Should some longer rural routes be sacrificed and the money spent elsewhere on the network?

[Bletchleyite]

But, the politics are such that closures are very unlikley absent a major economic crisis for the country (it would need a somewhat greater crisis than anything we have seen in the last 50 years).

I suspect war with Russia would bring this on, but not a lot else would.

That aside, I do think we should seriously consider investing to reduce costs. This was done with RETB* on Scottish rural lines and the Cambrian prior to it being used for the ETCS** trials, yet lines like the Conwy Valley and Ormskirk-Preston persist in wasting money staffing signal boxes that could be easily removed with a small (in railway terms) investment. This was finally done on the Conwy Valley by dumping rocks by the most vulnerable-to-flooding sections of line, for example, and since then it's not been severely damaged on that section - previously they just spent a fortune patching it back up every year or two. There was a recentish washout but it was just off that section (so it probably needs extending!)

* Radio Electronic Token Block
** European Train Control System

 

[Bald Rick]

That aside, I do think we should seriously consider investing to reduce costs.

I agree, so long as the investment is demonstrably worthwhile.

Spending £100m to save £1m a year isn’t worth it, spending £10m to save £1m is. But it is always worth remembering that reducing costs almost always means fewer jobs and/or paying existing people less money.

 

[778]

I agree, so long as the investment is demonstrably worthwhile.

Spending £100m to save £1m a year isn’t worth it, spending £10m to save £1m is. But it is always worth remembering that reducing costs almost always means fewer jobs and/or paying existing people less money.

Do you think re opening the borders railway was a bad idea?

 

[Bald Rick]

Do you think re opening the borders railway was a bad idea?

That‘s the wrong question.

It was great for the people who live close to the line.

Was it a good use of £400m ofScottish taxpayers’ money, compared to other things that could have been done with that (substantial) amount of money? Unquestionably not.

 

[King Lazy]

Just a couple of opinions from me.

Some lines mentioned could probably see huge numbers if the infrastructure/service was improved and the marketing and flow modelling looked at.

The Heysham-Morecambe line is within walking distance of a lot of housing. The problem is the stations aren’t. Without an outlay to create a new halt you can’t argue a use for it. Though if a halt were already there I bet it would be popular.

From experience working the Morecambe branch it was popular with commuters but a great many people didn’t know the railway was an option. I would often sell tickets to Lancaster and people would question the price as it was much cheaper than the bus. Yet the buses are popular while the train wasn’t. I was always surprised at the Saturday evening leadings. Very few people used the train to get to Lancaster for a night out while from the Barrow line it would be full of people.
I always thought the Morecambe branch suffered from what I believe is a tendency for rail user groups to try to recall past glories. The Morecambe branch is marketed as “Bentham line” yet I’ll wager that most Morecambe residents looking for a cultural evening out or a shopping trip to a large city will automatically think of Manchester over Leeds. The historical link to Leeds was more for the industrial past when industrial workers headed to the seaside and business owners bought fine properties by the sea.

Personally if Morecambe enjoys a renaissance I think Manchester-Morecambe would be worth looking at while Bentham line trains not having to make a trip down the branch and back could give extra capacity to run Lancaster-Skipton?

And Carnforth could act as the main boarding place for anyone not wishing to join at Lancaster. Heysham-Morecambe-Carnforth is almost contiguous these days.

And someone mentioned Barrow-Whitehaven. But I think when we talk about lines we arbitrarily split them into segments. I’d argue that Barrow-Millom is worth viewing as it’s own segment. The train is very popular in Millom. It’s much faster to Barrow than the car. I’ve regularly seen guards unable to sell tickets on a 2-car train, not because they’ve been unable to get through but simply because they can’t sell them fast enough in the 28 minutes they have.

TLDR: I think before looking at closures we need to look more closely at whether lines are being used for the modern demand and be careful of using historical demand and boundaries to pigeonhole branch lines.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Spending £100m to save £1m a year isn’t worth it, spending £10m to save £1m is. But it is always worth remembering that reducing costs almost always means fewer jobs and/or paying existing people less money.

