What South West MP's think about Great Western

[whole diary]

[Kernow Otter]

One and all

Alerted to the recent House of Commons debate on the Great Western Railway, I went in search of the Hansard transcript. 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm160208/debtext/160208-0002.htm#16020817000001

It is a 2 + hour debate so takes some reading, but gives an interesting insight into the thinking of some of the South West's MP^▸ (Member of Parliament, or Mile Post (a method of measuring the railway in miles and chains from a starting point - usually London), depending on context)'s, and a rather non commital response from Claire Perry.

Enjoy !

[Electric train]

I feel the railways are the favourite kicking horse of the Government and its MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament, or Mile Post (a method of measuring the railway in miles and chains from a starting point - usually London), depending on context) at the moment, possibly as a diversion tactic to take the focus off of the political shenanigans in Brussels   

[ellendune]

A lot of hot air and not much else I am afraid. 

[TaplowGreen]

A lot of hot air and not much else I am afraid. 

Sounds to me like they are articulating the concerns of a large number of their constituents and trying to improve their situation - that's sort of what they're there for? Fair bit of praise for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) too.........did you actually read much of it? (Funnily enough I did.....on a delayed train earlier!) 

[ellendune]

A lot of hot air and not much else I am afraid. 

Sounds to me like they are articulating the concerns of a large number of their constituents and trying to improve their situation - that's sort of what they're there for? Fair bit of praise for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) too.........did you actually read much of it? (Funnily enough I did.....on a delayed train earlier!) 

Yes I did.  It seemed to me to consist of a some justified concerns, some political sniping and nothing of any consequence in the response from the Parliamentary Under Secretary.

I agree they were articulating the concerns of a large number of their constituents.  But nothing came of it.  So just hot air. 

[JayMac]

Articulating the concerns of constituents is not hot air.

The government's response (personified by Claire Perry) to those concerns was hot air though.

I confidently predict this government will not start the ball rolling on an alternative route through Devon. By starting, I mean committed funding and a TWA^▸ (Transport and Works Act 1992). There will also be no commitment to extend electrification into Devon and Cornwall.

[ChrisB]

I'm nit sure Corbyn's lot would either?

[ellendune]

Articulating the concerns of constituents is not hot air.

I agree it shouldn't be. But reading it was put forward as either patting their own side on the back or putting the knife in on the other side and this often seemed more important than the concerns they were supposed to be articulating.  The result was that no coherent argument was put forward and that let the government completely off the hook. 

[PhilWakely]

I confidently predict this government will not start the ball rolling on an alternative route through Devon. By starting, I mean committed funding and a TWA^▸ (Transport and Works Act 1992). There will also be no commitment to extend electrification into Devon and Cornwall.

Devon's railways were only highlighted because Camoron holidays in Cornwall. I doubt his successor will, so once again the South West's transport links will be forgotten.

Although it will be long after I've left this mortal coil, I suspect that there is a bigger chance of railways south west of Bristol being ripped up than there is of the same being electrified.

[JayMac]

I'm nit sure Corbyn's lot would either?

They can't commit funding or a put a TWA^▸ (Transport and Works Act 1992) through parliament until they are in power. Would they do so in the next parliament? Far too many hurdles to jump first.

[ChrisB]

Like getting elected :-)

[stuving]

About the TWA^▸ (Transport and Works Act 1992) - an order under it is made by the government (the Secretary of State for Transport), and is an alternative to an Act of Parliament for small projects. A big new railway would need an act, but I'm not sure where the boundary lies - somewhere between Airtrack and HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel), but that's a big gap. Usually the application comes from a public body, but the SoS can make an order without one if so moved.

But, in that Hansard report, all I could hear was the clanking sound of iron hobby-horses being ridden, and the pinging of point-scoring politically-shot peas off them.

[ellendune]

Oxford to Bicester and the curve were done under a TWA^▸ (Transport and Works Act 1992) and I believe so is the upgrading of the line to Bletchley.

[paul7575]

There also the Development Consent Order procedure now.  Used for the Norton Bridge bypass alignment on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) near Stafford.

I think in hindsight the use of the TWA^▸ (Transport and Works Act 1992) for the whole of Chiltern's project has been seen to be a mistake, they should probably have used permitted development rights for works rebuilding the existing railway.

I read somewhere that the TWA application for Bicester to Bedford will be more targeted on just what really needs it.

Paul

[ChrisB]

Yes, that is what EWR^▸ (East West Railway (Oxford to Bedford), or possibly East Worthing station, depending on context) told the OBRAG AGM^▸ (Annual General Meeting) recently. TWA^▸ (Transport and Works Act 1992) only where required