Is the S&C a basket case undeserving of regular public transport?

[A0]

I generally use the route around twice a month. I also do the Little North Western.

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to undertake regular passenger counts, so I only have my own experience to fall back on.

Have you taken regular passenger counts on the route to back up your assertions ?

I start with the passenger usage figures for any station then apportion that - not perfect but at least based on fact and can be reconciled.

 

[yorksrob]

I start with the passenger usage figures for any station then apportion that - not perfect but at least based on fact and can be reconciled.

Fundamentally they miss out the through usage that the route attracts.

 

[Ianno87]

Fundamentally they miss out the through usage that the route attracts.

So, Carlisle has about 370,000 interchanges per year, let's say 1000 per day on average.

Divide it up by all the routes that serve Carlisle, and that's probably 200-300 per day attributable to/from the S&C.

So about 1 train load per day, 2 tops.

 

[yorksrob]

So, Carlisle has about 370,000 interchanges per year, let's say 1000 per day on average.

Divide it up by all the routes that serve Carlisle, and that's probably 200-300 per day attributable to/from the S&C.

So about 1 train load per day, 2 tops.

Is that the case though ? S&C is likely to generate more longer distance through passengers than the Cumbrian coast or the Hexham line (through passengers from Tyneside are more likely to go via Berwick.

 

[geordieblue]

Is that the case though ? S&C is likely to generate more longer distance through passengers than the Cumbrian coast or the Hexham line (through passengers from Tyneside are more likely to go via Berwick.

There are 2tph Newcastle-Carlisle as opposed to 1tp2h Settle-Carlisle though - and you've ignored pretty much all of the earlier posts as well.

 

[yorksrob]

There are 2tph Newcastle-Carlisle as opposed to 1tp2h Settle-Carlisle though - and you've ignored pretty much all of the earlier posts as well.

I admit, I'm saving TCBC's essay until later, but other than that, which other posts am I ignoring ?

 

[A0]

Is that the case though ? S&C is likely to generate more longer distance through passengers than the Cumbrian coast or the Hexham line (through passengers from Tyneside are more likely to go via Berwick.

Depends where they're headed to - if it's Glasgow or west coast of Scotland why would somebody from Hexham go via Berwick?

Also from Hexham if you want the West Mids or North West you'd almost certainly go via Carlisle.

And Hexham's bigger than Settle, Appleby and Kirkby Stephen combined.

Whilst @Ianno87 has divided up the 1000 interchanges at Carlisle equally, I reckon it's more likely 35% Cumbrian Coast, 35% Tyne Valley, 20% WCML and 10% S&C.

 

[PR1Berske]

There is a lot of "romance" about S&C. And yes, the views are lovely. But it's one of those cases where very sparse, very remote, very low usage villages have retained a railway in an area where much larger population centres have lost theirs. And you do have to wonder why some parts of Lancashire and Cumbria have lost their railway while the S&C communities have retained theirs.

It's maybe not a basket case. It might need a proper look, a wiping of the slate and starting again. It's not a diversion route anymore, I think (?), it's not much of a commuter route. It's historically important It's a lifeline, I'm sure.

But it shouldn't be such a personal affront, as it sounds with some posts in this thread, to examine its overall use.

 

[tbtc]

The Settle and Carlisle line is valuable from a romantic standpoint and is a bit of a cultural landmark in the UK

Given that transport budgets are finite (and that money spent on one line effectively comes at the expense of spending it on other routes), how much do we keep throwing at a heavily subsidised line because it's "romantic"?

I mean, it won't as it would never be politically acceptable

I'm not saying it *will* happen, but that doesn't stop people arguing in favour of other things on the Forum that they think ought to happen

Considering Johnson is still going ahead with beeching reopenings, its not going to happen, and everyone knows it

Is he really going ahead with several re-openings? Or is it just that his Government keep stirring the pot, announcing that they are looking into them, without actually delivering very much?

