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

[Meerkat]

The Far North Line must cost a fortune - it’s a lot of track to look after! It might not get much wear (but in harsh conditions that are only going to get worse) but still has to be maintained, and any replacements are going to be very expensive compared to revenue.
The trains will soon need replacing - that will presumably be multiples of current lease rates?
Then whenever things like GSMR are changed you have to spend a significant amount of money for little revenue.
How many tourists would actually not go to the Highlands without the train, rather than just going by car instead(majority Have probably driven to the line anyway)? Sightseeing is actually much better by car as you go through places, can stop wherever you like etc etc.
I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if the FNL could bring in more tourists if it was converted to a cycle route, enabling long range touring without going on the main roads (including all the Lands End to John O’Groats riders. Possibly the same for the Heart of Wales

 

[lachlan]

The Far North Line must cost a fortune - it’s a lot of track to look after! It might not get much wear (but in harsh conditions that are only going to get worse) but still has to be maintained, and any replacements are going to be very expensive compared to revenue.
The trains will soon need replacing - that will presumably be multiples of current lease rates?
Then whenever things like GSMR are changed you have to spend a significant amount of money for little revenue.
How many tourists would actually not go to the Highlands without the train, rather than just going by car instead(majority Have probably driven to the line anyway)? Sightseeing is actually much better by car as you go through places, can stop wherever you like etc etc.
I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if the FNL could bring in more tourists if it was converted to a cycle route, enabling long range touring without going on the main roads (including all the Lands End to John O’Groats riders. Possibly the same for the Heart of Wales

I cycle but also take the train. It would be great to have more long distance cycle paths but I don't like pitting cycle infrastructure against rail. We should be providing both. Cyclists don't necessarily want to go the same routes that old rail lines did.

I'd like to see the creation of a proper national cycle network of off-road paths, but we should create this from scratch based on where people want to cycle.

 

[WideRanger]

But a train isn't like a bus. For a bus there is only entrance so you can't physically board without walking past the driver, which means the driver can in principle stop you boarding without a ticket. How's a train driver going to stop someone boarding into a rear carriage door 30-40 metres away without paying?

Also buying a train ticket is more complex than buying a bus ticket because of the range of destinations and options available. Passenger boards at - say - Tain, intending to travel to Dundee with a railcard, wants to know whether he can go via Perth and come back via Aberdeen and will the ticket be valid at this time etc. etc. Or is starting the return trip but doesn't realise his ticket isn't valid on this train and he'll need to pay a difference to upgrade to any anytime return etc. etc. You can easily end up spending a couple of minutes working out and selling the correct ticket. That's not going to work if the driver can't start the train until he's sold tickets. In contrast to buses where the fare structures are usually designed to facilitate quick sales, and the only choices therefore tend to boil down to, I want a single/return to some destination directly on this bus's route (and for a single, the driver may just take the payment and not even issue an actual ticket), or I want a day travelcard.

On trains in Japan where the driver does ticketing duties (many of the most rural routes), passengers can normally get on on multiple doors, but are required to get off by the door next to the driver's cab. When getting on the train, the passenger picks up a ticket that shows what station they have got on at. At each stop there is a screen that shows how much the fare is from each stop that the train has stopped at.

If a passenger has got on the train at a stop where there is a ticket office (or changed train there), then they would be expected to have purchased the ticket in advance - so when they get off, they just give the purchased ticket to the driver. If their journey goes beyond the limit of the train where this working applies, they are expected to pay for a ticket to the place they are changing trains, and then use that ticket as part payment for the ticket to the destination they actually are going to.

It works very smoothly, but relies on 1. People being honest - there's not a lot a driver can do if someone insists on not paying. But there is plenty of CCTV and Japanese police and courts are rarely in the mood to play nice. 2. A simple fare system - tickets are very much based on the distance between stations by the shortest possible route, with no discounts for returns, etc. So, there's not a lot of unexpected ticketing results. There are some discount tickets available, but these normally (and increasingly) have to be purchased in advance, or online. Ticket checks in Japan are extremely rare, unless you are travelling on a premium train or in a premium carriage. There's not a huge amount of fare evasion by Japanese people - although there are pretty simple ways of doing it, if motivated. Any foreigners that try it on (and get caught) are likely to experience consequences that act as strong disincentives to the well-informed.

