Not seen any comment about this on the group yet, so...

<http://www.sra.gov.uk/news/2005/7/west_midlands> (press release)
and the home page has the full RUS (pdf files) linked.


Quote from the executive summary:-
---start quote---
Recommendations 
1.4 The West Midlands Strategy recommends: 
- A co-ordinated programme of train and platform lengthening to
provide more capacity for the growing and dynamic Birmingham city
centre travel market; 
- Encouragement through reduced fares for passengers to use spare
capacity on trains running earlier or later in the peak but avoiding
the very busiest trains; 
- A better mix of services on the Birmingham to Coventry corridor
including rerouting longer distance services between Leamington and
Birmingham via this route, the latter facilitated by infrastructure
investment committed by the SRA between Kenilworth and Coventry; 
- A daily through train between Shrewsbury and London and return,
subject to continuing progress with the detailed 2008/09 specification
in the West Coast Strategy; 
- Increased service levels between Birmingham and Hednesford/Rugeley,
subject to line capacity constraints being resolved; 
- Extending some off-peak services to improve frequencies between
Birmingham and both Kidderminster and Stratford-upon-Avon, and 
- More calls at Bromsgrove, and longer platforms at this fast-growing
station. 

1.5 Where train lengthening happens, station platforms may also need
to be extended. The priorities for managing the impact of longer
trains in the West Midlands on stations with short platforms are: 
- Bromsgrove; 
- Walsall  Rugeley Town; 
- Birmingham  Coventry; 
- Wolverhampton  Coventry; 
- Shirley  Stratford; 
- Snow Hill  Kidderminster; and 
- Wolverhampton  Telford. 
These priorities will need to be tackled by a programme of platform
lengthening to match the deployment of rolling stock to extend
selected peak period services.

---end quote---

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:12:52 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>Not seen any comment about this on the group yet, so...
>
><http://www.sra.gov.uk/news/2005/7/west_midlands> (press release)
>and the home page has the full RUS (pdf files) linked.
>
>
>Quote from the executive summary:-
>---start quote---
>Recommendations 
>1.4 The West Midlands Strategy recommends: 
>- A co-ordinated programme of train and platform lengthening to
>provide more capacity for the growing and dynamic Birmingham city
>centre travel market; 
>- Encouragement through reduced fares for passengers to use spare
>capacity on trains running earlier or later in the peak but avoiding
>the very busiest trains; 
>- A better mix of services on the Birmingham to Coventry corridor
>including rerouting longer distance services between Leamington and
>Birmingham via this route, the latter facilitated by infrastructure
>investment committed by the SRA between Kenilworth and Coventry; 
>- A daily through train between Shrewsbury and London and return,
>subject to continuing progress with the detailed 2008/09 specification
>in the West Coast Strategy; 
>- Increased service levels between Birmingham and Hednesford/Rugeley,
>subject to line capacity constraints being resolved; 
>- Extending some off-peak services to improve frequencies between
>Birmingham and both Kidderminster and Stratford-upon-Avon, and 
>- More calls at Bromsgrove, and longer platforms at this fast-growing
>station. 
>
>1.5 Where train lengthening happens, station platforms may also need
>to be extended. The priorities for managing the impact of longer
>trains in the West Midlands on stations with short platforms are: 
>- Bromsgrove; 
>- Walsall  Rugeley Town; 
>- Birmingham  Coventry; 
>- Wolverhampton  Coventry; 
>- Shirley  Stratford; 
>- Snow Hill  Kidderminster; and 
>- Wolverhampton  Telford. 
>These priorities will need to be tackled by a programme of platform
>lengthening to match the deployment of rolling stock to extend
>selected peak period services.
>
>---end quote---

Ross

Hidden away in the document are also the following:

"G2.1 Withdrawal of the Wolverhampton  Walsall service 

Withdraw the hourly service from March 2006 (cessation of current
franchise agreement). Replace by a high quality express coach service
in the short term to deliver faster end-to-end journey times. Review
the value for money of a rail or coach service as part of Central
Trains re-franchising (Centro and/or other stakeholders may wish to
consider additional funding to continue the rail service after March
2006)."

"formal closures of Wedgwood, Barlaston and Norton Bridge stations"

Funny how this is published on the day MP's go off on holiday for
nearly three months. A good day to bury bad news?

