Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum
Coffee Shop during Coronavirus
Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
article index - [here]
 11/04/2020 - MidHants Railwayana Auction
13/05/2020 - 2020Community Rail in the City
13/05/2020 - Melksham reopened 35 years ago
20/05/2020 - MRUG 2020 AGM
23/05/2020 - XR ask you to save day
04/06/2020 - RailFuture @ Westbury
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
April 05, 2020, 03:13:33 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[59] New station - Weardale Railway
[54] The wartime mentality? [DotD 5.4.2020]
[53] Bristol pollution drops 30 per cent
[44] How do we take the lid back off?
[44] Is every food parcel a nail in HS2's coffin?
[39] New Labour leader. What transport policies to promote?
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Which projects in GWR land should apply for part of the 500 million?  (Read 515 times)
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28707



View Profile WWW Email
« on: February 20, 2020, 08:43:35 am »

DfT funding - purely for new services, lines and stations?

Quote
The funding will be split in 3 ways to offer support to projects at different phases of development:

Ideas Fund
This will provide support to proposals to reinstate axed local services. These should be sponsored by MPs working with local authorities and community groups.
 
Accelerating existing proposals
As well as looking for new ideas, the 500 million fund will be used to help accelerate the development of closed lines and stations which are already in the process of being considered for restoration.
 
Proposals for new and restored stations
A new round of the New Stations Fund will support both the development of new stations and the restoration of old station sites.

So ... in GWR territory, what comes under which category?

Hand in hand with new services, lines and stations comes the need to enhance the capacity on lines that are already open, across junctions where there are going to be too many conflicting movements, and at stations where platform (and perhaps passenger) facilities will run out.  Are such elements already included in the funding implicity where extra capacity at the interface will be needed, or is that a separate funding pot?
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
PhilWakely
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1268



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2020, 09:03:43 am »

DfT funding - purely for new services, lines and stations?

Quote
.....
Accelerating existing proposals
As well as looking for new ideas, the 500 million fund will be used to help accelerate the development of closed lines and stations which are already in the process of being considered for restoration.
....

So ... in GWR territory, what comes under which category?

Hand in hand with new services, lines and stations comes the need to enhance the capacity on lines that are already open, across junctions where there are going to be too many conflicting movements, and at stations where platform (and perhaps passenger) facilities will run out.  Are such elements already included in the funding implicity where extra capacity at the interface will be needed, or is that a separate funding pot?

Not strictly GWR territory, but something that will help GWR in times of need. Enable the proposal to add a loop in the Whimple area and extend the Barnstaple service to Axminster and, thus, provide a half-hourly service in East Devon. This will also allow for faster diverted GWR services when required.
Logged
Lee
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6602

He who laughs last hasn't got all the facts.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2020, 09:04:50 am »

IDEAS FUND - Feasibility study into opening from Bath to Radstock - and ideally through to Shepton Mallet too - via the Midford-Monkton Combe deviation rather than the Two Tunnels route, as discussed here.

Lets push for "Our Borders Railway", and leave a reopening legacy - the "one they said couldnt be done" - to be proud of, and a positive example for future generations.
Logged

Currently muddling along the Guingamp-Carhaix line

http://twitter.com/research_gwchat
RichardB
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 639


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2020, 09:35:35 am »

DfT funding - purely for new services, lines and stations?

Quote
.....
Accelerating existing proposals
As well as looking for new ideas, the 500 million fund will be used to help accelerate the development of closed lines and stations which are already in the process of being considered for restoration.
....



So ... in GWR territory, what comes under which category?

Hand in hand with new services, lines and stations comes the need to enhance the capacity on lines that are already open, across junctions where there are going to be too many conflicting movements, and at stations where platform (and perhaps passenger) facilities will run out.  Are such elements already included in the funding implicity where extra capacity at the interface will be needed, or is that a separate funding pot?

Not strictly GWR territory, but something that will help GWR in times of need. Enable the proposal to add a loop in the Whimple area and extend the Barnstaple service to Axminster and, thus, provide a half-hourly service in East Devon. This will also allow for faster diverted GWR services when required.

