I gave "right of reply" to the authors of the Severn Beach Line Development Plan , Andrew Griffiths (
FGW▸ ) and Keith Burton (Severnside Community Rail Partnership) via a set of related questions. Keith has yet to reply , but I have heard back from Andrew who has responded as follows :
Q1 - All passenger facilities at Severn Beach station are to be moved to the roadside. The land next to the station has been released for housing development , which would leave just a completely bare platform in a small gap hemmed in by houses , thus effectively reducing the station to a glorified bus stop / pull - in / information point. Is this really the right way forward?
AG - The present situation of an old bus-type shelter situated 100m down a draughty and desolate platform does not, I suggest, do much for personal security, and the location will hardly feel 'hemmed in' even if high-rise flats are built! The logic is that of a small interchange.
(The next question led to somewhat of a misunderstanding. AG thought that I was questioning the logic of providing an all - day Saturday train service to Severn Beach & the cost of leaving the rail infrastructure idle , when in fact I was pointing out that HIS OWN PLAN QUESTIONS IT. Still , it made his answer rather interesting.....)
Q2 - The logic of providing an all - day Saturday train service to Severn Beach is questioned , as is the cost of leaving the rail infrastructure idle while the rail - replacement bus service runs. It is suggested that Avonmouth - Severn Beach bustitution could be extended to include Saturdays. There are also plans to extend the bus link to Pilning , which has recently had its train service cut from daily to weekly. Surely the LDP could be more positive regarding rail - based solutions for these locations?
AG - Not sure how your concern for upgrading Severn Beach fits in with removing the train on Saturdays - most users regard the weekdays bus connection as a pain. There is no additional cost in leaving the rail infrastructure idle, indeed it probably produces a minuscule maintenance benefit.
Q3 - Interestingly , it is also suggested that this could become a conventional bus link. A similar situation exists at Norton Bridge , Barlaston and Wedgwood stations on the Stafford - Stone line , which will continue to be served by bus services operating under contract to 2009. A review of bus and rail options to serve these stations will be undertaken with interested parties and the franchisee during 2007-8.Norton Bridge station has no means of access since the footbridge leading to it was removed in 2004 , and I note with interest that this is also the only means of access to St Andrews Road station. Would it not make more sense for the service to remain "rail - branded" , whilst looking forward to the time that an all - day train service returns?
AG - The 'virtual branchline' concept adopted in Cornwall (Eden, Bodmin, Padstow) is fine, so long as the bus does link with the train times and the bus operators and LA paymasters are happy to co-operate.
Q4 - Would a review of the simplified fare structure not be appropriate? While the concept of simplicity is to be welcomed , the fare increases that go hand in hand with this are not. On a similar note , the Severn Beach Line Ranger ^1 ticket is a good idea , but why so little publicity , and why is it not valid on Saturdays , the ONLY day that Severn Beach & St Andrews Road have an all-day train service?
AG - We will be reviewing the fare structure, but the notion that any increase is bad I find strange. The train is still much cheaper than the bus, and with a line single costing less than a cup of coffee, and a weekly season less than a tenner I fail to see how this is not incredibly good value. A couple of days ago I had to take a taxi for a trip of just over a mile - it cost over ^5. Plus as any marketeer will tell you, you can price too cheap. On the St Ives branch, 4 miles long, the flat fare return is ^4 - more than twice the cost per mile of Severn Beach. When introduced it represented a much steeper increase than on the Beach (where some fares have come down, of course) and the result was a 20% increase in journeys. The ^1 offer was a closely targeted campaign aimed at raising awareness among residents and students, and limited to SX to keep the message simple.
Q5 - The plan also focuses on the urgent need for a Clifton Down turnback signal to :
"In times of disruption terminate late running Avonmouth / Severn Beach services and restart the inward working from there, eliminating inconvenience to the large majority of passengers."
"Enable a more frequent service pattern on the Temple Meads to Clifton section, which is the most heavily used and has the potential for maximum growth in patronage."
By coincidence , there has been a big rise in the number of services turned round at Avonmouth instead of running to Severn Beach recently , which is likely to lead to a drop in passenger numbers.
AG - Really? If 95% of passengers get a more punctual service due to turning back at Avonmouth then surely you would expect numbers to go up. Our Performance Manager is taking a special interest in the line, and there has been (until yesterday signal cable theft) been a significant increase in punctuality and decrease in cancellations.
Q6 - There also appears to have been a reluctance on the part of guards recently to check & collect fares on the section between Severn Beach & Clifton Down , which means that several passenger journeys will not appear in the figures.
AG - Again, it is where trains are full that causes the most problem for revenue collection, and so if any section is under-reporting I'd expect it to be Clifton inwards.
Q7 - A cynic would suggest that the Line Development Plan is no more than the finished "project package" recommended by Jacobs as part of their scheme to truncate the line at Clifton Down (subject to signalling alterations , see pages 195 & 196 of the following link
http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/september06/swindonwestburytrainsservice/greaterwesternoutlinebusines1103) due to "low usage" on the western section. The LDP notes that usage has declined at stations west of Clifton Down in recent years but fails to mention that this unexplained drop occurred from 2004 , when the Jacobs /
SRA» study was written.
AG - There is no plan to truncate at Clifton - we are required to run the Beach for the duration of our franchise.
Q8 - Surely the LDP could address this by committing itself to developing the WHOLE of the line , rather than just the section between Bristol Temple Meads & Clifton Down , as the tone of both the LDP and the recently - published
DfT» South West Regional Planning Assessment For The Railway implies will be the case?
AG - It is about the whole of the line, but no amount of wishful thinking will change the reality of where the demand is.
Q9 - Finally , could you expand upon your reasoning for dropping the much - loved & almost universally - used "brand name" Severn Beach Line. I would argue for its retention , given that the line runs from Bristol Temple Meads - Severn Beach , and thus the current name is most appropriate.
AG - I would wager that a large proportion of passengers have never been to Severn Beach or have any real idea where it is (but at least it sounds exotic!). Calling a branchline by its terminus is only logical if that's where most of the traffic goes. The name 'City-Severn' as used in Avon days appeals as it describes better the nature of the route - but the idea is to put it to a democratic vote after other suggestions have been aired in the local paper.
I then resubmitted Q2 as follows :
The logic of providing an all - day Saturday train service to Severn Beach is questioned IN THE LDP , as is the cost of leaving the rail infrastructure idle while the rail - replacement bus service runs. It is suggested (IN THE LDP) that Avonmouth - Severn Beach bustitution could be extended to include Saturdays.There are also plans (IN THE LDP) to extend the bus link to Pilning , which has recently had its train service cut from daily to weekly. Surely the LDP could be more positive regarding rail - based solutions for these locations?
AG - Yes, the LDP was questioning why the SLC2 requirement is for 16 trains to Severn Beach on Saturday but only 8 (+7 bus) on weekdays. As for being more positive, the plan is about what can be delivered in three years - and the answer is a lot! Wider aspirations are fine - and certainly could be included if there is any sign of someone stepping up to the plate to fund them. For this reason only passing mention is made of the Henbury loop, or other schemes which in the first instance require political lobbying.
Click on the map to explore geographics
