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

[yorksrob]

Has everyone noticed how the cancellation of HS2 made potholes vanish overnight?

Volunteering rail sacrifices to politicians is self-flagellation. Any idea that saving a few million in one place will give noticeable benefits elsewhere is the stuff of dreams.

Protect what’s there now because no greater good will come from it’s loss.

This is the crux of the matter. Too many fantasists imagine that if a line is shut, the money will suddenly become available for some more deserving rail project elsewhere. It won't.

 

[MatthewHutton]

They don‘t when it comes to railway costs.



The cost I quoted is the marginal operating cost; ie what is avoidable if the trains were to stop. That excludes all the ‘central’ costs, and fixed infrastructure costs.

As you have no evidence let’s agree to disagree. Happy to accept otherwise if there is evidence.

£40m a year to operate the far north lines and the same again for the West highland line seems extraordinarily high if it only cost £4m in today’s money in the 1960s. £20-40m for both assuming their share of the central costs are in fact included (with a 2-4x multiplier) in your figures seems more reasonable though.

Surely for some of the quieter lines, if NR are truly desperate, the first step would be force DOO, and tell the unions if they don't get on board their will be no line. Possibly you could even go the other way, automate the trains and only keep the gaurds as a safety/accessibility role

They can’t because the stations aren’t staffed. You either need a guard or station staff - and on these rural lines a guard is much cheaper.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Why not?

Imagine a line that is twice the length but carries the same number of passengers. Your statistic would say that line is only half as useful. But the reality is the longer line has likely taken more (twice as many) passenger-miles off the roads, and would normally be generating more farebox revenue too per passenger because the passengers travelling further are likely to have bought more expensive tickets. If your statistic goes down when the approximate thing you're trying to measure goes up, then there's probably a flaw in how you're calculating the statistic

The fare increment for heading south of Girvan to Stranraer is only £7.70 from Ayr and £3.40 from Glasgow.

I don't think that's the full picture. Brfares.com shows that a return Glasgow to Stranraer is £28 off-peak or £34.20 anytime, returning within a month. For Glasgow to Girvan, you can only buy a day return, with prices at £14.70 (super-off-peak), £18.40 (off-peak) or £26.70 (anytime). Outside peak hours, your average passenger going to/from Stranraer is likely to paying quite a lot more from Glasgow than your average passenger going to/from Girvan.

 

[renegademaster]

They can’t because the stations aren’t staffed. You either need a guard or station staff - and on these rural lines a guard is much cheaper.

Have the driver do the ramp?
It will cause a performance hit but if the alternative is closure that's better than no train.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Have the driver do the ramp?
It will cause a performance hit but if the alternative is closure that's better than no train.

You cannot have someone working on their own for 3 hours with the public. Even in the highlands.

 

[weeklycommuter]

If shutting the far north line really only saves £4m/year or maybe a little more if costs have risen more than inflation then shutting it really isn’t worth it.

If it cost ~£4m in total in the 1960s in today’s money or ~£8m adjusted for today’s wages it seems very doubtful a line that was always marginal costs meaningfully more than that today.

Doubt sll you like. It costs a lot more than £8m in marginal cost.

Whatever the cost of maintaining the infrastructure and running the passenger service for the Far North Line and all other railways in Scotland I assume decisions about ongoing support for the infrastructure and passenger services for all railways in Scotland are made by the Government and Parliament of Scotland and not the UK Government and Parliament or Great British Railways. Any decision to sacrifice some longer rural routes and spend the money elsewhere on the network in Scotland would be for the Government and Parliament of Scotland.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Revert would be reopening surely? We’re talking about an extant line.

There has to be a compromise between the wistful Railway Children vibe you reference, and treating the railway like a cold-ass P&L.

Nobody (reasonable) expects the NHS to make a profit, or recover costs - and appreciates the notion of a public service and environmental (and social) benefit.

I don’t expect the railway to make a profit, it is a public service. What it does need is more lines (including reopening some of the Beeching closures) and more rolling stock, rather than frittering tens of millions away on providing an inadequate service to a handful of people.

To be honest, not repeating the same mistakes as the closure programme would be a big start. You may or may not have noticed that since that time, the network hasn't recovered by much, even in areas where the route would be useful. Are we to accept another round of potentially short sighted closures at the whim of one generation ?