It's good politics, the way that they keep making the same announcements and people keep falling for it, but he's been PM for almost two years now (July 2019)... not many shovels in the ground

People saying the settle and carlise should close means people on the line no longer have a service full stop. I just think advocating for a line closure, personally is very insensitive, but that's just my view.

Fair enough

the line could be made to earn extra revenue in a number of different ways. The first and most obvious way would be to reinstate the through trains between Scotland and West Yorkshire, with competitive fares compared to those charged for travel via the East and West Coast main lines

There are already hourly XC trains from Wakefield and Leeds to Edinburgh (plus whatever TPE get around to running), bi-hourly to Glasgow

How much cheaper do you have to make services via Settle (bearing in mind that "via Appleby" tickets are already cheaper that ECML/ WCML tickets, something sometimes ignored when people talk about passenger numbers)

Northern Spirit tried this for a few years in the late 'nineties/ early noughties and the one train in each direction was very well-loaded for most of the year, mainly with leisure rather than business travellers admittedly, attracted by the competitive fares. Unfortunately, this bold experiment was sunk by a certain bearded entrepreneur throwing his teddy out of the pram over revenue abstraction between Carlisle and Glasgow.....

Was that Branson?

I remember the competition requirements that impacted on WSMR through the West Midlands (but these were all agreed with the Government when the franchise was set up, rather than any toys/pram incident with Branson)

I thought it was more about ATN cutting back on non-core stuff, since the franchise clearly couldn't run the basic "core" services (therefore running over Beattock to Glasgow was a bit of a luxury) - but I guess that's turned into a conspiracy theory now

and to think that, according to the Major government, rail privatisation was supposed to let passengers enjoy the benefits of real competition!

There's always been competition - the competition is the bidding process for franchises. There was never a promise of competition on each and every route - but over the past twenty five years, people seem to have used the lack of competition on each route as a stick to beat Major with (when that was never the intention)

Mentioning increased line speeds brings me to the line's other (currently unrealised) potential as a diversionary route for when the WCML is blocked for engineering or other reasons. VTWC have shown no interest in this for the past several years

Does that not tell you something about the line though?

And not just Virgin - I don't think that Avanti and TPE have diverted that way

Should the WCML operators run several services a week via Settle to ensure that a large enough number of staff tick the box for "route knowledge"? That'd be fun for enthusiasts and photographers, but bad news for people who want to do a simple cross-border journey and face a tedious diversion

Just stick them on coaches up the M6 on the handful of times that the line is closed - the railway has enough problems with running weekend services without diverting many journeys each week via Settle adding a long time to passenger journeys

Well, frankly there are no other services suffering overcrowding in the area at the moment, and when there were the S&C had perfectly reasonable loadings for a regional route.

I'm not in a position to undertake regular passenger counts, so I only have my own experience to fall back on

You keep telling us how "reasonable" the passenger numbers are, without any actual figures (nothing is ever quantifiable - just warm words like "useful" and "valued" and "resilience" when we debate things)...

I guess if your main experience of the route is the morning weekend journey from Leeds to Settle and return journey later in the day then the line will appear busy (but the passenger numbers for the stations north of Skipton are pretty low - so if the trains that you use are so busy then that would suggest that other services are very quiet

Fundamentally they miss out the through usage that the route attracts.

As I've said above (and many times before), there are direct services from Leeds to Edinburgh and Glasgow - the Leeds - Carlisle journey time is pretty similar with a change at Preston (to a direct S&C service) - so there are alternatives for long distance passengers.

But then, that's the problem with these arguments - the S&C is "an essential lifeline for people living in rural communities" but when that argument doesn't work it becomes "an important tourist service" but then when it's pointed out that the passenger numbers at S&C stations don't show significant passenger numbers either way then the "through passengers" argument comes up - but if there are so many through passengers from West Yorkshire to Scotland then it doesn't matter if they are travelling via Settle, does it? One additional Voyager is all that'd be required to beed the XC service up to hourly between Wakefield/ Leeds and Glasgow - rather than all of the suggestions on here about running DMUs over Beattock.

