Government Seeking Ways to Reverse Some Beeching Cuts.

[pt_mad]

• East Coast to be slowly replaced by "The East Coast Partnership

What does this mean?

Will it be renamed as East Coast Partnership?


Also heard that Grayling said no benefit to electrifying the midland mainline to Sheffield. We already knew it was dropped but why say it's not worth it to save one minute? Surely the reasons for electrification go deeper than that. Saving our lungs for a start off.

 

[sprinterguy]

One reason for splitting franchises is that they are becoming so large businesses in terms of turnover that fewer companies are able / willing to bid. DfT is hoping that smaller franchises will reduce financial risk and encourage more bidders

And the cycle starts again. While in theory local franchises for local people might seem to be better tailored to local needs, recent experience seems to suggest that larger franchises offer greater simplicity and reliability for the passenger.

 

[mwmbwls]

The Western Equivalent of Northern. You probably can hear the fevered scratching of heads as local news editors seek to put a positive spin on it. " Oo Ah - Scrumpy Rail - DecCIDERdly Better".

 

[squizzler]

I am puzzled by the term "Reversing Beeching". Unless I am wrong, the establishment of previously lost connections, such as East West Rail, is more akin to building a new railway. The old alignments will not in many cases meet modern specifications such as speed requirements, environmental impact, junctions with existing lines, level crossings, etc.

Is there something warm and comforting about talking about re-openings or "reversing Beeching", as if people still think railways are all about apple cheeked children on lineside fences waving handkerchiefs at steam locomotive drivers? I think that, on the contrary, Beeching would approve of the strong business case of most proposed links. As a railway advocate I feel such terminology with implications of "turning the clock back" does the industry and its planners a disservice. I suggest we do better talking about "replacing" connections within the network.

 

[sprinterguy]

I am puzzled by the term "Reversing Beeching". Unless I am wrong, the establishment of previously lost connections, such as East West Rail, is more akin to building a new railway. The old alignments will not in many cases meet modern specifications such as speed requirements, environmental impact, junctions with existing lines, level crossings, etc.

Is there something warm and comforting about talking about re-openings or "reversing Beeching", as if people still think railways are all about apple cheeked children on lineside fences waving handkerchiefs at steam locomotive drivers? I think that, on the contrary, Beeching would approve of the strong business case of most proposed links. As a railway advocate I feel such terminology with implications of "turning the clock back" does the industry and its planners a disservice. I suggest we do better talking about "replacing" connections within the network.

There's certainly a strong element of nostalgia and sentimentality amongst the enthusiast fraternity as found on this forum when it comes to reopening: Hence frequent clamouring to reopen in their entirety lengthy secondary routes through lightly populated country such as the Waverley route, Woodhead, Somerset & Dorset, etc, rather than necessarily directing re-established links towards less glamorous locations where they best meet the needs of the surrounding population.

 

[pt_mad]

I am puzzled by the term "Reversing Beeching". Unless I am wrong, the establishment of previously lost connections, such as East West Rail, is more akin to building a new railway. The old alignments will not in many cases meet modern specifications such as speed requirements, environmental impact, junctions with existing lines, level crossings, etc.

Is there something warm and comforting about talking about re-openings or "reversing Beeching", as if people still think railways are all about apple cheeked children on lineside fences waving handkerchiefs at steam locomotive drivers? I think that, on the contrary, Beeching would approve of the strong business case of most proposed links. As a railway advocate I feel such terminology with implications of "turning the clock back" does the industry and its planners a disservice. I suggest we do better talking about "replacing" connections within the network.

But nostalgia is very much in fashion at the moment. Hence we have seen the resurgence of the names 'Great Western Railway' and 'London Northwestern Railway' and 'Southern'.

 

[yorksrob]

I am puzzled by the term "Reversing Beeching". Unless I am wrong, the establishment of previously lost connections, such as East West Rail, is more akin to building a new railway. The old alignments will not in many cases meet modern specifications such as speed requirements, environmental impact, junctions with existing lines, level crossings, etc.

