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

[HSTEd]

If the Far North line was to be shut, couldn’t the southern section to Tain be retained as a commuter line to Inverness?

I do think it is quite telling that the line to Tain (excluding inverness) has something like three quarters of the passenger entries and exits on a quarter of the line length.

You could probably make an argument for a single platform station at the south end of the Dornoch Firth Bridge for the easiest connection to the bus though.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I do think it is quite telling that the line to Tain (excluding inverness) has something like three quarters of the passenger entries and exits on a quarter of the line length.

Hardly a surprise. I'd imagine the statistics would be comparable for any line that runs from a large city to somewhere more rural, and which has a frequent service near the city thinning out as you get to the country end of the line: Most passengers are going to be at the more urban, and higher frequency, end of the line.

 

[Egg Centric]

The money doesn’t disappear

It always amuses me on this sort of thread how many people deny this incredibly basic accounting/economics fact.

Having said that, those who say it won't go on rail also have a point*. So we need to decide what we want to do with the railways otherwise there's not much point.

Personally I'm good with subsidising the basket cases, especially if it's Scottish tax payers doing it rather than me. But I recognise others do not have my love for the railways and tbh perversely the more "modern" they get the less I want to subsidise them. I'm not interested in subsidising a battery multiple unit without a soul when rationally speaking a coach service is better. I want to subsidise nothing later than the sprinter generation, and preferably much earlier. I'm very happy with that.

*It absolutely will go somewhere though and that's the key point being missed. Either lowering the tax burden which is already ridiculous, or paying for other public services/investment. It will not disappear.

 

[GusB]

I'm not interested in subsidising a battery multiple unit without a soul when rationally speaking a coach service is better.

What exactly do you mean by "soul"?

 

[Egg Centric]

What exactly do you mean by "soul"?

I wish I could define it but broadly speaking if it was running on the railway pre 1995 it has a soul, otherwise it doesn't, with certain exceptions both ways

Coincidentally 1995 would have been about the time I got my first i-spy book of trains....

The main thing is for it to be non clinical. To have been designed by engineers rather than marketers. Whatever that means. And to not be too good! It should have quirks and break down occasionally. But equally bits should be over specified and far too good (see e.g. the seat layout on first class mk4 coaches with that delightful kink in the middle that gives a 1 x 1 section).

This applies to other forms of transport e.g. cars. I've posted on here about getting a blisteringly quick tesla, which is excellent for overtaking everyone. Great piece of tech and I don't regret it. But it has no soul. You need a noisy engine for a car to have a soul. Similarly most passenger jets no longer have a soul, they're just variations on the same design. Is the accommodation inside for passengers (at least in J/F class) far better? Absoluetly. But they're boring.

I could go on but surely any transport enthuisast knows what I mean?

 

[The Ham]

I wish I could define it but broadly speaking if it was running on the railway pre 1995 it has a soul, otherwise it doesn't, with certain exceptions both ways

Coincidentally 1995 would have been about the time I got my first i-spy book of trains....

The main thing is for it to be non clinical. To have been designed by engineers rather than marketers. Whatever that means. And to not be too good! It should have quirks and break down occasionally. But equally bits should be over specified and far too good (see e.g. the seat layout on first class mk4 coaches with that delightful kink in the middle that gives a 1 x 1 section).

This applies to other forms of transport e.g. cars. I've posted on here about getting a blisteringly quick tesla, which is excellent for overtaking everyone. Great piece of tech and I don't regret it. But it has no soul. You need a noisy engine for a car to have a soul. Similarly most passenger jets no longer have a soul, they're just variations on the same design. Is the accommodation inside for passengers (at least in J/F class) far better? Absoluetly. But they're boring.

I could go on but surely any transport enthuisast knows what I mean?

The issue you explain has been around for a long time, basically whatever the situation was when the individual was in their youth has changed to being something new.

Talk to older generations and there would be people saying that diesels have no soul, they just rumble on, they don't have the same life as a steam train. Then there would have been those between them and those who love electric trains who would say that electric trains have no soul, how can they when they're so quiet.

Same with other forms of transport, and I wouldn't be surprised if it carried on being something which happens.

It's one area where driverless cars may become unstuck (at least in the short term), in that people like the excitement of driving and so will not want to give that up.