I also find your argument that "everyone drives anyway" supremely unconvincing. I should imagine that there are many motorists in the far north who wouldn't relish the long slog down to Inverness, or even further by car.

Also I can imagine that there are many households who aren't multi-car households. Supposing Doris needs to visit Aunt Flo down South but her hubby needs the car for work. So many commentators on these forums seem to forget that just because people can drive, doesn't necessarily mean that they have access to a car all of the time.

And also what if Aunt Flo decides to visit from Inverness ? She might not need to run a car at home, but she'll need public transport to get to Thurso.

Highly specific instances which could be solved by a superior bus service at a fraction of the cost.

As I say, this is not just “a quiet line” like Mid Cheshire or the Heart of Wessex- it provides a poor service to the absolute back of beyond at vast cost.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Emotively, closing the lines is unappealing. Politically, the withdrawal of rail services would promote an agenda that Holyrood/Westminster/wherever doesn't care about rural areas - especially if funds were used to improve services in cities.

Economically, the Far North would be better served at lower cost by buses. One of the better flows (Ullapool for the Stornoway ferry) has never had a rail service, and the bus goes from Inverness rather the nearer stations at Garve or Dingwall. I expect something similar is the case for the West Highland.

Unfortunately, the suburbanisation and homogenisation of the rail network seems inevitable. It's a boring future, but it's probably a more effective one. Perhaps Fort William-Mallaig can be kept on as a heritage line for enthusiasts of such obsolete things as steam locomotives and wizarding schools.

I also find your argument that "everyone drives anyway" supremely unconvincing. I should imagine that there are many motorists in the far north who wouldn't relish the long slog down to Inverness, or even further by car.

It's actually quite the opposite: motorists in the far north are simply accustomed to the idea that once you've started the engine you've got several hours travel ahead of you. Once you've gone to Inverness the easy run down the A9 to Perth and then the Central Belt is no great hardship.

My wife and I are from the Highlands, and occasionally surprise our friends further south with our Highland conception of distance. It's much more similar to a North American concept of distance than to England or central Scotland. Trips we've done have included

• 120 miles each way to go to the cinema
• 55 miles each way late at night to pick someone up from a concert
• 325 miles one way, starting in the small hours of the morning, before attending an event all day and into the evening. Then the reverse (including all-day event) the next day.

Or you drive to Wick Airport and fly. It's not that long ago that you could fly Wick to Inverness - it was the only UK scheduled internal flight where both airports were (a) on the mainland and (b) in the same local authority.

Also I can imagine that there are many households who aren't multi-car households. Supposing Doris needs to visit Aunt Flo down South but her hubby needs the car for work. So many commentators on these forums seem to forget that just because people can drive, doesn't necessarily mean that they have access to a car all of the time.

Honestly, in that part of the world there aren't many households that have fewer than one car per adult. It's impossible to rely on public transport, so everyone who travels needs access to some kind of vehicle, and really you want backup in case one of them breaks down.

Even if you don't have much money, a car is so essential in the Far North that people will make sacrifices to keep a total wreck running.

You cannot have someone working on their own for 3 hours with the public. Even in the highlands.

You can if they're a bus driver.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You cannot have someone working on their own for 3 hours with the public. Even in the highlands.

The drivers on the parallel coach service beg to differ.

 

[Mgameing123]

I don’t expect the railway to make a profit, it is a public service. What it does need is more lines (including reopening some of the Beeching closures) and more rolling stock, rather than frittering tens of millions away on providing an inadequate service to a handful of people.

Highly specific instances which could be solved by a superior bus service at a fraction of the cost.

As I say, this is not just “a quiet line” like Mid Cheshire or the Heart of Wessex- it provides a poor service to the absolute back of beyond at vast cost.

The Far North despite being very slow is an essential service. Besides just because the coach is faster doesn't mean people would rather take the coach over the train. The train can win with comfort and service being a main factor.

 

[zwk500]

I don’t expect the railway to make a profit, it is a public service. What it does need is more lines (including reopening some of the Beeching closures) and more rolling stock, rather than frittering tens of millions away on providing an inadequate service to a handful of people.

One issue I have with 'reopen Beeching closures' is that it's a decidedly backwards-looking argument. The argument about new lines should be about serving current and future demand, and if there happens to be a convenient alignment that used to be a railway, fine. But a lot of the time, even if there was a railway to Town X, it was often slow, indirect, or orientated towards a flow that doesn't happen now.