Is there something warm and comforting about talking about re-openings or "reversing Beeching", as if people still think railways are all about apple cheeked children on lineside fences waving handkerchiefs at steam locomotive drivers? I think that, on the contrary, Beeching would approve of the strong business case of most proposed links. As a railway advocate I feel such terminology with implications of "turning the clock back" does the industry and its planners a disservice. I suggest we do better talking about "replacing" connections within the network.

It was the term specifically used in the Today programme headline, and of all the announcements today, it will chime with the general public far more than franchising changes and joint management, so I can see why the phrase is being used.

I also think there's a point about reconnecting communities that were severed from the network under the closure programme, regardless of how much of the old alignment is physically reused that will resonate strongly with the public.

 

[43021HST]

And the cycle starts again. While in theory local franchises for local people might seem to be better tailored to local needs, recent experience seems to suggest that larger franchises offer greater simplicity and reliability for the passenger.

I agree, history has long proven that fragmented rail-networks simply don't work. What with the first moves away from a fragmented network dating back to the late victorian period, pre-grouping, even they understood that unified rail networks work better. The SER, CLC, Midland Railway, LNWR, GER, to name a few all formed from lots of smaller companies who realised it was far more profitable to operate as a larger entity.

 

[sprinterguy]

But nostalgia is very much in fashion at the moment. Hence we have seen the resurgence of the names 'Great Western Railway' and 'London Northwestern Railway' and 'Southern'.

Indeed it is; which is all well and good if you want to trundle a few steam trains on a weekend up a few miles of branch line to suit families on a day out, or if you want to slap a brand name with historical significance on the side of your high frequency commuter or inter-city operation, less so if you want to make ends meet on a reopened railway winding through the sticks.

 

[DarloRich]

And now comes the main thing.

Plan is for the ECML to be handed over to a public private partnership for one company to maintain the railway and run the trains. Although details seem vague and sketchy and it might simply be Virgin having far more say in Network Rail's maintenance and renewals strategy.

The devil is in the (missing) detail. It could be a similar arrangement to Scotrail and based on the existing NR route businesses. It could be Virgin doing everything. I will remain neutral until we see that detail.

The report says:

• the first of the new generation of long-term regional partnerships on the East Coast Mainline, which will be introduced from 2020 - the East Coast Partnership between the public sector and a private partner will be operated by a single management, under a single brand and overseen by a single leader

and:

• The East Coast Partnership will be responsible for both intercity trains and track operations. It will be set up over the next 2 years as a partnership between the public and private sectors, with responsibility for the lines between London, Yorkshire, North East and Scotland.
  
  The private partner will have a leading role in defining future plans for route infrastructure.
  
  The government and the Office of Rail and Road will continue to ensure that robust protections for freight and other passenger operators are maintained.
  
  Further details about the new East Coast Partnership will be set out in the coming months. The government is currently in discussions with the existing operator of the East Coast franchise, Stagecoach-Virgin, to ensure the needs of passengers and taxpayers are being in met in the short term whilst laying the foundations to bring forward the reforms in full under a long-term competitively procured contract.

This seems to follow on & extended from the route devolution in NR and put the power for commissioning/sponsoring infrastructure works into the hands of the train operator.

In theory, is that that a bad thing?

 

[F Great Eastern]

So the government is going to invest money into this yet it's been cutting the Network Rail budget and electrification schemes left right and centre to save money, I smell a rat.

This is nothing more than a diversion tactic to take some of the heat off the government. Very little of this will happen and if anyone is buying this you are completely naive.

The timing of the announcement, is completely, totally a co-incidence too.

 

[squizzler]

There's certainly a strong element of nostalgia and sentimentality amongst the enthusiast fraternity as found on this forum when it comes to reopening: Hence frequent clamouring to reopen in their entirety lengthy secondary routes through lightly populated country such as the Waverley route, Woodhead, Somerset & Dorset, etc, rather than necessarily directing re-established links towards less glamorous locations where they best meet the needs of the surrounding population.

Yes, that is our wont as rail enthusiasts. I would expect the Government minister of transport to portray these developments as part of a vision for a 21st century sustainable transport system.

It was the term specifically used in the Today programme headline, and of all the announcements today, it will chime with the general public far more than franchising changes and joint management, so I can see why the phrase is being used.

