Government Seeking Ways to Reverse Some Beeching Cuts.

[Bald Rick]

Oh, I agree entirely regarding level crossings. If it was up to me I'd make the road budget pay for the lot, as these problems are primarily caused by misuse by motorists.

The road budget is of course controlled by the highways authority, which for almost all public level crossings is the DfT or the county council. So the cash is coming from the same bank account.

For private crossings - which are the majority of crossings in Anglia, I don't think it is fair that the private land owner is asked to pay for improvements to level crossings for an increase in risk caused by something entirely out of their control.

 

[eastdyke]

To be honest, I wouldn't have a problem with the trains going that way if it suited the market better - it would save having to sort out Ely North anyway.That said, as Starmill mentioned, Cambridge is now a major employment centre.

It would not save 'having to sort out Ely North'.
There are at least 4 other service enhancements that will help do that and 1 of those (at the very least) is unstoppable. That being the Felixstowe-Nuneaton freight route upgrade which is currently progressing in little bits.
Of course Ely North could be further delayed if a new Freight line were to be built avoiding some or all of the existing route, in particular around Ely!

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, a very good point. I too would find it very surprising if increasing the number of interCity trains on a mainline over level crossings resulted in no change to risk structure, yet an additional train over an existing passenger route as a result of a newly opened route further down the line did result in a change in risk.

Rest assured the risk profile of crossings on the GEML will change as a result of the additional Norwich services, and where there is an increase in risk that requires mitigation, that will need paying for. Whether GA had enough cash in their franchise bid for it is another question.

 

[Bald Rick]

You cannot move very far over the 'flat' lands of East Anglia without encountering a level crossing.

It is accepted that level crossings impose a risk on the users of rail and of roads/bridleways/footpaths. But reading some inputs an outsider could gain an impression that the current policies of Network Rail with respect to crossings are designed to enable their Engineers to sleep easy in their beds and as a catch-all for no-can-do.

It is fundamentally wrong for any level crossing work across the wider network to be totally offset as a full cost on relatively minor schemes and changes. Patently work across the wider network will reduce risks to many existing travelers as well.

I am surprised to have heard nothing in relation to the proposed increase in service London-Norwich broadly from 2tph to 3tph. The risk of a crossing incident must be increased, perhaps all the crossings affected are 'low' or 'medium' risk?

I am not sure what money is likely to be available in CP6 and beyond, if any, for level crossing risk reduction works? As a risk identified by/to the Industry there really should be a substantial provision.

It has been said that some of the crossings March-Ely and Ely-Cambridge are 'high risk'. Such a designation should mean that they are already earmarked for mitigation works within a planning horizon (of say 10 years?) on the basis of the most risky first.
Minor schemes and changes should only be charged with the cost of bringing forward high risk crossing mitigation works, not with the full costs. There should be no charges at all in relation to crossing works where the risk has not already been assessed as 'high'.

It's not quite that simple. The risk level that makes a crossing one of 'higher risk' (the official term) is purely arbritary. Higher risk crossings have more detailed risk assessments and more detailed investigation into mitigations. However Mitigation work can be (and is) planned at all crossings, but priority is given to those with higher risk scores.

You are quite right though that the policies are designed to enable Level Crossing managers and their superiors to sleep well at night. And that is because they are personally accountable. If there is a fatal incident at a level crossing and the investigation reveals that the crossing has not been properly assessed, or mitigations not delivered, then these individuals are the ones who end up in the police station under caution being interviewed with the prospect of charges of manslaughter.

 

[eastdyke]

There is a public enquiry on right now to remove some level crossings in Cambridgeshire. http://cambridge-level-crossings.persona-pi.com/

http://bailey.persona-pi.com/Public-Inquiries/Cambridge/A Core Documents/NR06.pdf says:

The big problem is the run of three level crossings through Queen Adelaide. When the Ely North junction upgrade gets done, and there are trains to Kings Lynn every 30 minutes, and a load more freight trains, then Queen Adelaide effectively going to be cut off for much of the time. Bridging the level crossings will not be cheap.

