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