My particular bee-in-a-bonnet is Lewes-Uckfield. All the focus is on staying as close to the original line as possible. BML2/Wealden line had a particularly insane campaign to build a 1.5mile tunnel avoiding Lewes to use as much of the Hamsey Loop as possible. However, today, there a large village that's growing into a small town in Ringmer, a handful of miles off the line of the railway. By building a new alignment from the A22 (/A26) Uckfield bypass through Ringmer to Glynde, you'd provide a far more useful network to the whole of East Sussex. But no, the old alignment is sacred...

If you look at the UK railway system before it was nationalised, lines were opened *and closed* on a quite regular basis.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Nobody (reasonable) expects the NHS to make a profit, or recover costs - and appreciates the notion of a public service and environmental (and social) benefit.

A growing number of reasonable people expect the NHS to provide value for money and are becoming concerned at the ever increasing costs while still accepting that making a profit is not the objective. That's similar to the attitude towards loss-making railways.

 

[35B]

The Far North despite being very slow is an essential service. Besides just because the coach is faster doesn't mean people would rather take the coach over the train. The train can win with comfort and service being a main factor.

What does "essential" mean here? And how is that actually defined and measured?

The argument that XYZ line is essential is a sound political one, and will deter politicians from making rash changes - in so many debates, we know that the political pain from taking away what people have today far outweighs other positive actions. But it's a brittle line, which needs substance behind it.

 

[yorksrob]

Economically, the Far North would be better served at lower cost by buses. One of the better flows (Ullapool for the Stornoway ferry) has never had a rail service, and the bus goes from Inverness rather the nearer stations at Garve or Dingwall. I expect something similar is the case for the West Highland.

Unfortunately, the suburbanisation and homogenisation of the rail network seems inevitable. It's a boring future, but it's probably a more effective one. Perhaps Fort William-Mallaig can be kept on as a heritage line for enthusiasts of such obsolete things as steam locomotives and wizarding schools.

This is a defeatist attitude. If we don't want our railway service destroyed, it is up to us to make that point to the politicians.

The railway network is a remarkably useful tool. I've never driven, yet by and large I get around a lot more than most people seem to with cars. That usefulness depends on the coverage of the network and it would be destroyed by a constant chipping away at it.

By the way, why not take your wife on s trip South by train ? You could have a picnic and relax on the way for a change.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A growing number of reasonable people expect the NHS to provide value for money and are becoming concerned at the ever increasing costs while still accepting that making a profit is not the objective. That's similar to the attitude towards loss-making railways.

Applied to the railway I would more see that as how expensive railway stuff is compared to other industries - that needs to be looked at. There are many, many efficiencies that could be made without closing any infrastructure.

 

[yorksrob]

A growing number of reasonable people expect the NHS to provide value for money and are becoming concerned at the ever increasing costs while still accepting that making a profit is not the objective. That's similar to the attitude towards loss-making railways.

What is "value for money" ?

Something like the Whitby line will cost a certain amount of money to maintain, yet the value obtainable from that money is hampered by the inadequate service provided on it. Better value for money would be obtained by running a service that could release the full potential of the service to the community (and having sensible fares that don't put people off travelling).

 

[Mikey C]

Revert would be reopening surely? We’re talking about an extant line.

There has to be a compromise between the wistful Railway Children vibe you reference, and treating the railway like a cold-ass P&L.

Nobody (reasonable) expects the NHS to make a profit, or recover costs - and appreciates the notion of a public service and environmental (and social) benefit.

Just like the railways though, the NHS has to make expenditure choices, as it has a budget each year and lots of things it would like to spend money on. Cancer treatment or hip operations? More staff or pay rises for staff? Dementia care or A&E? New buildings or new equipment?

However big the health budget, it will never be able to do everything, and will have to make choices. Just like the railways have to. In France, some rural branch lines have closed in recent years, but you could hardly accuse France with its massive TGV network or being anti railway.

 

[stevieinselby]

Also I can imagine that there are many households who aren't multi-car households. Supposing Doris needs to visit Aunt Flo down South but her hubby needs the car for work. So many commentators on these forums seem to forget that just because people can drive, doesn't necessarily mean that they have access to a car all of the time.

And also what if Aunt Flo decides to visit from Inverness ? She might not need to run a car at home, but she'll need public transport to get to Thurso.

