Memorandum by The High Wycombe Society
(RT 44)
1. HISTORICAL
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The High Wycombe Society and the
Transport Group. The Society was set up in 1968 to guard the
town's heritage, following a successful campaign to save a historic
open space from threatened development. In 1989 the Society set
up the Transport Group, primarily to oppose a road scheme (now
removed from the plan) but also to follow transport matters more
generally, and relate them to the local topography and surrounding
Chilterns AONB and Green Belt. High Wycombe grew up along the
old London/Oxford road (now the A40) where it runs through a narrow
gap in the Chiltern Hills. It has grown considerably over the
last thirty years, spreading out over many hills and along the
valleys. The main valley carries the river Wye.
1.2 The High Wycombe/Bourne End Rail Link
(HBL). This was built by Brunel and opened in 1854. He took advantage
of the Wye valley to avoid tunnelling, taking the track south
from High Wycombe via Bourne End and Maidenhead and on to London
Paddington. The present line between High Wycombe and London Marylebone
was opened in 1905 and required a tunnel about six miles east
of High Wycombe, near Beaconsfield. The Wye valley link was closed
in 1970, when much of it still ran through open country. Since
then, extensive development throughout Wycombe District has included
the area beside the HBL track. All this expansion, plus the nearby
M40 (opened in the late 60's and running along a ridge a mile
south of the town), has brought enormous traffic and congestion
to a large area, and the topography adds to the problems. The
reinstatement of the HBL track with suitable non-road public transport
could provide sustainable transport for thousands of short local
trips, as well as links into the main rail network, ie to Chiltern
Railways at High Wycombe and Thames Trains at Bourne End, which
is 11 minutes by rail to Maidenhead which is on the main line
between Paddington and Reading. The Transport Group started to
study the HBL reinstatement in January 1994, under the leadership
of Christopher Wallis, who in 1989 played an important role in
saving the Ribblehead viaduct on the Settle to Carlisle line—then
under threat of closure but now very busy.
2. THE REINSTATEMENT
OF THE
HBL
2.1 Protection of the HBL track bed for
future use by public transport. In January 1994 this protection
was the limit of our audacious ambition, since any re-opening
of the line seemed a long way into the future. Nevertheless we
were soon encouraged by the publication of PPG 13 in March '94
and the Royal Commission report "Transport and the Environment"
in the October. However, for the protection to seem credible we
had to survey the route, consider different vehicle systems, indicate
possible solutions likely problems, estimate the patronage, and
compare the costs and advantages of reinstatement with the consequences
of not re-using the HBL corridor for public transport.
2.2 The new Wycombe District Local Plan.
The consultation draft was considered at two large public
meetings in April 1998, at which it became clear there was huge
pressure on land all over Wycombe, and all the main roads were
already severely congested. Any further development would add
critically to the economic and environmental costs of congestion,
so our studies of the HBL (as in para 2.1), led us to start campaigning
for its early reinstatement. In May 1998 we decided to arrange
a meeting with an invited audience of councillors, officers, corporate
sector and others, which was held in the Council Chamber of Wycombe
District Council in October 1998. In December 1998 the Deposit
Draft of the new District Local Plan was published. It contained
protection of the HBL track bed for re-use by public transport
as yet unspecified, plus any land required for diversions and
access. We have recently (11 January 2000) received advice from
the DETR indicating it could be appropriate for Bucks County Council
(the Highway Authority) to include reinstatement of the HBL in
the Local Transport Plan.
2.3 The HBL track bed. Only about
200m of the 9km track is still in the hands of the Railway Property
Company, but most of the formation (6-7km) remains clear, ie overgrown
with the rails taken up. Approximately a further 1km is made up
of three cul de sac service roads, such that the present light
local traffic on them could easily share with a reinstated public
transport service. The remaining kilometre includes four places
where the track has been built on. For much of this distance diversions
could be put on either adjoining open land or on service roads,
requiring only simple engineering, but in two places, totalling
about 500m, more sophisticated and costly engineering would be
needed. Four bridges would have to be rebuilt; two of them are
very small. Designs for the two larger ones have been provided
by Christopher Wallis free of charge. They would offer considerable
advantages to cyclists and pedestrians as well as being needed
for a reinstatement with any kind of rail system. Another member
of this Group, Colin Harrison MIRSE, has prepared a signalling
plan (also free of charge). Overall, a reinstatement with light
rail would make good use of existing infrastructure, while the
new bridges and signalling would provide extra facilities for
cycling and walking, and a cycle/walking track would be provided
alongside the new public transport on the HBL track.
