Noisy Minorities (Rail User Groups/ Elected Representatives Who Punch Above Their Weight)

[tbtc]

On the Manchester Recovery Taskforce thread (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/manchester-recovery-taskforce-timetable-consultation.213089/) @Ianno87 has made the point that the Wimbledon Loop is the London equivalent of the "vocal" Southport - Manchester campaigners (for those unaware of the Manchester Recovery Taskforce, the town of Southport had seven times more respondents than the city of Liverpool, meaning that Southport gets to keep a plum path into the Castlefield corridor at a time when other services are being simplified/ rationalised/ removed from Castlefield to try to improve reliability across northern England)

Can't blame the Southport folk for this - they've been noisy in the past, it's worked, they'll keep on with their orchestrated campaigns to ensure that their wee town has the kind of service that they want to Manchester whilst other places lose out as a result (my anger is with the authorities who've cowed to their demands, which means cuts to other proposals)

But, as Ian points out, this isn't unique to Manchester - the Wimbledon loop was meant to be taken off Thameslink (given the conflicts/ train lengths etc), but has retained its service north of Blackfriars

That got me thinking - what other campaigns are there that have achieved significantly more than outsiders may think that the line "deserves"?

Obvious there are loads of groups around the country, from the "Friends Of" a particular station to regional campaign groups, local councillors/ devolved administrations/ MPs who've argued well for rail investment in their back yard. Not all of these are successful (as the dozens of long running re-opening campaigns evidence by the failure to re-open the line in question), not everyone can be above average!

Who's the best though? What examples are there in your area of a campaign that has done well to ensure a disproportionate share is allocated to their local station/ route? (this might be relevant to compare/contrast what has worked in different areas)

Thameslink had its own version - the Wimbledon loop

 

[Ianno87]

The Harpenden Rail Users group seem to have quite an amount of "clout" ; see how many references they got in the reports following the May 2018 timetable change disruption.

Additionally Bedwyn (at least pre-Covid) retained an IET service part in thanks to local pressuure. Probably something to be said for the Cotswold Line too (e.g. the redoubling around 10 years ago).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line probably had a fair bit of clout in saving what is really quite an expensive and very rural route.

 

[alf]

David Steel, a Lib Dem MP who lived fairly close to Tweedbank lobbied hard for Borders line to reopen. Right decision.

Then when he went to the House of Lords he lobbied even harder for large daily attendance allowances for Lords & huge pay offs when Lords retire. Both of which he won. Wrong decision.

 

[Watershed]

The Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line probably had a fair bit of clout in saving what is really quite an expensive and very rural route.

Though in that case, saving their line is unlikely to have been at the cost of anyone else's services. Unlike the titular example.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Additionally Bedwyn (at least pre-Covid) retained an IET service part in thanks to local pressuure. Probably something to be said for the Cotswold Line too (e.g. the redoubling around 10 years ago).

The Cotswold Line redoubling, AIUI, was largely because punctuality had collapsed on the line after a series of (market-led) service improvements from FGW. The timetable worked on paper but was incredibly fragile. The options were either redouble or cut the service back again. Not entirely dissimilar to Castlefield right now, in other words. It certainly didn't hurt that David Cameron (at the time, leader of the Opposition) was a local MP, but I don't think it was the crucial factor. I remember hearing that the Cotswold Line was the first constraint in any timetable planning out of Paddington because the single line sections were so restrictive.

The nutso current North Cotswold Line Taskforce proposals, on the other hand, are very clearly a result of lobbying by Worcestershire County Council (2tph to Worcester, each missing busy stations) and the then Oxfordshire County Council representative (4tph to Hanborough, coincidentally his local station). With any luck the new regime at OCC will apply some pressure for a less unbalanced service.

 

[Starmill]

Though in that case, saving their line is unlikely to have been at the cost of anyone else's services. Unlike the titular example.

Indeed. The S&C is already there, so it doesn't cost a lotin capex.

Unfortunately the opex implications are another matter altogether...

 

[JamesT]

The Cotswold Line redoubling, AIUI, was largely because punctuality had collapsed on the line after a series of (market-led) service improvements from FGW. The timetable worked on paper but was incredibly fragile. The options were either redouble or cut the service back again. Not entirely dissimilar to Castlefield right now, in other words. It certainly didn't hurt that David Cameron (at the time, leader of the Opposition) was a local MP, but I don't think it was the crucial factor. I remember hearing that the Cotswold Line was the first constraint in any timetable planning out of Paddington because the single line sections were so restrictive.