I also think there's a point about reconnecting communities that were severed from the network under the closure programme, regardless of how much of the old alignment is physically reused that will resonate strongly with the public.

I agree with that. But why, despite the rail industry being very successful, is it still portrayed (willingly) as something of the past? Hence talk of re-openings, reversing Beeching, etc. I am not sure this is a two edged sword - it sounds warm and fuzzy but does it also risk not being taken seriously? Other industries are not done in the same way. Take the quote above where rail operators name themselves GWR, Southern, etc. Does anybody propose renaming British Airways after its ancestral company "Imperial Airways"?

 

[mwmbwls]

And splitting the Thameslink/Southern/Great Northern franchise back into its component parts.....

Unscrambling omelettes is always more difficult that making them.There is an expensive tunnel north of St Pancras that Great Northern Passengers are expecting to use to access Gatwick and the South Bank. The users of the Sutton Loop are experienced campaigners in fending off attempts to stuff them in the bays at Blackfriars and at the risk of mixing culinary metaphors, the layout at London Bridge was designed specifically to unravel the Spaghetti. The devil will be in the detail and the need for commoditised train performance imposed by ERTMS.

 

[deltic]

In 2009 ATOC produced Connecting Communities: Expanding Access to the Rail Network - press full of reports about reversing Beeching eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8099912.stm -

Train operators are calling for widespread expansion of the rail network in England, with 14 extra lines and about 40 new stations proposed.

The Association of Train Operating Companies said there was a need for expansion to cope with rising demand.

It said the expansion, which would cost £500m and possibly reuse lines closed under the 1960s Beeching cuts, could serve more than 1m extra passengers.

Any decisions on future expansion rest with government and Network Rail.....

8 nearly 9 years later what has actually been achieved ? Why do we think anything will actually be achieved in the next 10 years?

 

[jimm]

GWR being extended to 2020 and very likely 2022 by direct award, before the likely split into two.
The "Devon/Cornwall" franchise is far more than that, it's basically anything served off the B&H and extending back to Paddington.

Since the first time I can recall it being discussed, the Devon/Cornwall franchise concept has always included the London services - a few semi-fasts and branch lines would hardly constitute a franchise on their own and would be a total financial basket case. Now we seem to have moved on to reinventing Wessex Trains and chucking in the London services as well.

And even with the London service included you'd have to wonder about the finances, given the seasonal nature of much of the long-distance demand, even before you get to basic things like the cost of having to hire in stock from the rump GWR for summer Saturdays, Easter and Christmas extras, as a split would remove the ability to just shuffle stock around between the various GW routes. The idea that the London-Bedwyn service could end up in the 'West Country' franchise hints at desperate attempts to come up with a way of making the potential bottom line look better by chucking in a slice of Berkshire commuter revenue.

I remain to be convinced such a split is "likely". Even the DfT has felt obliged to list supposed advantages and disadvantages in its consultation document https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/great-western-rail-franchise and the 'advantages' aren't that convincing. FGW/GWR has put plenty of focus on improving the West Country branches, to take just one example - would anyone else do better just because they weren't managing Thames Valley commuter services as well?

Designing franchises to try to make the Treasury happy and attract one or two more bidders isn't necessarily compatible with the delivering a joined-up railway for the passengers or operationally, which was kind of the reason why the Greater Western franchise was created in the first place. Co-ordination between the intercity version of FGW and Thames Trains and Wessex services was pretty poor much of the time.

I am puzzled by the term "Reversing Beeching"

It's called spin - it sounds much better than saying we are reannouncing - yet again - all the reopening projects that are already in the development stage and which we are very keen to take credit for, even if they were someone else's idea...

 

[DarloRich]

I am puzzled by the term "Reversing Beeching".

That is the media hook. The other changes are of much more importance than this idea.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, that is our wont as rail enthusiasts. I would expect the Government minister of transport to portray these developments as part of a vision for a 21st century sustainable transport system.



Or Brexit (pass me the asbestos suit!)



