From a widely circulating mailing list of professionals and interested parties looking forward at development and transport and life style within development areas beyond just rail.
Thanks, [name], this is a useful reference. However, I can?t help thinking this is a weird initiative by government. The Beeching closure programme was appropriate at its time, even if very crudely based, and was a mix of political opportunism and railway operating priorities [a friend of mine is currently doing some research on some aspects which interest him].
The currently proposed re-openings have exactly the same basis and appear lacks any real links to wider transport and planning for the areas served. SwiftRail and e.g. Herts Orbital Transit try to meet these criteria. Essentially the current government programme seems to be based on the same obsession with heritage and nostalgia that has driven us to Brexit and other over-emotional approaches to what should be sensibly based policies!
I would suggest that the person spreading this view has taken the misleading soundbite at the top of the scheme literally, and in addition might have made an error of assumptions reminiscent of some from the past - "running a railway is complicated and you're just a passenger - you don't understand" when actually some passenger are pretty well informed, learn fast and can bring a breath of fresh thought.
As I understand it, "Reversing Beeching" isn't actually about reversing the cuts made to rail lines and stations as a result of the Beeching report by putting things back as they were. It's about taking a look at smaller, more local schemes whether or not the potential need was created before, during or after Beeching - or indeed by much more recent development and changes in fabric and habit of our population. There are schemes in there for brand new stations on lines which have never closed.
Where an idea is seeded locally - we have a number in our region - there's a reluctance to fund initial studies; local bodies in the public sector don't take the risk of spending taxpayer's money if there's a significant chance of the study concluding that the idea is a poor one in
BCR▸ or other terms, even if there's also a significant chance of it coming up with an excellent BCR. This scheme fills this gap, and the
MP▸ sponsorship, local council involvement, etc does triage the schemes even before they reach the
DfT» for consideration. I CAN identify with the "Crayonista" or "Your's just a passenger so don't understand" reaction from certain professional groups, and I can see lots of suggestions around which help bolster that view. But for schemes submitted to misnamed "Reversing Beeching", that rarely applies.
Typically, schemes taking up this funding opportunity are fairly early days ones which are already shown to have significant informed local support and are worthy of someone taking the risk of financing further investigation, in the knowledge that sentiment is much more "yes please" than NIMBY. And a scheme that garners local support is much more likely one that will blossom and grow into something effective, with the wider implications and strategic significance forming part of the whole.