Sure and public inquiries are very difficult to avoid which is why projects are difficult to progress. But the current works will only remove some of the 'higher risk' crossings which meet the criteria for removal/mitigation works. I am keen to know how such works are to be considered in CP6. The CP system does not encourage the continuity that a 5 (or better 10) year rolling plan would offer. A rolling plan would offer benefits to the Railway and to its wider stakeholders.
I know Queen Adelaide well, although earlier postings imply that some of the issues are between Ely and Cambridge.
Bridging at Queen Adelaide is not an easy option on the line of the existing road due to adjacent domestic properties. The residents must already feel isolated in/out of their homes when the crossings are closed to road.
Works at Queen Adelaide would cost no more than, I suggest, a somewhat eye-watering £50 million. The work to close the crossings could be achieved by building a by-pass road around 1 mile long which would include a river/rail viaduct and rail bridge. It would in many ways be similar to the Ely Southern by-pass currently under construction, which is estimated at £36 million.
Unless of course Network Rail have a more cost effective solution.

 

[Blaahh]

I agree with the earlier post concerning Fawley to Southampton, the road is lethal, the bus service appalling and the Waterside growth in population substantial. The bay in Southampton can reopen too. Just needs £4m and new track and a station at Applemore, Dibden and Fawley...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How much potential passenger traffic is there from the Applemore/Dibden/Fawley area to Romsey and Salisbury?

 

[yorksrob]

The road budget is of course controlled by the highways authority, which for almost all public level crossings is the DfT or the county council. So the cash is coming from the same bank account.

For private crossings - which are the majority of crossings in Anglia, I don't think it is fair that the private land owner is asked to pay for improvements to level crossings for an increase in risk caused by something entirely out of their control.

The road and rail budgets may well superficially come out of the same pot, however rightly or wrongly NR is perceived as costing a lot, therefore adding level crossing improvements to that budget will inevitably add to that perception in a way that putting it on the road budget will not. Which arm of the state is seen to spend that pot will inevitably have political consequences for that arm of the state.

 

[yorksrob]

Rest assured the risk profile of crossings on the GEML will change as a result of the additional Norwich services, and where there is an increase in risk that requires mitigation, that will need paying for. Whether GA had enough cash in their franchise bid for it is another question.

The fact remains that the majority of level crossing incidents are caused by misuse by motorists, therefore the road budget should stump up the cash.

 

[Class 170101]

That's a ridiculous layout. Surely they should have double track throughout the junction to prevent up and down Norwich/Kings Lynn services from conflicting ?

I would have thought that this should be sorted out for the current service as a matter of urgency (and of course, completely separately from the Wisbech business case).

The layout itself of the junction (as it stands) caused issues. Those familar with Ely West Curve will know it was reduced to uni-directional status until the last couple of years or so ago due to a crash in Newton, Scotland with a similar layout.

I think the title of this thread should be " Government seeking a way out (of reversing some cuts)" . Expecting house builders to fund an ever increasing burden of transport infrastructure projects as well as providing a greater proportion of "affordable housing" ( aka cheap subsidised houses for the lucky few ) within their development is wishful thinking. Surely developers are going to walk away if councils place too onerous conditions on planning consent. Most builders have considerable land banks already and can wait this one out.
The only way is for central government to provide the majority of the money.

One developer already has. The Evening Standard had an article about Meridian Water. Its developer pulled out for the very reason about the proportion of 'affordable' housing. It is clear the developers don't want Section 106 (the means for developers to fund public projects) but nor do they wish to pay the appropriate taxes for them - it would not surprise me if the Panama Papers didn't have a builder or two named within them..

 

[IanXC]

One developer already has. The Evening Standard had an article about Meridian Water. Its developer pulled out for the very reason about the proportion of 'affordable' housing. It is clear the developers don't want Section 106 (the means for developers to fund public projects) but nor do they wish to pay the appropriate taxes for them - it would not surprise me if the Panama Papers didn't have a builder or two named within them..