David Harby

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:21:12 GMT, David Harby wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:12:52 +0100, Ross 
> wrote:
> 
> >Not seen any comment about this on the group yet, so...
> >
> ><http://www.sra.gov.uk/news/2005/7/west_midlands> (press release)
> >and the home page has the full RUS (pdf files) linked.
[....]
> Hidden away in the document are also the following:
> 
> "G2.1 Withdrawal of the Wolverhampton  Walsall service 


I never understood the point of this service anyway. It was only
offered by NEG as a PTE-favourable enhancement when they were fighting
the CTOU management team for the franchise.

When I worked those trains the average loading was driver, guard and a
pensioner or two. 


[...] 

> "formal closures of Wedgwood, Barlaston and Norton Bridge stations"


Expect more closures around the system, reading between the lines of
some of the general discussion in the RUS. I think this RUS has been
used to slip in some national policy (little bits like "if you want a
new station and there's an underperforming one nearby, part of the
cost of the new station will be the closure of the old one", to
paraphrase some bland words).



> Funny how this is published on the day MP's go off on holiday for
> nearly three months. A good day to bury bad news?


Chances of the MPs actually noticing or reading between the lines?

I also notice the headline "Shrewsbury - London" option is actually
hedged about with bits like "if 125mph *tilting* DMUs are used on West
Coast services to Wolverhampton".

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:13:03 +0100, Ross 
wrote:



>> 
>> "G2.1 Withdrawal of the Wolverhampton  Walsall service 
>
>I never understood the point of this service anyway. It was only
>offered by NEG as a PTE-favourable enhancement when they were fighting
>the CTOU management team for the franchise.
>
>When I worked those trains the average loading was driver, guard and a
>pensioner or two. 
>
>

Since posting my message I have had an email from a Railfuture
colleague in the West Midlnds who has managed to read on screen all
168 pages of the SRA document. This quote from his email sums up the
recent history.

"With regard to the proposed withdrawal of the Walsall - Wolverhampton
service the details in the RUS are more cloudy than suggested by the
headlines in the press release.

Firstly it is currently a Telford to Walsall service in which the
Telford  to Wolverhampton section will be retained from December 2006
as part of a longer Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton local service as this
was preferred by many passengers during the recent overtime ban. 

Secondly the timings at Walsall give very poor connections from the
(hourly) Chase Line service, which with its common Black Country
heritage is likely to provide many of the potential passengers. Worse
still, timekeeping on the orignal Telford to Walsall service has been
poor, often resulting in early turn backs at Wolverhampton and no
service that hour to Walsall.

Finally although David Sexton does indeed say in the RUS that the
service should be withdrawn from April 2006, he does suggest that it
could be continued if funded locally by Centro and other stakeholders.
We may note that both Centro and Walsall UC were strongly supportive
of this service - which also could be linked to one of the services
from Birmingham which currently terminate at Walsall. 

Significantly there is virtually no mention of the social value of
rail services in the this RUS."

He thinks a far more serious threat is the proposed total withdrawal
of all local services from Barlaston and Wedgwood - which are far from
the most lightly used station on the network - simply to clear paths
for Virgin. 

There are plenty of other routes where more paths could be created for
express services if the local stopping service was withdrawn. There
must be others where the service could be operated with less units if
they saved 10 minutes on each trip by not stopping at the small
stations.

Regards

David Harby

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:21:12 GMT, David Harby
 wrote:


>"formal closures of Wedgwood, Barlaston and Norton Bridge stations"


But, interestingly, not Stone.  Perhaps Uncle Roger was right, and
it'll see (electric?) XCs before long.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:19:42 GMT, David Harby
 wrote:


>He thinks a far more serious threat is the proposed total withdrawal
>of all local services from Barlaston and Wedgwood - which are far from
>the most lightly used station on the network - simply to clear paths
>for Virgin. 


If Manchester-Brum is to go over to EMU operation (or even if it
doesn't - the Voyagers accelerate almost as well as EMUs), it would be
worthy of consideration as to whether it would be sensible to stop at
one or other of them, with the other closing, perhaps every two hours.
Perhaps it could alternate, with the other hour serving Stone.

