Great Western Coffee Shop

Published 21st June 2017 in The Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/breich-station-earmarked-for-first-scottish-rail-closure-in-31-years-1-4482507)


Consultation and reports on Network Rail's site at
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/scotland/breich-station/

Wonder if part of is the new clearances  required between platform and 25Kv O/H wire which might be why the footbridge needs renewal.

Quite probably, might also be disabled access requirements.

Looking at the explanations and pictures before I posted the original, I wondered whether to post under "Bristol Commuters" as there could be parallels with Pilning.  However, the proposal here is for complete closure rather than for a reduction from 2 platforms to 1, and perhaps that indicates something of a victory for the campaigners in South Gloucestershire in that they've retained a station at all.

The upgrade of Breich would cost £10 145 for each individual use of the station, apart from the TOC operating subsidy and the costs of stopping a few trains in the five mile stretch between remaining stations.

Whether such an upgrade is at all necessary is another matter. we seem to have accepted that railways should be  over-engineered.

The Shotts electrification, at £49M for 74 stkm (£660k per stkm versus c£3M on GWEP) seems a beacon of good practice so shouldn't be spoiled by sillies.

OTC

Devil's advocate mode - questions from me on a line I have travelled, off a road I have driven (more than I have travelled the line!), but have little real knowledge of.   Asking purely to learn lessons so that we could make informed comment should a similar proposal arise in our area.

* You may have accepted that railways should be over engineered, but I'm not sure it would be the general view here in a poll.

* The electrifications cost of £49 million - is that projected cost before optimism factor, projected cost with optimism factors included, or what the final bill turns out to be?   Same question for the GW figure.

* Our experience shows that the provision of a "parliamentary" service does not condense all the potential traffic of a regular service onto to one train. I appreciate that there are only 150 uses per year - but what would / could that figure be if there was a "decent" service ... and with this station, there's a decent all-other-stations service passing through.

Why have I driven past?    Because I've been working in Falkirk / Linlithgow and driving ('twas back in my old days when I had too much to carry to use public transport) to my home in England.  The A71 / A706 junction is set in the midst of a rural area - I recall traffic lights and not much else at the junction.   And that sets me thinking ... do the places that the trains go to from Breich have any sort of congestion?  So with a decent service, would people park there and take the train into Glasgow or into Edinburgh on a daily basis?   You may answer that there's a better way that using this station, but I'm just wondering; the consultation report says "no development planned" but I suspect that there's an issue looking at passenger numbers and service level, and not fully exploring cause and effect.    Reduce trains calling at Tiverton Parkway to 1 a day each way, and I suspect passenger numbers would drop rather a lot!

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/breich_map_1.jpg)

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/breich_map_2.jpg)

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/breich_map_3.jpg)

Open mapping data via Scribblemaps / Well House license

Given the cost and timescales involved in opening new stations and lines, the presumption should be that no station closes unless it is truly hopeless. Breich Station, I fear, falls into this category. The nearest population centre is Breich, more a street than a village and 1km to the east; beyond that Fauldhouse (3km to the west) and Addiewell (4.5km to the east) both have well-served stations.

Breich, allegedly and incidentally, was the inspiration for Absolutely's 'Stoneybridge'.

I was working in Linlithgow for nearly 15 years, so also used to drive south vis Forth and Carstairs - and I was always struck by how bleak it looked, despite (or perhaps because of) the industrial remains. Those are mostly north of Breich, and so was the agriculture that used most of the land before the mines and ironworks. To the south it was and is moorland, now with plantations of trees but 200 years ago with none. So don't think of villages in leafy valleys served by branch lines - the parish to the north (Whitburn) had nothing worth the name village in it even in 1755.

Breich itself was a river (Breich Water), and named a bridge, when the railway came (the Calley - there was already the "Wilsontown Morningside and Coltness Railway"). And there was already quite a bit of post-industry - abandoned tramways to closed mines, spoil heaps, that sort of thing. (One side effect of this continuous earthmoving activity is that Breich Water itself has moved around quite a bit, and is now much more wiggly that when first mapped.)

Quite why a station was built there is not clear. It didn't have sidings for scattered local industry, and even the current houses at "Breich" - half a mile away - are no older than 1890. Now, it looks like one of those clusters of SSHA standard terraces you find all around here, and which pose the question "where do they work?"

The stations either side of Breich are 2-3 miles away, which is pretty close in an area like that. Addiewell, two miles to the east, is a little bigger than Breich and did exist as a place name before the railway. It has a car park and loads of empty land around it. Fauldhouse, three miles the other way, was a pre-existing settlement, though even now barely a town, and its station is also has parking and is outside the village itself.

If you wanted more stations there are longer gaps along the line to put one, nearer to where housing already exists. So maybe this one isn't worth fighting for. Just sit and wonder why it ever existed.

