-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should some longer rural routes be sacrificed and the money spent elsewhere on the network?
- Thread starter Nicholas Lewis
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
stevieinselby
Member
There have been plenty of justifications given, you've decided in your own mind that they don't count, if you close your eyes then of course you won't see.
It's a very simple equation - on one hand it costs a lot to serve a sparsely populated area, and on the other the current political view is that it's worth spending that money.
The other part of the topic title (spend it somewhere else on the railway) is total fantasy. If lines are closed, the railway budget will be cut accordingly, and probably by more then the subsidy.
Similar to the ideas for integrated bus services and helicopters/taxis connecting to them. Nice in theory but not going to happen in practise. If the line were closed, large areas of Scotland previously accessible by public transport will no longer be. Perhaps that's what some people here want.
(Assisted travel)
By putting extra time in the schedules to allow for it? And add that time into every single line section so the timetable can be maintained?
Turning an uncompetitive journey time into an absolute basket case?
Your position is that no rail infrastructure should ever close, which is entirely based on emotions rather than rationality. Which is fair enough but it's not a sensible basis for the allocation of scarce resources
How many times is wheelchair assistance required on the Far North line? If it's an infrequent event then you could get away with not timetabling for it. Also, how much of a time penalty would the driver doing it actually be compared to the guard doing it?
HighlandStorm
Member
Some figures from ScotRail:
The Far North Line service financials are not that different to Aberdeen local services.
The Glasgow Suburban network consumes over a third of the ScotRail subsidy.
Closing peripheral rural routes would be the start of something bad, not the end of the matter. A future with the E&G via Falkirk High as the only rail line left in Scotland is not something to aspire to!
The West Highland Line subsidy is low enough that one wonders whether a premium tourist offering could increase visitor yield enough to dent it. More comfortable rolling stock (particularly with regards temperature) and better onboard facilities would provide a journey experience that negates the road journey time advantage, and boost low season local usage.
www.theguardian.com
The Far North Line service financials are not that different to Aberdeen local services.
The Glasgow Suburban network consumes over a third of the ScotRail subsidy.
Closing peripheral rural routes would be the start of something bad, not the end of the matter. A future with the E&G via Falkirk High as the only rail line left in Scotland is not something to aspire to!
The West Highland Line subsidy is low enough that one wonders whether a premium tourist offering could increase visitor yield enough to dent it. More comfortable rolling stock (particularly with regards temperature) and better onboard facilities would provide a journey experience that negates the road journey time advantage, and boost low season local usage.
‘Polar express’: passengers hit out at cold conditions on Scottish train line
West Highland service regulars say they have to wear heavy coats, gloves, hats and scarves to stay warm
www.theguardian.com
pokemonsuper9
Established Member
Most schedules already don't have the time for a wheelchair user to board/disembark with help from the guard, the driver doing the assistance wouldn't cost that much time.
A little bit of delay in the odd case a wheelchair user needs to board is likely acceptable.
Or rather, all the many arguments put forward on this thread for retention far outweigh the rather flimsy arguments against.
Actually, I've given plenty of realistic reasons on this thread alone, why the Far North and similar lines shouldn't close. People choose to believe that any savings from such a closure will magically translate into substantially improved services elsewhere.
How much do those figures include the costs Network Rail incurs in maintaining the lines?
I have.
Killingworth
Established Member
To get to the Far North Line you first need to use the Highland Mainline which runs parallel to the A9 for quite some way. Although trains reach some good speeds there are times road vehicles overtake trains, especially on dual carriageway sections. Work is currently underway to dual more of it so trains can gain every time road traffic is held up by lights. Trains lose out again when looped for a train of Tesco containers coming the other way!
What's subsidised most, rail or road? How's the calculation made? Observation from sitting on a comfortable train suggests the answer is academic. Road is creating far more traffic than trains. I say that having first been taken to the Highlands by train over 60 years ago and driven most of it since. I see a big drop in rail traffic and massive increases in travel by road.
Should all lines be closed? Generally, no, but the reasons for retention of all of them may be more emotional than rational. Sorry Stranraer, my grandfather passed through several times a year for business in Ireland - 100 years ago via Carlisle and Dumfries. Today I'm sure he'd make those journeys by air.
With a station between the old Harbour and the unused East pier it's too far away from today's ferry terminals and a bleak walk from the rather rundown town. It's a total anachronism and if logic was applied the line would be cut back to Girvan. It probably won't be, not least because annual passenger numbers since Covid haven't increased as much as on other lines due to the closure after the Ayr station hotel fire. They need longer to recover. However, the passenger loadings on individual services seen in this data from the Railway Data website don't suggest a long term future; https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/loadings/gbr/?TLC=STR
Last edited:
stevieinselby
Member
You might not think that the justifications stack up, but that isn't the same as claiming that none have been given.