The good news for them is that, unless they are using one of the stations that sees fewer than 1 passenger per day, they will have a good bus/coach service running more frequently and in many cases faster than the train.

Something like the Whitby line will cost a certain amount of money to maintain, yet the value obtainable from that money is hampered by the inadequate service provided on it. Better value for money would be obtained by running a service that could release the full potential of the service to the community (and having sensible fares that don't put people off travelling).

The Whitby line is a strange one ... it clearly does have value for the intermediate stations, which have much higher ridership than most stations on the Far North Line and can't easily be served by a fast bus (which is why the line remains in place) ... but I really don't understand the number of people who use the train for the end-to-end journey from Middlesbrough to Whitby, when the bus is faster, more frequent and cheaper. And while the frequency could be improved, it's hard to see how you could cut 20 minutes off the journey time to make it comparable with the X93 bus unless you miss out all the intermediate stops that are the only reason the line exists at all.

 

[Indigo Soup]

By the way, why not take your wife on s trip South by train ? You could have a picnic and relax on the way for a change.

We do, regularly. We're actually somewhat unusual in being a one-car household despite living in a rural area, which means we need to use the (surprisingly good) bus service as well as trains. My personal travel habits are identifiable on the origin-destination data for my local station.

But sometimes the train doesn't do what we need it to do, and the option of driving is incredibly useful. If we still lived in the Highlands, it would be absolutely essential.

I'd very much like to see trains kept in rural areas. But we can't go around expecting the network (and travel habits) to be frozen in aspic. And unfortunately decades of underinvesting have left us in a situation where battery-electric buses are a serious threat to rural railways - and even some main lines.

That didn't need to be the case, but we are where we are. Sticking our heads in the sand won't make the economic system change, or make electric buses go away. We need to be thinking about how to preserve the best features of railways and mitigate the worst features of buses.

The next best option is probably to have bus services defined in the same way as rail services, operated in an integrated way, and locked down so the operator can't mess around with them in hopes of making the EBITDA graph go up.

 

[Zomboid]

One issue I have with 'reopen Beeching closures' is that it's a decidedly backwards-looking argument. The argument about new lines should be about serving current and future demand, and if there happens to be a convenient alignment that used to be a railway, fine. But a lot of the time, even if there was a railway to Town X, it was often slow, indirect, or orientated towards a flow that doesn't happen now.

My particular bee-in-a-bonnet is Lewes-Uckfield. All the focus is on staying as close to the original line as possible. BML2/Wealden line had a particularly insane campaign to build a 1.5mile tunnel avoiding Lewes to use as much of the Hamsey Loop as possible. However, today, there a large village that's growing into a small town in Ringmer, a handful of miles off the line of the railway. By building a new alignment from the A22 (/A26) Uckfield bypass through Ringmer to Glynde, you'd provide a far more useful network to the whole of East Sussex. But no, the old alignment is sacred...

If you look at the UK railway system before it was nationalised, lines were opened *and closed* on a quite regular basis.

I completely agree. Reopening old routes is often the answer to the wrong question.

You hear it about Woodhead - but if we need a new railway between Manchester and Sheffield, we need a new one, not a Victorian one.

Often the original route does have a lot to commend it, as the original builders weren't fools, but it doesn't always match what we need now and into the future. East West between Oxford and Bletchley is an example of the original route being the right one, but aside from a few bridges it's a brand new railway. But the proposal to go from Bedford to Cambridge via some actual current population centres rather than the old route that wouldn't serve where people need to be/go now is clearly the right one.

 

[Jaydubya]

The X99 service is even more sparsely operated than the train. 3 services on a weekday, 2 on a Saturday with last southbound departure from Thurso before midday! The journey times benefits between Inverness and Thurso are not as noticeable as from Wick. Of course public money could improve this frequency and hours of operation.

I think this coach-stitution policy would have more support if first of all express routes not served by rail were clearly embedded into the network with branding, mapping, high quality branded halts, long-term commitments etc so they are widely known not just to a lucky few and people gain confidence that the removal of a few edge cases won’t be a hardship. So for Stranraer a coach service from Carlisle station to Stranraer and Cairnryan via the A75 and selected towns would be a good first step followed by one up the A77 to Ayr.

