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

[Captain Bigwig]

Is that including London Underground stations?

No, it isn't, and perhaps it should have done. I took the number from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_London_railway_stations

 

[AndrewE]

You're comparing apples with bananas. For a small town, it's highly likely all the housing will be within a 3 mile radius of a station - for somewhere bigger i.e. over 50,000 that's far less likely.

That rather reinforces my point that if you have very big town, you're going to need to have station somewhere near to the middle of it if it is going to be accessible on foot for a large proportion of it's population, not four miles away.

but you both miss the point that 4 or 5 miles is easily bikeable for a lot of the population - if they dared and if they could be bothered.
Alternatively, if public transport was planned and coordinated then walk and/or bus then train would be a healthier and lower carbon way of commuting too.

 

[yorksrob]

but you both miss the point that 4 or 5 miles is easily bikeable for a lot of the population - if they dared and if they could be bothered.
Alternatively, if public transport was planned and coordinated then walk and/or bus then train would be a healthier and lower carbon way of commuting too.

Well it could be. But its still not as convenient as being within walking distance of the train. That is easiest achieved with a station in the centre of the urban area.

 

[AndrewE]

Well it could be. But its still not as convenient as being within walking distance of the train. That is easiest achieved with a station in the centre of the urban area.

It is, but it doesn't help when the town gets much bigger than 1 mile radius from the station... 15mins walk is OK, but beyond that 5 or 10 (even 15 or 20?) minutes on a bike gets a lot more attractive than walking! That way 1 station can serve a commuter town - and "hinterland" - of 4 miles diameter, or about 12 square miles.

 

[yorksrob]

It is, but it doesn't help when the town gets much bigger than 1 mile radius from the station... 15mins walk is OK, but beyond that 5 or 10 (even 15 or 20?) minutes on a bike gets a lot more attractive than walking! That way 1 station can serve a commuter town - and "hinterland" - of 4 miles diameter, or about 12 square miles.

True, but that renforces my point, because a station four miles from the centre will mean that a greater proportion of residents aren't within fifteen minutes of walking, rather than one in the centre.

 

[whittlesfordok]

Cambridge to Haverhill would be nice but looking at what it would cost lot more than they say (crossing A11!). Going to Granta park and the rest of the science parks around it would make sense if it was light rail. There are already dedicated bus links to Granta Park from Cambridge and Whittlesford railway station.

 

[camflyer]

Cambridge to Haverhill would be nice but looking at what it would cost lot more than they say (crossing A11!). Going to Granta park and the rest of the science parks around it would make sense if it was light rail. There are already dedicated bus links to Granta Park from Cambridge and Whittlesford railway station.

Improved links between Cambridge and Haverhill are certainly needed but I really can't see heavy rail being likely given the cost. Haverhill has some of the most affordable housing in the Greater Cambridge area but that is partly due to poor connectivity to the major employment areas around Cambridge.

I used to work on Granta Park and while road links from the A11 north and south are very good, it does feel rather disconnected from the rest of Cambridge and the A1307 to Haverhill is a very bad road. There is a bus service from the city centre but whenever I took it, it was always crowded.

Given the growth of Granta Park site (the new Illumina building has just opened with more to come) as well as at Barbarham and Addenbrokes, a light rail/metro would probably be the best solution but knowing the powers that be, it will likely end up as another guided bus.

 

[Meerkat]

I don’t think these campaigns help themselves by having lists. It is far too easy for cynics to pick a ridiculous scheme off the list and use its presence to ridicule and discredit the whole concept.
Pick the best one, or at most best five, and really concentrate on those. Gain credibility and get shovels in the ground then use the success to boost the next best ones.

However I think there is far too much “heavy rail is the solution, let’s crowbar it into a problem”
Buses are the answer to most of these problems. People are giving reasons why not but I believe it would be cheaper and easier to solve those problems rather than build and run heavy rail. Work at giving buses the properties that people see as the advantage of trains.

 

[furnessvale]

However I think there is far too much “heavy rail is the solution, let’s crowbar it into a problem”
Buses are the answer to most of these problems. People are giving reasons why not but I believe it would be cheaper and easier to solve those problems rather than build and run heavy rail. Work at giving buses the properties that people see as the advantage of trains.

What is needed is proper integration between rail/tram/bus.

There are several stations on my line where, as the train pulls in, the bus pulls out, and an intending passenger would have 30-60 minutes wait for the next bus. NOT a sight you see in Switzerland, for example.

 

[AndrewE]

I don’t think these campaigns help themselves by having lists. It is far too easy for cynics to pick a ridiculous scheme off the list and use its presence to ridicule and discredit the whole concept.
Pick the best one, or at most best five, and really concentrate on those. Gain credibility and get shovels in the ground then use the success to boost the next best ones.

that may be a good idea...