With a more useful service like that, you'd be much more likely to
gain a few more passengers.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

David Harby wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:13:03 +0100, Ross 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>>"G2.1 Withdrawal of the Wolverhampton  Walsall service 
>>
>>I never understood the point of this service anyway. It was only
>>offered by NEG as a PTE-favourable enhancement when they were fighting
>>the CTOU management team for the franchise.
>>
>>When I worked those trains the average loading was driver, guard and a
>>pensioner or two. 
>>
>>


i traveled on one yesterday, i was the only passenger in the carriage 
from telford to wolverhampton, there were about 5 people in the other - 
we all got off and no-one got on at wolves


> 
> Firstly it is currently a Telford to Walsall service in which the
> Telford  to Wolverhampton section will be retained from December 2006
> as part of a longer Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton local service as this
> was preferred by many passengers during the recent overtime ban. 


its actually wellington - walsall (people from wellington would want 
that mentioned :) ), but i much prefer the situation now. I only travel 
to wolverhampton, if i catch the train from telford i now get a choice 
of up to 4 trains an hour ( 2 x central non-stop, the walsall 
all-stopper and an fast arriva), compared to the lowly times of before 
having sometimes only 1 all stopping train per hour at some points. The 
trains were always full to capacity when i got on them, admitadly they 
are often half empty now ( i haven't read the whole document but they 
could do 1 central fast, 1 arriva fast and an all stopping service per 
hour). The quotes of improved reliability when the strike was on didn't 
seem to be any better for me, it actually seemed worse with more 
canceled trains due to no drivers more than anything.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:50:24 GMT, Neil Williams wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:21:12 GMT, David Harby
>  wrote:
> 
> >"formal closures of Wedgwood, Barlaston and Norton Bridge stations"
> 
> But, interestingly, not Stone.  Perhaps Uncle Roger was right, and
> it'll see (electric?) XCs before long.


Stone will get XCs, yes; it's in the RUS. 6 per day is the figure
mentioned, presumably 6 each way.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:42e17a03.4693679@news.tesco.net...

> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:19:42 GMT, David Harby
>  wrote:
>
>>He thinks a far more serious threat is the proposed total withdrawal
>>of all local services from Barlaston and Wedgwood - which are far from
>>the most lightly used station on the network - simply to clear paths
>>for Virgin.
>
> If Manchester-Brum is to go over to EMU operation (or even if it
> doesn't - the Voyagers accelerate almost as well as EMUs), it would be
> worthy of consideration as to whether it would be sensible to stop at
> one or other of them, with the other closing, perhaps every two hours.
> Perhaps it could alternate, with the other hour serving Stone.
>
> With a more useful service like that, you'd be much more likely to
> gain a few more passengers.
>
> Neil
>
> -- 
> Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
> When replying please use neil at the above domain
> 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Wedgewood suffers from being effectively a station serving only one 
customer, the eponymous factory. The workforce would be unlikely to use it, 
as the greater part of them live some distance from Stoke station. In the 
past, when workers' trains were run to the Mill Meece munitions factory, 
they originated from the Potteries Loop Line and the Longton line, which 
provided the bulk of the passengers. As for tourist traffic, I suspect the 
greater part of that is coach parties, rather than individual tourists who 
might arrive by train..
As for Barlaston- isn't the greater part of the village next to the A34, 
some distance from the railway.
Brian

BH Williams wrote:


> Wedgewood suffers from being effectively a station serving only one 
> customer, the eponymous factory. The workforce would be unlikely to use it, 
> as the greater part of them live some distance from Stoke station. In the 
> past, when workers' trains were run to the Mill Meece munitions factory, 
> they originated from the Potteries Loop Line and the Longton line, which 
> provided the bulk of the passengers. As for tourist traffic, I suspect the 
> greater part of that is coach parties, rather than individual tourists who 
> might arrive by train.


Tourists will use the service if it is promoted with combined tickets,
and if there is a useable train service.

Calls at Wedgewood and at Stone by Manchester - Birmingham trains would 
- I think - be popular with tourists and commuters.

The service proviided in recet years has been so poor as to appear to
be a deliebrate attempt to make clusure acceptable.

Charlie

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:10:14 +0100, "BH Williams"
 wrote:


>As for Barlaston- isn't the greater part of the village next to the A34, 
>some distance from the railway.


Not that I can see from the map.  The railway station appears to be
bang in the middle.

The Trent Valley local is probably largely useless, but XCs to Brum
might bring out a bit of a commuter market.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:19:42 GMT, David Harby wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:13:03 +0100, Ross 
> wrote:
> 
> >> "G2.1 Withdrawal of the Wolverhampton  Walsall service 
> 
> >I never understood the point of this service anyway. It was only
> >offered by NEG as a PTE-favourable enhancement when they were fighting
> >the CTOU management team for the franchise.
> >
> >When I worked those trains the average loading was driver, guard and a
> >pensioner or two. 
>
> Since posting my message I have had an email from a Railfuture
> colleague in the West Midlnds who has managed to read on screen all
> 168 pages of the SRA document. 