The nutso current North Cotswold Line Taskforce proposals, on the other hand, are very clearly a result of lobbying by Worcestershire County Council (2tph to Worcester, each missing busy stations) and the then Oxfordshire County Council representative (4tph to Hanborough, coincidentally his local station). With any luck the new regime at OCC will apply some pressure for a less unbalanced service.

Is sending 4tph to Hanborough that daft? It clears out trains otherwise terminating at Oxford that would be in the way going to and from the sidings.

 

[BrianW]

Some candidates?

Sir Peter Parker of Charlbury/ Cotswold Line

Sir Rishi Sunak MP for services to Northallerton, Thirsk and Darlington

Rail Ride and Stride to Okehampton with Sir Mel Stride MP

John Lamont MP for services to Reston

All those who lobbied for Beeching Reversals and got them (or at least a 'promise' thereof)

Lord Peter Lilley formerly MP for Hitchen & Harpenden and Financial Secretary to the Treasury under Margaret Thatcher

Tracy Brabin former MP now Mayor, Bradford

Andy Burnham, Mayor for Greater Manchester

Southport- 'Conservative gain'

Any discernable pattern?

 

[Mag_seven]

I think the Cotswolds line has benefitted from having a number of ex BR executives living along it including the late Sir Peter Parker as mentioned above.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Deputy leader of Cheshire East, Alderley Edge Councilor and TfN's Cheshire representative, Craig Browne, certainly fights in his corner, just that corner is Wales and the West Country.

 

[nr758123]

Some candidates?

Tracy Brabin former MP now Mayor, Bradford

I hope so, because apparently she's buying a house near me.

 

[Grecian 1998]

Don't know if it still happens but the Alton Line Rail Users' insist that their line is a mainline and class 442s and 444s have worked regularly on it in the past, away from their usual haunts between Waterloo - Weymouth / Portsmouth.

I have heard it suggested that there were rumours of closing the Salisbury - Exeter line in the 60s, but many influential folk around Sherborne, particularly Sherborne School alumni saw off that idea. It possibly led to BR targeting easier closures.

The Tarka Rail Association seem to have done alright by getting an hourly Barnstaple - Exeter Central service run primarily by 158s. I'm sure many people would like to see them elsewhere on the GWR network, albeit on many routes, particularly around Bristol and Bath, the end doors are a hindrance for swift boarding.

The TRA shouldn't be confused with the North Devon Public Transport Users (splitters), who want to close most of the intermediate stations (although most services omit a sizeable number of stops anyway).

 

[Bevan Price]

Many Southport residents are still resentful of being dragged into Sefton Municipal Borough & Merseyside, so try to ensure that they do not suffer other losses of services / facilities. Meanwhile many supporters of Everton & Liverpool have no particular love of Manchester because it is the home of "Moneybags United".

 

[Wolfie]

The Portsmouth line and their anti-450 campaign....

 

[PTR 444]

Richard Drax putting paid to any proposal that slows down journeys between Dorset and London…

 

[bramling]

Don't know if it still happens but the Alton Line Rail Users' insist that their line is a mainline and class 442s and 444s have worked regularly on it in the past, away from their usual haunts between Waterloo - Weymouth / Portsmouth.

I have heard it suggested that there were rumours of closing the Salisbury - Exeter line in the 60s, but many influential folk around Sherborne, particularly Sherborne School alumni saw off that idea. It possibly led to BR targeting easier closures.

The Tarka Rail Association seem to have done alright by getting an hourly Barnstaple - Exeter Central service run primarily by 158s. I'm sure many people would like to see them elsewhere on the GWR network, albeit on many routes, particularly around Bristol and Bath, the end doors are a hindrance for swift boarding.

The TRA shouldn't be confused with the North Devon Public Transport Users (splitters), who want to close most of the intermediate stations (although most services omit a sizeable number of stops anyway).

I wouldn’t say an hourly Barnstaple service is entirely unreasonable, and 158s are reasonably suitable with many passengers doing the journey end-to-end. They’re 30 years old so it’s not like the line is getting a gold-plated deal, albeit they are quite decent trains still.