 

[renegademaster]

Just do what already happens in most of the South East. You buy a ticket from a machine and you have occasional checks from RPIs. Southeast England and the whole country of Germany seems to survive. DOO on rural lines with 2 car DMUs is pretty standard abroad.

 

[eldomtom2]

It works very smoothly, but relies on 1. People being honest - there's not a lot a driver can do if someone insists on not paying. But there is plenty of CCTV and Japanese police and courts are rarely in the mood to play nice. 2. A simple fare system - tickets are very much based on the distance between stations by the shortest possible route, with no discounts for returns, etc. So, there's not a lot of unexpected ticketing results. There are some discount tickets available, but these normally (and increasingly) have to be purchased in advance, or online. Ticket checks in Japan are extremely rare, unless you are travelling on a premium train or in a premium carriage. There's not a huge amount of fare evasion by Japanese people - although there are pretty simple ways of doing it, if motivated. Any foreigners that try it on (and get caught) are likely to experience consequences that act as strong disincentives to the well-informed.

And one does have to wonder if guards on the Far North Line pay for themselves via the amount of fare evasion they prevent - I suspect they don't!

 

[weeklycommuter]

The Far North Line must cost a fortune - it’s a lot of track to look after! It might not get much wear (but in harsh conditions that are only going to get worse) but still has to be maintained, and any replacements are going to be very expensive compared to revenue.
The trains will soon need replacing - that will presumably be multiples of current lease rates?
Then whenever things like GSMR are changed you have to spend a significant amount of money for little revenue.
How many tourists would actually not go to the Highlands without the train, rather than just going by car instead(majority Have probably driven to the line anyway)? Sightseeing is actually much better by car as you go through places, can stop wherever you like etc etc.
I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if the FNL could bring in more tourists if it was converted to a cycle route, enabling long range touring without going on the main roads (including all the Lands End to John O’Groats riders. Possibly the same for the Heart of Wales

This is the railway closures guidance document dated 18 October 2006 based on the Railways Act 2005. For any line or station closure this is the document that must be followed. Anyone suggesting that a railway line should be closed should read this document and decide whether it is likely that any such closure would be proposed and approved.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7cb5aced915d63cc65c60a/railwaysclosuresguidance.pdf

1.1 The Railways Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) sets out statutory procedures concerning proposals to close parts of the passenger railway. The 2005 Act places a duty on Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State to publish closures guidance. This document, including the attachments and associated references, constitutes that guidance.
1.2 The railway network is not static. Just as new lines and facilities are added to the network to meet increased demand, so, from time to time, closures and network modifications need to be considered in the light of changing operational needs and passenger travel patterns.
1.3 Under the 2005 Act, closures can be proposed by a rail funding authority (RFA) or a train or network operating company. The RFAs specified in the 2005 Act are the Secretary of State for Transport, Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the English Passenger Transport Authorities and the Mayor of London. Where a train or network operating company proposes a closure, a view on whether it should be brought into effect must be taken by the relevant National Authority (Scottish Ministers or the Secretary of State). Proposals by operators and RFAs require ratification by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR).
1.4 RFAs and operators will take into account a wide range of matters in their considerations. Some of these will be capable of being expressed in quantifiable value for money (vfm) assessments. Others will not. This guidance is not a comprehensive statement of all the factors that funding authorities and operators may take into account in considering closures. But it does set out an objective test which must be satisfied if closure is to be permitted.
1.5 This test uses the same benefit:cost ratio (BCR) methodology as is used in assessing investment proposals and is discussed in detail in the following sections. In brief, the test ensures that a closure cannot be pursued in Scotland, England or Wales if the BCR of retaining the service, station or network is 1.5 or over. The converse is not the case and it will be for RFAs and operators additionally to take fully into account the non-monetised benefits of not proposing closure.