This is true, though given that there is a shortage of workforce at present that may be no bad thing. And there doesn't seem to be a history of major industrial unrest on the railway about the progressive closure of signalboxes and the likes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2025 ==

It doesn’t though - it goes round the back of places and then an indirect route to Lancaster

What I'd do with Heysham is close to passengers* beyond Morecambe and make the necessary changes to give Morecambe 2tph clockface to Lancaster as a self contained shuttle. It's fairly well used and would be even better used with the coming of Eden Project. It could perhaps use a BEMU in connection with Eden's environmental credentials. The through Leeds services would be truncated to Lancaster. I might even consider moving the station back to the seafront in a new building - you'd only have to take a couple of fast food restaurants and a short divertable section of road out to do it, then it'd be even more convenient to Eden.

The ferry would be better connected by a dedicated coach link to Lancaster station for ferry pax only, booked via the ferry company, in particular because the ferry is very often retimed due to sea conditions and the railway can't easily adapt to that, whereas a local coach company like Kirkby Lonsdale Coaches (based in Morecambe these days) could.

You would probably need to drop the odd round trip to let the freight (nuclear flasks) in and out, though.

* Then entirely once the nuclear plant is finished with, but that'll easily be 50+ years looking at how long Sellafield decommissioning is taking.

 

[HSTEd]

Freight is effectively open access anyway, there is nothing stopping anyone bringing in stone by ship now and putting the quarries out of business, but they aren't. The Mendip timetable has been recast to allow it to grow. We all know you despise freight, but even this one is odd.

Freight is open access with extraordinarily low track access charges, to the point of being functionally free. Indeed, the explicit policy for freight access charges is to set them at a level that will not reduce traffic.

Sea borne aggregate can't properly compete because huge subsidies are being provided to the rail aggregate business.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Freight is open access with extraordinarily low track access charges, to the point of being functionally free. Indeed, the explicit policy for freight access charges is to set them at a level that will not reduce traffic.

Sea borne aggregate can't properly compete because huge subsidies are being provided to the aggregate business.

Do we want to remove our domestic production of yet more things, though? The subsidy may be worthwhile. We need to be more self-sufficient, not less, demonstrated by recent world instability.

 

[HSTEd]

Do we want to remove our domestic production of yet more things, though? The subsidy may be worthwhile. We need to be more self-sufficient, not less, demonstrated by recent world instability.

Well i'd argue that the sensible way to do that would be to build another Glensanda style superquarry, where the product can be loaded directly into a ship, rather than hauling stone across a railway which is hurting for paths for Crossrail etc.

 

[Zomboid]

There's lots of places that aggregates are needed which aren't by a navigable waterway, let alone a dock
Taking the traffic off the railway would simply result in lots more road miles for such loads.

 

[HSTEd]

There's lots of places that aggregates are needed which aren't by a navigable waterway, let alone a dock
Taking the traffic off the railway would simply result in lots more road miles for such loads.

Theres lots of places that aggregates are needed that aren't by a railway.

Essentially all last mile aggregate delivery is done by road in either case, and the proportion of the aggregate demand that is far from a navigable waterway in the south east of England (especially the London area!) is rather small.

And in any case, local production would likely increase as a result of the supply of subsidised rail-hauled aggregate from the Mendips being cut off.

We've ended up in a situation where the rail industry is turning away major increases in passenger traffic (partially parallel to the A40, one of the most congested corridors in London) for stone trains that pay essentially nothing towards the infrastructure. I just can't see how this serves anyone.

 

[eldomtom2]

So, taking the example of the Stranraer branch, that costs £xm/yr to serve. Traffic is minimal, and the chances of generating more are limited. If that money weren't used to prop up that line, what could it be used for that would have impact?

I think this logic leads to the closure of much more public transport than a few branch lines. We live in a world, thankfully, where government doesn't like to put all its eggs into one basket.

 

[MatthewHutton]

That‘s the wrong question.

It was great for the people who live close to the line.

