Campaign for Better Transport - The Case for Expanding the Rail Network

[DerekC]

Just flagging up this new report issued today. It identifies 33 (selected from 224) high priority reopening/freight route conversion schemes for government action. I can't see DfT doing anything about it (especially as RMT is a sponsor) but it's interesting none the less.

https://bettertransport.org.uk/site...rch-files/case-for-expanding-rail-network.pdf

A programme of rail expansion would represent
a major investment in the country’s transport
infrastructure. The nature of major civil engineering
projects means that any estimate comes with a
significant margin of variation.

To ensure rail’s potential is more fully achieved,
a new approach to rail network expansion is
needed. As part of this, a national programme of
reopenings should be adopted by both UK and the
devolved administrations. Its formation should
create a more proactive and diverse environment
to encourage investment in new rail infrastructure,
working alongside existing industry and market-led
approaches.

The national programme of reopenings should include
identification of appropriate schemes, their detailed
development and appropriate means of funding
delivery including new public sector investment...

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

There is around 90 proposals under Priority 2 which are those schemes which are feasible but would require further development or subject to new housing developments to make them viable.

It is interesting read and I think it is important for the Government to consider reopening the 33 lines and some of the other lines under Prioroty 2 particularly those with new housing developments.

 

[WatcherZero]

It looks like a national wish list compiled by local campaigners, not a lot of realism and an average of only 2 stations per reopened rail line suggests it would be highly inefficient to operate with lots of stub branches.

Its not even consistent, it says in the list "extend Ormskirk line to Skelmersdale" then in the detail for that entry it refers to the existing Lancashire CC/Merseyrail Kirkby-Skelmersdale extension proposal.

 

[camflyer]

Just had a quick skim though and some of the cost estimates look ludicrously low.

 

[swt_passenger]

Quite a few dead horses being flogged, such as the Fawley branch. If the county council doesn't actually want it this sort of report is unlikely to change anything.

 

[Bald Rick]

Oh dear.

You would think they would have had someone check their homework before submitting it to teacher.

The ‘benchmarked’ costs are, frankly, hopeful. They do not take into account the very wide variation in scope of the 7 projects benchmarked, nor the immaturity of the estimates of the three of them that aren’t built.

It also, for some reason, suggests that Oxford to Bicester is 29 miles, rather than the 12-14 it actually is (depending on whether you start at Oxford Station or North Junction), meaning their per mile rate for that job is at best half what it should be. Being charitable that is a basic error, at worst it could be a deliberate error to get the price to fit a range and hope no one notices.

Also, why did they not use the cost for Airdrie-Bathgate? Is that because at £20m/mile a decade ago it doesn’t fit the range they wanted?

Did no one think that with the East West Rail central section costed at “£1bn” for “27” miles (I’m glad CBT know the route!), ie £40m/mile, that it’s a bit odd to be using a range that represents 25%-40% of this number for all ‘not calculated’ proposals? That’s assuming they haven’t conflated the cost for reopening Bicester to Bletchley and upgrading Bletchley to Bedford (around £1bn) with the cost of Bedford to Cambridge. The latest consultation for Bedford-Cambridge has a cost range of £1.7bn-£2.8bn, which is £60m-£100m/ mile...

All told, I’m afraid this causes it to have a severe lack of credibility, which is a crying shame as a report like this could have been quite influential had it been properly researched and presented. I would have thought the CBT would have done much better.


Ps - phase two schemes - reopening the Weymouth tramway???

 

[yorksrob]

All told, I’m afraid this causes it to have a severe lack of credibility, which is a crying shame as a report like this could have been quite influential had it been properly researched and presented. I would have thought the CBT would have done much better.

Would it ?

Considering we can't even manage Tavistock or Portishead, I doubt even the best report in the world would be influential.

Fair play tho them for continuing to campaign, even though this country isn't fertile soil for such schemes.

 

[The Planner]

Not read it in detail but does it even factor in if new services would require more rolling stock, thus more depots etc? Some of the priority 2 list just smack of not even being looked at to see if they are even feasible. Great Central as per normal, Windsor Link, Banbury Verney Jn, Weymouth Quay, Rugby Peterborough, Hampton in Arden Whitacre (HS2 put paid to that, along with Berkswell Kenilworth), Wellington Stoke, Tidenham Hereford, you could go on....

 

[Bald Rick]

Not read it in detail but does it even factor in if new services would require more rolling stock, thus more depots etc?

Of course not, nor the cost of running them. Nor does it take into account the possibility that a line reopening may drive the requirement to do other, potentially costly, work some distance away to give the line a useful service.

 

[Bald Rick]

Would it ?

Considering we can't even manage Tavistock or Portishead, I doubt even the best report in the world would be influential.

Fair play tho them for continuing to campaign, even though this country isn't fertile soil for such schemes.

Yes it would. Well thought out, logical proposals based on factual evidence and supported by good analysis carry a lot of weight with Government (and other funders).

