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

[A0wen]

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.

This - absolutely right.

The problem is the CBT are actually anti-roads and anti-motorist - they used to be known as Transport 2000.

It would seem they also enjoy charity status so presumably enjoy the tax advantages of being a charity whilst trying to penalise those of us who actually pay tax already.

 

[tbtc]

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

You're getting close to conspiracy theory stuff here, with your "institutional resistance"...

Worth pointing out though that the number of miles of Guided Busway in the UK remain pretty insignificant (considering that there are twice as many bus journeys as rail journeys) - it's just the railway enthusiasts obsess about every new bit of Guided Busway and complain that "it should have been heavy rail", which makes the mileage of Guided Busways seem longer than they actually are.

As a principle, treating rail as a public service, and higher taxes to fund investment in public services all command significant public support

There's "significant public support" and then there's a country which has voted for parties promising austerity (and delivering tax cuts) over the past decade.

I'd love to believe that the UK public want to pay higher taxes (I'd be happy to do so, for better public services), but even if we did pay more in taxation then we'd spend it on schools/ hospitals, rather than re-opening rural branch lines for the sake of the very limited number of people in Okehampton desperate to go to Tavistock - the kind of route that can't justify a commercial minibus service that people are obsessed with building a heavy rail link between).

 

[squizzler]

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.

Quite. Forget your Jeremy Clarksons, I rarely come across voices that are more "anti rail" than the purported rail enthusiasts determined to show us all how savvy they would be with public money.

I look at the proposals for the Welsh Valley lines and wonder what can be done on other proposals for (re)opening lines with modern light rail / tram-train technology in terms of cost control.

 

[tasky]

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.

Amazing - have you just not been following the news for the last few years?

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Take a map of the UK, throw two darts at it and draw a line between them. Then produce a 50 page report detaling why a rail route should be built along the line you've just drawn.

 

[DarloRich]

Amazing - have you just not been following the news for the last few years?

perhaps you could explain it to me then becuase I have no idea what you are on about.

There's "significant public support" and then there's a country which has voted for parties promising austerity (and delivering tax cuts) over the past decade.

I'd love to believe that the UK public want to pay higher taxes (I'd be happy to do so, for better public services), but even if we did pay more in taxation then we'd spend it on schools/ hospitals, rather than re-opening rural branch lines for the sake of the very limited number of people in Okehampton desperate to go to Tavistock - the kind of route that can't justify a commercial minibus service that people are obsessed with building a heavy rail link between).

indeed!

Take a map of the UK, throw two darts at it and draw a line between them. Then produce a 50 page report detaling why a rail route should be built along the line you've just drawn.

are you some form of consultant in this area? You seem to have missed off your fee

 

[camflyer]

Take a map of the UK, throw two darts at it and draw a line between them. Then produce a 50 page report detaling why a rail route should be built along the line you've just drawn.

Actually, this is more like "take a history book of the UK railways, pick a page at random and declare that the line should be reopened at a cost which you've just made up"

This report keeps going on about reopening old lines when we should be looking at where the future infrastructure is need. The country's demographics, economy and population have changed massively since the Beeching cuts.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

I know I'd rather millions were spent on reopening Tavistock, for example, than pursuing pointless industrial disputes.

If no one calls for change, it will never happen. In the grand scheme of public financing, setting aside a few hundred million to link a few towns to the rail network isn't "an ideal world", rather a perfectly achievable change in policy.

This - absolutely right.

The problem is the CBT are actually anti-roads and anti-motorist - they used to be known as Transport 2000.

It would seem they also enjoy charity status so presumably enjoy the tax advantages of being a charity whilst trying to penalise those of us who actually pay tax already.

Motorists have the RAC Foundation to bolster their cause. It's only right that those of us who use public transport - who are also taxpayers lest we forget, have someone speaking up for them.

You're getting close to conspiracy theory stuff here, with your "institutional resistance"...

Worth pointing out though that the number of miles of Guided Busway in the UK remain pretty insignificant (considering that there are twice as many bus journeys as rail journeys) - it's just the railway enthusiasts obsess about every new bit of Guided Busway and complain that "it should have been heavy rail", which makes the mileage of Guided Busways seem longer than they actually are.

Yes, isn't it rather suspicious that in a country with a very large rail network, the last three reopenings of local regional railway lines St Ives, Dunstable and Leigh, all just happen to have been guided busways, rather than railway lines.

