Shapps wants ‘earlier extinction of diesel trains’: suggestions welcome on how to achieve this

[Rhydgaled]

This discussion just seems to assume rail will continue to compete against a motorcar fleet that remains largely the same as is, just gradually switch to various sorts of low emissions engines. And will continue to be used as such. Wrong! Even without a government mandated ban on traditional types of engine, the age of mass motoring is drawing to a close. I am willing to predict that resource scarcity, desire for better and safer public environments, and general apathy of young people towards the whole motoring experience will lead to a 'mass dieback' of cars in general. Ditto lorries.

If only that were true. Sadly I don't think mass-motoring will go away by itself. Petrol and diesel cars will start to disappear, but I fear at least as many Ultra Low Emmision Vehicles (ULEVs, as electric cars often seem to be called) are likely to replace them. We might see the utopian reduction in car use you predict if Highways England and the Welsh and Scottish equivalents stop creating more road capacity to encourage traffic, cuts to bus services are reversed and plans for driverless cars on motorways (which might allow the use of mobile devices) are scrapped. Car culture will not be easily banished.

Frankly the rail network is far too expensive and totally unfit to bear a larger proportion of our transport needs, and expecting people to accept a return to the 1940s lifestyle is absurd.

Cut fares by three quarters if you want to build the world you imagine. And abolish idiotic railcards.

I wouldn't say the idea of railcards is in-itself idiotic. The present range of cards has some near-idiotic characteristics but the basic principle of a relatively low-cost purchase that then encourages future journeys by reducing costs is a sensible one. They just need to simplify the range (instead of having Senior, Disabled, 16-25 and 25-30 with different peak-time restrictions, just have one 'bronze' railcard with the peak restrictions and a 'silver' one without them). Granted the basic (without railcard discount) fares level is generally on the high side, but I'd argue that without a limitless subsidy pot it is better to use any additional funding for improving the quality and availablity (frequency) of the public transport product (buses as well as trains) and possibly reduction in bus fares.

As for freight, moving any significant quantity of freight on the UK rail network would require essentially building an all new network - the existing one simply is not suitable in any real sense.
Trains are too short and too gauge restricted.

I wonder, what would emmit more greenhouse gas:

• the current distribution model with (diesel) HGVs for trunk haul but with electric rather than diesel vans for local distribution or
• larger numbers of electric vans carried on trunk haul sections on trains behind class 66s.

Unlike HGVs, vans could presumably fit on a UK gauge (motorail) wagon. But the combined weight of all those vans (plus the motorail wagons) would probably be greater than the HGVs, so the total mass having to be moved would be greater.

There also seems to be an assumption that climate change is a 'bad thing'. It is also possible to consider that it might have benefits - warmer weather in our latitudes could make farming more productive and would lead to a reduction in the use of energy needed to keep houses warm in winter.

That may be true of the climate change experienced so far; however we are being warned of 'tipping points' which could accelerate climate change. If we hit one of those, it could be a very bad thing - an extinction level event - particularly if that triggers more such 'tipping points'. Climate change has been the cause of several of the mass extinctions we are aware of, perhaps even all of them.

Indeed, now Assuming that we're going to need a rolling program of Electrification where would be good candidates to be within the early stages of this program (please note this isn't looking for the correct order of those projects, just the main projects which should be within that list).

As a starter is suggest that some of these would probably be good candidates (not in any particular order, other than the MML would likely be fairly high on most people's lists so that's been put first):

I'm not sure how to weigh up passenger vs freight decarbonisation, so I will focus on passenger services (this may not be the best approach). Running at 125mph probably uses a fair bit more fuel than lower speeds, particularly since the Voyager family are high-performance units with large amounts of power to deliver rapid acceleration. For this reason we desperately need to avoid procuring a new fleet for XC but also cascade bi-mode stock to XC to reduce running diesels under the wires. So, I would suggest (not necessarily in this order):

• Didcot - Oxford, Filton Bank and Swindon - Bristol via Bath
  • done fairly close together to enable EMU introduction to release class 800s to XC, reformed as 8-car units with six diesel engines each to hopefully maintain Voyager timings (six engines = two 5-car class 800s for each 8-car unit cascaded to XC spare driving vehicles used in the 'new' EMUs)
• Midland Main Line including XC's main routes from Sheffield to both Doncaster and Leeds
  • MML bi-modes cascaded to XC, helping make the case for
• Derby - Birmingham - Bristol - Plymouth (between Taunton and Plymouth this would also cut GWR's class 802 diesel mileage)
  
• Bristol - Plymouth (also useful for GWR)
• Crewe - Holyhead and Wolverhampton - Shrewsbury
  • Cascade WCML bi-modes to XC
• Oxford - Banbury - Birmingham
  
• Newbury - Westbury

While you can't get 25kV 2-car EMUs,

Is it that it can't be done, or just that it hasn't been done?