And please don’t keep repeating that ‘this country isn’t fertile soil for such schemes’. Even if you just mean England, there are lots of examples of new / reopened lines over the past 25 years, with more coming. As you well know. And they have all* been well thought out, logical proposals based on factual evidence e supported by good analysis.

*except Borders. That was purely political.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes it would. Well thought out, logical proposals based on factual evidence and supported by good analysis carry a lot of weight with Government (and other funders).

And please don’t keep repeating that ‘this country isn’t fertile soil for such schemes’. Even if you just mean England, there are lots of examples of new / reopened lines over the past 25 years, with more coming. As you well know. And they have all* been well thought out, logical proposals based on factual evidence e supported by good analysis.

*except Borders. That was purely political.

Yes, the opening that was so political they found out there wasn't enough double track to cope with the traffic.

 

[Clayton]

Thames for Thame? Princess Risborough? Those are pretty basic errors

 

[Tobbes]

Thames for Thame? Princess Risborough? Those are pretty basic errors

9 miles from Haverhill to Sudbury? More like 17....

Disappointing.

 

[swt_passenger]

Thames for Thame? Princess Risborough? Those are pretty basic errors

Another route that was pretty much written off for what seemed very good reasons in Chiltern’s reports to their Evergreen 3 TWA inquiry. Straws are being clutched at again with that one...

 

[Clayton]

Another route that was pretty much written off for what seemed very good reasons in Chiltern’s reports to their Evergreen 3 TWA inquiry. Straws are being clutched at again with that one...

They built via Bicester so this is no longer needed

 

[swt_passenger]

They built via Bicester so this is no longer needed

Exactly what I thought.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thames for Thame? Princess Risborough? Those are pretty basic errors

I particularly enjoyed the ‘Freight Only Conversation’ for Stratford - Honeybourne.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, the opening that was so political they found out there wasn't enough double track to cope with the traffic.

Except there is enough double track.

And it was still a political opening.

 

[yorksrob]

Except there is enough double track.

And it was still a political opening.

Great. I'm all for political openings since nothing else seems to work.

As well as those such as Tavistock and Portishead which are not political, but which are at an advanced stage of planning, but for which no one ever finds the money.

 

[Bald Rick]

Great. I'm all for political openings since nothing else seems to work.

As well as those such as Tavistock and Portishead which are not political, but which are at an advanced stage of planning, but for which no one ever finds the money.

You must have missed all the line openings / reopenings that have happened, then . They have been listed often enough previously, but you don’t seem to want to acknowledge them.

Re Tavistock and Portishead. You miss my point. What I said was:

there are lots of examples of new / reopened lines over the past 25 years, with more coming..... And they have all* been well thought out, logical proposals based on factual evidence supported by good analysis.

*except Borders. That was purely political.

Clearly referring to openings / reopenings that have happened, or are confirmed to be in the ‘pipeline’ of development eg East West Rail (all parts thereof). Ie that opening lines requires the well thought out proposal based on evidence supported by good analysis. And that, obviously, there is a sound case for them. We know from previous discussions on this forum that the case for Borders was poor at best. Yes it has got roughly the number of passengers forecast, and can be portrayed as a busy and successful line, but that doesn’t mean there was a case for it. There wasn’t. The decision to proceed was for political imperative. Indeed there is an argument that the decision to proceed with the Jubilee line extension was also political, albeit that has been rather more successful than anyone anticipated both in terms of passenger numbers and economic development.

So, back to Tavistock and Portishead. Do they each have a well thought out, logical proposal based on factual evidence supported by good analysis? And, obviously, is there a case for doing each? If so, then they have a much better chance of happening than appearing on a list in a publication that unfortunately looks amateurish.

I know from brief dealings with the Tavistock scheme many many years ago that their case then was not supported by good evidence on construction cost. And the Portishead project has struggled for the same reason. It’s really quite simple. As it happens I believe at least one of them will happen when they get their evidence and analysis in good order.

 

[Bald Rick]

One thing I don’t understand* about this is that it focuses purely on rail services.

Given that the CBT actively campaigns for better transport across all modes (the clue is in the name of the organisation), it seems odd that they would actively campaign to spend hundreds of millions on some schemes that could be better served, far sooner, by a spending a tiny fraction of that sum on a better bus service.

*I do understand of course, and that is the report appears to have been funded by the RMT, who, naturally, will only be interested in rail services.

 

[DarloRich]

@Bald Rick has this spot on. I cannot add anything to improve or enhance his commentary.

PS - should this not be in Speculative ideas?

 

[yorksrob]

You must have missed all the line openings / reopenings that have happened, then . They have been listed often enough previously, but you don’t seem to want to acknowledge them.