It's all quite a coincidence that all of these disparate places seem to have been suited to a guided busway, rather than a train service, unlike everywhere else.

Quite. Forget your Jeremy Clarksons, I rarely come across voices that are more "anti rail" than the purported rail enthusiasts determined to show us all how savvy they would be with public money.

I look at the proposals for the Welsh Valley lines and wonder what can be done on other proposals for (re)opening lines with modern light rail / tram-train technology in terms of cost control.

Quite. I'm sure the Vivarail or E-Pacer varients could prove a good boost to places such as Wisbech or Tacistock for example.

Actually, this is more like "take a history book of the UK railways, pick a page at random and declare that the line should be reopened at a cost which you've just made up"

This report keeps going on about reopening old lines when we should be looking at where the future infrastructure is need. The country's demographics, economy and population have changed massively since the Beeching cuts.

That's actually completely wrong. Most new development/population growth over the past few decades has happened around existing settlements, rather than completely new towns. Given this reality, it isn't surprising at all that the majority of growing settlements without a rail link, would have had one at some time in the past.

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

Ok let’s try a few for starters:

1) Aylesbury to Aylesbury Vale Parkway
2) Whitechapel to Dalston
3) Todmorden Curve
4) Halton Curve

 

[Ianno87]

Yes, isn't it rather suspicious that in a country with a very large rail network, the last three reopenings of local regional railway lines St Ives, Dunstable and Leigh, all just happen to have been guided busways, rather than railway lines.

It's all quite a coincidence that all of these disparate places seem to have been suited to a guided busway, rather than a train service, unlike everywhere else.

And as a result all have a considerably more frequent public transport offering for the local journeys they are designed for than if they'd had a heavy rail re-opening instead.

 

[yorksrob]

Ok let’s try a few for starters:

1) Aylesbury to Aylesbury Vale Parkway
2) Whitechapel to Dalston
3) Todmorden Curve
4) Halton Curve

Ok,

1) Aylesbury to Aylesbury Vale Parkway - I'll give you that one as it does serve somewhere new.
2) Whitechapel to Dalston - I said regional - we all know London's had it's fair amount of investment
3) Todmorden Curve - doesn't serve anywhere that wasn't already open
4) Halton Curve - as above

 

[yorksrob]

And as a result all have a considerably more frequent public transport offering for the local journeys they are designed for than if they'd had a heavy rail re-opening instead.

I'm sure all of these places had bus routes already for purely local journeys.

 

[Bald Rick]

This - absolutely right.

The problem is the CBT are actually anti-roads and anti-motorist - they used to be known as Transport 2000.

It would seem they also enjoy charity status so presumably enjoy the tax advantages of being a charity whilst trying to penalise those of us who actually pay tax already.

Anti-motorist yes, but I’m not sure about anti-roads; the very next report on the CBT homepage is about the future of rural bus services and how they could be improved. Yet the amount of cash it would take to even do a reasonable level of feasibility work into some of the ‘Phase 1’ reopenings could pay for a vastly improved bus service on those same corridors.

 

[yorksrob]

Anti-motorist yes, but I’m not sure about anti-roads; the very next report on the CBT homepage is about the future of rural bus services and how they could be improved. Yet the amount of cash it would take to even do a reasonable level of feasibility work into some of the ‘Phase 1’ reopenings could pay for a vastly improved bus service on those same corridors.

Yes, but one is capital investment and the other is subsidy

 

[Bald Rick]

Ok,

1) Aylesbury to Aylesbury Vale Parkway - I'll give you that one as it does serve somewhere new.
2) Whitechapel to Dalston - I said regional - we all know London's had it's fair amount of investment
3) Todmorden Curve - doesn't serve anywhere that wasn't already open
4) Halton Curve - as above

You said regional, I didn’t. You can’t rule out London just because it doesn’t suit your argument.

And there are a good number of the CBT proposals which don’t serve anywhere new. Or don’t you agree with them? Besides, what’s wrong with that? Surely it’s about new services and opportunities, not whether they happen to be on new bits of track?

Ok next few

Ebbsfleet to St Pancras
Woolwich to King George V
Northern Line Extension (admittedly not open yet, but it is built)

In the next episode, I’ll start on the tram schemes...

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, but one is capital investment and the other is subsidy

All comes out of our taxes. I know what I’d rather have given the option on some of these proposals.

 

[deltic]

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.