You can make a decent case for saying that this scheme is also reversing Beeching.  After all, if the line hadn't been mostly singled in 1967, the half hourly service between Exeter and Axminster would be in by now.   

Logged
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3526


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2020, 12:08:06 pm »

If we're looking for something radical, I'd go for Bristol to Bournemouth via the North Somerset and the S&D, via Radstock. Lee's suggested link between Bath and Radstock would plug into this rather nicely!
Logged

A society grows great when old people plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
johnneyw
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1318


Still want to be a train driver when I grow up


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2020, 12:50:11 pm »

If we're looking for something radical, I'd go for Bristol to Bournemouth via the North Somerset and the S&D, via Radstock. Lee's suggested link between Bath and Radstock would plug into this rather nicely!

I think another post today suggested that there would not be too many CPOs needed to achieve this. Not very jolly for the owners but the houses, given their undoubted age, are hardly likely to be listed buildings.
Logged
Lee
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6602

He who laughs last hasn't got all the facts.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2020, 03:00:48 pm »

Here's an overview I did a while back which gives a flavour of what is likely to be required for my proposal:

Putting my hard hat on (in more ways than one)...

I have considered how you get through the centre of Radstock without the need for a level crossing. What I bear in mind is that, at both the Shoscombe end, and at the Midsomer Norton end, the trackbed is elevated, so you would construct an elevated section through the centre of Radstock to link them up, thus avoiding the need for a level crossing. Starting from the Shoscombe end, you would unfortunately need to demolish some properties along the line of route in the Waterloo Road area. Whilst this would be regrettable and undoubtedly controversial, I'm not sure I'd use the term "extensive demolition" - certainly no more so than (say) the demolitions at Galashiels and Gorebridge on the Borders Railway were. Then on the elevated section above the site of the former S&D station you would build a single platform station accessed from the ground by fully-accessible lifts from a reconfigured public square that incorporates the current mining memorial, and would provide access to Radstock town centre, the new developments on the old GWR station site, and the Radstock Museum.

I completely agree with rogerw that there are some bridges, viaducts and other structures right along the route I've identified that will need to either be replaced or strengthened. There are other issues too - For example, I personally don't feel that getting through Wellow on the original alignment is likely to be feasible, so a diversion arcing south round the village is likely to be required, joining up with the old station site (which along with Masbury further on if we go to Shepton would have to be purchased) where I feel a passing loop could be ideally situated, thus allowing justification for reopening Wellow station to serve a local population that has very little in the way of other public transport provision.

Midsomer Norton heritage activities I feel could fit with a reopened S&D, providing and stabling the motive power and rolling stock to run the kind of heritage trains that are part of the overall Borders Railway offer. Let's face it, the one thing you cant say is there wouldn't be a market for it. It would also provide another potential passing loop.

If we go to Shepton, then the cutting at Chilcompton would have to be cleared, and there are obstructions elsewhere here and there, such as the infamous Binegar Bungalow. At Shepton itself, there would clearly need to be intense discussions in terms of where the station would be situated.

However, as rogerw says, there is an engineering solution to anything, and as far as I can see, pretty much all of the issues above can draw on potential solutions deployed by Network Rail when constructing the Borders Railway.

So to summarise, I'd have a line that service-wise would be an extension of MetroWest, which from Bath would call at Bathampton (if built by opening time), Wellow, Radstock, Midsomer Norton and potentially Shepton Mallet. As rogerw suggests, it will require substancial funding, at least as much as the Borders Railway and probably a fair bit more, and would indeed require the same level of political that the Scots somehow found, but has been sadly lacking in this part of the world over the same period.

It doesn't mean its impossible though, and I live in hope.

A feasibility study would look at all of this in greater detail, tease out the aspects that may not be apparent when first looked at, and tell us once and for all whether it is a potential runner or not.
Logged

Currently muddling along the Guingamp-Carhaix line

http://twitter.com/research_gwchat
REVUpminster
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 131


View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2020, 11:25:29 pm »

Remove the level crossing at Exeter St David's; surely the only level crossing over six tracks on a main line.
Logged
Thatcham Crossing
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 690


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2020, 08:31:10 am »

Sort out an alternative road crossing (ie, a bridge) in Thatcham!
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page