It always amuses me on this sort of thread how many people deny this incredibly basic accounting/economics fact.

Having said that, those who say it won't go on rail also have a point*. So we need to decide what we want to do with the railways otherwise there's not much point.

Personally I'm good with subsidising the basket cases, especially if it's Scottish tax payers doing it rather than me. But I recognise others do not have my love for the railways and tbh perversely the more "modern" they get the less I want to subsidise them. I'm not interested in subsidising a battery multiple unit without a soul when rationally speaking a coach service is better. I want to subsidise nothing later than the sprinter generation, and preferably much earlier. I'm very happy with that.

*It absolutely will go somewhere though and that's the key point being missed. Either lowering the tax burden which is already ridiculous, or paying for other public services/investment. It will not disappear.

The thing with public transport is that it allows more people to get about than if there were only cars available as a form of travel.

By allowing those unable to drive to go places, but also by being able to typically carry more people than cars typically do for a comparable amount of road capacity it reduces the impact of congestion.

A bus carrying just 8 people is typically carrying the same number of people as about 5 cars, yet it's only taking up the road space of 2.

As I've highlighted previously the total cost to run all public transport for free is £1,000 per tax payer (as a comparison the total cost to each tax payer of government spending is £32,000), however the actual extra cost to do so (bearing in mind that public transport already receives government spending) would be much less than that.

That's also before you consider other savings, for example due to people walking a little more being healthier, reduced need for new roads, reduced impact on the economy from road congestion (& road injuries).

However even at £1,000 per tax payer to them have the potential to go by public transport for free could create significant personal savings and savings to business.

However, that £1,000 wouldn't all be from taxes that they would be personally paying (in the same way that the average tax payer isn't personally paying £32,000).

 

[Bald Rick]

The vast amounts being ploughed into the A9 for purely political reasons (it isn't all that busy, and it isn't particularly unsafe)

AIUI the A9 uograde is all south of Inverness. I use that oart of the A9 several times a year, and whenever I am on it it is always very busy. I only tend to use it from April to October, which is I guess busier than the other half of the year. Last time I used it I was in a constant flow of traffic doing around 40mph for about 30 miles from Dalnamein to Dunkeld (except for the dual carriageway sections where we got up to 60mph, before coming to a stand at the merge).

The accident rate seems to have dropped since the average speed cameras were insitituted, and also since the two newer sections of dual carriageway opened to help overtaking. That is only anecdotal by me though, I haven’t seen the figures.


A friend of mine went on the FNL this week, and reported the trains nearly empty. Oh and no-one boarded or alighted at Altnabreac

 

[HighlandStorm]

being brought in by

Not sure what happened to the rest of the quote ! But if this years pipes were not going by rail I think there’d be quite a noise about it and would have heard ! They can cause chaos on the northern A9 when moved by road!

A friend of mine went on the FNL this week, and reported the trains nearly empty. Oh and no-one boarded or alighted at Altnabreac

So here’s a question for Bald Rick - what if lines discussed in this thread were partially closed and savings spent on the remainder - given some have suggested the cost of the FNL is far above the ScotRail figures.

How many years of closure say north of Ardgay, would it take for the savings to pay for electrification of Inverness to Ardgay.

I’d be tempted to add crawler lanes or a viaduct at Berriedale to the required compensatory works !

 

[Bald Rick]

How many years of closure say north of Ardgay, would it take for the savings to pay for electrification of Inverness to Ardgay.

About six months.

Battery EMUs, and three short sections of OLE for charging, one at each end and one in the middle.

My guesstimate!

 

[NCT]

Some figures from ScotRail:

https://www.scotrail.co.uk/media/3644/download?inline

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.

I didn't know these figures were available in the wild. Thanks for posting.

Goodness, I didn't know the Central Belt suburban services gobbled up so much subsidy, though per journey subsidy isn't too horrendous.

On these figures alone closing rural routes wouldn't make a huge difference, though I do as others wonder if the narrative were to change if the Network Grant were assigned to routes.

