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

[Falcon1200]

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

Glasgow & South Western Route from Lugton to Annan, both inclusive; One Signaller could control the entire line.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

I'm often told on these forums that the social benefits of passenger railways, such as the ability to reach education and employment opportunities, and the increased wellbeing of being able to see friends and relatives, increased leisure opportunities, broadened business opportunities etc are "woolly" and therefore not worth contemplating.

Are you saying that you've successfully managed to quantify all these benefits ?

 

[Harpers Tate]

As I see it, the biggest issue with both
- what "Beeching*" did with rail closures and replacement buses
- much of the speculation in this thread about what might/would happen if a similar process were repeated
is that we see buses as being separate from the Railway in every respect.

It's my belief that if we had (in the 1960s) and did (in the 2020s) view a railway closure in favour of buses as being a "rail replacement bus" operated pretty much as those temporary services (for engineering works etc.) are, but on what would be a permanent basis - as permanent as the railway proper. In other words, an extension to the railway, run by "the Railway" (in whatever guise), with the same ticketing, connection arrangements and luggage capacity as if it were a train, and subject to the same full withdrawal process. So, not a bus service in any way other than the actual vehicle and infrastructure used.

One might go further: if the economics were that the "losses" (or subsidies) of maintaining a rail service on a given route were in total higher than the total costs of running a Rail Replacement Bus, one could offer the latter, free of charge, and still be ahead.



================
* Yes, I know it wasn't him per se

 

[zwk500]

I'm often told on these forums that the social benefits of passenger railways, such as the ability to reach education and employment opportunities, and the increased wellbeing of being able to see friends and relatives, increased leisure opportunities, broadened business opportunities etc are "woolly" and therefore not worth contemplating.

Are you saying that you've successfully managed to quantify all these benefits ?

The quantification of those benefits is *precisely* what the Economic dimension of a Business Case does - See the DfT's Transport Analysis Guidance for details how-to - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis-guidance-tag#guidance-for-the-appraisal-practitioner. Some are more qualitative than quantitative.
How successful or not is always a matter of debate, and the DfT are regularly challenged on their values for the benefits, chiefly by consultants preparing business cases.

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

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.

Cumbrian coast was looked at extremely briefly a couple of years ago, but couldn't justify the costs to replace it with anything that would have maintained sufficient capacity.

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

The use of the phrase "basket case" is a clear red flag to me in these discussions.

As is 'slippery slope' or 'thin end of the wedge' to me.

 

[BlueLeanie]

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.

Because as soon as you do, people from Maybole and Girvan get home 15 minutes sooner and no longer need to stand on a bitter derelict Aye station platform to catch the next service.

The Scottish Government is promising decarbonisation, so every line should be wired.

Most importantly the 20mph zones in almost every Scottish (and UK) town have left coach and bus services intolerably slow. In Wales towns and villages are having bus services withdrawn due to the overall impact on the timetables.

Get on a train and, apart from a few network restrictions, you'll be doing more than 20 mph for most of the journey and stopping just once in each town.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

And therein lies the problem, and the reason I oppose any and all rail closures bar some tiny stuff at the very edges that doesn't justify any provision at all (e.g. Pilning station).

If I lived in Switzerland I'd trust that the Conwy Valley, for instance, would be better truncated to Betws with an excellent bus service south thereof, perhaps going on to Bala etc rather than terminating at an arbitrary little town (Blaenau). I'd not bin it entirely as the tourist demand is fairly significant and the last thing Betws needs is more cars (tourists won't flock to the bus in the same way - look how quiet the T10 is yet all the Ogwen lay-bys are full by early every Saturday). However I would integrate it more closely with the Sherpa'r Wyddfa network, with buses waiting for trains for specified periods and vice versa.

As I live in the UK I don't for a minute trust that that bus wouldn't be withdrawn without replacement when budgets got tight or a small operator running it on the cheap fails.

What that means to me is that we need a proper integrated transport strategy nationally (including in Scotland/Wales) that provides effective guarantees based on specified criteria like Switzerland does. Until then, no closures, thanks. That, too, was where Beeching failed.