Was it a good use of £400m ofScottish taxpayers’ money, compared to other things that could have been done with that (substantial) amount of money? Unquestionably not.

Well it provided a benefit to a rural area which gives the railway more supporters. Plus it gives people in the borders access to work in Edinburgh which is undoubtedly good for the economy there. Plus it is half of the route through to Carlisle which would be good for freight/diversionary traffic.

Those three seem like pretty good reasons to me.

Overall spending £1.5bn reopening the Waverley route so you can use it for freight and some passenger service which will attract ~0 opposition is far better value for money than a Preston-Glasgow high speed line for £15bn at French costs (or £60bn at British costs) which won’t attract ~0 opposition.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2025 ==

We've ended up in a situation where the rail industry is turning away major increases in passenger traffic (partially parallel to the A40, one of the most congested corridors in London) for stone trains that pay essentially nothing towards the infrastructure. I just can't see how this serves anyone.

Freight is the only benefit from the railways non railway users get. It matters too - even if it doesn’t pay enough.

It is worth noting that lorries are also subsidised by car drivers.

 

[yorksrob]

You can doubt if you wish, but the numbers are quite significant in some (but not all) cases. There is wide variation depending on method of operation (trains and signalling), state of the infrastructure, and of course the revenue profile.

In future under GBR, the combined industry accounts will show this somewhat more starkly than the seperate accounts do now. I am aware of two ‘branch lines’ that have done this already, and the numbers were frankly horrifying.

But, the politics are such that closures are very unlikley absent a major economic crisis for the country (it would need a somewhat greater crisis than anything we have seen in the last 50 years).

But say you have two lines serving similar populations, one across easy territory with little problematic infrastructure and therefore cheaper running costs, the other through hilly country, lots of costly infrastructure to maintain, maybe the signalling is older and more labour intensive.

In any sensible scenario, the social need to the settlements would take precedence over maintenance costs. One would rightly accept the increased infrastructure cost to level up the public service available.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2025 ==

Correct. The branch lines and stations were closed because very few people used them, so those few passengers migrating to buses added minimal revenue while buses were simultaneously losing existing passengers to the private car.

Questionable.

When Uckfield - Lewes was closed, there were observed to be more passengers travelling South from Uckfield than North (as an example).

 

[Zomboid]

When Uckfield - Lewes was closed, there were observed to be more passengers travelling South from Uckfield than North (as an example).

I think it's pretty clear there there were some absolute nonsense shenanigans going on when lines were closed, but that's not to say that a lot of it wasn't actually dead wood that was no longer serving any useful purpose.

 

[ShadowKnight]

Having a rail connection is not only an economic question but also a social/cultural/political. However good a bus/coach service is it doesn't provide the sense of permanance and connection to the wider world.

A coach can be here today and gone tomorrow, after all it is just another road vehicle.
A rail connection is more permanent literally and psychologically.

One reason that towns want to be (re)connected to the rail network after beeching is that without a rail connection, you aren't a place worth visiting. Places felt economically and politically abandoned once their rail connection closed.

Hence even if there may not be a economic benefit to keeping a rail service, there often is a social one.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well it provided a benefit to a rural area which gives the railway more supporters

How many?

Plus it gives people in the borders access to work in Edinburgh which is undoubtedly good for the economy there.

They already had access, by other modes, and many people made use of them. What it gave is quicker access.

Plus it is half of the route through to Carlisle which would be good for freight/diversionary traffic.

It’s not half, and it wouldn’t be much use for freight. It would be useful for diversions, a handful of days a year. That is not a way to make a business case.

Overall spending £1.5bn reopening the Waverley route so you can use it for freight and some passenger service which will attract ~0 opposition is far better value for money than a Preston-Glasgow high speed line for £15bn at French costs (or £60bn at British costs) which won’t attract ~0 opposition.

Demonstrate, please, how it is better value, numerically.

Hence even if there may not be a economic benefit to keeping a rail service, there often is a social one.