In terms of picking battles, I'd still focus efforts in improving the financial viability of the Central Belt routes. It won't be easy and it won't be instant. The yields really do need to improve - the recent announcement of abolishing peak fares is just buying votes. Glasgow (in particular) needs to be more explicitly anti-car and faster at densification. Or, put it this way, if subsidies are inevitable in the short term, pivot its funding source away from general taxation to a congestion charge. The SPT Zonecards are also far too cheap.

The 2014 franchise agreement had a no standing for more than 10 minutes requirement. Scrap that and refurbish rolling stock to high density layouts (and order new rolling stock with high density layouts). Rather than run 6-car / 7-car 380s just run 4-car trains at 4 to the square metre. This would improve passenger km / vehicle km ratio.

 

[Indigo Soup]

AIUI the A9 uograde is all south of Inverness. I use that oart of the A9 several times a year, and whenever I am on it it is always very busy. I only tend to use it from April to October, which is I guess busier than the other half of the year. Last time I used it I was in a constant flow of traffic doing around 40mph for about 30 miles from Dalnamein to Dunkeld (except for the dual carriageway sections where we got up to 60mph, before coming to a stand at the merge).

The accident rate seems to have dropped since the average speed cameras were insitituted, and also since the two newer sections of dual carriageway opened to help overtaking. That is only anecdotal by me though, I haven’t seen the figures.

I use that part of the A9 on a weekly basis. AADT does not generally exceed the capacity of a well-engineered two-lane road except on the Inverness bypass section. Targeted sections of dual carriageway to allow overtaking (i.e. broadly the current situation) are entirely adequate for flows of 13,000 to 16,000 vehicles per day, which is what the road sees.

The installation of average speed cameras has worked wonders both for the accident rate and for traffic flow. I don't have the figures to hand but it's certainly been cited as a success. One does of course come across the occasional person driving considerably below the speed limit, but that's likely to occur on any road.

South of Inveralmond is an altogether different proposition, and you can make a reasonable argument that it should be engineered to full motorway standards from Keir Roundabout to Broxden (if not a little further north to bypass Perth).

I didn't know these figures were available in the wild. Thanks for posting.
The yields really do need to improve - the recent announcement of abolishing peak fares is just buying votes. [...] The 2014 franchise agreement had a no standing for more than 10 minutes requirement. Scrap that and refurbish rolling stock to high density layouts (and order new rolling stock with high density layouts). Rather than run 6-car / 7-car 380s just run 4-car trains at 4 to the square metre. This would improve passenger km / vehicle km ratio.

Then watch as passengers abandon what will be perceived as overpriced, crowded (why am I paying so much and not even getting a seat!) trains for cars.

 

[35B]

In terms of picking battles, I'd still focus efforts in improving the financial viability of the Central Belt routes. It won't be easy and it won't be instant. The yields really do need to improve - the recent announcement of abolishing peak fares is just buying votes. Glasgow (in particular) needs to be more explicitly anti-car and faster at densification. Or, put it this way, if subsidies are inevitable in the short term, pivot its funding source away from general taxation to a congestion charge. The SPT Zonecards are also far too cheap.

The 2014 franchise agreement had a no standing for more than 10 minutes requirement. Scrap that and refurbish rolling stock to high density layouts (and order new rolling stock with high density layouts). Rather than run 6-car / 7-car 380s just run 4-car trains at 4 to the square metre. This would improve passenger km / vehicle km ratio.

Then watch as passengers abandon what will be perceived as overpriced, crowded (why am I paying so much and not even getting a seat!) trains for cars.

I agree. If the level of subsidy is unsustainable (and that is a political judgment), then care needs to be taken to offer a carrot rather than a stick to people to effect change. Telling them that they can't use their cars, because they're not allowed to, and then also downgrading the quality of service, is political suicide.

A technical ratio of operational efficiency (e.g. passenger km/vehicle km) is only indirectly related to the economics of offering the service; the focus needs to be on other ways of delivering a service that people will choose to use, and then determining what level of taxpayer support* is appropriate to enable that.

* - Without getting into debates about what constitutes "subsidy", we need to recognise that both road and rail receive significant tax money to allow them to operate to current levels. The choice of how to distribute that money between modes is fundamentally political, and may support greater public funding of rail to drive other policy objectives.