I agree with that. But why, despite the rail industry being very successful, is it still portrayed (willingly) as something of the past? Hence talk of re-openings, reversing Beeching, etc. I am not sure this is a two edged sword - it sounds warm and fuzzy but does it also risk not being taken seriously? Other industries are not done in the same way. Take the quote above where rail operators name themselves GWR, Southern, etc. Does anybody propose renaming British Airways after its ancestral company "Imperial Airways"?

I think that the Beeching cuts have a particular resonance with the public, as evidenced by the fact that they are still recognised by the public so it acts as a hook to get the public in. In terms of policy, it seems to be more of a shift in emphasis away from big national projects and towards local connectivity, which is an area that has been neglected in the past, rather than an appeal to nostalgia per se.

In terms of GWR etc, it's a willingness to echo the Golden age of steam and it's perceived luxury.

 

[Llanigraham]

The latter being, purely by coincidence, in the constituency of the Right Honourable Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade, Doctor Liam Fox who has according to a reliable source been pressing the Secretary of State for Transport on this matter. For the benefit of those who would be surprised at this, my source is https://www.liamfox.co.uk/news/liam-fox-demands-action-over-portishead-railway

Oh you cycnic, you!!

Perhaps smirking Grayling is trying to gain some popularity

I wonder why?

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Of course, one easy way to find the funds to reopen many lines closed by Beeching would be to scrap HS2, as the Bow Group Think Tank suggested a couple of years ago....

http://www.51m.co.uk/use-hs2-money-to-reopen-axed-beeching-lines-says-think-tank/

Reports that a Conservative think tank has said that the High Speed Two (HS2) rail project should be scrapped ‘and its funding used to revive railway lines abolished by Dr Beeching’ feature in today’s newspaper round-up.

The Times reports that the Bow Group “claims that dozens of redundant lines could be brought back to life at a fraction of the cost of building one high-speed route to ‘already well-connected cities’.” The paper says a study by the think tank found that the reinstatement of existing lines “would ease pressure on crowded commuter routes while providing a lifeline for towns cut off from the rail network for 50 years”.

 

[DarloRich]

I feel the headline of this thread should be changed to: Government unveils New Strategic Vision for Rail

 

[F Great Eastern]

I feel the headline of this thread should be changed to: Government unveils New Strategic Vision for Rail

That would imply it's genuine and that they are aiming to do a lot of things which are new rather than re-announcing old things and offering a diversionary tactic of speculating about such things to placate the brexiteers over the exit bill.

The government has no money for new things, that's why it cut the electrification plans, how do you think they will afford all of this? It's a hook for certain people who have taken it.

 

[DarloRich]

That would imply it's genuine and that they are aiming to do a lot of things which are new rather than re-announcing old things and offering a diversionary tactic of speculating about such things to placate the brexiteers over the exit bill.

The government has no money for new things, that's why it cut the electrification plans, how do you think they will afford all of this? It's a hook for certain people who have taken it.

But they ARE doing a lot of new things to the structure and operation of the railway. That is much more importance than a few hobby horses. This is a key line:

• The private partner will have a leading role in defining future plans for route infrastructure.

 

[plcd1]

It's a shame that the DfT apparently think that Blyth and Ashington are in County Durham rather than Northumberland. Do they not check their press releases?

I am afraid I share the cynicism about this whole announcement being a distraction tactic from other "bad news" for the government. There's no evidence of an extra penny of funding being made available and there's no evidence that these so called "partnerships" or "alliances" work in medium to long term. The one on SWT collapsed due to lack of financial clarity once Network Rail came back on the government's books. What's changed? The move to try to make funding of new lines / stations a local authority issue is ridiculous given the antics of the last 7 years where local authorities' funding has been squeezed beyond belief. If they can't fund libararies or bus services or repair roads then where's the money for multi million pound accessible railway stations or tens of millions to put tracks back?

I know people are critical of the GTR franchise but it strikes me as bizarre (being polite) that after 7 years hard slog of restructuring services, coping with disruption, bringing in new fleets of trains and hopefully making it work effectively that it's all going to be ripped apart again. Are we really going to go back to the days of sub optimal timetabling, even more ludicrous fares and competing franchises on some of the most congested lines in the country? And try to cope with rebuilding East Croydon and its approaches at the same tine?