Indeed, and the case for every new rail line is largely built on those social benefits. The point being, sadly, that some existing rail lines not only fail to cover their economic benefits in terms of straight financials, (by a wide margin), they fail also to cover the social benefits. ie the marginal cost of provision is more than the social and economic benefit of the service. In other words, continuing to provide the railway makes society worse off. It ight make a small number of people bette off, but societyas a whole loses out.

I know this is unpopular, but it is inconveniently true.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Thurso-Inverness probably is worthwhile for national security and it could have a sleeper on it if more revenue was desired.

The sleeper already runs at a massive loss. There’s no significant demand that’s been demonstrated for sleepers north of Inverness. So yes, you could modestly increase revenue by significantly increasing costs!

 

[Bald Rick]

Thurso-Inverness probably is worthwhile for national security and it could have a sleeper on it if more revenue was desired.

If you can find it, you might want to check out the helicopter proposal for this line instead of a sleeper…

 

[35B]

I do think that in the forthcoming railways bill the government should give its self power to override all the old railway acts so stations can be closed. There shouldn't be any true parliamentary services. The stations that appear on annual least used stations with less than a passenger a week and those are probably enthusiasts should just be shut.
On the other hand we should be opening more stations in towns that don't have them.

I suggest you look back at the closure hearings in the 1950s and 60s, and consider what that policy might mean in practice. And I write that as someone who thinks that “parliamentary services” are a nonsense, and waste resources.

 

[Starmill]

I know this is unpopular, but it is inconveniently true.

The more there's a general acceptance of that being true, the easier it is to try to actually do something positive about it. Unfortunately it's a problem that runs pretty deep and well beyond the forum.

 

[zwk500]

When Uckfield - Lewes was closed, there were observed to be more passengers travelling South from Uckfield than North (as an example).

Lewes-Uckfield was not closed for lack of patronage at all though - it was closed because of a funding pass-the-parcel. The authorised road scheme cost 350k, a bridge for the line would have added and extra 135k to this. The council objected to bridging the line, so BR proposed to reopen the old Hamsey Route (closed by the Victorians, I might add) at a cost of 95k. They were granted powers to do so in 1966, but not funding. When they applied for the funding from Parliament, they were turned down.
Allegedly, the council agreed to fund the reopened route but evidently they did not. They have also allegedly also undertaken to fund a bridge on the A22/A26 Uckfield bypass that severed the route in the 90s, and agreement they have been similarly shy about recognising.

You can use Lewes-Uckfield closure as an example of many things, but BR did not initially want to close the route. However, once the opportunity to divert the route was lost, the line was on borrowed time and the flood damaged viaduct was the death knell.

 

[eldomtom2]

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that it's quite difficult to develop a "could we spend the money better elsewhere" procedure that doesn't end in at least some rural areas having all public transport withdrawn.

 

[eldomtom2]

You can use Lewes-Uckfield closure as an example of many things, but BR did not initially want to close the route. However, once the opportunity to divert the route was lost, the line was on borrowed time and the flood damaged viaduct was the death knell.

I don't know what "BR" wanted, but Beeching did want to close the route - in fact he recommended Crowborough-Uckfield for closure as well.

 

[778]

I have made it clear that politically rail closures are generally unacceptable. The squeeze on public spending might possibly change that situation in due course. But the fact that the track repairs on the Far North line are being funded should demonstrate that in Scotland at least the political mood around possible rail closures has not changed.

If a Reform/Tory coalition wins the next genreal election then it could become a possibility. I can see them making spending cuts left right and centre, and would see rural railway lines as an easy target.

In future under GBR, the combined industry accounts will show this somewhat more starkly than the seperate accounts do now. I am aware of two ‘branch lines’ that have done this already, and the numbers were frankly horrifying.

Would you have considered these 2 branch lines to be basket cases before you saw the horrifying numbers?

 

[Grecian 1998]

I suspect war with Russia would bring this on, but not a lot else would.

This might actually benefit the Far North line - there might be a military benefit in bringing materiel that far north which can't be shot out of the sky and which is kept off the roads. It might depend in part on whether such a war is fought in any conventional way, or entirely by people pressing buttons in windowless rooms. (This is speculative discussion after all.)