 

[NCT]

Rail mode is high where it is not because rail is particularly attractive (or financially attractive), but because driving and parking are prohibitively difficult (practically and financially). This is where Glasgow is going wrong - driving into the centre is too easy and too cheap, and there's an overabundance of out-of-town office and retail parks. The train is over subsidised but the car is even more over subsidised.

Even with the generosity of the Barnett formula the Scottish government has maxed out what it can do and more. There's already free prescription and free university tuition. Just like the rest of Europe Scotland has to grapple with an aging population - NHS and social care costs are going to continue to balloon and those can't be cut without causing a humanitarian disaster. Scotland has only very limited borrowing powers and the tax base is going to largely stagnant at best. The more discretionary areas of state spending will have to give. The idea that the railway could and should attract an ever increasing amount of public money is for the birds.

 

[HighlandStorm]

On a slight tangent to this thread - ScotRail has fitted 6 158s with StarLink for the FNL:

ScotRail kicks-off a new era in rail communication technology

Trains operating in the Scottish Highlands will offer unprecedented access to satellite technology – transforming how customers can stay connected when travelling with ScotRail.In a UK-first for onboard passenger Wi-Fi, ScotRail has worked with Clarus Networks to design a new system which allows...

www.scotrail.co.uk

With capacity of SD-WAN (software defined wide area networking) to functionally bond mixed internet connections such as low earth orbit satellites, multi network 4/5G and in vicinity of stations WiFi links there is scope to greatly improve resilience of onboard connectivity.

Does this open up the possibility for rolling out RETB on other rural route without the burden of dedicated radio infrastructure as exists on the north Highland and West Highland Lines?

RETBoIP (over internet protocol) - where multi carrier terrestrial links are combined with StarLink (or other low earth orbit network) to provide a resilient data ‘pipe’ over bonded redundant connections.

No new radio infrastructure required. Removes the transmission bottleneck that currently exists on RETB where both token exchange and voice require exclusive use of the radio frequency. While IP cab units could be a thing, the existing generation of cab units could be used with an adaptor without modifying the cab units or operation.

 

[HSTEd]

On a slight tangent to this thread - ScotRail has fitted 6 158s with StarLink for the FNL:

ScotRail kicks-off a new era in rail communication technology

Trains operating in the Scottish Highlands will offer unprecedented access to satellite technology – transforming how customers can stay connected when travelling with ScotRail.In a UK-first for onboard passenger Wi-Fi, ScotRail has worked with Clarus Networks to design a new system which allows...

www.scotrail.co.uk

With capacity of SD-WAN (software defined wide area networking) to functionally bond mixed internet connections such as low earth orbit satellites, multi network 4/5G and in vicinity of stations WiFi links there is scope to greatly improve resilience of onboard connectivity.

Does this open up the possibility for rolling out RETB on other rural route without the burden of dedicated radio infrastructure as exists on the north Highland and West Highland Lines?

RETBoIP (over internet protocol) - where multi carrier terrestrial links are combined with StarLink (or other low earth orbit network) to provide a resilient data ‘pipe’ over bonded redundant connections.

No new radio infrastructure required. Removes the transmission bottleneck that currently exists on RETB where both token exchange and voice require exclusive use of the radio frequency. While IP cab units could be a thing, the existing generation of cab units could be used with an adaptor without modifying the cab units or operation.

Given the repeated incidences of Elon MUsk using Starlink as a tool for his own personal foreign policy, I don't think tying any part of the railway to it in operational terms is going to go down well at all with Government.
OneWeb maybe, but it is an awful long way from having a sufficiently capable network for that.

You might as well just using ETCS 'Regional' which is functionally very similar to a conceptual 'RETB over ETCS'.

 

[35B]

Rail mode is high where it is not because rail is particularly attractive (or financially attractive), but because driving and parking are prohibitively difficult (practically and financially). This is where Glasgow is going wrong - driving into the centre is too easy and too cheap, and there's an overabundance of out-of-town office and retail parks. The train is over subsidised but the car is even more over subsidised.

Even with the generosity of the Barnett formula the Scottish government has maxed out what it can do and more. There's already free prescription and free university tuition. Just like the rest of Europe Scotland has to grapple with an aging population - NHS and social care costs are going to continue to balloon and those can't be cut without causing a humanitarian disaster. Scotland has only very limited borrowing powers and the tax base is going to largely stagnant at best. The more discretionary areas of state spending will have to give. The idea that the railway could and should attract an ever increasing amount of public money is for the birds.