Roll up, roll up - there's still scope for an enterprising contributor to repeat this information in landmils, versts and lieues de poste ;)!

This forum never ceases to amaze me. Talk about an obscure station hundreds of miles away, and you'll find members with knowledge of it.

If no-one can foresee any practical use for it now or in the future and it requires massive expenditure, then sadly closure is probably sensible.  But that does not stop questions being asked:

* Are closure and the expenditure really the only options?   Are there other options such as taking away the footbridge and putting in a field gate or stile to access the other side?

* How does the procedure that (sadly) concludes "close" actually work.   Closure procedures have been slated as being biased to ensure a required outcome in the past - is this one truly clean and independently judged?

* Are any dangerous precedents being set?  Could one of the element from Breich be taken at a justification out of context at [not going to name anywhere specific!]

There was once a path up to the bridge on the north side, as well as the footbridge. However, the footbridge seems not to be a problem - it's moving the platforms to cope with lowering the track. The list of work includes "Construction of a trail route over the Eastbound to the Westbound platform" ... no, me neither.

Certainly, relying on just the ticket sales isn't good enough. There should be reports from guards too, and perhaps other survey data, to make sure there aren't ticketing funnies. There's no sign of that in the words.

But ultimately it is just a halt in the middle of nowhere. The Breich Inns (sic), which was on that corner, was demolished several years ago. The several bus routes that pass stop in the village, not at the station. If it genuinely doesn't have even one regular commuter to Edinburgh (and that's all its one train a day is any good for), then it does look like a failed station.

1. I used the word "we" in the general or societal sense, not as "you and I". However I was quite wrong to use the term "over-engineered". Professional engineers, with honours degrees and audited training and responsible experience are in the business of applying science, modelling, optimising for minimum life costs and safety margins, etc. I should have said "over sized" or "over-spent". Imagine the GWEP in the aviation industry!

2. The £49M is quoted from NR below:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/.../network-rail-awards-49m-shotts-line-electrification-...

It is the let contract not the estimate and seems to be inclusive, although press releases are often technically incorrect. The £2.8Bn is the Hendy figure widely published. The stkm are from rail technology magazine supported by other reports.

3. There are rules of thumb about station access, population served etc. Only a well used bus interchange could save the halt in question.

OTC

If the station IS to close, then I believe that all railway land under and near the station should be preserved from sale or redevelopment. Likewise any public right of way that leads to the station should be preserved.
Just in case new housing or other changed circumstances justify future re-opening. It would a great pity if future and needed re-opening was prevented by building houses etc on the land needed for new station buildings.

Likewise network rail should not be allowed to do anything that prevents future re-opening. Like placing cables in concrete troughing along the platform, to save a paltry sum now, but it then costs a vast sum to move the cables in future.

Thats called 'future proofing' but its not something the modern railway does.  We all know that this country works on the basis of 'first cost' only.... ::) :P

And Now For Some Good News
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/breich-station-reprieved-after-outcry-1-4614524.

Not Only But Also
https://www.transport.gov.scot/news/breich-station-future-secured/.

Having taken a look at the station last month -  http://melksh.am/4764 and  http://melksh.am/4765 - I believe this was a difficult but correct decision.

Pity our Transport Minister didn't stand up to Network Rail and rule the down platform at Pilning MUST remain open and calling services increased to increase patronage there too.

Interesting that both Breich and Pilning are underpassengered ... and both have potential.  At Pilning, a distribution centre and is within half a mile of the station ... and a large business park is just as close to Pilning as to Severn Beach.  Journey times from both Newport and Bristol Temple Meads are quicker to Pilning, and one can't help feeling that with suitable provision (public footpath, platform, trains that call), help could be provided to both station numbers and the economy of the area.  Newport has a higher unemployment rate than Bristol and a commute by train to Pilning (for those who don't have a car) is practical where commute by train to Severn Beach is not.

Pilning to Western Distribution Centre - 0.46 mile
Pilning to Western Approach Business Park - 0.78 mile
Train journey time - Bristol Temple Meads to Pilning - 20 minutes
Train journey time - Newport to Pilning - 19 minutes

Severn Beach to Western Distribution Centre - 0.91 mile
Severn Beach to Western Approach Business Park - 0.78 mile
Train journey time - Bristol Temple Meads to Severn Beach - 37 minutes
Train journey time - Newport to Severn Beach - 91 minutes

Newport Unemployment rate 6.25%
Bristol Unemployment rate 4.7%

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/pilning_to_industry.jpg)

Hmm.  ::)

Ease of public access to, and car parking facilities at, Pilning Station were always issues which were going to make it very difficult to make any business case to expand passenger train services there.

By that I mean: public access to the platform(s) at Pilning has always been very limited - particularly for those with mobility issues - and there is nowhere to park a car - unless a local farmer's field could be tarmacked over.

However, I'm at risk of taking this topic 'off topic' now.