However I think there is far too much “heavy rail is the solution, let’s crowbar it into a problem”
Buses are the answer to most of these problems. People are giving reasons why not but I believe it would be cheaper and easier to solve those problems rather than build and run heavy rail. Work at giving buses the properties that people see as the advantage of trains.

...but that is not! We learnt that with and after Beeching. It's why I object to most "turn a railway into a tramline" schemes, and why I think the Stourbridge shuttle is a success: the rail network needs to stay as an integrated whole with coordinated timetabling and through ticketing, etc.

 

[Meerkat]

that may be a good idea......but that is not! We learnt that with and after Beeching. It's why I object to most "turn a railway into a tramline" schemes, and why I think the Stourbridge shuttle is a success: the rail network needs to stay as an integrated whole with coordinated timetabling and through ticketing, etc.

You didn’t read the whole paragraph then?
Work on getting integrated timetabling, through ticketing, toilet availability, better bus stops etc.
Campaign to change the status quo rather than waste energy on heavy rail dreams that will never see shovels.
Devolve local transport and let them franchise (as concessions probably) railways with connecting railway buses included

 

[AndrewE]

You didn’t read the whole paragraph then?
Work on getting integrated timetabling, through ticketing, toilet availability, better bus stops etc.
Campaign to change the status quo rather than waste energy on heavy rail dreams that will never see shovels.
Devolve local transport and let them franchise (as concessions probably) railways with connecting railway buses included

While joining up our transport modes would be well-worth doing, I think we actually have a better chance of a few rail reopenings. Most co-ordination would be done at council level and they are about to lose even more of their funding, so "nice-to-have" things will probably never happen.
Now if we had a national government that was prepared to do joined-up thinking and base its policy on evidence, and was serious about addressing the pollution/health problem and carbon emissions, then resources might be found for all the things that need doing to make public transport the obvious choice for most journeys.

 

[Meerkat]

Most co-ordination would be done at council level and they are about to lose even more of their funding, so "nice-to-have" things will probably never happen

So why would “nice to have” rail openings, with far lower and far more concentrated benefits happen?

Things will only change when people vote to personally pay more taxes, rather than for someone else to pay more taxes.

 

[keith1879]

You didn’t read the whole paragraph then?
Work on getting integrated timetabling, through ticketing, toilet availability, better bus stops etc.
Campaign to change the status quo rather than waste energy on heavy rail dreams that will never see shovels.
Devolve local transport and let them franchise (as concessions probably) railways with connecting railway buses included

All good ideas and I support them ...... but unfortunately since deregulation/privatisation of buses nobody trusts that a bus will be permanent to the extent that they will plan their lives around it. Trams/Light Rail are fine because once such a scheme has been built there is no record (since the 1950s) of it being scrapped but who trusts a bus? Will be interesting to see if the Leigh and Cambridge schemes have a positive effect - the presence of substantial fixed investment might encourage potential customers to see them as permanent but it is still the case that the vehicles could be moved elsewhere.

 

[Meerkat]

All good ideas and I support them ...... but unfortunately since deregulation/privatisation of buses nobody trusts that a bus will be permanent to the extent that they will plan their lives around it.

That is why you make them part of the concession.

 

[keith1879]

That is why you make them part of the concession.

Yes - good scheme and logically it might work .....but I doubt it. Buses are perceived as temporary and even if you paint them in matching colours and run them out of the platforms in the station it's not the same as rails in (or on) the ground. Also you would have to allocate franchises for 30 years to give even the impression of permanence. I agree with the idea - but truthfully doubt if it will overcome the psychological disadvantage. I would like to see it tried and be proved wrong. (!!)

 

[Meerkat]

A possibly non permanent bus service is better than 30 years of consultations and desktop studies.....

 

[AndrewE]

So why would “nice to have” rail openings, with far lower and far more concentrated benefits happen?

because there is rumoured to be a general election in the offing? ... and because a lot of MPs are looking at not getting back in again? Or because a small rail reopening is quite self-contained, funded by central government and (financially) relatively small beer in the wider scale of things?
Sorting out and maintaining the funding for bus services would probably involve lots more money, it would mean relying on hundreds - if not thousands - of participants (if you count all the councils, bus operators, consultees etc., not to mention central government people organising it) and there's no way I can see our tax-cutting central government under-writing such a big and uncontrollable bill.

 

[yorksrob]

A possibly non permanent bus service is better than 30 years of consultations and desktop studies.....

I don't think it's enough to use the inadequacy of our system for funding and commissioning railway re-openings as an excuse not to try and progress any. Rather it should be a catalyst to change that system.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I don't think it's enough to use the inadequacy of our system for funding and commissioning railway re-openings as an excuse not to try and progress any. Rather it should be a catalyst to change that system.

Change the system? Like nationalisation? Or something else? Try and find any political consensus for any worthwhile change! I'm with @DarloRich, better to work with current constraints as far as possible rather than wait years/decades for the political winds to change direction.