2.4 Six thousand passenger journeys per
day and 11 stops between the two rail stations. We have proposed
11 stops in addition to the rail stations. All 13 stops have many
households and employment sites within 500m. There are also 15
schools (totalling about 10,000 pupils) where some of the pupils
and staff would use a reinstated HBL. It would also serve a number
of indoor and outdoor leisure venues. There are 153 trains per
day to/from London (37 mins) at High Wycombe, plus a good service
westwards to Birmingham. Close to the Station there is the town
centre, with national chain store shops, a theatre (1,000 seats),
the District Hospital, a college, and the offices of the District
Council and the County's area office. At Bourne End there are
many shops, the River Thames, a rail branch line to Marlow, and
the service to Maidenhead, for Slough (for Heathrow), Windsor,
Reading and the main rail network. In October 1996, a study commissioned
by the District Council from Maunsell Transport Planning estimated
a possible 6100 passenger journeys per day by innovative ULR.
Since 1996, various transport developments, including rising numbers
of rail passengers, might generate even greater HBL patronage.
All this could result in replacing thousands of daily car trips
now using two heavily congested routes (A40/A4094 & A404/A308)
feeding the economically active quadrant south east of Wycombe,
which includes Bourne End and Maidenhead.
2.5 Choice of ULR for HBL reinstatement.
Our reasons for this choice are discussed in Section 3. There
would be scope for a frequent through ULR service between High
Wycombe and Maidenhead, which would provide a much needed north/south
public transport facility. ULR could also offer an economic, more
frequent service on the branch line between Bourne End and Marlow.
3. THE REASONS
FOR CHOOSING
ULR
3.1 Heavy rail rejected. Since the
HBL closed in 1970, considerable new development throughout the
HBL corridor has created a need for public transport that is very
frequent, (5-10 minute) fast, cheap, and readily accessed at many
more points than the former heavy rail service, which, unlike
ULR, is a mode unsuited to serving closely spaced stops. Also,
any new service must be as unobtrusive as possible, use the minimum
of land, and have minimum impact on nearby properties. On all
these grounds we rejected reinstatement with heavy rail.
3.2 Buses also rejected. Any fast,
frequent public transport service would require a dual track.
The original HBL track was Brunel broad gauge but was single track
with passing places, so it would not be wide enough to carry two
bus lanes, even guided buses, (which offer costs and problems
of their own). Hence the land required would be greater than for
the original formation, and the bus route would be conspicuous
and wide enough for its future to be always under threat from
the "roads lobby". Energy consumption would be greater
than for light rail, while experience, here and abroad, suggests
light rail is better than buses at tempting drivers from their
cars. The flexibility of buses has been quoted in their support,
but this very flexibility can also confer uncertainty—an
important factor when planning any kind of new development. In
the light of all these considerations we rejected reinstatement
using buses.
3.3 Support for light rail. The two
reports by the Royal Commission about "Transport and the
Environment" (1994 and 1997) both speak in favour of light
rail, on grounds of its energy efficiency, non pollution and passenger
appeal. Also, the success of the Metro-Link in Manchester and
of light rail systems more generally, caused us to briefly consider
such light rail for the HBL. However, we were concerned about
the obtrusiveness and maintenance costs of overhead power lines.
Also, the overall costs seemed likely to be too high for the size
of the population to be served.
3.4 The discovery of flywheel energy
storage and ULR. Having reviewed all our reservations as above,
we were interested to discover the Parry People Mover (PPM) in
1994. Its flywheel energy storage, safe intermittent ground level
power supply, and other features, seemed to offer the right potential.
In 1994 the PPM was still little more than a prototype, but then
we did not envisage a working reinstatement for many years, during
which time considerable development seemed possible. In 1999 a
further ULR vehicle appeared—a modified PPM renamed the
Bristol Electric Railbus. This retains the flywheel energy storage
and regenerative braking (thereby aiding economic stopping and
starting) but a new redesigned vehicle (due in service in March)
will include a different transmission system which the owners
claim confers even greater energy efficiency.
3.5 The Key Properties of ULR. The
many features of which recommend ULR to us for reinstating the
HBL suggest it could have wide application elsewhere. It is exceptionally
energy efficient, due to its low weight, motion of steel on steel,
efficient energy transmission, and ability to recapture the energy
of braking in the flywheel, plus its use of gentle gradients.
With the arrival of "green" electricity it would create
zero pollution and zero CO2 emissions—key factors in face
of the growing alarm about global warming and general pollution.
It requires the minimum of land, is almost silent, and is visually
unobtrusive. Its low weight and no overhead power lines help to
keep infrastructure (track and bridges) and maintenance costs
low. Long experience of light rail worldwide suggests an expectation
of long vehicle lives would be justified. Steel wheels are recyclable
and last longer than rubber tyres; land and labour for refuelling
are not required. All these considerations suggest operating costs
could be expected to be lower than for any other form of public
transport, making it easier to provide frequent fast services
on rails unimpeded by traffic congestion.
Dr Elisa Woodward
Transport Group
21 January 2000
|