As I did after making my first post. I don't think it's worth
downloading simply because I have little to do with the West Midlands
area any more. If they ever manage to get an ECML RUS out, then that
will be of much greater interest.


[...]

> Significantly there is virtually no mention of the social value of
> rail services in the this RUS."


That's because the government is interested in the cost of provision,
not the value of provision. It won't change in the near future.
 


> He thinks a far more serious threat is the proposed total withdrawal
> of all local services from Barlaston and Wedgwood - which are far from
> the most lightly used station on the network - simply to clear paths
> for Virgin. 


Far from the most lightly used, maybe, but still used by very, very
few people unless loadings have increased drastically in the past few
years (before bustitution). Barlaston and Wedgwood are the sort of
stations where if the traincrews don't actually know everyone by name,
you certainly recognise them.

 

> There are plenty of other routes where more paths could be created for
> express services if the local stopping service was withdrawn. There
> must be others where the service could be operated with less units if
> they saved 10 minutes on each trip by not stopping at the small
> stations.


Yup. As I say elsewhere, I think this RUS is being used to float ideas
that might become national policy.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:25:18 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote in
<iWoEe.138$hc4.107@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, seen in uk.railway:

[...]

> Calls at Wedgewood and at Stone by Manchester - Birmingham trains would 
> - I think - be popular with tourists and commuters.
> 
> The service proviided in recet years has been so poor as to appear to
> be a deliebrate attempt to make clusure acceptable.


If by recent years you mean post-2000 or so, then I'm afraid the
preceding 10 years gives lie to the claims of popularity. 

Based on my years of shuttling up and down, I would serve two stations
only: Barlaston and Stone. 

Barlaston would get only 1 train a day, which would give an 08.30-ish
arrival at New Street, and a 17:30-ish return, and that only because
it had half-a-dozen regulars *and* only if it would be cheaper to keep
the station open than to go through the closure procedure. 

Stone would get the six trains a day that have been proposed.

Wedgwood and Norton Bridge were basically a waste of space even with,
in the case of the former, trains timed (as best as was possible) for
the shifts.


I used to enjoy working the Stafford - Stoke line because it was a
nice day of pottering around doing very little. As a viable service, I
doubt it was ever really that.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

Ross wrote:


> I used to enjoy working the Stafford - Stoke line because it was a
> nice day of pottering around doing very little. As a viable service, I
> doubt it was ever really that.


Well, I wasn't suggesting a Stafford - Stoke dogbox shuttle...

Charlie

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:55:41 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote in
<x%rEe.410$m4.174@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, seen in uk.railway:

> Ross wrote:
> 
> > I used to enjoy working the Stafford - Stoke line because it was a
> > nice day of pottering around doing very little. As a viable service, I
> > doubt it was ever really that.
> 
> Well, I wasn't suggesting a Stafford - Stoke dogbox shuttle...


I wasn't only working dogbox shuttles, Charlie. I spent far too long
getting up at Oh-my-God-does-this-time-really-exist?! in the morning
to run the Stoke - Birmingham commuter train, which was the only busy
train of the day. The peak loadings I quoted in my previous post.

Granted that closing the likes of Wedgwood won't be nice for the few
affected, but then closing poorly used local stations has been a
feature of the railway's entire history.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:38:37 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:25:18 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote in
><iWoEe.138$hc4.107@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, seen in uk.railway:
>[...]
>> Calls at Wedgewood and at Stone by Manchester - Birmingham trains would 
>> - I think - be popular with tourists and commuters.
>> 
>> The service proviided in recet years has been so poor as to appear to
>> be a deliebrate attempt to make clusure acceptable.
>
[snip]
>I used to enjoy working the Stafford - Stoke line because it was a
>nice day of pottering around doing very little. As a viable service, I
>doubt it was ever really that.


It's true that people in North Staffs aren't very train conscious
today. There are many cultural and geographical reasons for this - car
use was seen as a sign of success in a poor working class region,
local train use has never been very convenient in Stoke itself, and
many local lines were closed in the Beeching era. Stokies generally
think of train use solely in terms of going to London, and sometimes
not even then.

All that said, the lack of promotion of local stations between
Birmingham and Manchester is a longstanding disgrace. This predates
rail privatization by a long way. You only have  to look at the sad
fate of Longport station, which would make an excellent intercity
parkway station for the north of Stoke but which has been allowed to
deteriorate into a vandalized semi derelict scary dump with few
services.