HighlandStorm
Member
What is the ultimate source of data into that modelling? I ask because out of curiosity I looked up Inverness Airport Station.
It suggests only 6 people a day use the station! It also suggests that the 20:18 departure from Aberdeen is carrying no passengers when it leaves Nairn and the 22:00 departure from Aberdeen is carrying 1 passenger west of Nairn.
Frankly I'm calling bull on those figures, I’ve never been alone on either of those services.
Killingworth
Established Member
That doesn't mean they're wrong - but I'd ask the same question! I'm not surprised to see so few boarding or alighting at a new station but through passenger numbers shouldn't be influenced by that. See Inverness Airport; https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/loadings/gbr/?TLC=IVA
I've compared the figures quoted on Railway Data for my local station and see big differences between them and what I know is reality. We're digressing on this but as a specific example Northern's 2S70 arrives at Dore at 7.49 and leaves for Sheffield at 7.57 providing a warm waiting room for the 7 minute journey. The Railway Data says it picks up an average of 3. My observation would say between 20 on Fridays to over 40 Tuesday-Thursday. TPE's following 8.04 would only pick up 25 if the Northern service had been delayed behind it, 5-10 more normal. See; https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/loadings/gbr/?TLC=DOR )
Uncle Buck
Member
My understanding is that islanders generally use the coaches, which are much faster, with the railway being used mainly by tourists.
What would you say are the key points in favour?
As I see it the main one is that the money for this line could be used elsewhere.
There's two problems with this:
- it's unlikely to happen, it's likely to just be lost from the DfT budget and never seen again
- no one has suggested what it should be spent on instead
On the second point, if a service could be provided commercially then it doesn't need the money (the fact that DfT doesn't allow it is more of the issue - there's probably several services which could be improved which could reduce the subsidy to the government - potentially more so than the savings from removing passenger services from these sorts of lines).
If a service needs a subsidy, then how do you pick which services get the share of the savings and which ones don't? Arguably, it's politically less of an own goal not to change things, even if many would question if it's the best use of money.
Take for example if there was money to improve a service to Liverpool or a service to Manchester, whichever was picked would result in arguments from the other. Liverpool would likely claim that they have yet again been let down in favour of Manchester, whilst if it went the other way, Manchester would likely claim that it would have a better chance of being commercially successful due to Manchester having a larger population than Liverpool.
That's on top of the political negativity from removing passenger services and the potential negative reaction from other lines which (rightly or wrongly) assume that their rail service is next to be cut.
As such, even if it costs £100 million a year, the bad press isn't worth making changes. Also it will negatively impact the economy of the area - as whilst tourists may be the main users of the railways, that doesn't mean that they'll use coach replacements and will then spend their money elsewhere (which may include overseas, which means it's a loss to the UK economy but just the local economy).
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I don't on balance want to see the Far North Line closed, so the following is to some extent playing Devil's Advocate but:
I'm not fully convinced that that a saving from closing the Far North Line would just 'disappear'. It very much depends on how the Government chooses to fund the railways in the following decades: If it decides that there is a certain amount it is willing to pay to subsidise trains and it's up to the railways to decide how to use that money, then it's likely that keeping the Far North Line open would be reducing the subsidy available to keep some services running elsewhere (although it would be almost impossible to identify which specific lines are the ones losing out). On the other hand, if the Government works by asking the railways how much money is needed to run a chosen level of service and then just coughs up that money however much it is, then closing the Far North Line would have no impact on other services.
If you wanted to reallocate Far North Line money elsewhere, one possible way to do it would be to get the Government to agree that in return for closing it, a specific sum of money saved (equivalent to, say, 10 year's worth of FNL subsidy) would be allocated to making some one-off investment on doing something else that is otherwise not currently funded. Something like re-opening Grangemouth or St Andrews or grade separating the junction where the Tweedbank line leaves the ECML (Those are just examples for the sake of examples. I have no idea how the costs of those match up).
Also, from a wider perspective, if someone is concerned about Government deficit and sound economics, they might feel that closing the Far North Line is on balance beneficial to the country as a whole on the grounds that it saves the Government a lot of money thereby either reducing the Government deficit or allowing more money to be spent on education or the NHS, without (allegedly) inconveniencing that many people.
I'm not fully convinced that that a saving from closing the Far North Line would just 'disappear'. It very much depends on how the Government chooses to fund the railways in the following decades: If it decides that there is a certain amount it is willing to pay to subsidise trains and it's up to the railways to decide how to use that money, then it's likely that keeping the Far North Line open would be reducing the subsidy available to keep some services running elsewhere (although it would be almost impossible to identify which specific lines are the ones losing out). On the other hand, if the Government works by asking the railways how much money is needed to run a chosen level of service and then just coughs up that money however much it is, then closing the Far North Line would have no impact on other services.
