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

[Indigo Soup]

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.

Not even the through journeys - just the fact that you've established a precedent of chopping off less-viable 'twigs' invites drawing a line that this twig is only slightly thicker than that twig, so if you're pruning one you might as well do both... and eventually you're back to Serpell.

 

[NCT]

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.

The railway should be there to grow the tax base, especially in the current financial and demographic climate.

Scotland's railway is underperforming compared to the mode share it ought to be delivering, and the reason for the underperformance isn't because tickets are too expensive.

The self-funding areas of Britain's railways support the highest rail trip rates in the country - 12-car trains running on minimum headways over four-track formations - not because the industry is running the capacity for the lolz but because there is the demand for it. That's the kind of the railway that truly serves the masses. Nobody in any walk of life should ever settle for mediocrity - everyone - and that means every corner of the UK - should strive for excellence. To imply that excellence means elitist or exclusive is plain wrong.

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.

Carrots are a modernised railway network and health and social care that's sufficiently funded. Carrots and sticks shouldn't be viewed through such narrow lenses.

There are things that may slowly be making rail demand more inelastic. Glasgow is making progress in repairing the central and inner urban fabric. Previously plentiful surface car parks are disappearing and new housing at urban densities are generating urban travel volumes. As roads become more and more congested and trains become busier you'll have to start rationing capacity, then a combination of economic levers and high density rolling stock will become the only ways of managing demand.

In any case, realistically, what choices are there? If you avoid making conscious choices about sticks, then eventually sticks in worse forms come to bite you in a completely uncontrolled manner.

 

[yorksrob]

The self-funding areas of Britain's railways support the highest rail trip rates in the country - 12-car trains running on minimum headways over four-track formations - not because the industry is running the capacity for the lolz but because there is the demand for it. That's the kind of the railway that truly serves the masses. Nobody in any walk of life should ever settle for mediocrity - everyone - and that means every corner of the UK - should strive for excellence. To imply that excellence means elitist or exclusive is plain wrong.

The Cumbrian coast doesn't need four tracks and twelve carriage trains on minimum headways. It needs a decent interval service with reasonable fares. That is what the masses around the country need.

 

[NCT]

The Cumbrian coast doesn't need four tracks and twelve carriage trains on minimum headways. It needs a decent interval service with reasonable fares. That is what the masses around the country need.

Over the last few posts I was talking mainly about the Central Belt suburban routes where most of the subsidy reduction opportunities lie.

 

[geordieblue]

The Cumbrian coast doesn't need four tracks and twelve carriage trains on minimum headways. It needs a decent interval service with reasonable fares. That is what the masses around the country need.

There are not masses of people on the Cumbrian coast. There are masses of people in the south east.

 

[MatthewHutton]

There are not masses of people on the Cumbrian coast. There are masses of people in the south east.

It’s not exactly politically viable for the railway to only support London.

And on the assumption that you aren’t going to shut a bunch of lines in general it is probably easier to boost revenues by increasing regional services

 

[GusB]

The self-funding areas of Britain's railways support the highest rail trip rates in the country - 12-car trains running on minimum headways over four-track formations - not because the industry is running the capacity for the lolz but because there is the demand for it. That's the kind of the railway that truly serves the masses. Nobody in any walk of life should ever settle for mediocrity - everyone - and that means every corner of the UK - should strive for excellence. To imply that excellence means elitist or exclusive is plain wrong.

I note that your location is "London".

London is the only place in the UK that will realistically support "12-car trains running on minimum heaways over four-track formations". Are you suggesting that every line outside of London that doesn't meet these requirments should be done away with?

 

[yorksrob]

There are not masses of people on the Cumbrian coast. There are masses of people in the south east.

There are not masses of people on the Cumbrian coast. There are masses of people in the south east.

Which is why there aren't frequent twelve carriage trains around the coast there

 

[geordieblue]

It’s not exactly politically viable for the railway to only support London.