Northern don't want another sub fleet, they would either electrify and use 331/323s, use 195/158s or get a bimode 331 which is similar for maintainence, CAF do offer it along with battery options.

A bi-mode 331 would be another subfleet... Is a bi-mode 331 offered though; CAF's website does offer bi-mode but can they do it for the UK loading guage?

...which is a very good argument for putting the costs of insurance and "tax" onto fuel. NOT as VAT, which is claimed back by people running their cars on their "businesses" but as Excise Duty. It would go a little way towards making the apparent costs of driving a bit more comparable with the immediately obvious cost of buying a train (or other public transport) ticket.
A national insurance scheme (bought in from a consortium of insurance companies if necessary) would also stop people driving uninsured, the costs of which are currently picked up by the rest of us.

The problem with which is electric cars. It could however be placed onto a new road pricing system instead, and I'd be in broad support of that for many reasons (not least it making borrowing a car if you're not the policyholder on another policy to use the third party extension easier).

Could electric cars not be fitted with a compulsory energy meter and tax motorists based on the amount of power used? The main advantage of that over road pricing is that a energy meter would encourage motorists to drive in a manner which minimises the electricity consumed.

It's also worth noting that using existing train services do not result in extra emissions until extra services are provided, add those emissions will happen almost whether there's passengers on them or not. Whilst every car journey results in extra emissions, as they don't produce emissions if they are not being used.

Personally I think this "it is running anyway so my carbon footprint is near-zero" argument should only be used for services which are run because they are considered 'social necessary' - so many bus services and the odd railway (like the Heart Of Wales Line) that exists because there are no buses in the area would count but most rail services wouldn't.

rail emissions are less than 2% of that from all road transport (cars, HGVs, buses & vans) added together. On that basis, I hope that no rational, logical decision maker would spend any significant extra money on reducing rail carbon emissions, as they are almost insignificant in relation to the UK carbon emissions problem (and the transport sector was only around 27% of the total UK carbon emissions anyway in 2016).

Some questions I would like to see answered, which have nothing to do with percentages; what is the absolute value (tonnes of CO2e) of greenhouse gas emmisions from diesel engines in the UK rail sector and if that increases slightly (due to large fleets of new DMUs for Northern and Wales & Borders) or remains the same until 2050 does that mean we fail to reach 'net zero'? And even if it doesn't, is cutting that figure by X tonnes of CO2e easier / more cost-effective than cutting emmisions elsewhere by that amount?

 

[Bletchleyite]

(2 car 25kV EMUs) Is it that it can't be done, or just that it hasn't been done?

It would be difficult to do because of the amount of gubbins that needs to go under the floor. But where is demand low enough to actually want to do it? St Albans Abbey is about the only line I can think of that's 25kV electrified and has demand that fits a 2-car unit.

What you could probably do is a Stadler GTW/FLIRT style unit with the "engine module" instead containing a transformer and pantograph, or just put it all above the floor, thus giving you a 1.5 car EMU in practical terms. But I'm just not sure where that would be useful.

(I suppose a 3 module FLIRT is *almost* a 2-car EMU, if the 2-car EMU was going to have 26m vehicles? 54m against 52m?)

 

[Rhydgaled]

It would be difficult to do because of the amount of gubbins that needs to go under the floor. But where is demand low enough to actually want to do it? St Albans Abbey is about the only line I can think of that's 25kV electrified and has demand that fits a 2-car unit.

I'd agree that there probably isn't the need for that many 2-car EMUs, I just asked the question because in another topic we are discussing whether bi-mode units could be (or could have been) an alternative to the Civity DMUs. A bi-mode would of course need to have all the 'gubbins' of an EMU, so whether a 2-car EMU would be possible is relevant to that discussion. If it can be shown that a 2-car EMU isn't possible, then that would make it clear that a 2-car bi-mode is not possible either. A route that is not fully electrified may well have demand low enough to want a 2-car unit, at least on the parts that are not electrified, hence my interest.

