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

[yorksrob]

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.

This isn't true at all.

To give you an example, the Whitby line gets about five trains a day each way. Connections are sparse and it's not what you would call a passenger friendly service by any stretch, but the trains are well used and the call is for more of them, not fewer.

I was once on a train to Middlesbrough to connect to Whitby when we got diverted into Darlington at short notice. There were plenty of people milling around asking how to get to Whitby - the staff were telling those doing day trips not to bother. Those who perservered got the next train to Middlesborough where a mini bus was called to take us onward (as we'd missed the connection). There were enough people to fill that mini-bus, and those were people from the South for whom Whitby is a long way round.

In spite of the poor service the demand is there.

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 think we're talking at crossed purposes here. I've never tried to justify the railway network purely on a purely economic basis and I'm surprised that anyone would interpret my views in that way. Nevertheless, alongside all of the other benefits, having a comprehensive rail network running the length and bredth of the country is a great facilitator for economic activity.

I also get the point that non-rail enthusiasts are unlikely to jump on a train randomly and go anywhere, nevertheless people have connections all over the place. That can be a big city or a town along a secondary route.

 

[Harpo]

road and petrol tax for cars doesn't change depending on how rural your road is.

No. But the absence of charging capabilities in rural areas forces petrol vehicle use and payment of the fuel taxes that EVs avoid in more affluent areas.

The fuel tax ‘subsidy’ map for road is probably the reverse of rail’s subsidy map.

 

[stuu]

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.

That may be the case now, but for that to be seriously considered there would need to be a major expansion of capacity, both to meet the increase in demand and to provide services where there are none. Many journeys outside major towns and cities are impractical and often impossible by public transport. For such a policy to get widespread support it would need to provide a far more equitable service across the country, which would cost a lot more.

 

[yorksrob]

That may be the case now, but for that to be seriously considered there would need to be a major expansion of capacity, both to meet the increase in demand and to provide services where there are none. Many journeys outside major towns and cities are impractical and often impossible by public transport. For such a policy to get widespread support it would need to provide a far more equitable service across the country, which would cost a lot more.

True, but a policy of having reasonable walk-on fares could prove popular.

 

[zwk500]

True, but a policy of having reasonable walk-on fares could prove popular.

A policy of having reasonable walk-up fares for journeys up to about 2-2.5hrs would prove incredibly popular, in my view. And I'd reckon 90% of the journeys made on such fares would be under 1h. People making on-the-day decisions are typically expecting to come back the same day, so beyond about 2.5hrs journey time people aren't likely to be making those types of journeys on a whim (there will be *some*, because there's always an edge case, but rail is about bulk not edge cases).
Obviously, any reasonable walk-up fares need to be accompanied by a reasonable walk-up timetable to facilitate day trips.

 

[yorksrob]

A policy of having reasonable walk-up fares for journeys up to about 2-2.5hrs would prove incredibly popular, in my view. And I'd reckon 90% of the journeys made on such fares would be under 1h. People making on-the-day decisions are typically expecting to come back the same day, so beyond about 2.5hrs journey time people aren't likely to be making those types of journeys on a whim (there will be *some*, because there's always an edge case, but rail is about bulk not edge cases).
Obviously, any reasonable walk-up fares need to be accompanied by a reasonable walk-up timetable to facilitate day trips.

Absolutely.

I think that when you say journeys up to 2 - 2.5 hours, this should include journeys which could reasonably be made in that time by other modes.

Passengers shouldn't be penalised just because some idiot decided to shut the direct line in the 1960's.

 

[zwk500]

Absolutely.

I think that when you say journeys up to 2 - 2.5 hours, this should include journeys which could reasonably be made in that time by other modes.

Passengers shouldn't be penalised just because some idiot decided to shut the direct line in the 1960's.

Disagree - there's no point setting a fare for a train that takes 3h because the car can do it in half the time. But what should happen is that the 2h limit should feed into proposals to expand the network.

 

[yorksrob]

Disagree - there's no point setting a fare for a train that takes 3h because the car can do it in half the time. But what should happen is that the 2h limit should feed into proposals to expand the network.

Agree on the second part.

The first part isn't really relevant to those of us who don't drive.

 

[HighlandStorm]

With regard setting reasonable walk up rates on rural routes:

Disagree - there's no point setting a fare for a train that takes 3h because the car can do it in half the time. But what should happen is that the 2h limit should feed into proposals to expand the network.