All of these long distance passengers you are discussing could equally go via Preston or via Berwick.

it shouldn't be such a personal affront, as it sounds with some posts in this thread, to examine its overall use.

Agreed - we should be able to discuss these things - there shouldn't be any sacred cows - if we're saying that nobody should be allowed to discuss the purpose of a route then that's effectively admitting that it's not fit for purpose (since it needs to be protected from any debate)

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Given that transport budgets are finite (and that money spent on one line effectively comes at the expense of spending it on other routes), how much do we keep throwing at a heavily subsidised line because it's "romantic"?



I'm not saying it *will* happen, but that doesn't stop people arguing in favour of other things on the Forum that they think ought to happen



Is he really going ahead with several re-openings? Or is it just that his Government keep stirring the pot, announcing that they are looking into them, without actually delivering very much?

It's good politics, the way that they keep making the same announcements and people keep falling for it, but he's been PM for almost two years now (July 2019)... not many shovels in the ground



Fair enough

Agreed - we should be able to discuss these things - there shouldn't be any sacred cows - if we're saying that nobody should be allowed to discuss the purpose of a route then that's effectively admitting that it's not fit for purpose (since it needs to be protected from any debate)

I see your point and understand where you are coming from as well, even if I don't agree.

I just personally don't like it when posts such as the orignial post just claim there is no place for the settle and carlise line, without actually debating it properly, as that's what I personally find insensitive.

Of course we should be able to debate the validlty of a line and whether it justifies being open or not, but just outright stating it should be closed with not much thought put into it I think is wrong. Just my opinion though, I presume many wont agree with me.

 

[30907]

Is this not a franchise commitment though?

Is this service specified, or is it the whole 8tpd (which obviously isn't being provided until mid May).

 

[Wolfie]

Rather than being a "cultural" landmark", IIRC, the S & C is described as being a "Designated Heritage Corridor", largely because of the remarkable homogenity of all the Midland Railway architectural and engineering features along the route - station buildings, signalboxes, goods sheds, bridges, tunnels, viaducts......and even down to the dry-stone boundary walls. Given the fact that a large part of the line lies within the Yorkshire Dales National Park, there are very strict conditions on what can and cannot be altered or demolished. Now I'm very much aware that heritage doesn't pay the bills and the line has never paid it's way, having been built at huge cost - almost bankrupting the Midland - to spite the LNWR over their lack of co-operation with through traffic to Scotland via Ingleton. However, the line could be made to earn extra revenue in a number of different ways. The first and most obvious way would be to reinstate the through trains between Scotland and West Yorkshire, with competitive fares compared to those charged for travel via the East and West Coast main lines. Northern Spirit tried this for a few years in the late 'nineties/ early noughties and the one train in each direction was very well-loaded for most of the year, mainly with leisure rather than business travellers admittedly, attracted by the competitive fares. Unfortunately, this bold experiment was sunk by a certain bearded entrepreneur throwing his teddy out of the pram over revenue abstraction between Carlisle and Glasgow.....and to think that, according to the Major government, rail privatisation was supposed to let passengers enjoy the benefits of real competition! In my opinion, as a former driver over the S & C, there should be two trains per day, seven days a week, from Leeds to Glasgow Central, calling at Shipley, Keighley and Skipton to pick up only; then Settle, Kirkby Stephen, Appleby, Carlisle, Lockerbie, Motherwell and Carlisle....and possibly with an Edinburgh portion, in which case a Carstairs stop would be required. With some fairly minor signalling alterations at Hellifield, a portion from/to Manchester (calling at Bolton, Blackburn and Clitheroe) could be attached/detached there - but if the combined train totalled more than four coaches, platform lengthening would be required at Settle and Kirkby Stephen. Appreciable time savings could be achieved by returning the line to its original speed limit of 80 mph South of Newbiggin and 75 North thereof, in place of the current rather pedestrian 60 overall North of Skipton. Mentioning increased line speeds brings me to the line's other (currently unrealised) potential as a diversionary route for when the WCML is blocked for engineering or other reasons. VTWC have shown no interest in this for the past several years but, now that things have changed and the government/DfT are calling the shots and calling for a big reduction in replacement bus use, there are likely to be changes around the corner. The big question is: what will Avanti use for their Sunday Shrewsbury, Chester and North Wales services while their new Hitachi bi-modes are running diverted Euston-Glasgow and Edinburgh services via Settle?