 

[HSTEd]

You could provide PTT style machines at all stations that generate a boarding slip (containing an Aztec code) when a button is pressed. This would be cryptographically signed by the machine with the date, time and location.

If you appear at a barrier or are challenged by a staff member you would be required to present this slip.

If the slip machine is positioned at the station entrance it is unlikely to be close enough for someone to leave the train, obtain a slip and return to it before it leaves.

This would reduce short faring at unbarriered stations.
The machine would however require a power supply, but most stations have one for lighting regardless.

 

[Meerkat]

I cycle but also take the train. It would be great to have more long distance cycle paths but I don't like pitting cycle infrastructure against rail. We should be providing both. Cyclists don't necessarily want to go the same routes that old rail lines did.

I'd like to see the creation of a proper national cycle network of off-road paths, but we should create this from scratch based on where people want to cycle.

The FNL is probably the only way that happens up there!

This is the railway closures guidance document dated 18 October 2006 based on the Railways Act 2005. For any line or station closure this is the document that must be followed. Anyone suggesting that a railway line should be closed should read this document and decide whether it is likely that any such closure would be proposed and approved.

It’s an Act of Parliament……it can be amended fairly easily by a government with a big majority…..

 

[pokemonsuper9]

You could provide PTT style machines at all stations that generate a boarding slip (containing an Aztec code) when a button is pressed. This would be cryptographically signed by the machine with the date, time and location.

If you appear at a barrier or are challenged by a staff member you would be required to present this slip.

If the slip machine is positioned at the station entrance it is unlikely to be close enough for someone to leave the train, obtain a slip and return to it before it leaves.

This would reduce short faring at unbarriered stations.
The machine would however require a power supply, but most stations have one for lighting regardless.

If a station doesn't have a ticket machine I can't imagine a significant amount of revenue going to be lost by short faring from it to be worth the effort to stop.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If a station doesn't have a ticket machine I can't imagine a significant amount of revenue going to be lost by short faring from it to be worth the effort to stop.

An advantage though is that even if a station does have a ticket machine, a machine that provides a boarding slip on pressing a button could still be used by passengers who haven't left sufficient time to buy a ticket before getting on the train (which is probably not the purpose HSTEd was thinking of but would be useful nonetheless). And it may help to deter people from lying to guards and ticket inspectors about where they boarded - if they know the ticket inspector can say, where's your boarding slip?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

An advantage though is that even if a station does have a ticket machine, a machine that provides a boarding slip on pressing a button could still be used by passengers who haven't left sufficient time to buy a ticket before getting on the train (which is probably not the purpose HSTEd was thinking of but would be useful nonetheless). And it may help to deter people from lying to guards and ticket inspectors about where they boarded - if they know the ticket inspector can say, where's your boarding slip?

I wouldn't bother setting up a whole seperate device for that, if this truly was a desireable function the TVM could do it (promise to pays are pretty much that, but require a little bit more involvement).

Someone about to miss a train isn't going to wait even a second or two for a piece of paper to print, especially in the middle of nowhere where the next train might not be for hours.

 

[The Ham]

I wouldn't bother setting up a whole seperate device for that, if this truly was a desireable function the TVM could do it (promise to pays are pretty much that, but require a little bit more involvement).

Someone about to miss a train isn't going to wait even a second or two for a piece of paper to print, especially in the middle of nowhere where the next train might not be for hours.

That's fine, set the rules so they then have a duty to report to the guard as soon as possible, otherwise it'll be assumed that they boarded at the start of the train's journey and charged accordingly if the guard approaches them.

 

[HSTEd]

If a station doesn't have a ticket machine I can't imagine a significant amount of revenue going to be lost by short faring from it to be worth the effort to stop.