Not sure I follow the point here. Business cases for public transport schemes are generally based on the economic case and not the financial viability of the scheme. The biggest benefit that is monetised is generally time savings. There are then wider economic benefits which are captured which are to do with labour markets and improved productivity, again not related to a financial return relating to the scheme. If the scheme was financially viable then the private sector would take it forward. As its usually not it falls to the taxpayer.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not sure I follow the point here. Business cases for public transport schemes are generally based on the economic case and not the financial viability of the scheme. The biggest benefit that is monetised is generally time savings. There are then wider economic benefits which are captured which are to do with labour markets and improved productivity, again not related to a financial return relating to the scheme. If the scheme was financially viable then the private sector would take it forward. As its usually not it falls to the taxpayer.

Business cases for most public sector investment is based on the socio-economic case. The financial viability is part of the socio-economic case.

However it’s only since 1998 that rail investment has been assessed on this basis; prior to that it had to be financially positive (but not cash positive)

 

[yorksrob]

You said regional, I didn’t. You can’t rule out London just because it doesn’t suit your argument.

And there are a good number of the CBT proposals which don’t serve anywhere new. Or don’t you agree with them? Besides, what’s wrong with that? Surely it’s about new services and opportunities, not whether they happen to be on new bits of track?

Ok next few

Ebbsfleet to St Pancras
Woolwich to King George V
Northern Line Extension (admittedly not open yet, but it is built)

In the next episode, I’ll start on the tram schemes...

I can. I can argue what I see fit.

My whole argument is that there is no funding to link towns such as Tavistock, Wisbech, Portishead etc to the National railway network. Lists of improvements in central London don't do anything to contradict that.

I agree that there should be improvements to the railway that don't involve reopened destinations, some involving new infrastructure, others not (I suppose Uckfield - Lewes would be one). That doesn't negate my argument that there should be funding to link towns to the network, and there isn't.

 

[yorksrob]

All comes out of our taxes. I know what I’d rather have given the option on some of these proposals.

I'd rather better local train services across the North than some large road projects, but we all know which type of spending Governments prefer.

It would be nice if the "capital investment: good, subsidy: bad" equation could be used to benefit regional rail passengers for a change.

 

[Bald Rick]

I can. I can argue what I see fit.

My whole argument is that there is no funding to link towns such as Tavistock, Wisbech, Portishead etc to the National railway network. Lists of improvements in central London don't do anything to contradict that.

But taking Whitechapel to Dalston as an example example, that provided a rail service to rather deprived parts of London (indeed rather deprived parts of the whole country) that didn’t have one. Why should it not meet your definition, apart from being in London?

 

[yorksrob]

But taking Whitechapel to Dalston as an example example, that provided a rail service to rather deprived parts of London (indeed rather deprived parts of the whole country) that didn’t have one. Why should it not meet your definition, apart from being in London?

Because it's not linking regional towns to the network.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for better rail links within London, they're very important, but there's not really an issue with investment in public transport in London. It seems to be ticking over.

There is a long term problem with investing in the regional railway and getting towns linked to the railway network. I'll even include Skem for you in that, (which wouldn't even be a straight reopening).

 

[tbtc]

Yes, isn't it rather suspicious that in a country with a very large rail network, the last three reopenings of local regional railway lines St Ives, Dunstable and Leigh, all just happen to have been guided busways, rather than railway lines.

It's all quite a coincidence that all of these disparate places seem to have been suited to a guided busway, rather than a train service, unlike everywhere else

I guess, if you ignore the various heavy rail re-openings, brand new bits of heavy railway, routes converted to light rail, brand new light rail alignments (and all of the electrification, flyovers, re-doubling etc etc) then the only things built in the last decade have been guided busways, yes.

But you're not interested in focussing resources on the projects with the best business cases, you're not bothered about using finite resources to focus on where most needed... you just want some more rural railway lines - you've made up your mind on what you want the answer to be in advance so there's no point in trying to discuss the merits of some of the things that we are spending money on because you only care about certain schemes.

For example, the Ordsal Chord was partly built to free up three paths into Manchester Piccadilly each hour (from the Stockport direction), benefitting hundreds of passengers per hour. That's big league stuff. You're interested in opening village stations that may not get a hundred passengers a day. Whole different ball game.

How many people travel from Whitechapel to Dalston each day (compared to the number who'd travel from Okehampton to Tavistock)?