Why exactly should Avanti passengers for regularly served locations be screwed over by your plans to provide a spurious justification to preserve a route which, even by Northern standards, is a complete and utter financial basketcase.

 

[D6130]

Why exactly should Avanti passengers for regularly served locations be screwed over by your plans to provide a spurious justification to preserve a route which, even by Northern standards, is a complete and utter financial basketcase.

This is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that, given the majority of passengers' well-documented preference for staying on a diverted train rather than transferring to a cramped, crowded bus which cannot convey cycles, prams or buggies, the S & C could be used a few times a year for long distance diversions, as it has been for many years past. If Avanti and TPE, quite understandably,don't wish to pay for their traincrews to maintain the relevant route knowledge, I am sure that Northern crews from Blackburn, Carlisle and Skipton depots would be quite happy to earn a little Sunday overtime on route conducting duties - paid for by Network Rail as part of their engineering works budget.

 

[geordieblue]

I admit, I'm saving TCBC's essay until later, but other than that, which other posts am I ignoring ?

Mine, tbtc's, daodao's... Of course, you're not obligated to reply to posts, but it does weaken your argument when you ignore challenging responses (not that my response was particularly well-argued!)

 

[Lemmy99uk]

Northern Spirit tried this for a few years in the late 'nineties/ early noughties and the one train in each direction was very well-loaded for most of the year, mainly with leisure rather than business travellers admittedly, attracted by the competitive fares.

It was certainly not very well loaded between Carlisle and Glasgow. Quite often it was single figures in both directions, the best loadings being when the WCML was disrupted south of Carlisle.

 

[XAM2175]

What I am saying is that, given the majority of passengers' well-documented preference for staying on a diverted train rather than transferring to a cramped, crowded bus which cannot convey cycles, prams or buggies, the S & C could be used a few times a year for long distance diversions, as it has been for many years past. If Avanti and TPE, quite understandably,don't wish to pay for their traincrews to maintain the relevant route knowledge, I am sure that Northern crews from Blackburn, Carlisle and Skipton depots would be quite happy to earn a little Sunday overtime on route conducting duties - paid for by Network Rail as part of their engineering works budget.

I presume in this plan Avanti and TPE are also happy to redraw their diagrams for diesel-powered stock in order to release it for these diverted services? Even if that means withdrawing said stock from services on other lines?

 

[D6130]

I presume in this plan Avanti and TPE are also happy to redraw their diagrams for diesel-powered stock in order to release it for these diverted services? Even if that means withdrawing said stock from services on other lines?

Indeed not. That's why I left the final paragraph of my first post open. It's a 'what if....' scenario. However, if the political will were there to substitute diversions for RRBS, someone would think of some way to do it, even if it meant going back to loco-haulage of Pendolini. I think we can safely say, though, that whatever the wishes of the politicians may be, it's pretty unlikely to happen.

 

[The Planner]

This is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that, given the majority of passengers' well-documented preference for staying on a diverted train rather than transferring to a cramped, crowded bus which cannot convey cycles, prams or buggies, the S & C could be used a few times a year for long distance diversions, as it has been for many years past. If Avanti and TPE, quite understandably,don't wish to pay for their traincrews to maintain the relevant route knowledge, I am sure that Northern crews from Blackburn, Carlisle and Skipton depots would be quite happy to earn a little Sunday overtime on route conducting duties - paid for by Network Rail as part of their engineering works budget.

