We also know that Network Rail are very robust in resisting any rail improvements that they consider unnecessary (from our Pilning campaign) so ...
Let's look at that from Network Rail's viewpoint. For rail improvements they will ask:
* Will it bring significant traffic?
* Will it be financially sustainable?
* Are there / will there be trains to stop there?
* Will it work operationally on the railway?
* Will it work with all the other services around?
* Will it work operationally on the road / paths / parking around?
* Will it be funded?
* Will our partners stick with us through the journey?
* Is it within our capabilities?
* Does it fit in with local, regional and central government policy?
* Will it be a significant risk - how sure are we of projections?
* Will it be a significant risk - is it technologically sound?
* Will it garner political and community support and show Network Rail in a good light?
* Is it going to bring so much more business that it will need further provision within a few years?
If they can be convinced there are no show-stoppers in the above, I believe that they can and will update their views to reflect changing cases and situations. So it may be that something that was considered "unnecessary" at one time in the past (but I think you many have meant "unjustified") comes onto the radar again and gets done.