I look forward to purchasing a property from your house building company that has no concept of profit and loss!

 

[Ianno87]

The fact remains that the majority of level crossing incidents are caused by misuse by motorists, therefore the road budget should stump up the cash.

As already explained, it makes no difference as the ultimate source of the money is the same, i.e. DfT. It'll just be accounted for in your proposal by upping the highaays budget in place of the rail budget.

You've got to think what is the root cause of misuse. More trains = more downtime = more inclination to (thus risk of) misuse (which is just one facet of the risk).

 

[Class 170101]

I suppose the question has to be asked is how we get developers to build the houses the country needs and contibute to the infrastructure around it without Section 106 and without relying on the developers paying tax (share of) for said infrastructure then?

 

[yorksrob]

As already explained, it makes no difference as the ultimate source of the money is the same, i.e. DfT. It'll just be accounted for in your proposal by upping the highaays budget in place of the rail budget.

You've got to think what is the root cause of misuse. More trains = more downtime = more inclination to (thus risk of) misuse (which is just one facet of the risk).

If you think that it makes no difference politically what part of the Government budget money comes out of, just because it is all spent by the Government, then you are failing to acknowledge a large part of politics. There is a whole debate around spending on health and adult social care, and whilst both of these contribute towards the aim of better health and wellbeing, and while both are paid from Government budgets, the fact that one comes via the NHS budget and the other via local authority budgets has a very substantial effect on what Government is prepared politically to contribute towards them.

As for level crossings, the logical way to allocate where spending should go from would indeed be to look at the causes of misuse. For the most part that is misuse by the motorist, not poor maintenance/management by the railway.

 

[IanXC]

I suppose the question has to be asked is how we get developers to build the houses the country needs and contibute to the infrastructure around it without Section 106 and without relying on the developers paying tax (share of) for said infrastructure then?

Its probably true that there is a balance to be found. We cannot expect private firms to pay for infrastructure and affordable homes to such a degree that there is no profit margin to be made on the development as a whole. If, for reasons of good public policy, we want all these things then I think we have to accept that they cannot all be delivered by developers.

 

[edwin_m]

I look forward to purchasing a property from your house building company that has no concept of profit and loss!

Difficult to know whether a developer is "gaming the system" or the payments they have to make are genuinely destroying the financial case for development. That's why the public sector needs to be an "informed buyer" and can't just outsource everything. But looking at the difference in land value in a desirable area when planning permission is granted, there is clearly a lot of money to be made one way or another.

 

[eastdyke]

Difficult to know whether a developer is "gaming the system" or the payments they have to make are genuinely destroying the financial case for development. That's why the public sector needs to be an "informed buyer" and can't just outsource everything. But looking at the difference in land value in a desirable area when planning permission is granted, there is clearly a lot of money to be made one way or another.

A developer may not want to pay Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and can currently simply avoid it by developing only in a Local Authority area where there is no CIL. Although CIL has been around for over 7 years introduction by Local Authorities has been very patchy. IMO The lack of CIL in any given area could equate to sub-optimal strategic planning.
A Government Report released in early 2017 proposed changes to CIL and changes were expected to be in the Autumn Budget. Changes would include a Strategic Infrastructure Tariff (SIT) an all developments in England (not sure about Wales). As far as I can tell all that was actually announced amounted to more review.

Note: The Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (MCIL) applies to most new developments in London granted planning permission on or after 1 April 2012. The Levy raises money towards Crossrail and is collected by the London Boroughs. Consultation has recently been carried out with a view to introducing MCIL2 from April 2019 to contribute towards Crossrail2.

 

[The Ham]

There is a balance to be had, housebuilders should (and do) contribute a lot to mitigate against the impact of their developments (social housing, highway works, drainage infrastructure, towards schools, etc.) however they shouldn't be the only source of investment.

