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

[MatthewHutton]

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

There’s also making everyone in the community support this new technology and they won’t for noise reasons.

 

[35B]

Does Switzerland's Postbus have any elevated legal status?

No. But it operates within a very different political culture and framework.

However, the idea of the Swiss system as a model of perfection relies on ignoring the political choices about tax and government spending that exist there as here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No. But it operates within a very different political culture and framework.

However, the idea of the Swiss system as a model of perfection relies on ignoring the political choices about tax and government spending that exist there as here.

Perfection no, but I'd say the UK siloed model is about the worst.

 

[35B]

Perfection no, but I'd say the UK siloed model is about the worst.

That may be. But the last serious closure attempts (I’m ignoring the couple of “parliamentary” tidy ups) were pre-privatisation by BR - who also did nothing to revive those lines.

The current DfT controlled setup has the effect of freezing the network, inhibiting development and also preventing closure.

 

[yorksrob]

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

Quite. And who's to say that any equivalent here wouldn't be too (particularly when numbers dwindled).

 

[Iskra]

From my travels, I can think of a couple of lines that are probably worth closing on a usage basis (Heysham branch, Far North Line).

However, I would oppose any line closure on principle, as I think it would become a 'slippery slope' and that closing one or two unviable lines would end in the closure of many more lines which may not contribute much financially but do socially.

 

[Zomboid]

Perfection no, but I'd say the UK siloed model is about the worst.

I think we've got it better than the Americans...

 

[MatthewHutton]

I think we've got it better than the Americans...

Oh everyone is better than the Americans.

Britain holds its weight with the other European countries IMO. Gets a lot of speed and runs a pretty frequent service out of the Victorian rail network for all its flaws.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

We all have things we'd like to see written into law, but they rarely happen (Mine's a continental style climate ticket of some sort).

Most rural routes don't have an equivalent bus service that is as fast (try going Skipton to Lancaster or Carlisle on the bus and see how long it takes you), and even those that do, the rail option is usually as popular if not more so (the Whitby line is an example of this, although it serves intermediate areas that are off the railway).

Battery cars will be a thing (as will battery trains on these routes), however that doesn't mean I'm any more likely to pay to buy or run one.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Most rural routes don't have an equivalent bus service that is as fast (try going Skipton to Lancaster or Carlisle on the bus and see how long it takes you),

Probably because many rural lines run for much longer distances than most people would be willing to travel on a bus. But I'd imagine (without having any encyclopaedic knowledge) that the shorter ones are more likely to have parallel bus routes. Off the top of my head, Windermere to Kendal is very easy by bus (which is more frequent than the train), although the last bit from Kendal to Oxenholme is tougher. Sheerness to Sittingbourne also appears to have a frequent bus route, although takes a lot longer than the train.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Probably because many rural lines run for much longer distances than most people would be willing to travel on a bus. But I'd imagine (without having any encyclopaedic knowledge) that the shorter ones are more likely to have parallel bus routes. Off the top of my head, Windermere to Kendal is very easy by bus (which is more frequent than the train), although the last bit from Kendal to Oxenholme is tougher. Sheerness to Sittingbourne also appears to have a frequent bus route, although takes a lot longer than the train.

The problem with the Windermere Kendal bus is that there isn’t anywhere else to change onto the fast trains on the West Coast mainline.

The other thing is that branches like that or the Falmouth one for example allow long distance journeys to happen at all. A lot of the trips between the south and Windermere would dry up if the branch didn’t exist. So the revenue should largely be booked against the branch really.

 

[RT4038]

The problem with the Windermere Kendal bus is that there isn’t anywhere else to change onto the fast trains on the West Coast mainline.

It is not a problem in the current situation - there is no need for a bus service from Windermere or Kendal to Oxenholme to connect with trains while there is a branch line train service in operation. (or there may be a need, but it is insufficient for a bus service to be provided in the current financial framework for bus services). If the branch rail line was not in operation, I would suggest that the bus network may be different, and would cater for this need, or a proportion of it. Whether that provision would be adequate really needs legislation changes (as suggested by @Bletchleyite and others) in some way to establish minimum provisions, and the funding that would be required to maintain that.