And on the assumption that you aren’t going to shut a bunch of lines in general it is probably easier to boost revenues by increasing regional services

I’m not suggesting we shut regional routes - tbh I disagree with the premise of the thread - but just pointing out that rail plays a far more significant role in London’s economic wellbeing than the rest of the country - and that’s more structural rather than a result of underinvestment. And I’m a northerner!

 

[Indigo Soup]

London is the only place in the UK that will realistically support "12-car trains running on minimum heaways over four-track formations". Are you suggesting that every line outside of London that doesn't meet these requirments should be done away with?

The suggestion appears to be that the level of service be reduced until all trains are crush loaded, at which point everyone will abandon their cars in joy.

As an exercise, I've taken the ScotRail line-by-line financial figures posted upthread. and done some estimating.

If the average seat-mile utilisation in each of the four service groups (Greater Glasgow, East and Central Scotland, Intercity, and Rural and NE Scotland) were to increase to the maximum in that service class, and that revenue was to increase proportionately, the net subsidy required would go from £244 million to £60 million. More than half of that would come from increasing ridership on the Edinburgh-Glasgow route, the North Electrics, and the Argyle Line. There'd also be seat loadings over 100% - i.e. routine standing - on the latter two routes and the Cumbernauld-Falkirk line.

What @NCT seems to be suggesting is (e.g.) reducing the E&G trains from eight cars to something like three cars (bringing seat utilisation up to about 100%, with lots of standing at peak times). Doing the numbers - I'm assuming 100% seat utilisation for 'short' journeys and 80% for 'long' ones, more or less judged by eye but generally the former is suburban while the latter is intercity and rural, and no savings other than rolling stock - that brings the subsidy down to about £125 million.

In other words, it looks broadly like there's more benefit to the railway in figuring out how to fill the seats it has, than in reducing the number of seats to suit the number of passengers.

By comparison, closing the Far North, West Highland and Kilmarnock-Stranraer entirely would reduce the subsidy from £244 million to, erm, £225 million, even assuming no loss of contributory traffic. Hardly sums worth shouting about.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The suggestion appears to be that the level of service be reduced until all trains are crush loaded, at which point everyone will abandon their cars in joy.

That's a bit of a silly suggestion to be honest, given that the number of vehicles in a train isn't one of the biggest costs overall, particularly once those vehicles are getting old a bit (aside from the leasing structure, but GBR doesn't have to obtain rolling stock like that, it can purchase it like Merseyside did, it's just a question of what looks good on the Government balance sheet etc).

A more sensible argument might be to go for longer trains on lower frequencies with better resilience and well-planned connections, which was I think the basis of the "Tartan Taktfahrplan" in Scotland a while back? While the resilience is maybe not as good as it could be, I think that's in part where the new(ish) south WCML timetable came from? In particular the Marston Vale connections were basically Swiss style with the mainline, though they've been shifted a bit and shift again from this month so as to have better connections with EWR, or so say WMT.

When we're talking about lines like those under question here, though, I'm not sure Takt is the right way, rather specifically plan each train pair with a purpose. I did work out a Conwy Valley version of that a while back that actually created a more useful service by aiming specific journeys at specific purposes while reducing the number of journeys by one round trip per day. It was something like a round trip to pick up commuters and school kids to Llandudno, another a bit later for day walkers, a late lunchtime one for half day walkers going both ways and for lunch in Betws (there's enough time while the unit goes to Blaenau and back to have a decent meal in the Alpine cafe in the station, which is excellent), and one around 6pm for commuters and for full day walkers to come back, plus an additional late one on Friday for weekend holidaymakers staying in Llanrwst and Betws who have left Liverpool and Manchester after work. You could also do a 4pm ish bus round trip to take school kids home, they don't mind it being a bus. This sort of thing would be better than the blind "every 3 hours" it is at present. Saturdays and Sundays would be a bit different due to no school kids and different working patterns but the demands aside from that aren't that different particularly as much of the work is retail which works Saturday and Sunday rather than Mon-Fri 9-5 office work.