Investment by developers is significantly higher than it was (it wasn't that long ago, maybe 30 years ago, that highway works for new developments was mostly just build a junction to connect the site to the road network) however government has to be careful not to become too reliant on it as a source of funding. As if it does and there's a housing market dip then there could be problems which they then have to sort out from their budget (i.e. new houses subsidise bus routes which if house building stops could then need to be funded by other sources).

 

[SamYeager]

Bridging at Queen Adelaide is not an easy option on the line of the existing road due to adjacent domestic properties. The residents must already feel isolated in/out of their homes when the crossings are closed to road.
Works at Queen Adelaide would cost no more than, I suggest, a somewhat eye-watering £50 million.

I don't know the area but in the context of your estimated budget I wonder if buying those properties and demolishing them would be worthwhile in terms of simplifying the works required?

 

[al78]

I agree with the earlier post concerning Fawley to Southampton, the road is lethal, the bus service appalling and the Waterside growth in population substantial. The bay in Southampton can reopen too. Just needs £4m and new track and a station at Applemore, Dibden and Fawley...

Roads are not lethal, roads are just a benign strip of tarmac, they don't leap up and injure people. What you mean is the users of the road act in a dangerous manner by not driving according to the conditions and hazards, in which case monitoring by the police to catch dangerous drivers is desirable.

The problem with the term "dangerous roads" is that it all too often is an attempt to take responsibility away from motorists, and that road crashes are somehow just bad luck, not because someone has screwed up.

 

[brel york]

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.

The woodhead route wasn’t built to serve local communities, it was for the large scale movement of coal between two of the countries largest cities, Sheffield and Manchester have the worst transport links between two major cities in the whole of Western Europe

 

[eastdyke]

I don't know the area but in the context of your estimated budget I wonder if buying those properties and demolishing them would be worthwhile in terms of simplifying the works required?

The B1382, as well as a link road to and between other minor roads, is the route between Ely and the village of Prickwillow
It's a little ironic that the settlement was only established after the railways were built.
In practice Network Rail may seek to mitigate the risk by installing full barrier CCTV crossings but with increased rail traffic the road becomes even more prone to effective closure for substantial periods of time.
Sadly the pub is no longer open else we could organise a forum meet there!

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The woodhead route wasn’t built to serve local communities, it was for the large scale movement of coal between two of the countries largest cities, Sheffield and Manchester have the worst transport links between two major cities in the whole of Western Europe

Quite correct, but the Woodhead protagonists want the route re-opened even though that coal traffic no longer exists. As for Manchester/Sheffield (and Manchester/Leeds), our Westminster woodentops have passed an Act Of Parliament facilitating HS2 even though Manchester/London is already a fast, high quality route, but have no serious interest in the creation of comparably good routes across the Pennines.

 

[Domeyhead]

I agree with the earlier post concerning Fawley to Southampton, the road is lethal, the bus service appalling and the Waterside growth in population substantial. The bay in Southampton can reopen too. Just needs £4m and new track and a station at Applemore, Dibden and Fawley...

If this was in Wales it would be open already. However Hampshire County Council commissioned the "Halcrow report" which was ridiculously pessimistic (it considered the Hythe Ferry to be a perfect example of an "integrated transport solution" and a competitor to the proposed railway that rendered it superfluous!) and contained some strange assumptions about stock, speed (40mph? Really?), (this would be an ideal candidate for the D Train btw) and train destination (Fareham???) but the council loved it because they did not have to try and find their share of the money to reopen. The big problem is the lack of ambition in the latest proposals. The railway needs 1200 - 1500 journeys a day to cover capital costs to reinstate a sparse service, but stopping at Hythe makes that a tough target. Comparisons with the Ebbw Vale line show that even this short option should generate 1,000 journeys minimum from the current population and a station at Totton South will increase that. (The Halcrow report estimated 600!) But the refinery now has lots of spare land along the rail route, and if a security corridor is formed through the refinery site to a Fawley Parkway station just south of the current southern boundary it will serve Blackfield , Holbury, Fawley and the new development on the old Power station site and should see the line achieve 2000 (longer) journeys per day. These are modest figures, but the truth is, this is all talk from the Government. And there is no money, even when you meet the B-C ratio targets. We have to prioritise our Foreign Aid to fund the re-emergence of ISIS, apparently.

