Some reflections response to Mr Andy Roden's Rail Article 'Ten Rules for rail reopenings.'

Some reflections response to Mr Andy Roden's Rail Article 'Ten Rules for rail reopenings.' Published in Rail Magazine Issue No. 923, Jan 27-Feb 9 2021 pages 32-35.

'Experts' (p. 32) seem the buzz word of standard aim and audience, what of local/lay people aspiration? Andy declares links to the Northern Route Working Group, Exeter-Plymouth. Re-railing Exeter-Okehampton is one thing, getting to Tavistock and Plymouth quite another matter and yet people have been advocating it for years - where was the railway media then? Many other campaigns have come and gone, largely un-covered and ignored by obsessive rail media coverage of existing lines, traction, rolling stock designs, power and pandering to professionals on the one hand and enthusiasts on the other.

Rule 1: Don't look back: But if the case is valid and if - given no retrospective inquiry assessed the issues pertaining to the before and after closures by stealth - if there was foul play, and new demand now can be detected, action is required now at the 11th hour even as a rebuild can take decades to bring about - lessons need to reduce complexity, cost and duration from concept to delivery. We cannot sit back and say 'blockages prevent reopening' as you surely have to balance pain and gain? You may say HS2 is a replacement for the loss of the GC Main Line but does not serve Leicester and probably won't cater for freight except by default on existing lines which do not directly link Southampton/Bristol/Oxford with Rugby/WCML and Narborough/Leicester/East Midlands and vice versa for example, let alone growing catchments around Brackley, Daventry, Magna Park and Lutterworth for example. The real default of such thinking is that it all goes to the roads, compounding congestion, pollution and expansion destroys land more. That in the context of a Climate Emergency seems very short sighted if not myopic? We are supposed to be de-cluttering roads and informing modal shift back to rail more through making the network more comprehensive, re-railing and mixing passenger and freight customer services tuned to what people will use/do. 

If blockages or opposition meant "reopening simply isn't possible" (p32) HS2 would never have been built and about 80-90% of reopening in rebuild or select rebuild/new build terms is ruled out, which leaves a deficit locking in road demand.

2. Identify your markets: If you have loads of money - studies are upwards of £100, 000 plus, then fine, this article is for you. But most people do not possess such, what's in it for the Bridport’s, Ilfracombe’s, Ventnor’s, Maldon’s and Keswick’s of this world? The tenor of the article seems to rule them out the game from differential criterion fronts. Again, it defaults to roads and more demand for roads but for want of taking the pragmatic true bull by the horns and re-railing. Lay people seem to be dismissed from:

a. having a view

b. advocating a scheme as best they may (subjectively)

c. being taken seriously "ignore part time gardeners..."

Yes, do as much homework on any proposition as may reasonably be done.  But apart from 50 plus years of route abandonment, neglect; the route abandonment then and now including other and competing uses (cycle paths, walk-ways, canals, development) means the loss of routes and corridors is ever-present and article if it had space could have put forward a call to Secretary of State to make arrangements to protect routes and consider their case merits with suitable incentives and sanctions to keep options open. Helston may be the proverbial Swaffham for not reopening and closing respectively, but what of the Dunstable’s, Brackley’s, Daventry's and Witney’s of this world, do we write them off or strategic relief lines or duplicate lines? All defaults to spiral roads and disparity, whilst the existing rail network looks on and people are locked into driving lifestyles for want of more choices.

Mr Roden's view on assessing demand seems limited. On the one hand it could be a combination in normal times such as coastal resorts having all year round visitorship, which may not have been so common 50+ years ago. Likewise, bus substitutes may be less cost, but are they as versatile as rail could be were a line-born freight and passenger growth plan for every line to be mandatory? We have downsized, airlines and sterilised what the railway can do, so rule out a click and collect/send parcels depot x per population 10, 000 upwards on the back of plethora of problem rather than solutions except money can solve most of them it seems?

Lay people can make anecdotal but part of the problem has been:

a. lack of support for route protection/Cinderella status many years.

b. Costs of studies. One over-arching is not enough, many sub studies on aspects like engineering, environmental impact, demand for casting, BCR Rating and so forth exist. It just goes on and meanwhile the routes are under threat as never before - see Olney in Milton Keynes as a prime example. 

c. Complicated maths and formulas put many lay people off, it is the preserve of the specialist or enthusiast for complicated maths and problems it seems - Highways Agency and British Roads Federation and similar do it for roads, who does it for rail?

d. Other 'political' aspects. E.g., Oxford-Bedford-Cambridge has numerous studies commanded as a pre-qualifier at huge cost, but continually was deferred for decades. People saw Bedford-Bletchley and said "basket case, why do we want more?" contrast where actions of faith did prevail, Oxford-Bicester was a resounding success. Same line, different approaches and apprehensions. In short 'can't, don't won't' v 'can-do, will do, must do'. EWRL was pursued after 7 years of knocking on their doors, by a consortium of councils and public interest has grown and diminished in waves intermittently. We're still waiting and could be another 10 years before all singing and dancing delivery infill happens, contrast development of roads/Black Cat Roundabout and houses being pushed to the fore now. The consortium came about through campaigning and advocacy by lay people first.