On the Manchester Recovery Taskforce thread (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/manchester-recovery-taskforce-timetable-consultation.213089/) @Ianno87 has made the point that the Wimbledon Loop is the London equivalent of the "vocal" Southport - Manchester campaigners (for those unaware of the Manchester Recovery Taskforce, the town of Southport had seven times more respondents than the city of Liverpool, meaning that Southport gets to keep a plum path into the Castlefield corridor at a time when other services are being simplified/ rationalised/ removed from Castlefield to try to improve reliability across northern England)

Can't blame the Southport folk for this - they've been noisy in the past, it's worked, they'll keep on with their orchestrated campaigns to ensure that their wee town has the kind of service that they want to Manchester whilst other places lose out as a result (my anger is with the authorities who've cowed to their demands, which means cuts to other proposals)

But, as Ian points out, this isn't unique to Manchester - the Wimbledon loop was meant to be taken off Thameslink (given the conflicts/ train lengths etc), but has retained its service north of Blackfriars

That got me thinking - what other campaigns are there that have achieved significantly more than outsiders may think that the line "deserves"?

Obvious there are loads of groups around the country, from the "Friends Of" a particular station to regional campaign groups, local councillors/ devolved administrations/ MPs who've argued well for rail investment in their back yard. Not all of these are successful (as the dozens of long running re-opening campaigns evidence by the failure to re-open the line in question), not everyone can be above average!

Who's the best though? What examples are there in your area of a campaign that has done well to ensure a disproportionate share is allocated to their local station/ route? (this might be relevant to compare/contrast what has worked in different areas)

There’s numerous rail user groups covering GN between Hitchin and Peterborough, all of whom are quite noisy (though as far as I can tell Cambridge itself doesn’t have one). One of the groups has got hold of the 365 scrapping and is currently making a stink over it, one can only support them on that!

However mention could be made of the Fen Line users association, who seem particularly influential relative to the importance of the line. At times it feels like the whole GN franchise revolves around Cambridge-Kings Lynn.

 

[Carlisle]

That got me thinking - what other campaigns are there that have achieved significantly more than outsiders may think that the line "deserves"?

Alternatively the Royal family appeared to have the exact opposite effect on lines they frequented given the Hunstanton, Ballater & Gosport branches were easily closed .

 

[Bishopstone]

Lots of folk on this forum ‘blamed’ Chloe Smith, the Norwich North MP, for the ‘Norwich in Ninety’ services she campaigned for.

As these services appear to have bedded-in quite nicely, and to have become reasonably popular, I assume that history is in the process of being re-written, to credit a man with the initiative.

 

[GatwickDepress]

The Portsmouth line and their anti-450 campaign....

I wondered whether anyone was going to bring them up! Their website is now defunct, but if you fancy a blast from the past, you can still browse it through the Wayback Machine.

 

[Taunton]

Long ago a (non-rail) contact was in the Sevenoaks Season Ticket Holders Association. They were extraordinarily prominent, in no small part to the significant number of senior Whitehall civil servants who commuted daily to Charing Cross and were active members. Said contact used Dunton Green. They seemed quite readily to get senior Southern management to correspond with them, or come to their social/lobbying meetings. All very formal, with preprinted agendas (even in the 1970s), AGMs, press notices (used to appear in the Railway Magazine as well) etc. They seemed completely unabashed about demanding all sorts of changes to suit certain of their individuals. It still seems around, having morphed into the "Sevenoaks Rail Travellers Association".

About Us | Sevenoaks Rail Travellers Association (srta.org.uk)

 

[Bald Rick]

Lots of folk on this forum ‘blamed’ Chloe Smith, the Norwich North MP, for the ‘Norwich in Ninety’ services she campaigned for.

As these services appear to have bedded-in quite nicely, and to have become reasonably popular, I assume that history is in the process of being re-written, to credit a man with the initiative.

Chloe Smith campaigned for them (as did many others) but it wasn’t her initiative. She picked it up from her predecessor (Ian Gibson) - although it wasn’t his idea either! Back then it didn’t have the ‘Norwich in 90’ tag though.

It still seems around, having morphed into the "Sevenoaks Rail Travellers Association".

I’ve been to see them. Quite a sensible crowd as such groups go.


My vote is the Fen Line Users Association. Without them there would not be longer trains north of Ely, and the Ely capacity project would not have gained the traction it has. They have also done much with t(e stations.

My second vote goes to whoever it is that pushed Reston.

 

[357]

A London Underground example would be the Pinner users group achieving the total off-peak cancellation of all fast and semi-fast trains on the Metropolitan line in order to stop all trains at all stations.

 

[deltic]

Nick Clegg diverting HS2 to serve central Sheffield rather than Meadowhall - the partially right decision in my view if it had continued on to serve Leeds rather than effectively being on a branch line

Some very senior Treasury officials who lived on the proposed Channel Tunnel High Speed Rail Route through south London who in my view misused their position to block it

 

[swt_passenger]

The Portsmouth line and their anti-450 campaign....