 

[yorksrob]

Change the system? Like nationalisation? Or something else? Try and find any political consensus for any worthwhile change! I'm with @DarloRich, better to work with current constraints as far as possible rather than wait years/decades for the political winds to change direction.

The new stations fund bucked the trend in that respect. It would have seemed quite unlikely in the distant past, but it came about.

 

[Bald Rick]

That is why you make them part of the concession.

Exactly. Given that for many of the proposed new lines, you could have a much more frequent bus service at a fraction of the operating cost of a rail link, and minimal capital cost (in comparison), it is clearly better for society to have a bus service. What is needed is commitment to the bus service, in terms of frequency, quality and price that is at least as firm a the commitment to a rail service.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The new stations fund bucked the trend in that respect. It would have seemed quite unlikely in the distant past, but it came about.

The funds available from that scheme, while very welcome, are never going to be enough to fund new tracks. As such all you can expect are additional stations on existing lines though it might be possible to revitalise a freight only route. All of which fits the ethos of making the best of what currently exists.

 

[Bald Rick]

The new stations fund bucked the trend in that respect. It would have seemed quite unlikely in the distant past, but it came about.

The new stations fund was always there, just in another fund that was rather broader. The fund for new stations was specifically split out to make it more obvious.

 

[yorksrob]

Exactly. Given that for many of the proposed new lines, you could have a much more frequent bus service at a fraction of the operating cost of a rail link, and minimal capital cost (in comparison), it is clearly better for society to have a bus service. What is needed is commitment to the bus service, in terms of frequency, quality and price that is at least as firm a the commitment to a rail service.

We can all dream about an end to bus deregulation, but shouldn't we be working within the system we have, rather than dreaming of changes without political consensus etc...

 

[yorksrob]

The new stations fund was always there, just in another fund that was rather broader. The fund for new stations was specifically split out to make it more obvious.

It must have reflected a public appetite for new stations, otherwise there would have been little point in publicising it in that way.

 

[Meerkat]

I don't think it's enough to use the inadequacy of our system for funding and commissioning railway re-openings as an excuse not to try and progress any. Rather it should be a catalyst to change that system

Ha! I see what you did there!
My point was that studies is all you will get because few of these lines have any sensible business case even before the coatings turn out to be fairy tales.
Heavy rail is bulk transit, it is far too expensive a solution for hourly trains to small towns.

 

[Bald Rick]

We can all dream about an end to bus deregulation, but shouldn't we be working within the system we have, rather than dreaming of changes without political consensus etc...

Its not about ending bus deregulation. It’s about specifying bus services to serve non-commercial markets. DfT or any local authority can do this now. They just need the money.

Take Penrith to Keswick for example; often suggested as a ‘no brainer’ for railway reopening. The government (national, sub national or local) could commit (for 10 years+) to a 4 bus per hour express service all day every day, with integrated rail ticketing, and it would cost rather less than half the cost of operating an hourly rail service. The bus would be far more frequent, with better connections, serve the centre of Keswick and Penrith (as well as Penrith station) so would be far more convenient for passengers. Journey time would be slightly longer (around 30 minutes for the bus, 25 for the train), but then the bus would have better town distribution, and most door to door journeys would be quicker, particularly given interchange time. Two other advantages: you could implement the bus solution within months rather than waiting a decade, and you don’t need to drop half a billion quids worth of taxpayers money on infrastructure to do it. Significantly cheaper for the funder, quicker to deliver, much more frequent, more convenient, generally quicker, with all the benefits of through rail ticketing: How can it not be a better solution, on all counts, than a new railway?

Besides, you repeatedly and consistently say you don’t like the system we have, as you believe it is biased against new railways*. So if we need to change the system, surely we should change it in a way that enables the best possible transport solution for passengers, at the lowest cost to the taxpayer?

I’m a lifelong railwayman (and I mean life, as long as I can remember I was going to be a railwayman, and I have been for well over half of it), and I want a larger and better rail system in this country. I chose this career specifically to do that, as I wanted to make a difference. (Those that know me might say that I have). But while railways are good for some things, they are not for others. I am open minded enough to acknowledge that for some transport ‘problems’ there are better solutions than new railways.


*It isn’t.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't think it's enough to use the inadequacy of our system for funding and commissioning railway re-openings as an excuse not to try and progress any. Rather it should be a catalyst to change that system.

We can all dream about an end to bus deregulation, but shouldn't we be working within the system we have, rather than dreaming of changes without political consensus etc...

I’m confused....

 

[yorksrob]

I’m confused....

If you read through the thread, I was satirizing the sentiments of some on here who think it's impossible to change any sort of policy with regard to new railways, but for whom there seem to be endless possibilities to obtain wonders from our struggling bus system.