 

[F Great Eastern]

But they ARE doing a lot of new things to the structure and operation of the railway. That is much more importance than a few hobby horses. This is a key line:

• The private partner will have a leading role in defining future plans for route infrastructure.

No, they're saying they are looking at possible ways and asking for ideas, there's a lot of talk about what they can do, what they may do, and seeing what is possible and gaining ideas, but no actual commitment to actually do anything in practice infrastructure wise.

As I said, how can they afford all what you believe, considering they don't have any extra funding, are skint to the point where they had to cancel electrification schemes?

 

[brad465]

As an Environmentalist I'd support the reopening of such lines as an alternative form of transport. However I do agree with much of what has been said relating to this not completely happening in reality, particularly in light of electrification stuff being cut back, which like many I was furious at the cutback there (again for environmental support reasons)

 

[pt_mad]

Or the political party in power could change within the next 4 years and it never actually happens (east coast partnership).

 

[uww11x]

Opening the Scottish Borders line right through to Carlisle would be fantastic!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Many of the routes which people on these boards keep pining for won't be reopening any time soon.

It will be routes which improve connectivity into major centres of employment - so forget many of the long semi-rural cross country services.

The branches around Bristol are a case in point - the track is largely there, getting people into and out of Bristol provides the link to jobs. There will be other lines like that.

What won't make the grade are routes like Woodhead, S&D, Peterborough - Northampton or Peterborough - Rugby, S&MJR, M&GNR.

If these reopenings are to really connect workers with work, in some cases we really need significant investment in tramways or light rail to get the full benefit. Bristol for example suffers from Temple Meads being a fair distance from the commercial centre of the city. Busways won't solve those problems because people don't trust buses. A fixed, permanent link is the only way to get people out of their cars. Likewise Leeds getting a proper tramway should be a priority, certainly ahead of reopenings like Woodhead or Waverley.

 

[DarloRich]

No, they're saying they are looking at possible ways and asking for ideas, there's a lot of talk about what they can do, what they may do, and seeing what is possible and gaining ideas, but no actual commitment to actually do anything in practice infrastructure wise.

As I said, how can they afford all what you believe, considering they don't have any extra funding, are skint to the point where they had to cancel electrification schemes?

No - the proposals for East Coast ( and by extension SE & Midlands) are firm. They want to develop a deep alliance type arrangement with one joint management team building on Network Rail’s recent devolution of infrastructure management to route-based businesses, changes to the franchising system to match the needs of the new partnership while maintaining the railway infrastructure in public ownership.

They then make suggestions ( which i agree are unfunded) about different franchise styles, reopenings, further investment etc. That is wibble for the masses. The key point in all of this above. Those structural changes costs the government very little in cash terms. The East Coast partnership will be in place by 2020 and i suspect sooner than that.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The devil is in the (missing) detail. It could be a similar arrangement to Scotrail and based on the existing NR route businesses. It could be Virgin doing everything. I will remain neutral until we see that detail.

The report says:

• the first of the new generation of long-term regional partnerships on the East Coast Mainline, which will be introduced from 2020 - the East Coast Partnership between the public sector and a private partner will be operated by a single management, under a single brand and overseen by a single leader

and:

• The East Coast Partnership will be responsible for both intercity trains and track operations. It will be set up over the next 2 years as a partnership between the public and private sectors, with responsibility for the lines between London, Yorkshire, North East and Scotland.
  
  The private partner will have a leading role in defining future plans for route infrastructure.
  
  The government and the Office of Rail and Road will continue to ensure that robust protections for freight and other passenger operators are maintained.
  
  Further details about the new East Coast Partnership will be set out in the coming months. The government is currently in discussions with the existing operator of the East Coast franchise, Stagecoach-Virgin, to ensure the needs of passengers and taxpayers are being in met in the short term whilst laying the foundations to bring forward the reforms in full under a long-term competitively procured contract.

This seems to follow on & extended from the route devolution in NR and put the power for commissioning/sponsoring infrastructure works into the hands of the train operator.

In theory, is that that a bad thing?

In theory I do not think it is. I think it is quite positive.

But as we have both already surmised. The devil will be in the detail!