Well TVMs that take cash are quite expensive, much more so than machines without the ability to take cash. We probably can't justify providing them reliably at enough stations to eliminate 'I want to pay cash' as an excuse.

The problem is that currently any non barriered station near a major station can be used as a loophole to allow short fare-ing or donuting.

A person at a barrier has no way to determine what station they started at so just has to sell whatever ticket they want.

A boarding slip prevents people doing that.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Well TVMs that take cash are quite expensive, much more so than machines without the ability to take cash. We probably can't justify providing them reliably at enough stations to eliminate 'I want to pay cash' as an excuse.

That's why promise to pay tickets exist (don't know if non-Northern TVMs print them, but they're a fun free way to get tickets from interesting stations). A token that says which station it was printed at, which station you've selected you're going to, and promising to pay cash at the first opportunity.

On the train without one and an RPI is on board, or not have cash? Penalty fare, simple.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I wouldn't bother setting up a whole seperate device for that, if this truly was a desireable function the TVM could do it (promise to pays are pretty much that, but require a little bit more involvement).

I think that is true. However, with a TVM there's always the possibility that there is a queue/someone spending several minutes working out which ticket they need, which means even someone arriving with several minutes to spare can't guarantee they have time to buy a ticket. If it's a machine that does nothing other than printing a slip saying, 'Boarded at this station at this time', and that process never takes more than the time for someone to hit the big green button plus a second or two to print, then it's much less likely that the machine won't be available.

Someone about to miss a train isn't going to wait even a second or two for a piece of paper to print, especially in the middle of nowhere where the next train might not be for hours.

Sure, if you've literally arrived the second the train is leaving, you have a problem. But if you're on the platform with 20 seconds to spare, then you can easily print it. Especially if the machine is sited at the platform entrance and in full view of the guard, and the guard is expected to hold the train for a few seconds if they can see someone is printing their boarding slip. For buying a full ticket that's more of a problem because buying a ticket can take a lot longer - so a person can arrive several minutes early (which to most non-rail-experts would be perfectly reasonable) and still have trouble buying a ticket from the machine in time.

 

[duffield]

...
It’s an Act of Parliament……it can be amended fairly easily by a government with a big majority…..

Only if it's clearly stated in their manifesto, so they are elected on a specific platform of making railway closure easier. Otherwise, it's surely the sort of thing the House of Lords would oppose bitterly and delay significantly.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Maybe the question which needs to be asked, given that these trains are so reliant on tax income, What's the harm in making train travel on such lines free?

As then the cost in subsidy based on per passenger km could shrink which is then arguably better value.

You probably wouldn't need much of an uplift for it to fall. For example if it currently costs £2.25 per passenger km with the income being £0.25 per passenger km, then to get the level of support to £2 per passenger km you'd need to see rail use increase by 20%

If there are a million passengers a year on the highland railways and they cost £100m a year to run then that would be the better part of £100/trip subsidy which is enormous by any reasonable measure.

 

[yorksrob]

It’s an Act of Parliament……it can be amended fairly easily by a government with a big majority…..

One that's arguably struggling with popularity as we speak.

I suggest that pursuing rail closures is unlikely to be a vote winner.

It is heartening to see that the 2005 act has a lot more protection for passengers, who would be adversely affected by closures, built into it, than the flimsy non- provisions of the 1960's.

 

[Brubulus]

One that's arguably struggling with popularity as we speak.

I suggest that pursuing rail closures is unlikely to be a vote winner.

It is heartening to see that the 2005 act has a lot more protection for passengers, who would be adversely affected by closures, built into it, than the flimsy non- provisions of the 1960's.

Would definitely be a bad headline, but could work if the closures can be redirected into local transport improvements instead of just sucked into general spending. Maybe have a bus service to Wick or Thurso, every hour guaranteed by Parliament. However the line itself should stay since it would be useful as a freight link for timber, nuclear or any other industries that might sprout up in the area. Which limits the savings.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Would definitely be a bad headline, but could work if the closures can be redirected into local transport improvements instead of just sucked into general spending. Maybe have a bus service to Wick or Thurso, every hour guaranteed by Parliament. However the line itself should stay since it would be useful as a freight link for timber, nuclear or any other industries that might sprout up in the area. Which limits the savings.