The other thing is that branches like that or the Falmouth one for example allow long distance journeys to happen at all. A lot of the trips between the south and Windermere would dry up if the branch didn’t exist. So the revenue should largely be booked against the branch really.

Not necessarily, but it would need a change in legislative provision for rail replacement services, for minimum standards and funding arrangements.

 

[NCT]

One would think things like Windermere and Falmouth would not fall under the 'lightly used' and 'no hope' category and not really the target of this thread.

 

[Bald Rick]

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

My apologies, I thought you referring to a complete inability to deliver integrated timetables and fares, and also the perceived risk of service withdrawal as buses being ‘less permanent’.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My apologies, I thought you referring to a complete inability to deliver integrated timetables and fares, and also the perceived risk of service withdrawal as buses being ‘less permanent’.

There are clearly occasional examples, but they are not truly integrated in any case I know of e.g. right to Delay Repay, validity on Any Permitted tickets, cycle carriage etc, and none are as permanent as a railway. They are generally a messy half job, e.g. the Keswick one that the drivers don't know about and are often rejecting.

It is nothing like Switzerland and the likes, which is what I would want to see if we were to close any lines for bus replacement. Doing buses superbly well is still cheaper than rail; it isn't a simple choice between rail vs. the usual utter dross of most UK bus operations.

 

[Zomboid]

Any bus alternatives would need to be run in house by the railway.
* Paint the buses in railway colours,
* include them in the railway timetable,
* offer full through ticketing and apply r railway conditions of carriage
* Provide adequate luggage and cycle spaces in line with a train
* make withdrawal or significant changes to the service subject to the same checks that the railway is.

Just saying "oh don't worry, Stagecoach run the H26 that way" won't cut it.

 

[NCT]

Yes, those bus routes should be directly contracted as part of the 'franchise' and not just be some third-party agreement with a commercial operation.

That said, the bus between Leuchars and St Andrews seems to be working well?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Any bus alternatives would need to be run in house by the railway.

I think even if they were in railway colours, the cheapest way to run a bus service to replace a closed line would likely to be tendering/franchising it, since the local operator will likely have much more infrastructure already in place.

 

[NCT]

I think even if they were in railway colours, the cheapest way to run a bus service to replace a closed line would likely to be tendering/franchising it, since the local operator will likely have much more infrastructure already in place.

I think that can be sub-contracted as long as the associated legalese is sufficiently tight.

 

[Mikey C]

I think even if they were in railway colours, the cheapest way to run a bus service to replace a closed line would likely to be tendering/franchising it, since the local operator will likely have much more infrastructure already in place.

After all that's how London's buses operate, and now Greater Manchester's, and it works perfectly. To the London passenger, I'm travelling on a red London bus, operating to exact TfL guidelines.

The only proviso to this in a rural setting, is that the local operators will be far smaller, and the pool of drivers etc much smaller too, but there's no reason why bus services can't be nearly as "permanent" as rail ones.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Any bus alternatives would need to be run in house by the railway.
* Paint the buses in railway colours,
* include them in the railway timetable,
* offer full through ticketing and apply r railway conditions of carriage
* Provide adequate luggage and cycle spaces in line with a train
* make withdrawal or significant changes to the service subject to the same checks that the railway is.

Just saying "oh don't worry, Stagecoach run the H26 that way" won't cut it.

While I agree that would be a minimal requirement, I can see a risk that - with bus fares often being cheaper than rail fares - if the route is at all popular, a local bus operator might try to undercut it by running a comparable service as a normal bus service, thereby making the rail replacement service unviable. So you would probably have to charge fares that reflect that this is a bus, not a train, and are therefore no higher than typical local bus fares, while still providing the guarantee that the service will not be withdrawn at short notice.

And I still think you'll lose a fair few rail passengers who would not be willing to use a bus.