 

[Chester1]

Woodhead reopening is unnecessary while there are plenty of cheap options to upgrade the speed and capacity of the Hope Valley line. A passenger service from Rotherham to Stocksbridge would be a good idea though.

 

[furnessvale]

Woodhead reopening is unnecessary while there are plenty of cheap options to upgrade the speed and capacity of the Hope Valley line. A passenger service from Rotherham to Stocksbridge would be a good idea though.

Pity the modest proposal of an additional loop on that line (Hope Valley) has been cancelled.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Pity the modest proposal of an additional loop on that line (Hope Valley) has been cancelled.

Noting that the Transport and Works Act decision into the combined scheme to enhance the Dore Triangle and construct a new eastbound loop at Bamford has not yet been published I was unaware that the project has been 'cancelled' (as opposed to merely being 'delayed'). Has there been another announcement or withdrawal of funding or something? (Hope not.)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This is the goverment that is cutting back investment, talk is cheap. Until I see positive action in the form of reinstatment works being carried out i will not believe it.

I agree

 

[theironroad]

If this was in Wales it would be open already. However Hampshire County Council commissioned the "Halcrow report" which was ridiculously pessimistic (it considered the Hythe Ferry to be a perfect example of an "integrated transport solution" and a competitor to the proposed railway that rendered it superfluous!) and contained some strange assumptions about stock, speed (40mph? Really?), (this would be an ideal candidate for the D Train btw) and train destination (Fareham???) but the council loved it because they did not have to try and find their share of the money to reopen. The big problem is the lack of ambition in the latest proposals. The railway needs 1200 - 1500 journeys a day to cover capital costs to reinstate a sparse service, but stopping at Hythe makes that a tough target. Comparisons with the Ebbw Vale line show that even this short option should generate 1,000 journeys minimum from the current population and a station at Totton South will increase that. (The Halcrow report estimated 600!) But the refinery now has lots of spare land along the rail route, and if a security corridor is formed through the refinery site to a Fawley Parkway station just south of the current southern boundary it will serve Blackfield , Holbury, Fawley and the new development on the old Power station site and should see the line achieve 2000 (longer) journeys per day. These are modest figures, but the truth is, this is all talk from the Government. And there is no money, even when you meet the B-C ratio targets. We have to prioritise our Foreign Aid to fund the re-emergence of ISIS, apparently.

That's a very informative post and good argument for reopening only to be spoilt by the totally irrelevant final sentence.

 

[The Ham]

That's a very informative post and good argument for reopening only to be spoilt by the totally irrelevant final sentence.

Quite, the problem with bring up the foreign aid budget is that there's always going to be bits of it that people support (government match funding public giving to major disasters) and bits that people don't (or at least they think they don't support like giving to countries with a space programme, forgetting that the UK has a space programme and there's still a lot of people that need help and support here and there's no calls, or at least if there is it's a very small group of people, to cancel the UK government spend on that).

Of course, the other issue is that what happens if something BIG comes up that does need us to act, something that if not halted quickly could impact the UK. Without ongoing support and the skills that it develops it could mean that we were unable to act in a meaningful way. As a case study, other than the US, the UK had the biggest spend on the Ebola outbreak. Without the ongoing support (i.e money being readily available) and skills learnt in other areas we wouldn't have been able to offer the same level of support. Meaning either others would have had to have stepped up, or (more likely) Ebola spreading to more countries potentially even to the UK. The cost to the UK if it had even only limited air travel because it was on route to being endemic would have made the aid budget for the last 15 years and tiny. If it had reached the UK shores it would have been a significant drain on the NHS budget and could have seen mass travel (i.e by bus or train) almost stop overnight as people started to fear contact with others.