Best regards, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting     http://paulsherwin.co.uk

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:43:45 GMT, Paul Sherwin wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:38:37 +0100, Ross 
> wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:25:18 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote in
> ><iWoEe.138$hc4.107@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, seen in uk.railway:
> >[...]
> >> Calls at Wedgewood and at Stone by Manchester - Birmingham trains would 
> >> - I think - be popular with tourists and commuters.
> >> 
> >> The service proviided in recet years has been so poor as to appear to
> >> be a deliebrate attempt to make clusure acceptable.
> >
> [snip]
> >I used to enjoy working the Stafford - Stoke line because it was a
> >nice day of pottering around doing very little. As a viable service, I
> >doubt it was ever really that.
> 
> It's true that people in North Staffs aren't very train conscious
> today. There are many cultural and geographical reasons for this - car
> use was seen as a sign of success in a poor working class region,
> local train use has never been very convenient in Stoke itself, and
> many local lines were closed in the Beeching era. Stokies generally
> think of train use solely in terms of going to London, and sometimes
> not even then.


Something along the lines of  'If you want to go to Birmingham or
London or Manchester, you use the train.  For Stafford, Macclesfield
or other local destinations, maybe the train, maybe not. For local
journeys? That's why you have a car, surely?' is how I recall the
local attitudes as being.

I wonder if attitudes would be different had the Potteries Loop not
been closed.


[...]

> All that said, the lack of promotion of local stations between
> Birmingham and Manchester is a longstanding disgrace. This predates
> rail privatization by a long way. [...]


Indeed. BR decided that decline was all that would happen at those
places and proceeded to operate in a way which ensured that continued
decline was inevitable.

I'm not really sure if late-80s/early-90s BR realistically had any
other choice, though.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:57:20 +0100, Ross 
wrote:



>If they ever manage to get an ECML RUS out, then that
>will be of much greater interest.
>
>

I suspect this was written long ago when the SRA were refranchising
ECML. How could they have known how many paths were available if the
RUS had not been prepared? 

People I have spoken to who are interested in the new Thameslink/WAGN
franchise also think it has been based on the RUS. My expectation is
the ECML RUS will be published once this franchise has been awarded. 

It wouldn't do to let everyone know the details before the franchise
is sorted - we might spot all the deficiences in the plans.

David Harby

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:56:53 GMT, David Harby wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:


> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:57:20 +0100, Ross 
> wrote:
> 
> >If they ever manage to get an ECML RUS out, then that
> >will be of much greater interest.
> >
> I suspect this was written long ago when the SRA were refranchising
> ECML. 


I wouldn't be at all surprised. It'd be nice if they'd let us see it,
though; I want to know what reductions they're planning for
Lincolnshire - I doubt there'll be any enhancements in the offing!


[...]

> It wouldn't do to let everyone know the details before the franchise
> is sorted - we might spot all the deficiences in the plans.


Indeed. I wonder if it might be kept back until after the CT decisions
have been made?

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:23:49 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:56:53 GMT, David Harby wrote in
>, seen in uk.railway:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:57:20 +0100, Ross 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >If they ever manage to get an ECML RUS out, then that
>> >will be of much greater interest.
>> >
>> I suspect this was written long ago when the SRA were refranchising
>> ECML. 
>
>I wouldn't be at all surprised. It'd be nice if they'd let us see it,
>though; I want to know what reductions they're planning for
>Lincolnshire - I doubt there'll be any enhancements in the offing!
>
>
>[...]
>> It wouldn't do to let everyone know the details before the franchise
>> is sorted - we might spot all the deficiences in the plans.
>
>Indeed. I wonder if it might be kept back until after the CT decisions
>have been made?


At the current rate of progress on CT franchising the Government will
have had another Rail White Paper and changed everything again by
then.

Yours cynically

David

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:40:15 GMT, David Harby wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:23:49 +0100, Ross 
> wrote:
[...]
> >> It wouldn't do to let everyone know the details before the franchise
> >> is sorted - we might spot all the deficiences in the plans.
> >
> >Indeed. I wonder if it might be kept back until after the CT decisions
> >have been made?
> 
> At the current rate of progress on CT franchising the Government will
> have had another Rail White Paper and changed everything again by
> then.


You're getting almost as cynical as me, David. Please don't, it's not
good for you! ;)

I'm beginning to wonder if CT will have been refranchised by the time
I retire. That gives them 25 years (or 30 if I stay on until I'm 65);
I think it should be enough time for them to decide what they're
doing.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com