I would be interested to see a list of the 'gubbins' that needs to go under the floor (which might be more relevant on the other topic, linked to above) if you have one, particularly anything that is not required on a DMU or DEMU (is even a DEMU possible with only two coaches without putting some kit above the floor)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

(is even a DEMU possible with only two coaches without putting some kit above the floor)?

A Class 230 is a DEMU with all the kit below the floor, and in short (18m) vehicles too. Though some would argue that the lack of success is in part down to the need to cram things in so tightly and thus potentially inadequate ventilation. It could be made into a third rail bi-mode fairly easily by adding shoegear and switching equipment.

There are, or were, some not entirely dissimilar 2-car bi-mode third rail EMUs in Hamburg which have/had everything below the floor, though they obviously have a bigger loading gauge than us.

No way would you fit a transformer as well, though. You might if it was 2x26m though?

 

[Rhydgaled]

A Class 230 is a DEMU with all the kit below the floor, and in short (18m) vehicles too. Though some would argue that the lack of success is in part down to the need to cram things in so tightly and thus potentially inadequate ventilation. It could be made into a third rail bi-mode fairly easily by adding shoegear and switching equipment.

There are, or were, some not entirely dissimilar 2-car bi-mode third rail EMUs in Hamburg which have/had everything below the floor, though they obviously have a bigger loading gauge than us.

No way would you fit a transformer as well, though. You might if it was 2x26m though?

I'm pretty sure the class 195/331 bodyshell is 24m driving vehicles. Given that the class 230 has everything under the floor, as you say, is transformer the only thing that would be be hard to accomodate on a hypothetical 2-car bi-mode version of the class 195? If so, would you happen to know the dimensions of the sort of transformer that would be needed (typing 'electric train transformer' into Google gives me model railway items)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm pretty sure the class 195/331 bodyshell is 24m driving vehicles. Given that the class 230 has everything under the floor, as you say, the transformer the only thing that would be be hard to accomodate on a hypothetical 2-car bi-mode version of the class 195? If so, would you happen to know the dimensions of the sort of transformer that would be needed (typing 'electric train transformer' into Google gives me model railway items)?

I don't I'm afraid, perhaps someone else here does?

 

[HSTEd]

It would be difficult to do because of the amount of gubbins that needs to go under the floor. But where is demand low enough to actually want to do it? St Albans Abbey is about the only line I can think of that's 25kV electrified and has demand that fits a 2-car unit.

Well given that almost all the heavy traction gear on a Class 319 is below one of the vehicles, a two car train is probably not a big issue.
Whilst some secondary equipment is below one of the other vehicles, it would probably all be easily concentrated into one additional vehicle.

 

[MarkyT]

The Stadler Citylink vehicles proposed for Cardiff also show you can have an AC electric vehicle with appropriately sized batteries for planned off-wire work, all within a fairly small form factor that's probably even more restricted than a typical small 'heavy rail' emu. The 25kV capability is already tested in the Sheffield cars, though they're only working on DC currently. The large scale battery use remains to be proved on the Cardiff examples. If manufacturers can fit all the 25kV traction equipment and the batteries within the confines of a tram, accommodating the same compact modern systems in a pair of high floor heavy rail cars should be even easier. Infernal combustion engines and fuel tanks obviously complicate matters further for bimodes.

 

[HSTEd]

Yet such a journey would be result in over 11,000 miles traveled a year for a 5 day a week job with 35 days of holiday entitlement (including 8 days of bank holidays) which is exactly my point.

This is the reality of commuting however.

Thats still before anything you would have spent on variable costs (such as fuel, tyres, etc.).

The variable costs are rather small with a modern hatchback.

The marginal cost of driving an extra 11,000 miles is going to be something like £1600 in petrol and a few tens of pounds in tyres and brake wear.

- Few people actually pay cash for their cars, so you then need to include an element of loan costs into the purchase costs

Then we should include a capital charge on the annual season ticket, which is a substantial investment.

- Few people actually drive such a cheap car

Lots of people drive much cheaper cars since they buy them second hand.
My parents spend that much on cars and get full sized saloon diesels!

- There are likely to be some large maintenance costs within a 14 year life of a car

Maintenance costs beyond MOT are likely to be rather small for a new car, and you will looking at a few hundred quid for a clutch and similar during the lifespan.