I cannot see that working politically especially in Scotland. Elected politicians would definitely say no to any railway line closures.

 

[Brubulus]

I cannot see that working politically especially in Scotland. Elected politicians would definitely say no to any railway line closures.

Yes, but given the physical track remains for freight and there would be a substantial reduction in journey times and increase in frequency, I can't see a real problem. I would however say that the only lines this is viable for is the FNL and Girvan-Stranraer. The Kyle line can stay as a heritage route, while there would be a passenger service as far as Tain on the FNL. The HOWL would be too politically toxic to close, Heysham Port isn't worth it to close.

 

[A S Leib]

Does Berney Arms fall under 'not worth closing', even if more investment were put into links between Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft?

 

[Brubulus]

Does Berney Arms fall under 'not worth closing', even if more investment were put into links between Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft?

Yep, it's a useful route where the costs caused by it's existence are relatively low. I wouldn't support spending millions to keep it open, as with Heysham Port.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Does Berney Arms fall under 'not worth closing', even if more investment were put into links between Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft?

Yep, it's a useful route where the costs caused by it's existence are relatively low. I wouldn't support spending millions to keep it open, as with Heysham Port.

The line is worth keeping as an alternative route into Great Yarmouth but I see no point in keeping Berney Arms Station and I doubt if there would be any serious objection to closing it.

 

[duffield]

The line is worth keeping as an alternative route into Great Yarmouth but I see no point in keeping Berney Arms Station and I doubt if there would be any serious objection to closing it.

Isn't it quite popular with walkers in good weather?

 

[Technologist]

Only if it's clearly stated in their manifesto, so they are elected on a specific platform of making railway closure easier. Otherwise, it's surely the sort of thing the House of Lords would oppose bitterly and delay significantly.

All of those things are conventions and frankly pretty terrible ones. Most people who vote for the governing party haven't read the manifesto and 55-65% of the voting population didn't vote for that manifesto.

The Lords can be overruled and frankly won't be going to war on something that is a pretty minor issue on a national level.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Wouldn’t a smarter approach to be to maintain these very rural lines to a lower cheaper standard.

 

[HSTEd]

Wouldn’t a smarter approach to be to maintain these very rural lines to a lower cheaper standard.

Until those lower standards lead to a highly publicised accident with casualties.

Then whoever proposed it will subjected the court if public opinion

 

[duffield]

All of those things are conventions and frankly pretty terrible ones. Most people who vote for the governing party haven't read the manifesto and 55-65% of the voting population didn't vote for that manifesto.

The Lords can be overruled and frankly won't be going to war on something that is a pretty minor issue on a national level.

The relevance of the manifesto is not whether anyone has read it or how many voted for it, it's entirely about that pretty solid convention that the Lords never seriously attempt to block clear manifesto commitments.

And I think rural railway closures are *exactly* the sort of thing the Lords would go to war on, and cause serious delays to. While the government could of course ultimately override them (if they didn't run out of time before the following election), it would bring the whole issue onto the national agenda, get presented as the start of "Beeching mark II" by its opponents, cause other knock-on legislative congestion and be a PR disaster for the government.

 

[weeklycommuter]

It’s an Act of Parliament……it can be amended fairly easily by a government with a big majority…..

There is no need to change the legislation, lines and stations can be closed using the existing legislation. Some very small branch lines such as Weymouth Quay Branch and Station have been closed. Some stations have been closed to be replaced by others. I just cannot see politicians agreeing to close railway lines such as the Far North Line which form substantial parts of the railway network. It is academic whether such closures are possible under the existing law as politicians are not going to change the law to enable them to do something which they do not want to do.