Well this is what happens on the Far North Line and West Highland Line with the Highland Railcard. Improving on board connectivity and facilities is a way to up rail appeal despite longer journey times vs car.

it is a legitimate question regarding bus passes vs rural rail routes. The train is being subsidised anyway. There is a case to give free travel to ScotGov NEC holders with a Highland Railcard and give the Highland Railcard discount to out of area NEC holders.

I’d also extend the Highland Railcard to cover the Stranraer line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair walk-up fares are also fairly reasonable around the whole South East.

It's intercity type services that are moving to a model of "if you can't book in advance you can't afford it". This does come with a bit of collateral damage in terms of routes like EMR IC (max journey time about 2 hours), London-Birmingham and the likes (though the latter has the Chiltern and WMT options) but stuff like London-Brighton is always likely to be a primarily walk up railway.

And much as Northern like Advances, they're generally available cheaply up to soon before departure so it's not really an advance booked railway, it's just that they like to price very granularly. TfW similarly.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If you're doing reasonable walk up fares for all journeys up to 2-2.5 hours, you may as well do them for longer journeys too. It costs almost nothing in the big scheme of things, and without them, you're basically just pushing anyone who wants them into split ticketing.

 

[43074]

I was once on a train to Middlesbrough to connect to Whitby when we got diverted into Darlington at short notice. There were plenty of people milling around asking how to get to Whitby - the staff were telling those doing day trips not to bother. Those who perservered got the next train to Middlesborough where a mini bus was called to take us onward (as we'd missed the connection). There were enough people to fill that mini-bus, and those were people from the South for whom Whitby is a long way round.

"Enough people to fill a mini-bus" is hardly a convincing way of making an argument for extra trains...

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

Well this is what happens on the Far North Line and West Highland Line with the Highland Railcard. Improving on board connectivity and facilities is a way to up rail appeal despite longer journey times vs car.

it is a legitimate question regarding bus passes vs rural rail routes. The train is being subsidised anyway. There is a case to give free travel to ScotGov NEC holders with a Highland Railcard and give the Highland Railcard discount to out of area NEC holders.

I’d also extend the Highland Railcard to cover the Stranraer line.

Exactly - the trains are running anyway, on these specific routes you may as well fill them!

Rather than/alongside the Highland Explorer carriages and tourist stuff, I've always thought they should adapt the trains on the West Highland, Kyle and Far-North to make them a bit more suited to the long (intercity length) journey times. If they're not faster than coaches, then they ought to be more comfortable, or have some other advantage. It doesn't need to be much but a 158 fitted for suburban services isn't ideal for a 4 hour journey. If they're half empty anyway, why not cut down the density and add in some nicer seats, maybe a vending machine too?

This probably sounds like normal trainspotter speculation, but I think there's genuinely a case for a different approach on these lines.

 

[yorksrob]

If you're doing reasonable walk up fares for all journeys up to 2-2.5 hours, you may as well do them for longer journeys too. It costs almost nothing in the big scheme of things, and without them, you're basically just pushing anyone who wants them into split ticketing.

I'm inclined to agree. I think these are the off-peak fares that the crooked LNER fares "trial" is aiming to do away with.

"Enough people to fill a mini-bus" is hardly a convincing way of making an argument for extra trains...

It is when you consider that the vast majority of people using the line are expected to come from the North.

The route from the South to Whitby is so expensive, convoluted, time consuming etc that I wouldn't expect a mini-bus full (and this is after day trippers had been told they might as well turn around at Darlington).

I regard a mini-bus full to be spectacular - but it does illustrate how important the Whitby line is.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Rather than/alongside the Highland Explorer carriages and tourist stuff, I've always thought they should adapt the trains on the West Highland, Kyle and Far-North to make them a bit more suited to the long (intercity length) journey times. If they're not faster than coaches, then they ought to be more comfortable, or have some other advantage. It doesn't need to be much but a 158 fitted for suburban services isn't ideal for a 4 hour journey. If they're half empty anyway, why not cut down the density and add in some nicer seats, maybe a vending machine too?

The train I used to Kyle was pretty much completely full, almost every seat was taken.
Cutting down that train at all would leave some people without a seat for hours.

 

[stuu]

True, but a policy of having reasonable walk-on fares could prove popular.

What definition of reasonable are you using though? Perhaps linking fares to median wages would be a sensible approach? One hour's average pay per 50 miles or something?

 

[Killingworth]

The train I used to Kyle was pretty much completely full, almost every seat was taken.
Cutting down that train at all would leave some people without a seat for hours.

The difficulty with that route seems to be that a few large parties in summer can fill it up but in winter it can be very quiet. As has been said, most local people have access to cars so tourists are the way to increase fare revenue. All year round is becoming more popular but massive subsidies are inevitable.