The cost of doing that would start to make some engineering work unaffordable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The cost of doing that would start to make some engineering work unaffordable.

If we have genuinely reached the point where it is cheaper to hire in road coaches, marshals etc (particularly now they have to be PSVAR coaches) than divert trains to the point where it would render engineering work infeasible, the railway needs to take a serious look at its cost model.

I know you can't exactly send Pendolinos up the S&C, but a rejig involving Voyagers and/or the North Wales 80x once those arrive would in principle be possible.

 

[JonathanH]

If we have genuinely reached the point where it is cheaper to hire in road coaches, marshals etc (particularly now they have to be PSVAR coaches) than divert trains to the point where it would render engineering work infeasible, the railway needs to take a serious look at its cost model.

I know you can't exactly send Pendolinos up the S&C, but a rejig involving Voyagers and/or the North Wales 80x once those arrive would in principle be possible.

This has been discussed before. It is better to just encourage Scottish passengers to use the other route than divert the trains over the Settle & Carlisle line. They generally aim to keep the ECML open when the WCML is blocked and vice versa.

Moreover, the intermediate stations still need to be served so coaches are needed in any case.

Finally, why remove North Wales services to provide stock for what is a sedate and very slow detour on Scottish services? Is that really reasonable?

I've travelled on a Voyager on the Settle & Carlisle line. Let's just say it wasn't very busy.

 

[The Planner]

If we have genuinely reached the point where it is cheaper to hire in road coaches, marshals etc (particularly now they have to be PSVAR coaches) than divert trains to the point where it would render engineering work infeasible, the railway needs to take a serious look at its cost model.

I know you can't exactly send Pendolinos up the S&C, but a rejig involving Voyagers and/or the North Wales 80x once those arrive would in principle be possible.

Its possible now, but pound notes to the TOCs will always come into it. There are other things you have to consider though, I very much doubt you could feasibly run a regular diverted service that can carry the numbers so you are still likely to have to run RRBs. As soon as people see the train service people will pile on to it and cause overcrowding. You can manipulate journey planners to an extent to show the RRB journey to be quicker but that doesn't solve it. As @JonathanH has said, we will keep an Anglo Scot route open anyway.

 

[BayPaul]

I know you can't exactly send Pendolinos up the S&C, but a rejig involving Voyagers and/or the North Wales 80x once those arrive would in principle be possible.

But Avanti have ordered the right number of bi-mode 805s for North Wales services. How on earth would you put them on long Glasgow diagrams without decimating capacity on the lines they are designed for. Buying additional bi-mode trains just for diversionary purposes seems to be a collosal waste of taxpayers money, especially when there are already good alternatives (ECML or fast coach links)

 

[yorksrob]

Given that transport budgets are finite (and that money spent on one line effectively comes at the expense of spending it on other routes), how much do we keep throwing at a heavily subsidised line because it's "romantic"?



I'm not saying it *will* happen, but that doesn't stop people arguing in favour of other things on the Forum that they think ought to happen



Is he really going ahead with several re-openings? Or is it just that his Government keep stirring the pot, announcing that they are looking into them, without actually delivering very much?

It's good politics, the way that they keep making the same announcements and people keep falling for it, but he's been PM for almost two years now (July 2019)... not many shovels in the ground



Fair enough



There are already hourly XC trains from Wakefield and Leeds to Edinburgh (plus whatever TPE get around to running), bi-hourly to Glasgow

How much cheaper do you have to make services via Settle (bearing in mind that "via Appleby" tickets are already cheaper that ECML/ WCML tickets, something sometimes ignored when people talk about passenger numbers)



Was that Branson?