Might also be worth considering the walkers' trains only going as far as Betws with guaranteed bus connections beyond as that's where most of them are headed. You can as someone else said upthread do Moel Siabod from Roman Bridge but it's not a common way to do it, most start from the A5 side.

I suppose an element could also be to go for interiors that work for more standees so you don't need to up frequencies at peak times (again as Merseyside did, as did the West Midlands with the 730/0s) but if you just make everything full and standing all the time enough will just switch to the car. You can do that and price people off but it's not exactly going to sit well alongside environmental objectives.

 

[35B]

The suggestion appears to be that the level of service be reduced until all trains are crush loaded, at which point everyone will abandon their cars in joy.

As an exercise, I've taken the ScotRail line-by-line financial figures posted upthread. and done some estimating.

If the average seat-mile utilisation in each of the four service groups (Greater Glasgow, East and Central Scotland, Intercity, and Rural and NE Scotland) were to increase to the maximum in that service class, and that revenue was to increase proportionately, the net subsidy required would go from £244 million to £60 million. More than half of that would come from increasing ridership on the Edinburgh-Glasgow route, the North Electrics, and the Argyle Line. There'd also be seat loadings over 100% - i.e. routine standing - on the latter two routes and the Cumbernauld-Falkirk line.

What @NCT seems to be suggesting is (e.g.) reducing the E&G trains from eight cars to something like three cars (bringing seat utilisation up to about 100%, with lots of standing at peak times). Doing the numbers - I'm assuming 100% seat utilisation for 'short' journeys and 80% for 'long' ones, more or less judged by eye but generally the former is suburban while the latter is intercity and rural, and no savings other than rolling stock - that brings the subsidy down to about £125 million.

In other words, it looks broadly like there's more benefit to the railway in figuring out how to fill the seats it has, than in reducing the number of seats to suit the number of passengers.

By comparison, closing the Far North, West Highland and Kilmarnock-Stranraer entirely would reduce the subsidy from £244 million to, erm, £225 million, even assuming no loss of contributory traffic. Hardly sums worth shouting about.

Precisely what I was driving at - people need to be encouraged, not whipped. Then you get the results.

 

[mcmad]

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

The conversation seems to have broadened out somewhat but the original discussion was the lines North of Inverness and then the line to Stranraer. Freight traffic on these two is zero other than the occasional 'special waste' from Georgemas/Dounreay. As noted further up thread, Dounereay traffic will stop shortly. Pipes haven't been transported by rail for a good few years now I believe.

 

[Technologist]

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.

It's not particularly difficult to work out the negative externality of lorries on the road and to put that in a subsidy for rail freight (removing any climate based elements as, lorries can be EVs and the cost of fuel duties exceeds the calculated social cost of CO2 even with the most generous assumptions), then charge them the full access charge for whatever line they are using.

 

[yorksrob]

It's not particularly difficult to work out the negative externality of lorries on the road and to put that in a subsidy for rail freight (removing any climate based elements as, lorries can be EVs and the cost of fuel duties exceeds the calculated social cost of CO2 even with the most generous assumptions), then charge them the full access charge for whatever line they are using.

This is what should be done IMO.

 

[Meerkat]

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.

You are being a bit inconsistent. you want freight subsidy to be open but for basket case lines to have their subsidy hidden Amongst general passenger services

 

[Bletchleyite]

You are being a bit inconsistent. you want freight subsidy to be open but for basket case lines to have their subsidy hidden Amongst general passenger services

If it's all published in the accounts, cross-subsidy isn't "hiding" subsidy.

If you're opposed to cross-subsidy then you must also oppose the subsidy of evening and early morning journeys on otherwise profitable routes. I took a Pendolino from Birmingham to MKC on Tuesday evening, there were about 10 people on it (appeared to be none at all in first or standard premium). That service clearly did not make a profit, but is cross-subsidised as part of the whole day's service.

 

[nw1]

No I don't.
Once you close a line it will be very expensive to reopen.