 

[MatthewHutton]

One issue I have with 'reopen Beeching closures' is that it's a decidedly backwards-looking argument. The argument about new lines should be about serving current and future demand, and if there happens to be a convenient alignment that used to be a railway, fine. But a lot of the time, even if there was a railway to Town X, it was often slow, indirect, or orientated towards a flow that doesn't happen now.

My particular bee-in-a-bonnet is Lewes-Uckfield. All the focus is on staying as close to the original line as possible. BML2/Wealden line had a particularly insane campaign to build a 1.5mile tunnel avoiding Lewes to use as much of the Hamsey Loop as possible. However, today, there a large village that's growing into a small town in Ringmer, a handful of miles off the line of the railway. By building a new alignment from the A22 (/A26) Uckfield bypass through Ringmer to Glynde, you'd provide a far more useful network to the whole of East Sussex. But no, the old alignment is sacred...

If you look at the UK railway system before it was nationalised, lines were opened *and closed* on a quite regular basis.

The challenge with the Beeching closure reopenings is that there were a lot of 4 trains a day lines that were shut that don’t have the romance or the potential special casing of the lines in Northern Scotland.

And frankly even at the low end of £10m each in annual operating costs which is probably the best case scenario and even with a generous helping of interrail pass revenue it’s difficult to believe they are covering their full operating costs - let alone the central costs.

 

[NIT100]

Reading back through the thread, so much of the discussion focuses on the Far North line and the fact that the X99 is faster than the train, and provides a similar service. Much discussion on viability, cycle carriage, and a lit on decarbonisation.

Worth considering that Ember are recruiting in Thurso right now to launch their own electric coach service, and they also carry cycles. Yet to be seen if the route can survive the options of rail and 2 bus services.

And must be remembered when looking at current usage figures that market on intercity and long-distance coaches in Scotland is that concessionary card holders (disabled, over-60 and under-22) will get free travel on all bus and coach services within Scotland, irrespective of distance, but not free rail travel. Without this distinction, it may not be true that both Far North Line and X99 (and soon Ember) could operate on the same route. Both are receiving a considerable amount of subsidy currently.

Ember's success, and now Citylink's use of electric coaches in Scotland now also means decarbonisation can no longer be used as an argument to keep low usage rural rail lines open

 

[Uncle Buck]

One issue I have with 'reopen Beeching closures' is that it's a decidedly backwards-looking argument. The argument about new lines should be about serving current and future demand, and if there happens to be a convenient alignment that used to be a railway, fine. But a lot of the time, even if there was a railway to Town X, it was often slow, indirect, or orientated towards a flow that doesn’t happen now.

I expressed this poorly, as I actually agree with you. Reopening new lines doesn’t just have to mean high-speed intercity lines and “crossrails”, it can also mean lines to serve underserved towns and infill in the rural network- in other words, reversing the lack of connectivity caused by 1960s-era closures, rather than actually reconstructing the same railway. But no, to a distressing number of railway supporters the 1950s must be brought back to life…

The Far North despite being very slow is an essential service. Besides just because the coach is faster doesn't mean people would rather take the coach over the train. The train can win with comfort and service being a main factor.

You state that the train is essential, then argue that this is because it will have superior comfort and service. Leaving aside the fact that a fast electric coach taking a direct route has superior comfort and service than a Sprinter crawling around a Victorian route, surely what you are saying here boils down to “the train is essential because I prefer trains to coaches”- which doesn’t meet any definition of “essential”.

What is "value for money" ?

Respectfully, you do seem to be implying that everyone who wants the railways to save money believes that the railways must run at a profit. I doubt many people who read this forum think that! But there is a limit. It is one thing to subsidise a line with an hourly service to towns of a few thousand people. It is another thing to spend tens of millions of year on a line with a handful of services a day, serving the most remote communities in the country, and following an extremely slow route.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Respectfully, you do seem to be implying that everyone who wants the railways to save money believes that the railways must run at a profit. I doubt many people who read this forum think that! But there is a limit. It is one thing to subsidise a line with an hourly service to towns of a few thousand people. It is another thing to spend tens of millions of year on a line with a handful of services a day, serving the most remote communities in the country, and following an extremely slow route.

The whole highlands has extremely high subsidies. The police and ambulance service undoubtedly cost a fortune to provide.

 

[yorksrob]

The good news for them is that, unless they are using one of the stations that sees fewer than 1 passenger per day, they will have a good bus/coach service running more frequently and in many cases faster than the train.