I agree it wouldn't benefit any route without some as yet unknown military purpose.


It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if BR had attempted to proceed with the attempt to divert the Newquay branch to St Austell via St Dennis in the 1980s and close the route from St Dennis to Par, closing Luxulyan, Bugle and Roche stations in the process. It would have given Newquay a service to somewhere people in Newquay might actually want to go all year round (rather than a village requiring a connection to everywhere else) and likely sped up journey times as a consequence of joining the main line sooner. I think the proposal was also briefly revived in the mid-2000s, but again didn't go anywhere.

The combined population of the 3 villages appears to be under 10,000. Bugle is on the A391 and Roche on the B3274. Both are served currently by a 2 hourly bus to St Austell whilst Luxulyan is also served by a small number of buses. I suspect there are rather more people travelling by bus to St Austell than by train to Par.

It's also noticeable that on summer Saturdays all stations between Newquay and Par were skipped for many years (although they do now have a skeleton service), indicating that providing a service to them is of little importance if there is a far bigger bulk flow better served by the railway.

It therefore seems to me the advantages significantly outweigh the drawbacks - it would have given Newquay, at the end of the route, a useful all year round service whilst also allowing faster journeys eastwards. Three villages would have lost services but could be easily served by buses taking them to the one place they are most likely to want to travel (St Austell) with onward mainline connections, rather than having to wait at another village for up to 30 minutes (previously an hour) in each direction if they wanted to go anywhere other than Par.

It didn't progress, but if it had you'd probably have had the usual objections:

- It's the thin end of the wedge (ignoring the fact that BR were opening a line to replace it)
- It will cause severe economic hardship for the three villages due to the vital revenue the railway brings in to the villages
- The three stations are 'well used' ('well used' not defined)
- There is someone in one of the villages who travels every July to visit a relative in Wakefield on a cheap advance ticket with a railcard, bringing in vital revenue to the railway once a year
- 'I came to this meeting to object to closure in my car and I've never actually used it, but it's vital the line stays open because one day I might think about potentially using it if the stars aligned'

Some might try to argue both lines should stay open but the chances of any public body with control of the railway's finances approving two separate lines across a rural part of Cornwall to serve a town of 20,000 people with very seasonal traffic are frankly non-existent.

I'm not advocating the closure of village stations, just highlighting that they should only be served if they don't impede the railway from serving more significant flows to larger settlements.

 

[HSTEd]

You can doubt if you wish, but the numbers are quite significant in some (but not all) cases. There is wide variation depending on method of operation (trains and signalling), state of the infrastructure, and of course the revenue profile.

In future under GBR, the combined industry accounts will show this somewhat more starkly than the seperate accounts do now. I am aware of two ‘branch lines’ that have done this already, and the numbers were frankly horrifying.

But, the politics are such that closures are very unlikley absent a major economic crisis for the country (it would need a somewhat greater crisis than anything we have seen in the last 50 years).

I do wonder if it might shift resignalling priorities somewhat, assuming that closures are politically impossible.

If you look at the Settle and Carlisle, resignalling could allow substantial reductions in operating expenses, since it probably needs one or two signallers, but has (I believe) a dozen signalboxes at present?

Is there anywhere else left where resignalling that many SEU (signal equivalent units, a measure of signalling complexity) would eliminate so many staff billets?

 

[stevieinselby]

Could a coach serve all intermediate stops and still keep to the times of the train? There are already coach services on this route and they are faster but they serve different intermediate stops. Despite this, the train services remain busy which would suggest people value a train over a bus.

A coach wouldn't need to serve all intermediate stops.
The X99 could be diverted to additionally serve Alness, Invergordon and Tain without having too much impact on the journey time, still quicker than the current train.
Settlements from Beauly to Dingwall are already served by the 28 bus, which runs every hour and is barely slower than the train, the service could be beefed up fairly cheaply if needed.
Rogart, Lairg and Ardgay are served by buses that connect with the main trunk services, so the small number of passengers would see a degradation of service.
The other stations on the railway line that are not easily served by existing bus/coach services typically see less than one passenger (round trip) per day, and so could reasonably be dropped.