My inner monetarist is inclined to agree with the basic analysis of government expenditure. However, you miss my point completely in terms of how this is turned around.

Oversimplifying somewhat, public policy can work by the carrot, or by the stick. If the purpose of policy is to encourage modal shift, then it is certainly possible to do so by penalising private motoring and compelling use of public transport - a stick approach. It is also possible to reduce the standard of accommodation on trains to reduce costs. Combining the two is a double dose of stick.

The political reaction to either of these sticks does not, frankly, suggest a likely road to success. Politicians want to be re-elected, and policies that consciously reduce individuals' quality of life, as perceived by those individuals, do not land well.

That means a more creative approach to achieving policy aims needs to be followed - with the same end objective in mind.

 

[NCT]

Having urban railways covering their operating cost and having continental levels of comfort isn't creating any precedents. Just because an area has been over pampered for too long doesn't mean the difficult politics must only ever be avoided.

The unfortunate reality is the railway will just bumble along in perpetual mediocrity. The amount of capital money required to deliver Scotland's (rephased) decarbonisation strategy and enhancements is actually a relatively small proportion of the annual ScotRail subsidy bill. Until that subsidy bill comes down there's no capital money.

 

[35B]

Having urban railways covering their operating cost and having continental levels of comfort isn't creating any precedents. Just because an area has been over pampered for too long doesn't mean the difficult politics must only ever be avoided.

The unfortunate reality is the railway will just bumble along in perpetual mediocrity. The amount of capital money required to deliver Scotland's (rephased) decarbonisation strategy and enhancements is actually a relatively small proportion of the annual ScotRail subsidy bill. Until that subsidy bill comes down there's no capital money.

I don't suggest any precedents, merely that existing precedents already indicate how policy levers do and do not work to achieve wider goals.

The post-war railways bumbled along in mediocrity for most of that time because politicians expected them both to pay their way, and did not define what purposes they were to serve. That lack of definition continues in the assertions of some that railways are intrinsically a good thing, and that they must never be closed even where it is at least arguable (see Stranraer) that they neither serve no particularly useful purpose nor have a reasonable prospect of so doing.

What I object to is the hair shirt approach to expenditure, which presumes that the only reasonable goal is to minimise expenditure and that people must be compelled to follow the "best" approach. I dislike it on principle, and I also dislike it practically - as it simply does not work.

 

[NCT]

I don't suggest any precedents, merely that existing precedents already indicate how policy levers do and do not work to achieve wider goals.

The post-war railways bumbled along in mediocrity for most of that time because politicians expected them both to pay their way, and did not define what purposes they were to serve. That lack of definition continues in the assertions of some that railways are intrinsically a good thing, and that they must never be closed even where it is at least arguable (see Stranraer) that they neither serve no particularly useful purpose nor have a reasonable prospect of so doing.

What I object to is the hair shirt approach to expenditure, which presumes that the only reasonable goal is to minimise expenditure and that people must be compelled to follow the "best" approach. I dislike it on principle, and I also dislike it practically - as it simply does not work.

Existing precedents also indicate a self-funding railway (in operation only I hasten to add) is possible.

The railway has been successful in maintaining and growing the tax base where it's been self funding and investment cases can be more easily made - where the London & South East and Intercity TOCs operate.

With a stagnant tax base, an aging society and no meaningful borrowing powers the budget constraint is practically fixed. There's a statutory duty in meeting health and social care needs, whereas how to operate a railway has choices. With a fixed budget, an immovable health and social care obligation, and a desperate need to raise productivity, the money that's left needs to move towards investment and away from revenue spending.

The railway's job is to get people to work, not to get people to work in excess comfort. The margin subsidy for moving from 4 to the square metre to everyone seated goes into excessive consumer surplus that doesn't get back to government coffers. It's a spend not an investment. Where there is a genuine choice between tax funding and charge funding, then minimising expenditure is a perfectly valid approach.