 

[Egg Centric]

I've never tried to justify the railway network purely on a purely economic basis and I'm surprised that anyone would interpret my views in that way.

Perhaps not but you do seem (and this is just my impression) to often be "dragged down" into discussing the externalities etc in a financial kind of way by responding to others that "started it" by going on and on about value for money. That is a dangerous place to end up because the logic does end up with Serpell and probably worse once we have properly self driving vehicles. I think it's much easier to make the case for railways by grasping the nettle that it's a political (in a broad sense) thing in that railways are awesome and don't even have to be practical. The far north line is never going to make sense evaluated as rational transport and we need to accept that. Instead the argument should be made that it's culture in the same way as the last night of the proms. In the same way (some of) the country can be brought together by drunkenly singing Jersualem and waving a few flags, the country (some of it) is brought together by having a railway line to the highlands, as a cultural thing rather than a practical route to Thurso/Wick. That you actually can reach these places is just a bonus - it wouldn't be that different to me if it terminated at Altnaebreac. Maybe even better in a way! It's as simple as that really and the details of the railway line basically don't matter.

I'm not sure if I made this point clearly, does it make sense?

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).

I'm not against free public transport (I do think the tax burden on working individuals is way too high but that's another conversation and imo resolvable by shifting the tax burden rather than decreasing it) but I'd be surprised if you tempted too many people out of a second cars from it. You're assuming people have the second car to transport them from location A to location B without any meaningful luggage or time constraints. I don't think that that applies to most people who need (or perceive they need) the second car.

 

[The Ham]

That may be the case now, but for that to be seriously considered there would need to be a major expansion of capacity, both to meet the increase in demand and to provide services where there are none. Many journeys outside major towns and cities are impractical and often impossible by public transport. For such a policy to get widespread support it would need to provide a far more equitable service across the country, which would cost a lot more.

Which is why further on I assumed an extra £1,000, as that would allow extra capacity as there's already some government cost to providing public transport.

Also, in working out our, one of the factors I used was the total TfL revenue, however as that includes road pricing there's a fair chance I've over estimated the cost. Likewise, looking at First Group's revenue will include some from rail. I did this to provide a robust number, to ensure that I want overselling it.

However, there's likely to be some cost savings/other income too. For example a station with a ticket office and gate line staff could see some reduction in staffing numbers whilst still providing more staff available on platforms. Likewise the ticket office (and queuing) space might be able to be rented out for retail to generate an income.

However there certainly would be cost savings from faster bus journeys (as the loading process would be faster) and a whole load of back office staff (for example those processing refunds, those following up on those caught without a valid ticket, etc.).

I'm not against free public transport (I do think the tax burden on working individuals is way too high but that's another conversation and imo resolvable by shifting the tax burden rather than decreasing it) but I'd be surprised if you tempted too many people out of a second cars from it. You're assuming people have the second car to transport them from location A to location B without any meaningful luggage or time constraints. I don't think that that applies to most people who need (or perceive they need) the second car.

I'm sure there'll be plenty of people who have the mindset that they'll need a second car anyway.

It does of course depend on why they have a second car and one person's experience and observations can be very different to another's.

Someone who is working and needs to do a certain amount of work can either need their journey to be very fast if they can't work whilst travelling (for example driving themselves) or to be able to work efficiently enough to justify a longer journey (for example if the train allows them to do some work if it takes a bit longer that's not an issue).

Likewise, if you need to get a child from school to ask after school club by a given time, it may not be possible to use public transport. However, if that's only once a week, it could be that journey could be done by car (how that is achieved may depend on personal circumstances - for example for some the other parent may work from home that day, for others it might be a car club car, for others car sharing, for others it might be changing the time slot, for others it maybe something else - however that still doesn't mean that for others they still keep that second car).

However, it's surprising just how many people who have access to a car but who have been given a bus pass are willing to use it.

Anyway, often lower taxes doesn't mean lower cost. For example, locally many people pay £50 for garden waste collection. However a fair chunk of that payment is likely to cover the admin in running the scheme (taking the payment, sending reminders about renewals, ensuring the most of houses to be collected from is to to date, etc.). It may well be that if you put up council tax by £50 (above inflation) everyone could have garden waste as well as better other services which they may also have to pay for (either to the council or to a business).

To give an example, in Iceland they pay a flat rate for their energy to the government as apparently it would have cost more to create a billing system than it would cost to provide the energy. Now let's say that's slightly exaggerated and the billing process was going to cost 500 and the energy averages out at 1,000. That would mean that for someone to be worse off they would have to use less than half the average amount of energy before they even started to feel that it would be cheaper for them to pay their share of the billing process as well as their energy costs.