If you wanted to reallocate Far North Line money elsewhere, one possible way to do it would be to get the Government to agree that in return for closing it, a specific sum of money saved (equivalent to, say, 10 year's worth of FNL subsidy) would be allocated to making some one-off investment on doing something else that is otherwise not currently funded. Something like re-opening Grangemouth or St Andrews or grade separating the junction where the Tweedbank line leaves the ECML (Those are just examples for the sake of examples. I have no idea how the costs of those match up).
Also, from a wider perspective, if someone is concerned about Government deficit and sound economics, they might feel that closing the Far North Line is on balance beneficial to the country as a whole on the grounds that it saves the Government a lot of money thereby either reducing the Government deficit or allowing more money to be spent on education or the NHS, without (allegedly) inconveniencing that many people.
Indigo Soup
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2018
- Messages
- 1,412
Many of the folks on here advocating closing rural lines and withdrawing services appear to live in or near large cities and exclusively travel to large cities.
Not if you start in Inverness. Or Aberdeen. And certainly not if you start in Thurso - though you may subsequently use the Highland Main Line.
The vast amounts being ploughed into the A9 for purely political reasons (it isn't all that busy, and it isn't particularly unsafe) would fund an awful lot of railway improvements. Or even a reasonable number of strategic roads projects that would be more useful.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
To be fair that's what railways do best.
Indigo Soup
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2018
- Messages
- 1,412
It's also the way the UK population is distributed - something like half to two-thirds of the population lives in a quarter of the land area. The London-Bristol-Liverpool-Leeds area is only about 20% larger than the Highland local authority, and contains eight or nine of the UK's ten largest cities depending on how you define 'largest city'. The transport - and indeed healthcare, education, emergency services, and so forth - needs of those two areas are of course very different.
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 7,570
Which is where railways are most competitive and indeed essential, due to high population density and over crowded roads.
By contrast rural areas with a low population density don't have the population to support a decent rail service, and the quiet roads mean cars (and buses) are faster and more convenient.
There is already a bus/coach service parallel to the railway. Why would it disappear because the railway did?!
The money doesn’t disappear. Reducing unjustifiable government spending is a good thing. All the “well it’s only £100m” spending quickly adds up……
How many tourists wouldnt go if they couldn’t use FNL? Most of them will drive instead, stop off more, and put more money into the local economy.
Killer A9 - Wikipedia
Investment in the A9 improves life for everybody north of Inverness, much more so than railway investment.
Your post contradicts itself - the road is dangerous and so we should invest in it and close the railway line - driving more people and inducing more demand on to the dangerous means of transport while abandoning the relatively safe railway.There is already a bus/coach service parallel to the railway. Why would it disappear because the railway did?!
The money doesn’t disappear. Reducing unjustifiable government spending is a good thing. All the “well it’s only £100m” spending quickly adds up……
How many tourists wouldnt go if they couldn’t use FNL? Most of them will drive instead, stop off more, and put more money into the local economy.
Killer A9 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Investment in the A9 improves life for everybody north of Inverness, much more so than railway investment.
As for buses disappearing - no they wouldn't, but they don't serve the same stops as the railway. They serve a different purpose. The helicopters and taxis point was raised as an alternative to serving these smaller stops by train.
Let's not pretend the road hasn't been massively subsidised in the past either - the only reason it's so much quicker is exactly because we've built many expensive bridges and other projects to speed it up.
Killingworth
Established Member
Thought I'd hit a nerve with the A9 and HML comment!
Dualling the A9 is nice but does seem an extravagance when the much busier A1 between Edinburgh and Newcastle will probably still have single carriageway stretches in 15-20 years time.
Dualling more sections of the HML would be a good use of any savings made elsewhere. Long waits at wayside stations for late running services coming the other way prolong already lengthy journey times. Had time to pop to shops in Pitlochry on one delayed trip.
Would closing rail add a significant amount of traffic to the A9? And the money saved could negate that by being spent on safety improvement.
Which stops miss out if the FNL closes and the bus stays? Got to factor in that the rail competitor disappearing makes buses more viable.
Roads in rural areas are better investments as they help everybody, particularly in reducing business costs.
But its also fair to say that they'd be doing a lot less of it without the secondary routes to feed them.
Which is already accounted for by there being a much less dense network of routes in the Highlands than in Kent (for example).
Got any stats to back that up? Pretty certain it isn’t “a lot less”, more likely to be ‘very slightly less’.