Modern cars have really improved reliability drastically.

- There's no certainty that a car would make it to that age, for instance are those figures the available age a car is scrapped or are they the average end of life age (scrapped, written off, etc.) for all cars?

And where do written off cars go?
Excluding a handful of cars that end up in a lake or on the sea bottom, they all go for scrappage in the end.

All of which would add to the cost of a car ownership.

Yes, but even with favourable circumstances, a commute with an annual season, rail struggles to compete at all, add travel charges too and from the station and you've got no chance.

There are certainly a lot of people who are paying well over the odds for their transport because they only consider the cost of the fuel for their journeys rather than their total spending.

This depends on how you measure it.
The cost of owning a car and not driving it is not that much, and a lot of people value the freedom and carriage capacity that that gives you.
Hell, in weekly shopping you are likely to spend several hundred pounds a year on delivery charges that would have been avoided if you drive (and I know deliveries are better for the environment!)

 

[The Ham]

The variable costs are rather small with a modern hatchback.

The marginal cost of driving an extra 11,000 miles is going to be something like £1600 in petrol and a few tens of pounds in tyres and brake wear.

Which just proves the point, on that commute the marginal costs are £1,600 whilst the train costs are £1,750. That means that you've only got a £200/year for your non marginal costs.

That's not going to get you very much, even over a 11 year period if you buy a 3 year old car which had lost a significant amount of its original purchase price.

Yes there would be other costs of other transport if you didn't have a car, but then you'll still have a load of marginal costs for those extra miles of you did.

Some of those extra costs could be fairly small if by not having a car you walked/cycled rather than driving.

Now a 15 year old cycle can easily, even allowing for significant maintenance costs due to the age of it can very easily be less than 5p/mile (800 miles a year or 15 miles a week with a £600 spend) and even 2p/mile is achievable (4,000 miles a year or 39 miles a week with a £600 spend).

The reason for a £600 total spend is to allow for the purchase of the cycle (and not just a cheap but very heavy one) lights (and the charging of them, although if they are able to be charged off a USB cable then you just plug them into your computer whilst using it and there's virtually no additional power cost) helmet, and accessories (such as mudguards) as well as some maintenance (which is mostly just applying oil as well as replacing a few parts from time to time). It is entirely possible to get this below £600 by buying a second hand cycle.

 

[The Ham]

Personally I think this "it is running anyway so my carbon footprint is near-zero" argument should only be used for services which are run because they are considered 'social necessary' - so many bus services and the odd railway (like the Heart Of Wales Line) that exists because there are no buses in the area would count but most rail services wouldn't.

I wasn't arguing that an individual's CO2 emissions would be zero as it would be running anyway as those emissions have to be accredited to someone.

Let's say that because the rail network is one that is under the control of the government that the emissions should be shared between everyone (much as things like emissions from any branch of government should be allocated to the tax payers rather than the person who's job it is, such as waste disposal or emergency services or the health service; as we all benefit from them even if we don't directly use them).

Under that scenario we've all got a baseline emission level, which is something like 80kg/tax payer for rail travel. Now if we only walk, cycle or use rail then this wouldn't increase. However any driving that we did would at to this, probably for every 800 miles with two tax payers in the cast or 400 miles with one tax payer in the car their personal emissions would add a further 80kg of CO2 emissions.

Now clearly we'd also need to do what we can to reduce our baseline levels. This would include further electrification, however even the total removal of our rail network would have relatively little impact on the total emissions.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Now clearly we'd also need to do what we can to reduce our baseline levels. This would include further electrification, however even the total removal of our rail network would have relatively little impact on the total emissions.

Agreed. I think the key question is:- if all cars and buses were electric, then should environmentalists be campaigning for modal shift away from DMU-operated lines and the closure of those lines?

The Stadler Citylink vehicles proposed for Cardiff also show you can have an AC electric vehicle with appropriately sized batteries for planned off-wire work, all within a fairly small form factor that's probably even more restricted than a typical small 'heavy rail' emu. The 25kV capability is already tested in the Sheffield cars, though they're only working on DC currently. The large scale battery use remains to be proved on the Cardiff examples. If manufacturers can fit all the 25kV traction equipment and the batteries within the confines of a tram, accommodating the same compact modern systems in a pair of high floor heavy rail cars should be even easier. Infernal combustion engines and fuel tanks obviously complicate matters further for bimodes.