Now that cost may well be down to the fact that there's just under 400,000 people and so there's not significant economies of scale (but then the same could be said of some our smaller country councils and over 270 of the nearly 300 district councils - although they might be able to buy an off the shelf product to to help keep their costs down).

 

[stuu]

To give an example, in Iceland they pay a flat rate for their energy to the government as apparently it would have cost more to create a billing system than it would cost to provide the energy. Now let's say that's slightly exaggerated and the billing process was going to cost 500 and the energy averages out at 1,000. That would mean that for someone to be worse off they would have to use less than half the average amount of energy before they even started to feel that it would be cheaper for them to pay their share of the billing process as well as their energy costs.

Now that cost may well be down to the fact that there's just under 400,000 people and so there's not significant economies of scale (but then the same could be said of some our smaller country councils and over 270 of the nearly 300 district councils - although they might be able to buy an off the shelf product to to help keep their costs down).

Iceland generates all its electricity from hydro and geothermal energy as well as a majority of space heating from those so it's pretty much immune to external cost changes, which must help with budgets

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

The far north line is never going to make sense evaluated as rational transport and we need to accept that.

I think you’re missing the fact that the Far North Line, while loss making to the railways, is functional. It’s used for transport by locals and tourists, and (if only occasionally) for freight. It’s not just a toy train set.

The region the line passes through is one of the remotest in the UK. It’s in effect a subsidy to the region. I agree it should be utilised better, but it is serving a purpose.

If you close the railway, the moors will swallow it up and it’d be lost quite quickly. Maybe there are better value for money options, but once it’s lost it’s lost for good.

You’ve got to be sure you’re making the right decision for the future. Previous, much regretted, railway closures make that a hard decision.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Which is why further on I assumed an extra £1,000, as that would allow extra capacity as there's already some government cost to providing public transport.

Also, in working out our, one of the factors I used was the total TfL revenue, however as that includes road pricing there's a fair chance I've over estimated the cost. Likewise, looking at First Group's revenue will include some from rail. I did this to provide a robust number, to ensure that I want overselling it.

However, there's likely to be some cost savings/other income too. For example a station with a ticket office and gate line staff could see some reduction in staffing numbers whilst still providing more staff available on platforms. Likewise the ticket office (and queuing) space might be able to be rented out for retail to generate an income.

However there certainly would be cost savings from faster bus journeys (as the loading process would be faster) and a whole load of back office staff (for example those processing refunds, those following up on those caught without a valid ticket, etc.).

I think the fundamental problem you're missing is that if something costs resources to provide but you provide it for free, then you have disconnected people's usage from the actual cost, which means people don't make rational economic decisions that reflect the cost and benefits of using the resource. That ultimately leaves everyone worse off because there's no price mechanism to ensure any efficiency in people's decisions.

Example 1: I can and do easily walk to my local station, but if the frequent bus there became free, then I'd probably often use that instead of walking - which means I'd be taking up a seat. If others do likewise, that will force the Government to divert resources away from other things to pay for more buses and more bus drivers (and also causing more environmental damage), without there being any real benefit to anyone (since we could all easily have walked).

Example 2: Without fares, people have no price incentive to prefer off-peak trains where possible. Likely result: People in - say. Birmingham - who really need to be in London by 9am for business reasons will be unable to board the trains that could get them there in time because those trains are now rammed full of leisure travellers who could easily have got the train 2 hours later (which is now running half empty).

Example 3: You're looking for somewhere to live. Your choice is a house 5 miles from your work, or a slightly nicer house 30 miles from your work. You have no price incentive to choose the nearer house - because the train fare is free either way. So you're more likely to choose the one 30 miles away, and thereby have a longer commute that causes far more environmental damage than the shorter one.

Providing stuff for free works for something like schools because every child basically needs roughly the same amount of teaching, and it's easy to in effect ration what each child consumes (to one school, for a fixed number of hours each week). Healthcare on the other hand provides a good example of the problems of providing for free something that actually costs a lot to provide: You end up with people using it as much as they can, with the result that healthcare in the UK is now effectively rationed by long queues and massive waits for treatment and most people are deeply unhappy with the service they get. Do you really want public transport to be like that?

 

[yorksrob]

What definition of reasonable are you using though? Perhaps linking fares to median wages would be a sensible approach? One hour's average pay per 50 miles or something?

I suppose its easier to say what's not reasonable.