 

[RT4038]

Any bus alternatives would need to be run in house by the railway.
* Paint the buses in railway colours,
* include them in the railway timetable,
* offer full through ticketing and apply r railway conditions of carriage
* Provide adequate luggage and cycle spaces in line with a train
* make withdrawal or significant changes to the service subject to the same checks that the railway is.

Just saying "oh don't worry, Stagecoach run the H26 that way" won't cut it.

Agree with all this except 'run in house by the railway' - almost certainly the most expensive way of doing it. Contracting it to a local operator would be the obvious way to go, with quality checking being done by the railway (liker National Express coaches).

 

[35B]

Yes, those bus routes should be directly contracted as part of the 'franchise' and not just be some third-party agreement with a commercial operation.

That said, the bus between Leuchars and St Andrews seems to be working well?

Why? Do you really want to lock in the standards of some our worse operators?

The question here is fundamentally about the provision of transport to destinations. There are various means of doing this, and they have their pros and cons. If the railway doesn't do that well (e.g. Stranraer), then alternatives may be worth exploring. That needs the quality of service to be protected, but it doesn't have to be delivered as a pseudo-train

 

[Zomboid]

By run in house I suppose what I meant was "managed in house". Contact things out, but it would have to be abundantly clear that this is a railway service.

And to be honest I'd be against that in most cases, too. Because I don't trust the government (of any colour) or DfT to actually maintain the service.

The main point was my second one - just leaving it up to a bus operator who run services that go somewhere near some of the stations is not going to cut it - a true integrated system where you could get on a bus with your road bike at Stranraer and present your ticket to Hereford with no issues and then travel on a bus to wherever you're picking up the train (maybe Dumfries!) and it all being one relatively seamless journey.

Legally this can already happen of course, the West Ealing parliamentary train is a bus, and you can still buy a train ticket to Tilbury Riverside and use the local bus to get there.

 

[RT4038]

While I agree that would be a minimal requirement, I can see a risk that - with bus fares often being cheaper than rail fares - if the route is at all popular, a local bus operator might try to undercut it by running a comparable service as a normal bus service, thereby making the rail replacement service unviable. So you would probably have to charge fares that reflect that this is a bus, not a train, and are therefore no higher than typical local bus fares, while still providing the guarantee that the service will not be withdrawn at short notice.

And I still think you'll lose a fair few rail passengers who would not be willing to use a bus.

Any current bus service is not operating in integration with the railway, so how is another operator going to attract passengers away from the railway bus any more than they can do currently against the railway train?
It will be 'horses for courses' of course, every circumstance is slightly different - the railway bus may well have some more (convenient and in quantity) stops than the railway train, and attract some existing bus service users in the process. That may well damage the existing bus route network of course.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

Is there really that much of a difference? Checking on Wikipedia, in 2024/4 Stranraer had 32K passengers (I assume that means, entrances+exits) Girvan had 57K. For both stations, that was a decline from the previous year. Just before Covid, in 2019-20 Stranraer had 66K and Girvan 122K. Bearing in mind that Girvan has 3 times as many departures as Stranraer, that means that Stranraer had more people per train than Girvan starting/ending their journeys (although Girvan would also of course have people passing through). Because Stranraer is further away from the main population centres, it also seems a reasonable guess that the average passenger at Stranraer is travelling further and therefore buying a more expensive ticket than at Girvan.

Obviously there's some difference there, but it doesn't look to me like such a big difference as to make one station worth investing in and electrifying and the other station only good for closing. And there is the unknown of how many more people would use Stranraer if the station was relocated into the town - which wouldn't be a huge project as you'd basically just have to build one single platform alongside the existing track.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agree with all this except 'run in house by the railway' - almost certainly the most expensive way of doing it. Contracting it to a local operator would be the obvious way to go, with quality checking being done by the railway (liker National Express coaches).

NatEx (and not Flixbus, which has a far looser hold on quality and consistency) is a great example of what it should look like. The legal lettering would be for the operator, but the staff in railway uniform and the vehicle in railway livery, and included in all railway ticketing and rights as if it were a train. Basically a permanent RRB.

