Was the starting point (vs Bicester to Oxford) broadly the same, i.e. as I understand could a minimal service have been provided at minimalist cost?
No chance. Some of the track had been stolen.
Was the starting point (vs Bicester to Oxford) broadly the same, i.e. as I understand could a minimal service have been provided at minimalist cost?
Trains running between Oxford and Bicester go to Marylebone.
Is it so hard to grasp that not everyone using those trains is travelling to and from London?
Far more people are now using the trains to get between Bicester and Oxford station (not Parkway) than ever did when it was a single-track branch line with a low speed limit and a limited service. And the number making local and regional journeys by rail going nowhere near almighty London will increase substantially once again when the link to Milton Keynes is in place.
In fact there's probably a fair case for connecting between the SWML and the line through Camberley to improve the interaction between the main line and the radial routes as neither have a good connection (the Reading Redhill line requires a 15 minute walk across Farnborough whilst the Gatwick services don't call at Farnborough North). Such a link would require a grade separated junction and could allow a new service to run Basingstoke to Ascot as a stopping service.
This would increase capacity for the local communities without a very large cost. Probably the cost of the junction would be circa £100 million, and to provide a half hourly service would require 4 extra EMU's. This could also serve (with a few miles of extra electrification) the new development of Manydown to the West of Basingstoke, which (with a expected population of 8,000) could fairly easily see rail usage of about 500,000 a year.
If you assume it'll add 10% to other stations (excluding Basingstoke, even though you'd be doubling the frequency at many stations and by at least 50% at others) that's another half a million to million passengers a year. To break even, assuming £110,000 per coach in least costs and other costs being about 3 times your lease costs, that's an average ticket cost of £3.50 to £5.50 per passenger (£7 to £11 return) which would be fairly high for local travel.
However it's not unlikely that passenger numbers could be higher. For instance if it's 2 million passengers a year that's down to £5.30 return. Also the costs could be a bit high, in that typically total TOC costs are the times that of the lease costs, however with (as an example) no extra stations some of those costs would already be covered.
Marginal, I would imagine.
Your original claim was not that these branches were of benefit to the locality, but were nationally important.
Which - frankly - they are not.
Trains running between Oxford and Bicester go to Marylebone.
It is important to have a railway network that serves as much of the country, and provides as much access to and from elsewhere as possible.
Frankly I have no interest in what the "I drive everywhere, so everyone else can drive there if they really want to get there" brigade have to say on the matter.
Important to you, and to some others, but I’m afraid it’s a very small minority of the population.
That’s your prerogative of course, but the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people who travel to places like Whitby, Looe, and most other locations served by similar lines do drive there, and wouldn’t consider using the train even if it was free.
Important to you, and to some others, but I’m afraid it’s a very small minority of the population.
That’s your prerogative of course, but the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people who travel to places like Whitby, Looe, and most other locations served by similar lines do drive there, and wouldn’t consider using the train even if it was free.
Actually, given the numbers involved, I don’t suppose they’d notice.
Now a short walk away is a 6.5 million journeys per year station , with the local population making around 100 rail journeys per annum each. Obviously some "leisure" traffic there - maybe 15% at a guess , so you could argue that the / my local station is important.
Now a General Election has been called, it will surely be worth waiting to see the outcome of it and formation of the eventual new Government in office, before any decisions on any matter are actually made.
Well , I for one , await tangible and funded initiatives with very great interest.
I would say it is important to have a public transport network, however the respective role rail/bus/trams should play will depend on what benefit they can bring relative to the cost of providing them (including the ongoing infrastructure maintenance/renewal cost).It is important to have a railway network that serves as much of the country, and provides as much access to and from elsewhere as possible.
I would say it is important to have a public transport network, however the respective role rail/bus/trams should play will depend on what benefit they can bring relative to the cost of providing them (including the ongoing infrastructure maintenance/renewal cost).
I would say it is important to have a public transport network, however the respective role rail/bus/trams should play will depend on what benefit they can bring relative to the cost of providing them (including the ongoing infrastructure maintenance/renewal cost).
Probably more one for speculative ideas, but if vertically integrated multi-modal micro-franchises were created with freedom to have the optimal mix of rail, bus and tram, for the same tax-payer contribution in those areas as today (including the Network Rail element), then you may have an overall better public transport service, in terms of 'providing as much access to and from elsewhere as possible'.
I agree that the current situation with buses being either commercially operated or subsidised by cash-strapped local authorities does make them far more vulnerable than rail. A means of getting the same commitment and funding on a per-trip basis in rural/semi-rural areas for buses as current given to rail I would suggest would get more trips out of cars than re-opening many closed railways (trying to get back on-topic).
Beeching rail cuts: Fund to restore lines goes ahead amid criticism
A government fund is to be launched later to help restore historic railway lines closed more than 50 years ago under the so-called Beeching cuts.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps will visit Fleetwood to announce £21.9m for two railway lines and a New Stations Fund.
The £500m fund was promised in the Tory election manifesto in November.
But Labour called the plan "meaningless", adding that £500m would reopen just 25 miles of railway.
And the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT) described the funds as a "drop in the ocean".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51272817
As I just noted in the thread in the speculation section, the Ashington/Blyth project has the same status as Cambridge South in the DfT enhancement pipeline, published in October. I think it’s more than speculation.Reading the article, I think it's a bit rich Labour banging on about how this won't come to anything, given their absolute lack of achievement during their tenure. A couple of guided busways, no growth franchises and a lot of drivel about "trains carting around fresh air" are my abiding memories of those years.
I don't have as much knowledge about the Fleetwood project but Blythe and Tyne seems like a very good place to begin for such a project.
As I just noted in the thread in the speculation section, the Ashington/Blyth project has the same status as Cambridge South in the DfT enhancement pipeline, published in October. I think it’s more than speculation.
I read the BBC article earlier and it said that £100,000 is going to Poulton - Fleetwood to turn it into a heritage railway.
I read the BBC article earlier and it said that £100,000 is going to Poulton - Fleetwood to turn it into a heritage railway.