 

[yorksrob]

The quantification of those benefits is *precisely* what the Economic dimension of a Business Case does - See the DfT's Transport Analysis Guidance for details how-to - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis-guidance-tag#guidance-for-the-appraisal-practitioner. Some are more qualitative than quantitative.
How successful or not is always a matter of debate, and the DfT are regularly challenged on their values for the benefits, chiefly by consultants preparing business cases.

I suppose its good that they're trying, although being DfT it will likely underplay any benefits.

As is 'slippery slope' or 'thin end of the wedge' to me.

Had history not already taught us that this is exactly how railway (and any other) policy where cutting funds is involved works, there would be no need to deploy such a phrase.

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

And therein lies the problem, and the reason I oppose any and all rail closures bar some tiny stuff at the very edges that doesn't justify any provision at all (e.g. Pilning station).

If I lived in Switzerland I'd trust that the Conwy Valley, for instance, would be better truncated to Betws with an excellent bus service south thereof, perhaps going on to Bala etc rather than terminating at an arbitrary little town (Blaenau).

As I live in the UK I don't for a minute trust that that bus wouldn't be withdrawn without replacement when budgets got tight or a small operator running it on the cheap fails.

What that means to me is that we need a proper integrated transport strategy nationally (including in Scotland/Wales) that provides effective guarantees based on specified criteria like Switzerland does. Until then, no closures, thanks. That, too, was where Beeching failed.

I see it as a bit of an emergency brake on adverse railway policy, as much as a "problem".

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

As I see it, the biggest issue with both
- what "Beeching*" did with rail closures and replacement buses
- much of the speculation in this thread about what might/would happen if a similar process were repeated
is that we see buses as being separate from the Railway in every respect.

It's my belief that if we had (in the 1960s) and did (in the 2020s) view a railway closure in favour of buses as being a "rail replacement bus" operated pretty much as those temporary services (for engineering works etc.) are, but on what would be a permanent basis - as permanent as the railway proper. In other words, an extension to the railway, run by "the Railway" (in whatever guise), with the same ticketing, connection arrangements and luggage capacity as if it were a train, and subject to the same full withdrawal process. So, not a bus service in any way other than the actual vehicle and infrastructure used.

One might go further: if the economics were that the "losses" (or subsidies) of maintaining a rail service on a given route were in total higher than the total costs of running a Rail Replacement Bus, one could offer the latter, free of charge, and still be ahead.



================
* Yes, I know it wasn't him per se

Isn't this sort of like what France already does on many of its secondary routes, yet many of our seasoned continental travellers on here don't see it as a positive.

 

[stevieinselby]

Because as soon as you do, people from Maybole and Girvan get home 15 minutes sooner and no longer need to stand on a bitter derelict Aye station platform to catch the next service.

The line as far as Girvan is not at risk – with an hourly service it is not in any way a lightly used line, and it could certainly be considered for electrification and for an increase in frequency (although realistically it is unlikely to be a priority for that in the short term).

It is only the line beyond Girvan where there are questions about whether a fast coach could offer a better service to passengers at a lower subsidy.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

Then what? Bidston-Wrexham, Barrow -Whitehaven, Giggleswick - Morecambe, skipton - Carlisle. Salami tactics. Thin slice at a time.

If the Far North line is saved by nuclear traffic, you'd better cross Barrow-Whitehaven off that list as the material removed from Dounreay is bound for Sellafield...

Barrow Whitehaven is needed for the nuclear facilities right?

Yes.

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.

Millom - Barrow by train is generally very busy, but even more busy is the 5:48 (or thereabouts) Maryport - Barrow, which is crush loaded as far as Sellafield these days. It generally has a guard and a ticket examiner, which always seemed odd to me getting on at Seascale when there was usually me and one bloke with a dog on it! The evening train back isn't quite as bad, because they tend to spread over a couple of trains. Actually , this is a perfect example of non-joined up thinking in action: when I was a kid, there were lots of "process" buses which ran from all over West Cumbria to Sellafield bringing in one shift and taking home the other, which were paid for by BNFL - it meant hardly anybody came in by car. Then HMG decides to tax those workers for a Benefit they are receiving at such a rate that it's now more viable to take the car. All of a sudden, thousands of workers are clogging up the roads, Sellafield are building more car parks, and shift change times become a case of taking your life in your hands if you want to go against the flow of traffic... Fast forward a few years, HMG decides they'd rather people didn't come in by car, but rather than repeal the tax and put buses on, they make people have multiple occupancy to get a vehicle onsite - first two, now three (and two people to use the near to site car parks), and if you are on your own, you need to use an odd site park and take a bus...