 

[yorksrob]

We have a political environment where we seem to be stuck with an over-commercialised railway where all parties are determined not to offer good value fares.

Let's face it - the political unacceptability of closing railway lines is one of the few things (in terms of railway policy) this country has going for it.

Probably because many rural lines run for much longer distances than most people would be willing to travel on a bus. But I'd imagine (without having any encyclopaedic knowledge) that the shorter ones are more likely to have parallel bus routes. Off the top of my head, Windermere to Kendal is very easy by bus (which is more frequent than the train), although the last bit from Kendal to Oxenholme is tougher. Sheerness to Sittingbourne also appears to have a frequent bus route, although takes a lot longer than the train.

I've done Staveley to Lancaster by bus once due to a cancelled train. It took a very long time !

 

[Killingworth]

I've travelled on almost all the cited lines in Northern Britain and note that none of them would probably justify construction on the basis of current traffic levels.

I've been encouraged to see the success of the Borders and Ashington lines, both of which have absorbed massive amounts of capital expenditure and will require operational subsidies for the foreseeable future. In both cases the world has moved on since the original railways were built 150-200 years ago and they're serving almost completely different markets.

That's the underlying issue for most of today's railways. Original and current purpose. I live close to the Midland Mainline and the 'mainline' between Sheffield and Manchester. The MML is and was primarily a fast passenger railway. Both the Hope Valley and Woodhead routes were built primarily to haul slow and long loads of coal from east to west.

I look at Stranraer station today and it's a sorry sight. 100 years ago my grandfather regularly took a connecting boat train from Newcastle via Dumfries for the ship from Stranraer for business in Belfast and Ireland. At that time a lot of Irish migrants to Tyneside would do the same. It was similar for large numbers living in lowland Scotland. Boats and trains were the natural way to go. I have a picture from the 1950s of my aunt and uncle standing beside their car for it to be flown to Ulster. The world was moving on fast. We'd got steadily wedded to our cars.

If we didn't use cars flights from Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow were becoming available to Belfast, Dublin and Cork. The ferry terminals have moved to Cairnryan making the remaining railway useless for its intended purpose.

The remaining rail need is very modest and could be more frequently and more cheaply served by bus - a bus that would share use of the not terribly good roads, but they've improved a lot since the old track-bed from Carlisle got repurposed (I'll avoid diving down the Boris tunnel/bridge to Ireland rabbit warren!)

I would never accept the statistics found on the Railway Data website for Stanraer as totally accurate but from my own observation they seem to provide quite a good guide for the Girvan - Stranraer section; see; https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/loadings/gbr/?TLC=STR

Click on train numbers to see progress of each train.

These results represent an average weekday during the Summer 2024 timetable.

TRC​	TOC​	Origin	Arr​	Dep​	Destination	Board​	Alight​	Through​
1A11​	SR​	Originates	​	07:04​	Glasgow Central	2​	0​	0​
1A60​	SR​	Ayr	08:53​	​	Terminates	0​	5​	0​
1A67​	SR​	Originates	​	09:00​	Ayr	39​	0​	0​
1A64​	SR​	Ayr	12:57​	​	Terminates	0​	35​	0​
1A63​	SR​	Originates	​	13:05​	Ayr	24​	0​	0​
1A72​	SR​	Ayr	16:56​	​	Terminates	0​	14​	0​
1A75​	SR​	Originates	​	17:07​	Ayr	2​	0​	0​
1A76​	SR​	Kilmarnock	18:57​	​	Terminates	0​	14​	0​
1A79​	SR​	Originates	​	19:08​	Kilmarnock	2​	0​	0​
1A84​	SR​	Kilmarnock	23:00​	​	Terminates	0​	3​	0​

I'm just back from Inverness, another story. I first visited in 1958 on the way to Skye. It's changed a lot.

 

[stevieinselby]

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.

I've heard that the principal reason the Heart of Wales line escaped the Beeching Axe is because it was needed for freight, which meant that the passenger service was effectively travelling for free on the infrastructure ... although I don't have a source for that so it could be an urban (or rural?) myth.