TOWN or Melksham is c15k. Both are inner areas within an urban sprawl that renders the population count of the administrative area pretty darned silly when you're planning transport service.

... that sort of thing, Lee 

[onthecushions]

The population of the CITY of London is 9,400. 

...over 500k work there, though.

Both commuters and residents deserve a proportional and appropriate train service.

Viva Melksham!

OTC

[Robin Summerhill]

I was going to respond earlier but I thought I’d wait and see what Graham had to say first 

Comparing the population of Melksham and the City of London is rather a red herring, but it does start to illustrate my point. Whilst population figures for any given place are important, one also needs to take into account catchment areas and also, very importantly, where exactly potential passengers want to go.

Melksham, for example, has grown much in recent years and also has a comparatively small catchment area. Those who don’t quite live in Melksham may find it more convenient to get themselves to another station such as Trowbridge, Westbury, Chippenham or Bath where they would find a greater range of services. Although passenger use of Melksham has grown strongly in recent years, I hazard a guess that they would have grown even more strongly if their train services went straight to Bath.

On another thread just recently the hoary old chestnut of Yate to Thornbury came up yet again. Both of these towns are now effectively dormitory towns for Bristol. The amount of passenger demand between the two is quite minimal – if it wasn’t, that would be reflected in current bus provision, and indeed, congestion on the roads between the two. I admit that my travels between Yate and Thornbury are quite minimal these days (much more in the 1970s when I lived in Yate), but when I have gone I have seen no ten-minute-to-clear queues at the lights at Rudgeway or Iron Acton. In a nutshell, there is minimal local demand and anybody who thinks that passengers are going to travel in sufficient numbers via Yate to Bristol to access the greater network when they can go more easily to Parkway, is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land – not unlike those souls who think there is a profitable service just waiting to be operated from Radstock to Bath and Bristol via Frome and Westbury.

I cited these examples rather than those on “the list” because I know something about them. I don’t know, for example, where large numbers of potential passengers in Wadebridge and Padstow want to go. Do they want to go to Bodmin? Do they want to go to Plymouth? Because if they all want to go to Newquay, there’s precious little point in giving them a train to Bodmin because they won’t use it.

The other matter that Beeching was criticised for was basing closure proposals on ticket sales at stations and taking no account of incoming traffic. There were low receipts from the terminal stations along the Devon coast with branches from the LSW main line because not many people lived there who wanted to travel out. The number of visitors that wanted to travel in, however; was completely disproportionate. This is why, if there ever had been a City of London station in the Beeching era it would probably have been proposed for the chop.

All these factors need to be taken into account and not just population figures.

[grahame]

I was going to respond earlier but I thought I’d wait and see what Graham had to say first 

Comparing the population of Melksham and the City of London is rather a red herring, but it does start to illustrate my point. Whilst population figures for any given place are important, one also needs to take into account catchment areas and also, very importantly, where exactly potential passengers want to go.

[snip]

All these factors need to be taken into account and not just population figures.

I was about to write an even longer reply, but in practice it would be duplicating what Robin said for the most part.

Population / resident catchment wise - you need to take into account the urban sprawl within walking and cycling distance, not just the administration or ceremonial area. I recognise the "Melksham, 15k" data - seen it far too many times - it's one of two parishes that comprise the urban area (Melksham Town and Melksham Without).  Melksham Railway Station is in Melksham Town, but just 400 metres to Melksham Without at the closest point, and apart from 70m of flood plain. The following 400 yards (in Without) is fence to fence residences ... lots of [potential] customers who are not included in that 15k figure; the catchment figure used should be somewhat over 25k.

Destination wise - yes, agreed, Robin.  More people visit St Ives than live there, and looking at outbound  ticket sales is hardly realistic / only half of the story.  In my home town example, most of our sums are based on population as we don't have exceptional inbound traffic.

Where the train goes - again, agreed and (yes) with direct trains to Bath Spa the figures would be higher.  But I am not seriously suggesting extending the new 30 minute Bristol to Bath stoppers to Melksham via reversals or restored chords.  I agree the concerns at the very long way round of some train journeys putting passengers off - or trains to a junction at a town which is not a natural destination in itself; changes also put people off, but some indirection isn't a huge issue.

[TaplowGreen]

...............why not simply extend HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) to Padstow, via Melksham?

[JayMac]

Wot no mention of reopening Bath to Bournemouth? 😜

[Robin Summerhill]

Wot no mention of reopening Bath to Bournemouth? 😜

On the basis of the costings in the report you could probably do that from whip-arounds outside the Royal Wessex and the chip shop...

[Red Squirrel]

The idea of reversing Beeching is surely flawed and backward looking.

What is needed is identification of, and methods to provide for potential passenger and freight flows. As rail is for high volume traffic, this generally rules out small settlements (and difficult civil works).

Looking at parts of the WC^▸ (Wiltshire Council (Unitary Authority)), we have examples of populations:

Newquay c20k
St Austell c20k
Bodmin c15k
Wadebridge c11k
Padstow  c3k
Tavistock c11k
Oakhampton c6k
Launceston c9k
Illfracombe c11k
Bideford c17k
(Melksham c15k!)
etc etc etc.

I would be guided by the size of the settlements as to priority. As  NR^» (Network Rail - home page) virtually rebuilds from scratch, it would also be worth surveying optimum routes for modern purposes without always following existing trackbeds, as most lie in cheap open countryside.

OTC

edited as noted

As a phrase, 'reversing Beeching' is calculated to appeal to journalists and voters rather than rail campaigners and professionals. It belongs to the same canon as phrases like 'full steam ahead', 'making tracks' and so on that always crop up in newspaper articles about rail schemes.

We here all know that any new routes would have to be completely re-engineered, though it will often be the case that there are well-built bits of railway infrastructure along the way that can be used. The difficult bit is getting back into or through the centres of towns where there is no longer a rail corridor.

[onthecushions]

I'm sorry if my mentioning Melksham was seen as denigrating its case - the opposite was intended. Most settlements differ in population depending on whether District, Parish, Ward, Postcode or ONS^» (Office for National Statistics - website) built-up area boundaries are used. Barnstaple, for instance has figures of 24k, 32k or 47k, depending on definition.

For a train service to succeed there principally needs to be a substantial population base, then a need to travel (for business and pleasure) and an attractive, usable, service. I've seen figures for acceptable walk-to-station times of 12min, or 1km, which means a catchment of c12k. A car park helps but you need a big one to affect footfall appreciably. Many would need an auxillary mode such as kiss-and-ride, cycling or bus. A station can then become more of a major railhead than a local halt.

A station's effect on the local economy can be critical especially for a poor area like the WC^▸ (Wiltshire Council (Unitary Authority)). I saw in my younger days the wrecking of the northern economy by the destruction of the L&Y system, once the busiest, just when it was most needed with the decline of older industry. Only today are efforts being announced (again) partly to rectify this.

Strength to your arm.

OTC

[JayMac]

Wot no mention of reopening Bath to Bournemouth? 😜

On the basis of the costings in the report you could probably do that from whip-arounds outside the Royal Wessex and the chip shop...

Royal Wessex is long gone. It'll be a Co-op soon. There's a nice cafe opposite though - Jasmine & Bay. Well worth a visit if you're ever in Templecombe. Or the village Social Club of an evening. Where you may find me behind the bar.