I remember the competition requirements that impacted on WSMR through the West Midlands (but these were all agreed with the Government when the franchise was set up, rather than any toys/pram incident with Branson)

I thought it was more about ATN cutting back on non-core stuff, since the franchise clearly couldn't run the basic "core" services (therefore running over Beattock to Glasgow was a bit of a luxury) - but I guess that's turned into a conspiracy theory now



There's always been competition - the competition is the bidding process for franchises. There was never a promise of competition on each and every route - but over the past twenty five years, people seem to have used the lack of competition on each route as a stick to beat Major with (when that was never the intention)



Does that not tell you something about the line though?

And not just Virgin - I don't think that Avanti and TPE have diverted that way

Should the WCML operators run several services a week via Settle to ensure that a large enough number of staff tick the box for "route knowledge"? That'd be fun for enthusiasts and photographers, but bad news for people who want to do a simple cross-border journey and face a tedious diversion

Just stick them on coaches up the M6 on the handful of times that the line is closed - the railway has enough problems with running weekend services without diverting many journeys each week via Settle adding a long time to passenger journeys





You keep telling us how "reasonable" the passenger numbers are, without any actual figures (nothing is ever quantifiable - just warm words like "useful" and "valued" and "resilience" when we debate things)...

I guess if your main experience of the route is the morning weekend journey from Leeds to Settle and return journey later in the day then the line will appear busy (but the passenger numbers for the stations north of Skipton are pretty low - so if the trains that you use are so busy then that would suggest that other services are very quiet




As I've said above (and many times before), there are direct services from Leeds to Edinburgh and Glasgow - the Leeds - Carlisle journey time is pretty similar with a change at Preston (to a direct S&C service) - so there are alternatives for long distance passengers.

But then, that's the problem with these arguments - the S&C is "an essential lifeline for people living in rural communities" but when that argument doesn't work it becomes "an important tourist service" but then when it's pointed out that the passenger numbers at S&C stations don't show significant passenger numbers either way then the "through passengers" argument comes up - but if there are so many through passengers from West Yorkshire to Scotland then it doesn't matter if they are travelling via Settle, does it? One additional Voyager is all that'd be required to beed the XC service up to hourly between Wakefield/ Leeds and Glasgow - rather than all of the suggestions on here about running DMUs over Beattock.

All of these long distance passengers you are discussing could equally go via Preston or via Berwick.



Agreed - we should be able to discuss these things - there shouldn't be any sacred cows - if we're saying that nobody should be allowed to discuss the purpose of a route then that's effectively admitting that it's not fit for purpose (since it needs to be protected from any debate)

Apologies - I have to go through point by point:

• We don't subsidise routes because they're "romantic" we do so because they're important to the people who use them, both locally and from elsewhere.
• I admit, when a Government announces reopenings, there's no guarantee that they'll happen. But their announcement is a better omen for the railway industry as a whole than an environment in which closures are being contemplated.
• The via Appleby tickets seem to work as a cheap "turn up and go" option to Scotland, some thing that XC doesn't tend to offer. Ultimately if the industry doesn't want to provide that option on other routes, why should passengers be disadvantaged by taking away the S&C option ?
• The franchise system was designed to provide value for money for the treasury. Is it any surprise that people use it as a stick to beat Major with when it doesn't provide value for money for passengers ?
• My own experience travelling on the route involves weekdays and weekends at all times of day. I see people out and about using the trains, which is my justification for retaining the route. You quote passenger numbers at individual stations, but unless you have a threshold at which you say the line isn't worth it, they're not much use. Any such threshold would be fairly meaningless to me anyway due to the passengers I see using the route with my own eyes.
• Again you're using your old ploy of saying that because the route serves a lot of purposes (long distance, local lifeline, tourist route) it's somehow a failure in the argument. That the route serves all of these purposes is one of its strengths, not a weakness.
• I say it again, if people can go via Berwick now, why aren't they already. The route clearly serves a market that the ECML doesn't.
• We're having a debate now so what's your problem (even though the arguments for the proposition that the route is a "basket case" aren't of a particularly high calibre. Has anyone even defined what a basket case is ?)