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.

Driven by short termist politicians who are only looking out for their own re-election chances rather than the good of the country - it means they'll never make unpopular but strategically correct decisions. Also, you can never be seen to agree with the policy of the last government, hence we have constant change and reorganization wasting time and money rather than setting a direction and sticking with it until we see if it works or not.

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

I'd suggest the Cumbrian Coast line too. Currently signalled from Carlisle, Wigton, Maryport, Workington, Whitehaven, St Bees, Sellafield, Bootle, Silecroft, two Manual crossings just before Millom, Millom, Foxfield SB and the Foxfield Crossing, Askham, the one that I can't remember the name of and then Barrow, plus whatever there is between Barrow and Carnforth! That's a lot of staff dealing with roughly 2 trains an hour, especially as it's at least two shifts for each given the time of the first and last train. Had the new coal mine gone ahead, there were plans for them to pay for signalling upgrades to improve the line, as well as an additional station, but that was killed off in favour of bringing coal in from overseas still so we're carbon neutral...

 

[Bald Rick]

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

I considered them very heavily subsidised.

Are you saying that you've successfully managed to quantify all these benefits ?

Not personally, recently. But it has been done by experts in the field using appropriate methodology. Almost every change in service that does not have a positive financial case goes through this assessment.

 

[eldomtom2]

The quantification of those benefits is *precisely* what the Economic dimension of a Business Case does - See the DfT's Transport Analysis Guidance for details how-to - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis-guidance-tag#guidance-for-the-appraisal-practitioner. Some are more qualitative than quantitative.
How successful or not is always a matter of debate, and the DfT are regularly challenged on their values for the benefits, chiefly by consultants preparing business cases.

I think this gets at the heart of these debates - it's impossible to create a completely objective way to determine "is this worth spending money on". The different sides start from fundamentally different assumptions.

 

[DDB]

Millom - Barrow by train is generally very busy, but even more busy is the 5:48 (or thereabouts) Maryport - Barrow, which is crush loaded as far as Sellafield these days. It generally has a guard and a ticket examiner, which always seemed odd to me getting on at Seascale when there was usually me and one bloke with a dog on it! The evening train back isn't quite as bad, because they tend to spread over a couple of trains. Actually , this is a perfect example of non-joined up thinking in action: when I was a kid, there were lots of "process" buses which ran from all over West Cumbria to Sellafield bringing in one shift and taking home the other, which were paid for by BNFL - it meant hardly anybody came in by car. Then HMG decides to tax those workers for a Benefit they are receiving at such a rate that it's now more viable to take the car. All of a sudden, thousands of workers are clogging up the roads, Sellafield are building more car parks, and shift change times become a case of taking your life in your hands if you want to go against the flow of traffic... Fast forward a few years, HMG decides they'd rather people didn't come in by car, but rather than repeal the tax and put buses on, they make people have multiple occupancy to get a vehicle onsite - first two, now three (and two people to use the near to site car parks), and if you are on your own, you need to use an odd site park and take a bus...

I think there is a tax exemption for "works buses" but I am not sure if this is what the section of the HMRC website says and also how new it is.


https://www.gov.uk/expenses-and-benefits-works-bus-services#:~:text=As an employer, you don,between home and work

As an employer, you don’t have to report the cost of providing a bus to bring your employees to work. You don’t pay tax or National Insurance on these costs.

 

[yorksrob]

Not personally, recently. But it has been done by experts in the field using appropriate methodology. Almost every change in service that does not have a positive financial case goes through this assessment.

Well I suppose it's a step forward. Not that I particularly trust DfT to adequately account for such value.

