Having now read the CBT report in more detail, here follows the completely unofficial Bald Rick view of the likelihood of each proposal actually getting through the second gateway (decision to design) in the Governement funding pipeline before 2025 (the year).
Further disclaimer for avoidance of all doubt: I’m not involved, in any way, in any of these schemes or their assessment. This is purely my personal view of their chances, scored out of 10.
Cowley: 1/10. Already dismissed by Chiltern. (Further extension to Thame / beyond: 0)
Totton - Fawley: 5/10. Needs strong local support and developer cash.
Brentford - Southall: 0.
Henbury Loop: 7/10. Funding gap needs to be resolved.
Oakhampton - Tavistock - Bere Alston: 0 (Tavistock - Bere Alston only: 2, but needs local funding)
Portishead - Bristol: 7. As per Henbury.
Stratford - Honeybourne: 4, likely to need much more developer funding
March - Wisbech: 3. Costs too much, and service would be unattractive.
Bedford - Cambridge: 7. Likely to depend on housing volumes / new town
Haverhill - Cambridge: 0.
Leicester - Burton: 4. Likely to need local funding.
Shirebrook - Ollerton: 3. Likely to need local funding.
Matlock - Buxton: 0. Too many vested interests.
Walsall - Water Orton: 2. (Walsall - Aldridge: 5)
Camp Hill Chords: 9, it has everything going for it
Walsall - Wolverhampton: 7, infrastructure work minimal.
Stoke - Leek: 1
Low Moor - Thornhill: 0
Harrogate - Ripon - Northallerton: 0
Ashington, Blyth and Tyne: 8.
Stockton - Ferryhill: 0
Pelaw - Ferryhill: 4 (as part of the Metro)
Skelmersdale: 5. Decent proposal; will need local funding
Fleetwood: 0. The CBT report explains why!
Skipton - Colne: 1. See other threads passim ad nauseam. No case.
Hirwaun: 3
Abertillery: 5. Tragically depressed town.
Caernarfon - Bangor: 4 (as part of WHL); 2 (as part of national network)
Beddau - Ponty Clun: 4
Alloa - Dunfermerline: 2
St Andrews: 3
Leven: 5
Further disclaimer for avoidance of all doubt: I’m not involved, in any way, in any of these schemes or their assessment. This is purely my personal view of their chances, scored out of 10.
Cowley: 1/10. Already dismissed by Chiltern. (Further extension to Thame / beyond: 0)
Totton - Fawley: 5/10. Needs strong local support and developer cash.
Brentford - Southall: 0.
Henbury Loop: 7/10. Funding gap needs to be resolved.
Oakhampton - Tavistock - Bere Alston: 0 (Tavistock - Bere Alston only: 2, but needs local funding)
Portishead - Bristol: 7. As per Henbury.
Stratford - Honeybourne: 4, likely to need much more developer funding
March - Wisbech: 3. Costs too much, and service would be unattractive.
Bedford - Cambridge: 7. Likely to depend on housing volumes / new town
Haverhill - Cambridge: 0.
Leicester - Burton: 4. Likely to need local funding.
Shirebrook - Ollerton: 3. Likely to need local funding.
Matlock - Buxton: 0. Too many vested interests.
Walsall - Water Orton: 2. (Walsall - Aldridge: 5)
Camp Hill Chords: 9, it has everything going for it
Walsall - Wolverhampton: 7, infrastructure work minimal.
Stoke - Leek: 1
Low Moor - Thornhill: 0
Harrogate - Ripon - Northallerton: 0
Ashington, Blyth and Tyne: 8.
Stockton - Ferryhill: 0
Pelaw - Ferryhill: 4 (as part of the Metro)
Skelmersdale: 5. Decent proposal; will need local funding
Fleetwood: 0. The CBT report explains why!
Skipton - Colne: 1. See other threads passim ad nauseam. No case.
Hirwaun: 3
Abertillery: 5. Tragically depressed town.
Caernarfon - Bangor: 4 (as part of WHL); 2 (as part of national network)
Beddau - Ponty Clun: 4
Alloa - Dunfermerline: 2
St Andrews: 3
Leven: 5