As well as the diesel engine and fuel, the bi-modes in question would hopefully also have toilets so would need space for CET tanks as well (and if you comply with the Key Train Requirements, that'd be two toilets so space on the underframe of both vehicles is needed for a toilet tank).

 

[MarkyT]

As well as the diesel engine and fuel, the bi-modes in question would hopefully also have toilets so would need space for CET tanks as well (and if you comply with the Key Train Requirements, that'd be two toilets so space on the underframe of both vehicles is needed for a toilet tank).

Anglia FLIRTs have two toilets next to each other in one car so they can share common supply and waste tanks. Seems a good solution on a short train if two toilets are an absolute requirement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anglia FLIRTs have two toilets next to each other in one car so they can share common supply and waste tanks. Seems a good solution on a short train if two toilets are an absolute requirement.

Does that increase the risk of both being out of use, though?

 

[Meerkat]

Anglia FLIRTs have two toilets next to each other in one car so they can share common supply and waste tanks. Seems a good solution on a short train if two toilets are an absolute requirement.

isn’t the main advantage of two toilets redundancy, which is voided if they are sharing systems and get full at the same time?

 

[MarkyT]

Agreed. I think the key question is:- if all cars and buses were electric, then should environmentalists be campaigning for modal shift away from DMU-operated lines and the closure of those lines?

Absolutely not. While there are a small number of lines that may not survive long term the proportional response is lighter vehicles, bi-modes, batteries, and fuel cells as modifications to existing vehicles or incorporated from new in next fleet renewal. This is more about urban air quality than carbon.

 

[MarkyT]

isn’t the main advantage of two toilets redundancy, which is voided if they are sharing systems and get full at the same time?

Where provided, they need to be sized appropriately, filled/emptied at optimal intervals, (like batteries!) and equipment specified for high reliability. The main 'availability' problem is a single toilet being legitimately occupied for a long period when you are personally rather desperate!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely not. While there are a small number of lines that may not survive long term the proportional response is lighter vehicles, bi-modes, batteries, and fuel cells as modifications to existing vehicles or incorporated from new in next fleet renewal. This is more about urban air quality than carbon.

If the railway doesn't sort its act out, it absolutely should. Electric buses could replace affected lines. If electric buses are possible, so are electric MUs - if the railway doesn't move with the times it is going to (and should) lose big-time.

 

[MarkyT]

If the railway doesn't sort its act out, it absolutely should. Electric buses could replace affected lines. If electric buses are possible, so are electric MUs - if the railway doesn't move with the times it is going to (and should) lose big-time.

I don't understand why you think the railways can't change based on one recent major stock order being perhaps sub-optimal in this respect. Also electric buses and cars in themselves cannot solve traffic congestion issues without road capacity and priority improvemens. If the only PT option is an unreliable, slower journey time on an (albeit electric) bus in the peak that is simply not going to be as attractive, so could result in a shift to private vehicle, which, although electric, will contribute to further congestion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't understand why you think the railways can't change

Because they are overconservative. And also because if I order a new diesel bus now it's going to be off for scrap by 2030, whereas if I order a new diesel train it's likely going to need to be in service until about 2060 at least.

And while conversion is a possible consideration, Classes 769 and 230 have shown us how (not) successful that might be.

based on one recent major stock order being perhaps sub-optimal in this respect. Also electric buses and cars in themselves cannot solve traffic congestion issues without road capacity and priority improvemens. If the only PT option is an unreliable, slower journey time on an (albeit electric) bus in the peak that is simply not going to be as attractive, so could result in a shift to private vehicle, which, although electric, will contribute to further congestion.

That might happen too - but it won't be a reason to keep subsidising an environmentally unfriendly diesel railway. The political tide will turn strongly if the railway doesn't buck its ideas up - and that means no more DMUs.

 

[Meerkat]

The lines that would get replaced by electric buses aren’t going to be the ones with any serious road congestion

 

[Bletchleyite]

The lines that would get replaced by electric buses aren’t going to be the ones with any serious road congestion

This is also a good point. The case for the Conwy Valley, say, is already very poor with it closed for about 4 months out of 12 every time there's a day or two when it's spitting a bit (how on earth it got away with yesterday's deluge I have no idea). But if you add to that it chucking out pollution in and near a National Park and the total lack of congestion on the main road, the case for keeping it open gets weaker still.