I'd rather we focus attention on how best tot use resources, which might mean that improving an existing line can deliver a hundred extra passengers a day better than building a new line (to attract a similar number of people to the network).

Heavy rail is suited to long term big projects shifting large volumes of passengers. For smaller scale things, there's light rail, there's guided busways... and for little villages there's Dial-A-Ride minibuses.

 

[Bald Rick]

Because it's not linking regional towns to the network.

With apologies to Messrs Williams and Lucas...

“I’m looking for a very rare example of a new railway line in the UK”

“Of course sir, it’s not rare at all, we have dozens in stock”

“But it must be in England”

“Ah, right, well we have all these here”

“No, it mustn’t include anything that is more than about a decade old”

“Right-ho, which one of this lot would you like”

“No, no, no, some of these won’t do. It needs to connect places to the network for the first time. Some of these are short bits of new railway that simply offer vastly improved services to these places, connecting them with regional centres where hitherto they could not easily make the journey by rail. Not good enough”

“Of course sir, I have a this selection for your consideration”

“I don’t want some of those, they are light rail”

“Okaaaay, this is getting quite specific, but anyway that still leaves us with these”

“And it cant be in London, they’ve got enough railways”

“MAUREEEEEN!”

 

[yorksrob]

I guess, if you ignore the various heavy rail re-openings, brand new bits of heavy railway, routes converted to light rail, brand new light rail alignments (and all of the electrification, flyovers, re-doubling etc etc) then the only things built in the last decade have been guided busways, yes.

But you're not interested in focussing resources on the projects with the best business cases, you're not bothered about using finite resources to focus on where most needed... you just want some more rural railway lines - you've made up your mind on what you want the answer to be in advance so there's no point in trying to discuss the merits of some of the things that we are spending money on because you only care about certain schemes.

For example, the Ordsal Chord was partly built to free up three paths into Manchester Piccadilly each hour (from the Stockport direction), benefitting hundreds of passengers per hour. That's big league stuff. You're interested in opening village stations that may not get a hundred passengers a day. Whole different ball game.

How many people travel from Whitechapel to Dalston each day (compared to the number who'd travel from Okehampton to Tavistock)?

I'd rather we focus attention on how best tot use resources, which might mean that improving an existing line can deliver a hundred extra passengers a day better than building a new line (to attract a similar number of people to the network).

Heavy rail is suited to long term big projects shifting large volumes of passengers. For smaller scale things, there's light rail, there's guided busways... and for little villages there's Dial-A-Ride minibuses.

Well, re-openings are the subject of the report and this thread (just saying )

Your "horses for courses" argument that rail should be concentrated on the heaviest routes, with everything else bustituted, was tried in the 60's, reconsidered in the 1980's and found to be nonsense.

With apologies to Messrs Williams and Lucas...

“I’m looking for a very rare example of a new railway line in the UK”

“Of course sir, it’s not rare at all, we have dozens in stock”

“But it must be in England”

“Ah, right, well we have all these here”

“No, it mustn’t include anything that is more than about a decade old”

“Right-ho, which one of this lot would you like”

“No, no, no, some of these won’t do. It needs to connect places to the network for the first time. Some of these are short bits of new railway that simply offer vastly improved services to these places, connecting them with regional centres where hitherto they could not easily make the journey by rail. Not good enough”

“Of course sir, I have a this selection for your consideration”

“I don’t want some of those, they are light rail”

“Okaaaay, this is getting quite specific, but anyway that still leaves us with these”

“And it cant be in London, they’ve got enough railways”

“MAUREEEEEN!”

There are plenty of places that should be linked to the network:

Tavistock, Wisbech, Portishead, Skelmersdale, Heywood.....

It's not as though i haven't mentioned some of these before you know.

If you keep on listing things that aren't regional rail reopenings in England, I will keep on pointing out that they aren't regional railway reopenings in England.

 

[deltic]

Business cases for most public sector investment is based on the socio-economic case. The financial viability is part of the socio-economic case.

However it’s only since 1998 that rail investment has been assessed on this basis; prior to that it had to be financially positive (but not cash positive)

Again not sure I follow. DfT use the 5 case business case model in line with Treasury Green Book which consists of strategic, economic, financial, commercial and management cases. Economic case reports benefit cost ratio and the financial case whether it is a affordable. Not sure what you mean about financially positive but not cash positive. Economic case is presented in financial terms but does not represent actual cash flows, is that what you are referring to?