There have been years and decades of wasteful carrots and we've at a point where only sticks are available. It's better to be straight with the electorate on the hard choices available and make controlled policy changes, than to wait until the harsh reality forces you into a corner where you have no control whatsoever. Today this reality is frozen capital investment. Tomorrow that reality is going to be forced reductions in rail service levels (ScotRail is already teetering) and worsening health and social care outcomes.

 

[yorksrob]

Existing precedents also indicate a self-funding railway (in operation only I hasten to add) is possible.

The railway has been successful in maintaining and growing the tax base where it's been self funding and investment cases can be more easily made - where the London & South East and Intercity TOCs operate.

With a stagnant tax base, an aging society and no meaningful borrowing powers the budget constraint is practically fixed. There's a statutory duty in meeting health and social care needs, whereas how to operate a railway has choices. With a fixed budget, an immovable health and social care obligation, and a desperate need to raise productivity, the money that's left needs to move towards investment and away from revenue spending.

The railway's job is to get people to work, not to get people to work in excess comfort. The margin subsidy for moving from 4 to the square metre to everyone seated goes into excessive consumer surplus that doesn't get back to government coffers. It's a spend not an investment. Where there is a genuine choice between tax funding and charge funding, then minimising expenditure is a perfectly valid approach.

There have been years and decades of wasteful carrots and we've at a point where only sticks are available. It's better to be straight with the electorate on the hard choices available and make controlled policy changes, than to wait until the harsh reality forces you into a corner where you have no control whatsoever. Today this reality is frozen capital investment. Tomorrow that reality is going to be forced reductions in rail service levels (ScotRail is already teetering) and worsening health and social care outcomes.

No, the railway isn't there "just to get people to work", it's there to facilitate people in all of their economic activity.

Ultimately a railway that's "bumbling along" but comprehensive and comparatively cheap for people to use due to subsidy, is of far more use to the public overall, than a shiny highish investment, expensive to use railway that only serves areas that roughly cover their operating cost.

The self-funding eras of InterCity and NSE were impressive, but they were never the whole country.

 

[35B]

Existing precedents also indicate a self-funding railway (in operation only I hasten to add) is possible.

The railway has been successful in maintaining and growing the tax base where it's been self funding and investment cases can be more easily made - where the London & South East and Intercity TOCs operate.

With a stagnant tax base, an aging society and no meaningful borrowing powers the budget constraint is practically fixed. There's a statutory duty in meeting health and social care needs, whereas how to operate a railway has choices. With a fixed budget, an immovable health and social care obligation, and a desperate need to raise productivity, the money that's left needs to move towards investment and away from revenue spending.

The railway's job is to get people to work, not to get people to work in excess comfort. The margin subsidy for moving from 4 to the square metre to everyone seated goes into excessive consumer surplus that doesn't get back to government coffers. It's a spend not an investment. Where there is a genuine choice between tax funding and charge funding, then minimising expenditure is a perfectly valid approach.

There have been years and decades of wasteful carrots and we've at a point where only sticks are available. It's better to be straight with the electorate on the hard choices available and make controlled policy changes, than to wait until the harsh reality forces you into a corner where you have no control whatsoever. Today this reality is frozen capital investment. Tomorrow that reality is going to be forced reductions in rail service levels (ScotRail is already teetering) and worsening health and social care outcomes.

Without disagreeing on the fundamentals, I stand by my view that a policy that is based on sticks is unlikely to work, and will not deliver the results that are politically necessary.

 

[The Ham]

Existing precedents also indicate a self-funding railway (in operation only I hasten to add) is possible.

The railway has been successful in maintaining and growing the tax base where it's been self funding and investment cases can be more easily made - where the London & South East and Intercity TOCs operate.

With a stagnant tax base, an aging society and no meaningful borrowing powers the budget constraint is practically fixed. There's a statutory duty in meeting health and social care needs, whereas how to operate a railway has choices. With a fixed budget, an immovable health and social care obligation, and a desperate need to raise productivity, the money that's left needs to move towards investment and away from revenue spending.

The railway's job is to get people to work, not to get people to work in excess comfort. The margin subsidy for moving from 4 to the square metre to everyone seated goes into excessive consumer surplus that doesn't get back to government coffers. It's a spend not an investment. Where there is a genuine choice between tax funding and charge funding, then minimising expenditure is a perfectly valid approach.