Or the Far North Line - once it's viable to have electric long distance coaches (there's a lot of space under one for batteries!) will there really be any case to keep that?

I want to see the railway stay open - so it has to buck its ideas up and soon. I'm not thinking the likes of the Snow Hill lines or the remaining DMU Manchester suburbans - those justify the wires and will probably get them - it's the branches that are the issue.

 

[MarkyT]

So we're advocating shutting lines when we know carbon reduction solutions for such railways are available rather than lobbying strongly to employ those solutions. I think that's absurd.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So we're advocating shutting lines when we know carbon reduction solutions for such railways are available rather than lobbying strongly to employ those solutions. I think that's absurd.

I'm not advocating closing anything. I'm saying that's what will happen if the railway does not have a plan to eradicate all DMU use across the network by about 2030, by which time our bus networks are likely to be near 100% electric.

Northern, of course (and WMT and TfW alongside them) have been fools for ordering DMUs which can only have at most a 10-15 year life span if costly and possibly unsuccessful conversions are not completed. Whereas GA's bi-modes can at least have the engine module lopped out and become EMUs.

 

[squizzler]

If only that were true. Sadly I don't think mass-motoring will go away by itself. Petrol and diesel cars will start to disappear, but I fear at least as many Ultra Low Emmision Vehicles (ULEVs, as electric cars often seem to be called) are likely to replace them. We might see the utopian reduction in car use you predict if Highways England and the Welsh and Scottish equivalents stop creating more road capacity to encourage traffic, cuts to bus services are reversed and plans for driverless cars on motorways (which might allow the use of mobile devices) are scrapped. Car culture will not be easily banished.

I do not share your optimism that the motor trade will be able to switch everybody to battery cars, for two reasons:

• Where will the resources come from? There are probably not enough lithium ions to satisfy demand for all these battery cars. Even if there were, the national grid would probably not cope. Even if it did, the limited range of such machines means you can say goodbye to the ultra-high mileage sales rep in red braces tailgating everybody on the motorway (so a silver lining of sorts!).
• More importantly, where will the money to develop these amazing new products come from? We expect the motor trade to provide us with all these new trinkets at exactly the time we are no longer buying their products. Already people are holding off buying traditional cars whilst they wait for battery ones to become more cost effective (if they ever do). Car purchase figures show a trend of decline. There is a drying up of new motorists as they presumably wait for somebody to market a viable driverless horseless carriage, so driving test passes are down too. Like British Railways found out in the 1950's, declining revenue and a tougher market place can only mean something gotta give.

 

[najaB]

We expect the motor trade to provide us with all these new trinkets at exactly the time we are no longer buying their products.

The facts don't really bear that out. Looking at UK new vehicle sales, the trends are stable with the decline in diesel sales being largely made up for by the increase in petrol, hybrids and EVs. Overall sales for this year are down by less than 3% and I suspect that general economic uncertainty (due to political events) has a lot to do with that.

Source: https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/car-registrations/

 

[Grumpy Git]

Might we have had much greater OLE coverage now if Margaret Thatcher hadn't detested the railways so much?

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

This is also a good point. The case for the Conwy Valley, say, is already very poor with it closed for about 4 months out of 12 every time there's a day or two when it's spitting a bit (how on earth it got away with yesterday's deluge I have no idea). But if you add to that it chucking out pollution in and near a National Park and the total lack of congestion on the main road, the case for keeping it open gets weaker still.

It may not be M25 style congestion but the road between Glanconwy roundabout and Llanrwst can be very slow moving at times.

It's also the case that the road is sometimes impassible due either to flooding in the lower reaches or snow on Bwlch Goginan / Crimea Pass.

 

[Meerkat]

It may not be M25 style congestion but the road between Glanconwy roundabout and Llanrwst can be very slow moving at times.

It's also the case that the road is sometimes impassible due either to flooding in the lower reaches or snow on Bwlch Goginan / Crimea Pass.

Canning the railway would free up some cash for road improvements.
How many days (hours) has the road been impassable compared to the railway? Again if the Welsh government was so inclined the resources spent operating the line could go to more backup to keep the road open (which would benefit more people)

 

[najaB]

Canning the railway would free up some cash for road improvements.

I've no personal stake in this area of the country but, on principle, money freed up by curtailing provision of public transport should be spent on improving other public transport.