3. Define rail as a solution to a real-world problem: Examples could be a missing link, population has grown since closures, other growths, new markets and lack of choices on strategic corridors or intermittent places needing better connectivity.  There can be a view that the closures from the 1950's - Serpell (early 80's) were 'political' in nature, rather than purely demand led for example. The view "not enough people used them" may only be partly true and the question why, bring up a demand for modernisation to cut overheads for example and no money for it, so closure was the answer? Bus competition was much more abundant and subsidised, government switched spending from rail to road, power switched from coal to oil, surveys of demand-use could be done in quieter times, avoiding peaks and term time for example. Poor promotion, a lack of coordination in the original build of laissez-fare - can/do we learn today? 

LRT/Trams and buses raises the issue of freight – what good for it/can you send parcels or bikes by bus/tram? There’s guarantee LRT is cheaper per se and horses for courses, taking to the streets is one thing, adding destinations and populations to a nationwide rail-net-work is a different thing and scope of the latter broader providing you get your marketing right. Otherwise all but main lines to close brings us back to Serpell, which is a wrong way to go if we are serious about environment, public transport and cutting emissions surely? I feel the dismissive of Helston as the example with the 10, 000 people scoping contrasts to the fact that Cornwall is a much sought-after places with multitudes of visitorship and whilst many drive to/from it and their homes, they do, like Wales, use the local rails. The treatment of Helston serves as a cautionary note, but also sad because it makes grim reading for smaller communities being re-railed and remnants getting upgrades.

4. Timetabling is vital: The polemic of trade-off may be false or what of harmonisation of services, timetables and patterns? Versatility including rolling stock is a key here surely as well? That is why historical appreciation can be telling (see Q1). Knowing the history – highs and lows, may lead to a SWOT analysis for fine-tuning a proposition. Growth and the fact many reopenings have exceeded predicted usage shows a degree of switch from road to rail not anticipated for example and higher than predicted take-up of a new rail service from Bathgate to Borders, from Aberdare to Ebbw Vale and indeed Oxford-Bicester started on just 3 trains a day 1987 albeit on freight-only upgraded track. They all exceeded expectations and bucked cold sceptics on demand.

5. Ensure the infrastructure really is up to the job: Unsure who the article is pitted for, but these issues seem suited to engineers to answer, not lay people. Lay people (the public!) are part of wider Stakeholder-ship and so should be included and valued. Again, the qualification seems to be “if you have £000’s to spend fine” whereas the public and power need inspiring to bother, to do what they may and should have called for better ladders for funding access like a level playing field may inform like the un-green example of £27 billion new roads contrast a mere £500 million Reopening Railways Fund. What more could more parity inform?

6. Justify the reinstatement: Okehampton is not a reinstatement, Tavistock drives because a closure was pre-Beeching does not render them then or now as ‘basket cases’ by default per se. Many speculative developments banked on growth to the new stations and only 2 World Wars dented that trend mainly. Had the wars of been avoided, Great Central may well have survived to this day with select others.

7, Siting Stations is critical: I suggest people use what is available and Parkway status brought nearer to where populations are means less drive time, less traffic, less emissions, so re-railing is aggregate gain. We need a map and a plan of coherence and intent, not pontification, dithering and fragments.

8. Stakeholder engagement is vital: Yes, but if that was true, HS2 would have been turned down on the back of mass protests to it, they were all over-ruled, literally!

9. How will you reopen the railway? You have to start where you are at and do what you can. However, power closed the railways and so power must by and large address matters of such scale, cost and challenge. There is a wider socio-economic and environmental cost if we do not re-rail and needs to be done sooner than later. Otherwise, we pay for the loss in different ways then, subsequent and now.

10. Avoid wishful thinking: 45 mph is quite good contrast crawls on roads and junctions of less-than due to congestion in normal times. As long as people can be on the move, speed of itself is not necessarily the main consideration. This especially for local lines serving poorly served rural areas, linking principal local places and ensuring accessibility is more universal, not the preserve of those with time, money or specialist interest. For years professionals dismissed parts or all of Bedford-Cambridge for reopening as ‘pie in the sky’. That cynical approach informed a failure to protect ‘why bother’ (?) the route. Then, when studies found there was a case, a good case, the route by then was sadly lost and now the conundrum of a brand-new route with as many if not more upheavals, challenges and costs is the name of the game, but with development and road proliferation happening now, 5, 10 or 15 years hence beg the question of practicability however worthy the case. So, some joined up coherence here as part of a nationwide approach plan, is what we need our railway media folks to start advocating, not just niche interests and negatives out of reach for most ordinary hard pushed people of any and all ages.

Richard Pill

26-0102021

richard.erta@gmail.com