The Whitby line is a strange one ... it clearly does have value for the intermediate stations, which have much higher ridership than most stations on the Far North Line and can't easily be served by a fast bus (which is why the line remains in place) ... but I really don't understand the number of people who use the train for the end-to-end journey from Middlesbrough to Whitby, when the bus is faster, more frequent and cheaper. And while the frequency could be improved, it's hard to see how you could cut 20 minutes off the journey time to make it comparable with the X93 bus unless you miss out all the intermediate stops that are the only reason the line exists at all.

And yet many people do use the Whitby line end to end. It just goes to illustrate the enduring quality of the rail experience. Shaving twenty minutes off of the journey time is less important than having a frequency that suits peoples needs.

 

[zwk500]

Reopening new lines doesn’t just have to mean high-speed intercity lines and “crossrails”, it can also mean lines to serve underserved towns and infill in the rural network- in other words, reversing the lack of connectivity caused by 1960s-era closures

Any talk of 're' opening and 'reversing' damage is still backwards-looking though. There are entire towns that have never been on the rail network. If we only look at lines previously closed, how can we adjust to the new travel patterns?

All rail proposals should start first with 'what should a rail service to Town X look like?', then ask 'what infrastructure would be needed to provide that?' and only then should it consider if old trackbed might be useful.

And yet many people do use the Whitby line end to end. It just goes to illustrate the enduring quality of the rail experience. Shaving twenty minutes off of the journey time is less important than having a frequency that suits peoples needs.

Below 1tph, its arguably better to have a completely irregular frequency but have trains targeted to serve key journey generators.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Whitby line is a strange one ... it clearly does have value for the intermediate stations, which have much higher ridership than most stations on the Far North Line and can't easily be served by a fast bus (which is why the line remains in place) ... but I really don't understand the number of people who use the train for the end-to-end journey from Middlesbrough to Whitby, when the bus is faster, more frequent and cheaper. And while the frequency could be improved, it's hard to see how you could cut 20 minutes off the journey time to make it comparable with the X93 bus unless you miss out all the intermediate stops that are the only reason the line exists at all.

Because trains offer a much higher quality environment than buses. Yes, even a knackered 150 vs. a brand new bus. That only ceases to be the case when the bus is a decently specified coach. Also trains tend to have toilets and buses tend not to.

You can put nice seats in a bus (e.g. the Transdev Ripon services) but it's still a bus and will still buck, rock and sway along the route unless it's a high quality dual carriageway.

I've stopped using the Oxford-Cambridge X5 now it's just a double decker bus. The journey is tiring and uncomfortable and there are no toilets. Even were it slower (and it won't be, but even if it were) East West Rail is going to be hugely superior even if it's going to cost far more than 3 quid.

You can't polish a turd. Well, you can use high quality coach style vehicles as tend to be used on regional bus services in mainland Europe (either with wheelchair lifts, or "Interdeck" style with the driver and a wheelchair position in a low floor "foyer" and the steps past that), but typically in the UK it's either train or low quality bus - very rarely is a quality bus option offered - though to be fair the Wick/Thurso buses are really coaches. And fancy seats don't give a quality journey experience - you need to go for a much higher quality vehicle.

(This probably again comes down to "we could do it properly, but we never do in the UK, so save the railway!)

 

[Uncle Buck]

Any talk of 're' opening and 'reversing' damage is still backwards-looking though. There are entire towns that have never been on the rail network. If we only look at lines previously closed, how can we adjust to the new travel patterns?

Again, I have expressed myself poorly as I am in agreement with you! Yes, we should plan for the future- it’s just that in many cases that might look quite like what we had in the past!

The whole highlands has extremely high subsidies. The police and ambulance service undoubtedly cost a fortune to provide.

True, but you can’t really have an alternative ambulance service. You can have an alternative public transport route between Inverness and Wick/Thurso.

 

[Killingworth]

The drivers on the parallel coach service beg to differ.

Any problem with or on a bus on a road is much easier to reach than on a broken down train miles from anywhere on a railway line. The advantages of trains over buses on lines like this are not great, except for rail enthusiasts - like me! The economics don't stack up for rail.

Incidentally, the North Coast 500 is bringing masses of cars, camper vans and caravans to the narrow roads and spreading tourists' £s over a much wider area than the railways ever can. Those roads are effectively being subsidised too, but for far more people in far more places.