There have been years and decades of wasteful carrots and we've at a point where only sticks are available. It's better to be straight with the electorate on the hard choices available and make controlled policy changes, than to wait until the harsh reality forces you into a corner where you have no control whatsoever. Today this reality is frozen capital investment. Tomorrow that reality is going to be forced reductions in rail service levels (ScotRail is already teetering) and worsening health and social care outcomes.

Unless the line is not at all used other than for passengers (very few are), then you've still got to fund the line to keep it open for freight. As such part of the high costs of running the passenger services are likely including their share of the infrastructure base costs.

If the base costs are being split between passenger and freight then the cost of subsidy of the passenger services may not actually be able to be saved.

Let's say passenger subsidy of a line is 100, with a cost to run the actual trains is 30, it's share of the infrastructure cost is 105 and the income from tickets is 35.

As such if you cut the passenger services you would actually have to increase the amount of spending by 5.

Likewise, (with a different set of numbers) subsidy is 100, cost to run the trains is 30, it's share of the infrastructure costs is 105 and the income from tickets is 32.

As such we could save 3 - which isn't very much. However, if the cost to run replacement buses/coaches is 3, then the cost would be the same but with a LOT of political fallout from withdrawing rail services.

It would be interesting to see how much of the infrastructure costs is allocated in the subsidy costs and how much of that would go away without passenger services.

 

[stuu]

Unless the line is not at all used other than for passengers (very few are), then you've still got to fund the line to keep it open for freight. As such part of the high costs of running the passenger services are likely including their share of the infrastructure base costs.

A significant amount of of the rail network sees no freight ever, at least half if not more.

 

[The Ham]

A significant amount of of the rail network sees no freight ever, at least half if not more.

indeed, but the lines being discussed appear to typically have freight (it was in that context that my comment was made).

 

[Technologist]

indeed, but the lines being discussed appear to typically have freight (it was in that context that my comment was made).

Well in that case the argument is why isn't the freight user paying a proportionate cost for the infrastructure?

 

[35B]

Well in that case the argument is why isn't the freight user paying a proportionate cost for the infrastructure?

Because policy decisions have been made to load the costs to the passenger railway. @The Ham makes an interesting point, but it assumes that loss of passenger service would not result in cost savings through changes in the maintenance regime.

 

[stuu]

indeed, but the lines being discussed appear to typically have freight (it was in that context that my comment was made).

You said "very few are" used by only passenger trains. Which isn't true

 

[yorksrob]

Because policy decisions have been made to load the costs to the passenger railway. @The Ham makes an interesting point, but it assumes that loss of passenger service would not result in cost savings through changes in the maintenance regime.

And this is the problem.

Freight should be subsidised openly, so that people can associate those costs with fewer lorries on the road. Unfortunately because these costs are pushed onto the regional passenger railway, a proportion of the population will just think they're subsidising Billy no-car up north somewhere, and not appreciate the environmental benefit they get.

 

[HSTEd]

Well in that case the argument is why isn't the freight user paying a proportionate cost for the infrastructure?

Probably because it would come out quite expensive and prompt difficult questions, whilst destroying the idea of the "free enterprise" freight railway that the industry has worked so hard to cultivate for decades.

 

[duffield]

...
It should have quirks and break down occasionally. But equally bits should be over specified and far too good (see e.g. the seat layout on first class mk4 coaches with that delightful kink in the middle that gives a 1 x 1 section).
...

That's my favourite seat location on any current train!

But I do like some modern rolling stock, and some of them do have fun quirks - the class 755 FLIRT with its "power pack" section in the middle and its great little raised seating areas comes to mind, and also the cute little class 139 PPMs on the short branch to Stourbridge Town.

Anyhow getting back to the subject of the thread, I don't think the precedent setting effect should be ignored. Closing one or two lines with the biggest subsidies would kick up a big stink but might come with "cast iron" pledges of improved, "guaranteed" coach services etc. - however, once you've breached that political threshold, the outrage of closing another few "unviable" lines, and then another few would lose some news value and could be easier to withstand. Chopping off a few "twigs" at the edge of the network would remove some through journeys onto the less subsidised parts of the network, and make them "less viable", and so on.