Which hasn’t really achieved anything yet. Ultimately they’ll end up with reconverted 458s, I don’t think that’s a huge success, I think they really wanted end doors… Back when they started, I bet they wanted 2+1 first and mini-buffet as well, but that’s overtaken by events…

 

[bramling]

Which hasn’t really achieved anything yet. Ultimately they’ll end up with reconverted 458s, I don’t think that’s a huge success, I think they really wanted end doors… Back when they started, I bet they wanted 2+1 first and mini-buffet as well, but that’s overtaken by events…

What the Portsmouth line has always wanted is the 444s back on all services (was it ever the case that the line was solid 444?). They have never been happy since the 444s were redeployed, and weren't happy with the 442s either.

It will certainly be interesting to see how the 458s are received. They'd possibly be okay with a 350/1 style interior.

To be fair I can sort of get the point - journeys to London from the more outlying stations on the route are quite long, and 2+3 (especially the facing bays of 6) is possibly a bit much for that length of time. One can also be cynical and speculate that the real reason they lost the 444s was simply to allow the 442s to be off-leased from the Weymouth route, with the issue of seating capacities simply being a convenient covering reason to avoid headlines of "Portsmouth line loses its new trains so another route can get them".

Personally - I think they have a point over the 3+2, but should accept 1/3 2/3 door stock without fuss.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally - I think they have a point over the 3+2, but should accept 1/3 2/3 door stock without fuss.

I'd agree there. 350/1s would be perfect for the route, just as they are for similar length services out of Euston.

 

[nw1]

Is sending 4tph to Hanborough that daft? It clears out trains otherwise terminating at Oxford that would be in the way going to and from the sidings.

Not sure what the other 3tph are on top of the existing service. One is presumably the Paddington-Oxford terminator, the other two - the Didcot services?

It would prevent shortish turnbacks at Oxford (15 or 20 mins) and might require an extra unit. Seems ridiculous to give a semi-rural station a metro frequency when the likes of Swaythling and St Denys, more deserving of metro frequencies, are stuck at effectively 1tph.

Not sure London-Worcester needs 2tph either - Worcester is surely too far from London to attract enough people for 2 trains per hour, even in the peak. I will concede that Paddington to Oxford would need more peak services though in an ideal world - I believe that due to pathing issues it's stuck at the off-peak 2tph frequency.

A London Underground example would be the Pinner users group achieving the total off-peak cancellation of all fast and semi-fast trains on the Metropolitan line in order to stop all trains at all stations.

So they don't have those 'express' services anymore? A shame if so, that was an interesting quirk of the Underground system. People from Amersham and Chesham are presumably not too happy though.

 

[snookertam]

As part of the Stirling/Dunblane/Alloa electrification a stabling and cleaning facility was to be provided on the southern approach to Stirling station on available land by the running line.

The local residents in the area fought incredibly hard to prevent planning permission for the facility to be granted, and won. They argued that the problem would be overnight noise when in reality it was simply paranoia about property prices. When it was put to them that the facility was about improving transport links to/from Stirling, and that as it was an electric train stabling point there would be minimal noise, these fell on deaf ears (excuse the pun…). These were comparatively wealthy people with the time, determination and dedication to prevent a project for wider public good from going ahead. Next to none of them were rail users. They had bought their expensive houses and the rest of the world be damned.

 

[nw1]

A London Underground example would be the Pinner users group achieving the total off-peak cancellation of all fast and semi-fast trains on the Metropolitan line in order to stop all trains at all stations.

So they don't have those 'express' services anymore? A shame if so, that was an interesting quirk of the Underground system. People from Amersham and Chesham are presumably not too happy though. Would be, presumably, a bit like the Berrylands user group successfully getting all trains from Woking and Guildford to stop at all stations between Surbiton and Waterloo. Or the Thornton Heath user group successfully getting all trains from East Grinstead to stop at all stations between East Croydon and Victoria.

The Portsmouth line and their anti-450 campaign....

Though to be fair the fasts in the slam-door era were always worked by CIGs and BEPs, the slam-door equivalent of 444s, so anything other than a 442 or 444 would be an effective downgrade. Portsmouth is a moderately large city so one could argue it should have 'express' stock.

Don't know if it still happens but the Alton Line Rail Users' insist that their line is a mainline and class 442s and 444s have worked regularly on it in the past, away from their usual haunts between Waterloo - Weymouth / Portsmouth.

On the other hand the Alton line isn't a main line serving a large city, and was predominantly VEPs (a few CIGs) in the slam-door era, so 450s would be the natural stock - maybe with the odd 444 off-peak if it's only used on peak diagrams and not needed anywhere else.