 

[Bletchleyite]

But Avanti have ordered the right number of bi-mode 805s for North Wales services. How on earth would you put them on long Glasgow diagrams without decimating capacity on the lines they are designed for.

What you do is operate North Wales as a connection, sharing the pain.

 

[yorksrob]

There are 2tph Newcastle-Carlisle as opposed to 1tp2h Settle-Carlisle though - and you've ignored pretty much all of the earlier posts as well.

That is true, but I'm saying that West Yorkshire as a whole is likely to be a bigger market for longer distance travel through Carlisle than Newcastle or the Cumbrian coast.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Apr 2021 ==

Depends where they're headed to - if it's Glasgow or west coast of Scotland why would somebody from Hexham go via Berwick?

Also from Hexham if you want the West Mids or North West you'd almost certainly go via Carlisle.

And Hexham's bigger than Settle, Appleby and Kirkby Stephen combined.

Whilst @Ianno87 has divided up the 1000 interchanges at Carlisle equally, I reckon it's more likely 35% Cumbrian Coast, 35% Tyne Valley, 20% WCML and 10% S&C.

See my above post.

 

[BayPaul]

What you do is operate North Wales as a connection, sharing the pain.

So North Wales passengers need to change, in order that Glasgow passengers get a direct service...

I suspect there still wouldn't be anything like the number of units needed. Glasgow is 2 full length trains per hour on a very long diagram (even longer via S+C). North Wales is I believe one full length per hour to Chester, with a half length per two hours continuing to Holyhead. I'm pretty sure you couldn't get more than a token (extremely overcrowded) service via the S+C, even if you made everyone from Chester and N Wales change at Crewe. Much better to keep things simple, encourage people to use the ECML, and provide coaches on the M6.

 

[yorksrob]

There is a lot of "romance" about S&C. And yes, the views are lovely. But it's one of those cases where very sparse, very remote, very low usage villages have retained a railway in an area where much larger population centres have lost theirs. And you do have to wonder why some parts of Lancashire and Cumbria have lost their railway while the S&C communities have retained theirs.

It's maybe not a basket case. It might need a proper look, a wiping of the slate and starting again. It's not a diversion route anymore, I think (?), it's not much of a commuter route. It's historically important It's a lifeline, I'm sure.

But it shouldn't be such a personal affront, as it sounds with some posts in this thread, to examine its overall use.

I would agree that it is an historical peculiarity of the disastrous closure programme of the 1960's that a lot of more heavily populated areas have lost their services whilst the S&C has retained it's, but we are where we are. I really don't see what relevance those historical errors (in closing other routes, rather than retaining the S&C) have to the justification of the line today.

What does "wiping the slate clean and starting again" actually entail ? If it involves potentially withdrawing the service, then I will take it as a personal affront because it is a service I use regularly. Such a proposal would cause damage to me personally if carried out.

You raise an intersting point about how it's usage has changed.

To take freight as an example, over the past fifty years, the route has in turn been used to remove unfitted freight from the WCML, supply coal to Yorkshire power stations and serve quarries in Horton. If at any stage after one of those flows had ended, the route had been closed, it would not then have been available for the next flow. The key to adapting to future traffic flows is retaining the line in the first place.

In terms of passengers, the standard timetable has been updated over the years. The current one is the probably the best compromise to serve local, tourist and long distance passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So North Wales passengers need to change, in order that Glasgow passengers get a direct service...

Both of course get to go by train rather than bus, though. That's the key.

 

[BayPaul]

Both of course get to go by train rather than bus, though. That's the key.

But they can go by train anyway - ECML or, indeed using Northern's services on the S+C

 

[JonathanH]

Both of course get to go by train rather than bus, though. That's the key.

Small numbers. They'd probably need to change trains in Preston and Carlisle in any case.

Almost all journeys are possible by train via the East Coast route and these engineering closures are specifically scheduled for a time of the year when fewer people are travelling in any case.