We need to stop this kind of thinking. Maybe instead we need to be thinking about what discourages people from using those lines, and taking steps to fix it. For example, more frequent services/better connections to mainline trains/etc.

 

[eldomtom2]

If it's all published in the accounts, cross-subsidy isn't "hiding" subsidy.

If you're opposed to cross-subsidy then you must also oppose the subsidy of evening and early morning journeys on otherwise profitable routes. I took a Pendolino from Birmingham to MKC on Tuesday evening, there were about 10 people on it (appeared to be none at all in first or standard premium). That service clearly did not make a profit, but is cross-subsidised as part of the whole day's service.

But of course if you withdrew those early morning and late evening services you would probably lose more custom than just the passengers who actually use them...

 

[Brubulus]

No I don't.
Once you close a line it will be very expensive to reopen.

We need to stop this kind of thinking.

I agree in that any lines shut should be kept in good condition but without trains run on it. This then provides service and maintenance savings, though not to the same extent as full closure. Even then, closing the Far North Line to passengers beyond Tain is likely to generate substantial savings, enough to strengthen the bus service to provide a net increase in connectivity with a lot left over for rail projects and services that genuinely boost growth.

 

[HSTEd]

No I don't.
Once you close a line it will be very expensive to reopen.

We need to stop this kind of thinking. Maybe instead we need to be thinking about what discourages people from using those lines, and taking steps to fix it. For example, more frequent services/better connections to mainline trains/etc.

Most of these lines are not being used by people because people have no reason to travel to the places they serve. Or because the railway's fundamental design makes them unattractive.

Short of trying to build a huge city in Wick, the Far North Line will never be heavily loaded. Thats just the way it is.

The purpose of the modern railway is to move people to places they want to go, in an attractive manner.
Not maintain lines long bereft of real operational purpose just in case they might be useful in the distant future.

 

[35B]

Most of these lines are not being used by people because people have no reason to travel to the places they serve. Or because the railway's fundamental design makes them unattractive.

Short of trying to build a huge city in Wick, the Far North Line will never be heavily loaded. Thats just the way it is.

The purpose of the modern railway is to move people to places they want to go, in an attractive manner.
Not maintain lines long bereft of real operational purpose just in case they might be useful in the distant future.

It is also a legitimate political (rather than economic) decision to choose to maintain a line like the Far North despite the implausibility of it being self-funding. It serves a purpose, the question is whether it does so at acceptable cost.

 

[yorksrob]

You are being a bit inconsistent. you want freight subsidy to be open but for basket case lines to have their subsidy hidden Amongst general passenger services

Apples and oranges. There are different reasons and justifications for subsidising a passenger service as opposed to rail freight, so there's no contradiction in treating them differently.

The passenger service is a network. One day a passenger might have reason to go to Brighton on a main line, the other they might need to go to Cumbria. That's why it should be treated as one for the social good that broad service provides. By contrast, a passenger can't just hop on a flask train to Dungeness, so why should his subsidy be used to invisibly support it.


Put it this way, road and petrol tax for cars doesn't change depending on how rural your road is. But it should be the case that HGV's pay more to cover their greater wear.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But of course if you withdrew those early morning and late evening services you would probably lose more custom than just the passengers who actually use them...

I'm not sure you'd lose that much custom from people who are not using the services anyway. And on the other hand, you could argue you wouldn't even lose even all the people who actually are using those services - since some of those people would simply swap to the services that are still running.

 

[eldomtom2]

I'm not sure you'd lose that much custom from people who are not using the services anyway. And on the other hand, you could argue you wouldn't even lose even all the people who actually are using those services - since some of those people would simply swap to the services that are still running.

Personally I think "can I catch a later train if I miss the one I plan to take" is something people consider quite important when deciding what mode of transport to take.

 

[yorksrob]

But of course if you withdrew those early morning and late evening services you would probably lose more custom than just the passengers who actually use them...

I'm not sure you'd lose that much custom from people who are not using the services anyway. And on the other hand, you could argue you wouldn't even lose even all the people who actually are using those services - since some of those people would simply swap to the services that are still running.