 

[Bald Rick]

The CBT report is about opening, or reopening all sorts of links across the whole country.

You said:

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

No mention of specifics about England, regional, timescales, etc. Please forgive me if I then point out that this country has delivered “such schemes” that the CBT is campaigning for more of. And lots of them.

 

[yorksrob]

The CBT report is about opening, or reopening all sorts of links across the whole country.

You said:



No mention of specifics about England, regional, timescales, etc. Please forgive me if I then point out that this country has delivered “such schemes” that the CBT is campaigning for more of. And lots of them.

Well, the report does list potential schemes across the whole country by region.

If only actual reopenings were distributed in such a way.

 

[Bald Rick]

Again not sure I follow. DfT use the 5 case business case model in line with Treasury Green Book which consists of strategic, economic, financial, commercial and management cases. Economic case reports benefit cost ratio and the financial case whether it is a affordable. Not sure what you mean about financially positive but not cash positive. Economic case is presented in financial terms but does not represent actual cash flows, is that what you are referring to?

You are right, sort of.

Strategic Case: what problem is it solving, what alternatives are there, and how does it fit with national and local policy

Economic Case: what are the costs and benefits, and how certain are they

Financial Case: who is paying, how and when, and how certain is it

Commercial Case: who is going to do the work for you, and what are the contractual arrangements and risk transfer

Management Case: who is running the show and how.

Clearly there is overlap between the 5 elements. For example cash beenfits identified in the economic case can also be used to help pay for the scheme in the financial case.


Financially positive: the project generates a net financial surplus over the assessment period of the project, allowing for the costs of borrowing.

Cash positive: the project generates a net financial surplus now, and throughout the project, and you don’t need to borrow at all.

Until 1998 BR and (the then) Railtrack could only do financially positive projects. There were certain times when BR could only do cash positive projects.

 

[tbtc]

With apologies to Messrs Williams and Lucas...

“I’m looking for a very rare example of a new railway line in the UK”

“Of course sir, it’s not rare at all, we have dozens in stock”

“But it must be in England”

“Ah, right, well we have all these here”

“No, it mustn’t include anything that is more than about a decade old”

“Right-ho, which one of this lot would you like”

“No, no, no, some of these won’t do. It needs to connect places to the network for the first time. Some of these are short bits of new railway that simply offer vastly improved services to these places, connecting them with regional centres where hitherto they could not easily make the journey by rail. Not good enough”

“Of course sir, I have a this selection for your consideration”

“I don’t want some of those, they are light rail”

“Okaaaay, this is getting quite specific, but anyway that still leaves us with these”

“And it cant be in London, they’ve got enough railways”

“MAUREEEEEN!”

Beautifully done

Well, re-openings are the subject of the report and this thread (just saying )

Well, they want ""programme of rail expansion... As part of this, a national programme of reopenings should be adopted", i.e. re-openings are only part of the overall programme of rail expansion.

But if you are obsessed with re-opening lines that previously failed then of course you'll see things differently

Your "horses for courses" argument that rail should be concentrated on the heaviest routes, with everything else bustituted, was tried in the 60's, reconsidered in the 1980's and found to be nonsense

I believe that (given a finite number of crayons) we should target heavy rail spending where it brings about the best results (and consider other tools to tackle problems that heavy rail is too inflexible/ expensive to solve).

If you think that's "nonsense" then fair enough - we're all entitled to opinions - I just can't get behind your idea that mass transportation like heavy rail shouldn't be used to improve journeys in certain parts of the UK because their transport is too good already - that seems like a strange way to tackle problems - imagine if we said that West Yorkshire already has some of the best Provincial train services so there's no point in spending money in Bradford?

There are plenty of places that should be linked to the network

In an ideal world, starting from scratch, sure. The suburb I live in probably has a larger population than some of the rural villages that people on here are fixated with - e.g. if there are six thousand people in Okehampton then how many stations does Sheffield get? Fifty stations in Sheffield? One hundred stations in Sheffield?

But we are where we are so I'd rather deal with realities.

Well, the report does list potential schemes across the whole country by region.

If only actual reopenings were distributed in such a way.

There's the difference.

You want to randomly distribute railways around the UK regardless of need/demand/costs.

I want to focus investment on places where railways will be busiest.

So rather than building a new bit of railway through Devon just for the sake of ticking a box in each region, I'd rather that we used that money on a line that the most people would use (even if that means, shudder, something ghastly and "urban")