I'm going to use John R's post as a basis for my reaction to the
RUS▸ proposals for the Bristol area, as it saves me having to organise my thoughts! Overall I'm happy to see that Network Rail have considered so many schemes thoroughly, even if I don't always agree with their conclusions, it gives a lot of material for the politicians and pressure groups to work on.
I think we all need to bear in mind that the RUS is about what
NR» can achieve given the current situation, that is to say they can't put anything in the plans that has no chance of happening without new funding being made available from somewhere. Therefore they can only propose a development off their own bat if they can make a solid business case that it will bring financial gains over a 60 year period. This does not mean that they are against any proposals which they are not currently supporting, just that they are not in a position to make them happen themselves.
I'll confine my thoughts to infrastructure proposals.
The 4th platform at Bristol Parkway is dismissed as too expensive and is very unlikely to happen. For a scheme which I thought had committed funding such an about face is remarkable.
The Weston - Worle enhancements, which were recently put back to 2011 are now also dismissed. The reason for the delay to 20111 was that performance improvements meant the single line was no longer the problem it was. Now, the proposed service enhancement to Weston is ruled out because the dualling is too expensive. Meanwhile, the line runs at 100% capacity for both peak periods.
I'm wondering if they're making a point here about the hypothetical "Greater Bristol Metro". Which is to say, it can't possibly be justified on commercial grounds, therefore if the various local and national government bodies and quangos want it to happen, don't look to Network Rail for a contribution. (Although the 4th platform at Parkway has clear benefits for freight and
HST▸ services too.)
In this respect we could also add to your list the Yate turnback which they say should be funded by a housing development.... pity no-one thought of that a couple of years ago when the housing market was still strong.
However, in from left field comes 4 tracking Bedminster to Parson St. This is one of my favourite schemes as I've passed the disused track most days for the last 6 years, and I've often wondered why it hasn't been proposed before to reinstate the line. This scheme is recommended, due to the reduction in delay minutes it will bring.
I'm surprised to see this too, not really sure if it's needed unless Portishead happens, as the current layout enables fast trains to pass slow trains around Bedminster in both directions. If it does ever happen, I like their idea of separating the tracks into a pair of relief lines on the north side and a pair of fast lines on the south side.
Another scheme appearing from nowhere is 125mph Bristol to Bridgwater, saving 3 minutes on journey times which XC▸ will use to pad their recovery allowances even further.
Which rather destroys their business case built on the value per minute saved...
Filton Bank appears to be causing some problems, as the schemes they've looked at are too expensive, but they recognise that something needs to be done. With an additional IEP▸ service from Bristol TM‡ to London via Parkway proposed and anticipated increases in freight traffic it certainly does.
They're clearly looking for government support for this one, which they won't get -- too big a scheme for the westcountry.
Finally the report continues the recent theme that Swindon - Kemble will be done, and later even talks about grade separating Standish junction (or dualling it - strange, I thought it was a double junction). I would have thought Westerleigh grade separation was more urgent than Standish.
Yes I find it amazing that although somewhere in the document they mention the stress on Westerleigh - Parkway, and talk of increasing freight and passenger services in the area, yet they have no proposals to alleviate it (apart from the now abandoned Parkway 4th platform). Ideally the stretch should be 4 track but obviously there's no chance if Filton Bank is too expensive with the track bed already there.
Other than John R's points above, I like the proposed hourly service from Clifton Down to Bath, although
FOSBR▸ will be up in arms about the idea of the service beyond Clifton reverting to hourly. Personally though I think half hourly to Clifton and hourly beyond would be better than the current sort-of-40-minutely service, especially considering that the vast majority of passengers travel inward from Clifton. I've read that Bath is the most popular destination for Severn Beach line passengers beyond Temple Meads, and I think Keynsham and Oldfield Park really need a half hourly service.
The proposed map of the Bristol area is bizarre, it seems to show some services terminating at Bedminster, which seems a bit random.
Click on the map to explore geographics