 

[HSTEd]

Millom - Barrow by train is generally very busy, but even more busy is the 5:48 (or thereabouts) Maryport - Barrow, which is crush loaded as far as Sellafield these days. It generally has a guard and a ticket examiner, which always seemed odd to me getting on at Seascale when there was usually me and one bloke with a dog on it! The evening train back isn't quite as bad, because they tend to spread over a couple of trains. Actually , this is a perfect example of non-joined up thinking in action: when I was a kid, there were lots of "process" buses which ran from all over West Cumbria to Sellafield bringing in one shift and taking home the other, which were paid for by BNFL - it meant hardly anybody came in by car. Then HMG decides to tax those workers for a Benefit they are receiving at such a rate that it's now more viable to take the car. All of a sudden, thousands of workers are clogging up the roads, Sellafield are building more car parks, and shift change times become a case of taking your life in your hands if you want to go against the flow of traffic... Fast forward a few years, HMG decides they'd rather people didn't come in by car, but rather than repeal the tax and put buses on, they make people have multiple occupancy to get a vehicle onsite - first two, now three (and two people to use the near to site car parks), and if you are on your own, you need to use an odd site park and take a bus...

The Sellafield complex itself also employs far fewer people than it once did, because they discovered during a site evacuation (as a result of one of the old chimneys looking like it was going over) that they had way too many people on site to evacuate in a timely manner given the lack of mass transit options.

The only people on site now are people whose jobs definitely require them to be there, almost all the admin, management and research people are elsewhere now.
Beyond that, with the end of reprocessing operations, wastage is going to cut employment rapidly.

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

Because as soon as you do, people from Maybole and Girvan get home 15 minutes sooner and no longer need to stand on a bitter derelict Aye station platform to catch the next service.

The Scottish Government is promising decarbonisation, so every line should be wired.

Most importantly the 20mph zones in almost every Scottish (and UK) town have left coach and bus services intolerably slow. In Wales towns and villages are having bus services withdrawn due to the overall impact on the timetables.

Get on a train and, apart from a few network restrictions, you'll be doing more than 20 mph for most of the journey and stopping just once in each town.

Well as some others have noted, you'd probably electrify to Girvan and axe everything south of there.

That would enable Girvan to be fully integrated into the Ayr suburban timetable and may even allow simplification at Ayr.

 

[weeklycommuter]

That's fine, but it needs to be remembered that some of the lines that survive - the Heart of Wales being a classic - survived not for any merits as a transport corridor, but because of the raw politics of the areas they served - 8 marginal seats in that case.

That is an interesting point.

The Cambrian Line connecting Shrewsbury with Aberystwyth and Pwllheli dividing at Machynlleth with 12 trains a day each way (hourly with 3 two hour gaps) provides a very useful train service connecting the West Midlands with seaside towns in West Wales and is the only railway line to those coastal towns.

By contrast the Heart of Wales Line between Craven Arms and Llangennech connecting Shrewsbury with Swansea with just 4 trains a day each way Monday to Saturday is not needed to connect Shrewsbury with South Wales as the Shrewsbury to Newport via Hereford railway line provides a far better connection.

The Heart of Wales Line should therefore have been an obvious railway line to close but clearly it was not politically possible to close it sixty years ago and unless there is an overwhelming financial reason I cannot see the Government of Wales agreeing to close it now. The Heart of Wales Line has a Community Rail Partnership to promote travel on trains on this railway line including for tourism.

 

[NCT]

Ideally it wouldn't be such a zero sum game of lots of things competing for a fixed subsidy budget. The Scottish Central Belt and Intercity services ought to pay their way and generate a surplus so there's more money to go round. It would take some effort and political courage - but it's not out of question that Greater Glasgow can densify to generate the passenger concentration (Edinburgh is already dense and the ci itself isn't really rail dependent), and the Central Bel in general support those high productivity jobs which can then support unsubsidised fares like in London.

Prior to Covid the GB rail sector was about operationally break-even - the Intercity and London & South East TOCs generated almost unhealthy premia that got gobbled up by Northern, ScotRail and TfW among others (yes, I know in practice the money doesn't quite flow in that way what with devolved settlements and all that, but the point of principle stands). If the Metropolitan parts of Northern, ScotRail and TfL can generate closer to London levels of revenue per carriage mile then we'd have a much less lopsided subsidiser - subsidisee relationship.

 

[MatthewHutton]

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

Are there full costings and details on what is and isn’t included for some of these lines?