It's more pernicious than people swapping to an earlier or later train. The service as a whole becomes less useful. You can't use it for a job with an early start, or a concert of an evening.

It degrades the usefulness of the whole service in peoples minds.

 

[Uncle Buck]

It's more pernicious than people swapping to an earlier or later train. The service as a whole becomes less useful. You can't use it for a job with an early start, or a concert of an evening.

It degrades the usefulness of the whole service in peoples minds.

But surely a service as infrequent and irregular as the service on some of these lines is not useful?

If there is an hourly service on a rural line, at least there is a modicum of certainty as to when it will run. If it runs any less than hourly I struggle to see the point of running it at all.

 

[778]

I first travelled the Kyle line in 1958. Corridor stock with a compartment for my rail enthusiast father and myself. Getting in as many miles as possible in a week was his aim. In the next compartment there was a loud conversation in a language we couldn't understand - Gaelic. Fellow travellers were heading for the Stornaway steamer moored at the end of the Kyle pier. We were able to get a good lunch aboard before our connecting boat from Mallaig arrived and we took that to Portree where it stayed overnight. This was integrated transport that clearly worked, although passenger numbers in August weren't great. We took the boat down to Mallaig the following morning for the West Highland line. No road bridge to Skye, it was a totally different world from today.

The Far North and Kyle lines probably should have gone over to DMU operation a lot earlier than the late 80s. The West Highland Line probably justified loco hauled trains until the Sprinters came along but the other 2 should have gone straight over to DMUs when steam ended. A 2 car 101 instead of a class 37 and 5 or 6 mk1s would have saved a lot of money. Was there a good reason why loco hauled trains lasted as long as they did? There must have been more carriages than passengers on some of the trains.

 

[Egg Centric]

The passenger service is a network. One day a passenger might have reason to go to Brighton on a main line, the other they might need to go to Cumbria. That's why it should be treated as one for the social good that broad service provides.

How many passengers are likely to just jump anywhere on the network?

I think we have extremely similar views about what the rail network should be (very different ones about the road network) but trying to justify them on a purely economics basis doesn't work... it always ends in Serpell... and tenuous attempts like this to pretend otherwise just get them laughed off...

 

[The Ham]

How many passengers are likely to just jump anywhere on the network?

I think we have extremely similar views about what the rail network should be (very different ones about the road network) but trying to justify them on a purely economics basis doesn't work... it always ends in Serpell... and tenuous attempts like this to pretend otherwise just get them laughed off...

I've put forward the case elsewhere that economically it would be cheaper for a lot of individuals to tax them a bit more so that all public transport (including trains) is free.

As I've discussed elsewhere the likely total cost to the government to provide all public transport for free would be up to £1,000 per tax payer.

Now there's 3 key factors to bear in mind, as that's not an extra £1,000 in income tax for each tax payer:
- the government already pays money to run buses and trains so the extra amount would be noticeable less than this
- average government spend is £32,000 per tax payer, free people are paying that in income based taxes (yes a few do, but not that many)
- other costs could reduce (lower road maintenance costs, fewer road improvements needed, healthier population needing less healthcare, lower admin costs in running bus passes, etc.)

However for some, being able to ditch a second car could save them £1,000 a year each. Bear in mind the average cost of car ownership is £3,600 a year, then running a car costing £2,000 is well below that average.

£2,000 could be:
£600 a year in perchance costs (£3,000 over a 5 year period assuming no interest)
£200 a year in maintenance costs (including MOT, a single tyre is likely to cost about £70 of that)
£250 in insurance
£50 in VED
£50 in parking (about £4.20 a month, so potentially quite infrequently paint for any parking)
£850 in fuel costs (about 5,700 miles a year at 15p per mile)

Which are not unreasonable costs to assume when seeking to assess the cost of a car (some will argue there rates are a bit high whilst others that they're too low, but overall not too far adrift from a reasonably cheap to buy and run car may cost).