GW Main Line RUS

[whole diary]

[eightf48544]

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) service from Bristol TM^‡(resolve) 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.

Can someone explain the issues with Filton Bank to me? I don't get it. You've got a major junction with lots of services serving Bristol from both South Wales and The Midlands, these two lines combine into a single pair at Filton. There is trackbed all the way to Bristol not currently doing anything apart from providing a home to rabbits. How can laying the track and separating out these services not be a cost effective thing to do? It's not even that far! It's got to be less mileage than the Cotswold line redoubling but the current traffic density is an order of magnitude higher than that example.

Confused...

It seems to be the exhorbitant cost of adding signalling to existing layouts that causes the most problems with schemes like this which rules them out until they can be incorporated in the complete resignalling of the area.

Another cost could be the amount of ground work need on the disused trackbed to bring it up to a suitable standard after the rabbits have finished digging.

Track laying itself  is relatively cheap.

[moonrakerz]

Possible example but only posible if Westbury has 4 platforms?

"We've got 4 platforms, let's close one and save money"
"That platform we've closed: let's re-lay the track a bit further away from it"
"That platform we've closed: let's build a new fence"
"That platform we've closed: let's re-number the ones that are left"

"That platform we've closed: let's re-open it" !!!!


Meanwhile - at Salisbury

"We've got 6 platforms, let's close one and save money"

I won't go on............... at least they didn't re-number the survivors !

Joined up thinking ? I think not   

[grahame]

Joined up thinking ? I think not   

Elements of it may be more joined up than you think.   The cost of keeping extra infrastructure in use / maintained for the last 30 - 40 years would probably have been higher than the cost of retaining it, and could have meant further significant losses in the past.  Some of the cuts (Bradford North Curve) should never have happened others are more understandable and justifiable.

I'll add Taunton, Temple Meads and Chippehham to your list, if I may 

[moonrakerz]

Elements of it may be more joined up than you think.   The cost of keeping extra infrastructure in use / maintained for the last 30 - 40 years would probably have been higher than the cost of retaining it, and could have meant further significant losses in the past.  Some of the cuts (Bradford North Curve) should never have happened others are more understandable and justifiable.

Salisbury is somewhat different, I was just being a bit facetious there, a quick brush up and turn the lights back on and they're in business. Westbury has long bemused (amused ?) me with what they have done there, as I said - was it really necessary to re-number the platforms ??  They seem to have gone out of their way to make it as difficult as possible to re-open it for those pesky "customers".
Of course, at Westbury the "Delay Attribution Office" may not have had a home in the mean time 

[Tim]

Joined up thinking ? I think not   

Elements of it may be more joined up than you think.   The cost of keeping extra infrastructure in use / maintained for the last 30 - 40 years would probably have been higher than the cost of retaining it, and could have meant further significant losses in the past.  Some of the cuts (Bradford North Curve) should never have happened others are more understandable and justifiable.

I'll add Taunton, Temple Meads and Chippehham to your list, if I may 

Under BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) there were political considerations too.  If you remove spare capacity (even if its retention would have been very cheap) you demonstrate to the politcos that you are running a lean network.  If the amount of capital tied up in infrastructure fell each year the government were pleased.

In a similar vein, BR made many of its stations "open" (removing the barriers).  Even if the increase in ticketless travel made no economic sense (ie the barriers and their staff more than paid for themselves), the open stations made political sense becasue BR could point to year on year reductions in headcount as evidence of agressive cost cutting.

Now under NR^» (Network Rail - home page), the huge debt of NR is secured (essentially mortgaged) against the value of the infrastructure assets, so the incentive to reduce the value of the infratructure needed to run the railway is reversed. 

[Btline]

Shame these could not be mothballed. You save the money of destruction gangs...

[paul7575]

Salisbury is somewhat different, I was just being a bit facetious there, a quick brush up and turn the lights back on and they're in business.

Indeed Salisbury Platform 1 is already down to be reopened, it should happen this year according to NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s current 'Wessex route plan'. So a quick brush up is about all they've time for now...

I did hear the idea was that it would only be used for trains coming into service off the depot in the morning, so the lack of facilities for waiting pax wouldn't be too much of a problem.

Paul

[Electric train]

Joined up thinking ? I think not   

Elements of it may be more joined up than you think.   The cost of keeping extra infrastructure in use / maintained for the last 30 - 40 years would probably have been higher than the cost of retaining it, and could have meant further significant losses in the past.  Some of the cuts (Bradford North Curve) should never have happened others are more understandable and justifiable.

I'll add Taunton, Temple Meads and Chippehham to your list, if I may 

BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) was directed by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) at the time to reduce maintenance costs by reduce over capacity as a way of showing efficiencies it is easy today with increasing passenger numbers and fright tonnage to question now why did they do that, in the 70's and 80's BR did not have the funding to maintain all of its system, its also the reason why so many bits that would be oh so useful today were sold off

[bemmy]

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^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) service from Bristol TM^‡(resolve) 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.

Can someone explain the issues with Filton Bank to me? I don't get it. You've got a major junction with lots of services serving Bristol from both South Wales and The Midlands, these two lines combine into a single pair at Filton. There is trackbed all the way to Bristol not currently doing anything apart from providing a home to rabbits. How can laying the track and separating out these services not be a cost effective thing to do? It's not even that far! It's got to be less mileage than the Cotswold line redoubling but the current traffic density is an order of magnitude higher than that example.

Confused...

It seems to be the exhorbitant cost of adding signalling to existing layouts that causes the most problems with schemes like this which rules them out until they can be incorporated in the complete resignalling of the area.

Another cost could be the amount of ground work need on the disused trackbed to bring it up to a suitable standard after the rabbits have finished digging.

Track laying itself  is relatively cheap.

It would be a fairly large project: the junction at Filton Abbey Wood would need to be remodelled and a new platform built for Wales-bound trains, the existing tracks between Filton and Stapleton Road cross from one side to the other so all 4 would need re-laying, no doubt work would be needed on the cuttings through Horfield and the bridges and embankments over Narroways Rd and Muller road, Stapleton Road station would need a new footbridge, and on top of that I think it would require a brand new double track bridge over Stapleton Road and the M32, as the abandoned one looks beyond repair.