Re Tavistock and Portishead. You miss my point. What I said was:



Clearly referring to openings / reopenings that have happened, or are confirmed to be in the ‘pipeline’ of development eg East West Rail (all parts thereof). Ie that opening lines requires the well thought out proposal based on evidence supported by good analysis. And that, obviously, there is a sound case for them. We know from previous discussions on this forum that the case for Borders was poor at best. Yes it has got roughly the number of passengers forecast, and can be portrayed as a busy and successful line, but that doesn’t mean there was a case for it. There wasn’t. The decision to proceed was for political imperative. Indeed there is an argument that the decision to proceed with the Jubilee line extension was also political, albeit that has been rather more successful than anyone anticipated both in terms of passenger numbers and economic development.

So, back to Tavistock and Portishead. Do they each have a well thought out, logical proposal based on factual evidence supported by good analysis? And, obviously, is there a case for doing each? If so, then they have a much better chance of happening than appearing on a list in a publication that unfortunately looks amateurish.

I know from brief dealings with the Tavistock scheme many many years ago that their case then was not supported by good evidence on construction cost. And the Portishead project has struggled for the same reason. It’s really quite simple. As it happens I believe at least one of them will happen when they get their evidence and analysis in good order.

I agree that it is perfectly possible for a line to built without a 'case' and yet still have good passenger loadings. Such a situation merely illustrates starkly that the way in which such a case is judged is fundamentally flawed.

In terms of Tavistock and Portishead, I'll believe it when I see it. I believe that there is an institutional resistance to reopening railway lines in this country, amply illustrated by the opening of busways instead in the last decade.

By the way, please feel free to list all of your reopenings again if you wish. I will be happy to point out that they've all been at the turn of the century/in Scotland/Wales etc as I always do.

 

[yorksrob]

One thing I don’t understand* about this is that it focuses purely on rail services.

Given that the CBT actively campaigns for better transport across all modes (the clue is in the name of the organisation), it seems odd that they would actively campaign to spend hundreds of millions on some schemes that could be better served, far sooner, by a spending a tiny fraction of that sum on a better bus service.

*I do understand of course, and that is the report appears to have been funded by the RMT, who, naturally, will only be interested in rail services.

Perhaps they have done reports in the recent past about the need to support bus serviices, for example ?

 

[DarloRich]

I agree that it is perfectly possible for a line to built without a 'case' and yet still have good passenger loadings. Such a situation merely illustrates starkly that the way in which such a case is judged is fundamentally flawed.

That is incorrect. Your view is that the assessment of a business case is flawed. I don't think it is. If you were employing private money you may take an alternative view on the viability of a project. The rules for investing government money are much less speculative.

 

[yorksrob]

That is incorrect. Your view is that the assessment of a business case is flawed. I don't think it is. If you were employing private money you may take an alternative view on the viability of a project. The rules for investing government money are much less speculative.

No, I believe that the methodology for assessing a business case is flawed, rather than the assessment carried out.

If I was employing private capital, I would be expecting a financial return, so this would be expected to be a lot more restrictive than public money, which will be seeking to achieve non-financial returns (in terms of greater quality of life, employment/educational/leisure opportunities, environmental benefits etc.

 

[DarloRich]

No, I believe that the methodology for assessing a business case is flawed, rather than the assessment carried out.

If I was employing private capital, I would be expecting a financial return, so this would be expected to be a lot more restrictive than public money, which will be seeking to achieve non-financial returns (in terms of greater quality of life, employment/educational/leisure opportunities, environmental benefits etc.

I am afraid this is simply incorrect in relation to public money.

 

[Carlisle]

*I do understand of course, and that is the report appears to have been funded by the RMT, who, naturally, will only be interested in rail services.

They represent bus drivers too, although I appreciate they’re not the main union within that industry

 

[tasky]

I am afraid this is simply incorrect in relation to public money.

It can't be 'simply incorrect' – it's a matter of political opinion. It may be the settled view in the rail industry that everything must have a financial return, but it if anything the opposite view is more common with the general public. As a principle, treating rail as a public service, and higher taxes to fund investment in public services all command significant public support.

It's one of the key causes of the disconnect in perception between people who work in the industry and passengers.

 

[DarloRich]

It can't be 'simply incorrect' – it's a matter of political opinion. It may be the settled view in the rail industry that everything must have a financial return, but it if anything the opposite view is more common with the general public. As a principle, treating rail as a public service, and higher taxes to fund investment in public services all command significant public support.

It's one of the key causes of the disconnect in perception between people who work in the industry and passengers.

I am sorry but it is incorrect. We all might wish that there was a different emphasis on the assessment of a railway business case but there isnt. Moaning about that wont change anything. I would rather focus on what we have to work with and within rather than what we could work with in an ideal world.

While I am sure some people support higher taxes for better public services not all do nor is there a consensus on what that money should be spent on. Do you think most people would rather that £4/5/6bn sum would be spent on the NHS? Those are the hard choices professionals have to make. They are not choices most commentators here have to make.

You are right it is a political choice. That political choice has been made. It wont change anytime soon. It might get even worse post Brexit.