This is all a slippery slope and will lead to the destruction of our rail network. Anybody thinking otherwise is delusional.

Take the major rail trunk routes. They will likely have a parallel coach service. This well carry many times fewer passengers than the corresponding rail service. That's not to say that coach travel isn't an important product for its niche. Simply that it isn't an adequate replacement for rail.

The Far North Line is not just any old railway vs any old coach.
In almost all other cases, coaches are significantly slower than the railway lines they parallel, which is why they generally play second fiddle to rail.
In this case, the coach is quicker than the train, and with just a fraction of the money spent on running a barely-used railway could see a significant improvement in frequency to make the service far more attractive to passengers than either rail or coach or both are now.

My main concern about replacing trains with coaches on this route is provision of cycle carriage and wheelchair space (I don't know how well luggage storage works and whether that would extend the journey time too much if people were getting cases out of the hold at each stop), which is where trains have a real USP – it is not delusional to recognise that this is a special case and to see that there are potential merits to closing this line that only apply to a tiny number of lines.

[Stranraer] Just get it electrified and improve the frequency and speed of the service.

For what? The potential ridership on a line that serves a town of 10,000 that is 25 miles from anywhere is negligible. The cost of electrifying that line compared with the benefit it would bring would make it a criminal waste of money. The bus to Girvan is already as quick as the train and more frequent, and has the advantage that it serves Cairnryan port whereas the train is no use for anyone heading there. Again, for a fraction of the cost of even maintaining the railway, let alone improving it, you could be running an hourly coach service to Girvan that would be more beneficial to more people than the current train service.

 

[The Planner]

I do wonder if it might shift resignalling priorities somewhat, assuming that closures are politically impossible.

If you look at the Settle and Carlisle, resignalling could allow substantial reductions in operating expenses, since it probably needs one or two signallers, but has (I believe) a dozen signalboxes at present?

Is there anywhere else left where resignalling that many SEU (signal equivalent units, a measure of signalling complexity) would eliminate so many staff billets?

Cumbrian coast. Though if you counted the actual SEUs, it would be less than you think. Neither of which are on any plans to be resignalled. ETCS on the WCML will come first.

 

[yorksrob]

Lewes-Uckfield was not closed for lack of patronage at all though - it was closed because of a funding pass-the-parcel. The authorised road scheme cost 350k, a bridge for the line would have added and extra 135k to this. The council objected to bridging the line, so BR proposed to reopen the old Hamsey Route (closed by the Victorians, I might add) at a cost of 95k. They were granted powers to do so in 1966, but not funding. When they applied for the funding from Parliament, they were turned down.
Allegedly, the council agreed to fund the reopened route but evidently they did not. They have also allegedly also undertaken to fund a bridge on the A22/A26 Uckfield bypass that severed the route in the 90s, and agreement they have been similarly shy about recognising.

You can use Lewes-Uckfield closure as an example of many things, but BR did not initially want to close the route. However, once the opportunity to divert the route was lost, the line was on borrowed time and the flood damaged viaduct was the death knell.

Which illustrates my point exactly, that to say that lines closed because there were no passengers greatly underestimates the shenanigans that went on to justify closures.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Apr 2025 ==

The Far North Line is not just any old railway vs any old coach.
In almost all other cases, coaches are significantly slower than the railway lines they parallel, which is why they generally play second fiddle to rail.
In this case, the coach is quicker than the train, and with just a fraction of the money spent on running a barely-used railway could see a significant improvement in frequency to make the service far more attractive to passengers than either rail or coach or both are now.

My main concern about replacing trains with coaches on this route is provision of cycle carriage and wheelchair space (I don't know how well luggage storage works and whether that would extend the journey time too much if people were getting cases out of the hold at each stop), which is where trains have a real USP – it is not delusional to recognise that this is a special case and to see that there are potential merits to closing this line that only apply to a tiny number of lines.

Good luck in ring fencing the funding of that coach service long term.