 

[Technologist]

Ideally it wouldn't be such a zero sum game of lots of things competing for a fixed subsidy budget. The Scottish Central Belt and Intercity services ought to pay their way and generate a surplus so there's more money to go round. It would take some effort and political courage - but it's not out of question that Greater Glasgow can densify to generate the passenger concentration (Edinburgh is already dense and the ci itself isn't really rail dependent), and the Central Bel in general support those high productivity jobs which can then support unsubsidised fares like in London.

Prior to Covid the GB rail sector was about operationally break-even - the Intercity and London & South East TOCs generated almost unhealthy premia that got gobbled up by Northern, ScotRail and TfW among others (yes, I know in practice the money doesn't quite flow in that way what with devolved settlements and all that, but the point of principle stands). If the Metropolitan parts of Northern, ScotRail and TfL can generate closer to London levels of revenue per carriage mile then we'd have a much less lopsided subsidiser - subsidisee relationship.

Irrespective of the cross subsidisation argument if there are lines that deliver a service that can be replicated (in time, frequency, reliability etc.) by another mode it make sense to use that mode and re-allocate the money to a better investment. The the case of many of the rural lines the rail service isn't faster than a bus, cars will be mostly electric in about 10 years and there isn't an argument that traffic needs to be reduced.

The arguments around permeance of the rail lines and regulation are in my view logical fallacies. If you wanted to write in law that a given level of bus or other service must be provided there is nothing stopping this happening, if you want to provide an excellent bus station that is highly visible you likely could with the money saved by cutting the railway line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The arguments around permeance of the rail lines and regulation are in my view logical fallacies. If you wanted to write in law that a given level of bus or other service must be provided there is nothing stopping this happening, if you want to provide an excellent bus station that is highly visible you likely could with the money saved by cutting the railway line.

The trouble is that the UK doesn't do this and has *never* done this. Thus I don't trust that it would.

I would like to see a Swiss fully integrated network which could involve some closures of stations and lines for the greater good as it has there. It would also involve construction of new lines.

I don't believe we will ever see it.

 

[The exile]

Irrespective of the cross subsidisation argument if there are lines that deliver a service that can be replicated (in time, frequency, reliability etc.) by another mode it make sense to use that mode and re-allocate the money to a better investment. The the case of many of the rural lines the rail service isn't faster than a bus, cars will be mostly electric in about 10 years and there isn't an argument that traffic needs to be reduced.

Until bus services are protected in the same way as rail ones are (and unfortunately the tendency seems to be to "level down") , then no rail service can be reliably replicated. Not for nothing is the railway referred to as "permanent way". This is also one of the reasons that tram systems are better for getting people out of their cars (realistically in lots of cases meaning ditching the second car) than buses. You can be fairly certain where they are going to be running in 5, 10 or even 20 years time - whereas bus services can disappear in a matter of weeks.

 

[NCT]

Irrespective of the cross subsidisation argument if there are lines that deliver a service that can be replicated (in time, frequency, reliability etc.) by another mode it make sense to use that mode and re-allocate the money to a better investment. The the case of many of the rural lines the rail service isn't faster than a bus, cars will be mostly electric in about 10 years and there isn't an argument that traffic needs to be reduced.

The arguments around permeance of the rail lines and regulation are in my view logical fallacies. If you wanted to write in law that a given level of bus or other service must be provided there is nothing stopping this happening, if you want to provide an excellent bus station that is highly visible you likely could with the money saved by cutting the railway line.

I do agree.

Relying on expensive hard engineering to compensate for weakness in laws and politics is economically inefficient. As society in general is heading towards a higher dependency ratio (an aging population means a smaller tax base needing to pay for higher health and social care costs), we really should be tackling all those inefficiencies. There could be a core long-distance rural network that are subject to 'railway laws' that provide timetables, frequency and reliability at least as good as those (thankfully very few) genuinely basket-case railway lines.

The permanence argument exposes the uncomfortable fact that in some areas we as a nation are legally and politically incompetent and we are collectively paying through our nose for that collective incompetence.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

The Sellafield complex itself also employs far fewer people than it once did, because they discovered during a site evacuation (as a result of one of the old chimneys looking like it was going over) that they had way too many people on site to evacuate in a timely manner given the lack of mass transit options.

The only people on site now are people whose jobs definitely require them to be there, almost all the admin, management and research people are elsewhere now.
Beyond that, with the end of reprocessing operations, wastage is going to cut employment rapidly.

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


Well as some others have noted, you'd probably electrify to Girvan and axe everything south of there.

That would enable Girvan to be fully integrated into the Ayr suburban timetable and may even allow simplification at Ayr.

Yes, there has been a push to move non-essential staff to Westlake's or Albion Square, but those crush loaded trains were after those staff had been moved.

 

[leytongabriel]

I suppose its good that they're trying, although being DfT it will likely underplay any benefits.



Had history not already taught us that this is exactly how railway (and any other) policy where cutting funds is involved works, there would be no need to deploy such a phrase.

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



I see it as a bit of an emergency brake on adverse railway policy, as much as a "problem".

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



Isn't this sort of like what France already does on many of its secondary routes, yet many of our seasoned continental travellers on here don't see it as a positive.

Yes But the SNCF bus services are also prone to reduction and removal

 

[NCT]

Does Switzerland's Postbus have any elevated legal status?

 

[Technologist]

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

This will likely happen in the next few years away, electric flight will reduce the cost of short haul flying and the UK's distances of 100-200 miles are well within the range of the first generation of air taxies. For many of these locations electric flight will also likely result in a vast increase in property prices/building as people realise that they can afford a nice house in a lovely area and pay for 4 flights a week to work hybrid in an office 100 miles away in 30 minutes.

 

[Bald Rick]

The trouble is that the UK doesn't do this and has *never* done this. Thus I don't trust that it would.

It kind of has, though. See the Peterborough - Wisbech bus; in the rail journey planners and fares system, railcards valid, and has been for decades. Same as the (much newer) Camarthen - Aberystwth bus. Im sure theres other examlles too.

 

[Technologist]

I do agree.

Relying on expensive hard engineering to compensate for weakness in laws and politics is economically inefficient. As society in general is heading towards a higher dependency ratio (an aging population means a smaller tax base needing to pay for higher health and social care costs), we really should be tackling all those inefficiencies. There could be a core long-distance rural network that are subject to 'railway laws' that provide timetables, frequency and reliability at least as good as those (thankfully very few) genuinely basket-case railway lines.

The permanence argument exposes the uncomfortable fact that in some areas we as a nation are legally and politically incompetent and we are collectively paying through our nose for that collective incompetence.

I think this is being gradually brought into the political discourse, the Abundance Agenda and the Looking For Growth initiative are sort of tackling this issue. Rory Sutherland talks about this issue as being one where nothing can be done because of budgeting or legal processes but the second something strays into being a legal duty cost and user experience issues go out of the window and some horrible solution is imposed.

 

[NCT]

It kind of has, though. See the Peterborough - Wisbech bus; in the rail journey planners and fares system, railcards valid, and has been for decades. Same as the (much newer) Camarthen - Aberystwth bus. Im sure theres other examlles too.

There's a potential interesting experiment.

Fully integrate the Far North coach services into National Rail - potentially doable with (modified) bus franchising powers and see how people actually vote with their feet ...

 

[Bletchleyite]

It kind of has, though. See the Peterborough - Wisbech bus; in the rail journey planners and fares system, railcards valid, and has been for decades. Same as the (much newer) Camarthen - Aberystwth bus. Im sure theres other examlles too.

That's not a fully integrated transport policy. That's a couple of routes.

 

[lachlan]

This will likely happen in the next few years away, electric flight will reduce the cost of short haul flying and the UK's distances of 100-200 miles are well within the range of the first generation of air taxies. For many of these locations electric flight will also likely result in a vast increase in property prices/building as people realise that they can afford a nice house in a lovely area and pay for 4 flights a week to work hybrid in an office 100 miles away in 30 minutes.

Driverless cars were going to kill trains and they haven't materialised - why would I believe personal drones will be coming any time soon?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 May 2025 ==

There's a potential interesting experiment.

Fully integrate the Far North coach services into National Rail - potentially doable with (modified) bus franchising powers and see how people actually vote with their feet ...

Yes they should. Though I doubt it would reduce footfall on the railway. It may encourage more journeys overall on public transport by increasing flexibility when you combine bus and rail.