The single off-peak fares on the ECML seem reasonable for the distance. The Anytime fares do not.

Fares along the South Coast seem reasonable. London to the Kent coast where you can be looking at upwards of thirty pounds for an off peak return are not.

Thirty pounds for a day trip between Leeds and Manchester is not reasonable.

Fifty pounds for a day trip from Leeds to Whitby (off peak) is not reasonable.

I could go on.......

Thinking about it, a lot of unreasonable fares are caused by anomalies:

The lack of CDR's on TPE
The crooked fares trial on LNER
The timetable that means you have to leave WYorks before 9:30 to get to Whitby by mid day.

Perhaps not but you do seem (and this is just my impression) to often be "dragged down" into discussing the externalities etc in a financial kind of way by responding to others that "started it" by going on and on about value for money. That is a dangerous place to end up because the logic does end up with Serpell and probably worse once we have properly self driving vehicles. I think it's much easier to make the case for railways by grasping the nettle that it's a political (in a broad sense) thing in that railways are awesome and don't even have to be practical. The far north line is never going to make sense evaluated as rational transport and we need to accept that. Instead the argument should be made that it's culture in the same way as the last night of the proms. In the same way (some of) the country can be brought together by drunkenly singing Jersualem and waving a few flags, the country (some of it) is brought together by having a railway line to the highlands, as a cultural thing rather than a practical route to Thurso/Wick. That you actually can reach these places is just a bonus - it wouldn't be that different to me if it terminated at Altnaebreac. Maybe even better in a way! It's as simple as that really and the details of the railway line basically don't matter.

I'm not sure if I made this point clearly, does it make sense?

I can see where you're coming from in that lines such as the far North have a cultural value. This was realised to an extent with Settle & Carlisle closure attempt in the 1980's. Yet the line still had to prove its worth economically by getting people and freight from a to b.

I will always argue the economic case for passenger railways as they do have a practical economic benefit to the communities they serve. Also this is the argument that, for better or worse, the powers that be are interested in.

And I also believe that the railway provides excellent value for money for the Kingdom. Think about the tiny slither of public funding (in comparison to other areas of expenditure) that goes on the railway, then think of what the country would be like without it. It would have difficulty functioning.

We should absolutely be extolling the economic benefits of having a passenger railway running the length and breadth of the country.

 

[The Ham]

I think the fundamental problem you're missing is that if something costs resources to provide but you provide it for free, then you have disconnected people's usage from the actual cost, which means people don't make rational economic decisions that reflect the cost and benefits of using the resource. That ultimately leaves everyone worse off because there's no price mechanism to ensure any efficiency in people's decisions.

Example 1: I can and do easily walk to my local station, but if the frequent bus there became free, then I'd probably often use that instead of walking - which means I'd be taking up a seat. If others do likewise, that will force the Government to divert resources away from other things to pay for more buses and more bus drivers (and also causing more environmental damage), without there being any real benefit to anyone (since we could all easily have walked).

Only if the buses are frequent enough and going exactly in the route you wanted (i.e. from outside your door to the station)

For example if the walk is 20 minutes, but the buses run every 20 minutes and the one at 08:20 gets you there 2 minutes late and the one at 8:00 means you are stood waiting for 18 minutes, there's not much of an advantage over walking at a time which is convenient between 8:05 and 8:15.

However the opposite would also be true, as the train would be free few would opt to fly to save up to an hour on the door to door journey time.

Also, if a bus is running then the extra fuel required to carry 70 people or 50 people isn't that significant (assuming that those extra 20 would otherwise walk).

However the vast majority of users would be moving away from driving (so the overall impact could be better).

Example 2: Without fares, people have no price incentive to prefer off-peak trains where possible. Likely result: People in - say. Birmingham - who really need to be in London by 9am for business reasons will be unable to board the trains that could get them there in time because those trains are now rammed full of leisure travellers who could easily have got the train 2 hours later (which is now running half empty).

What does it matter?

Anyway, the roads are free to use at any time and people do already time their journeys to avoid congestion.

Example 3: You're looking for somewhere to live. Your choice is a house 5 miles from your work, or a slightly nicer house 30 miles from your work. You have no price incentive to choose the nearer house - because the train fare is free either way. So you're more likely to choose the one 30 miles away, and thereby have a longer commute that causes far more environmental damage than the shorter one.

You would still have a time insensitive to live within a reasonable journey time. Also, standing on a peak hour bus for 15 minutes isn't too bad, don't so on a train 30 minutes is going to impact your thinking.

The house 30 miles away would have to be much nicer to give up an extra 50 hours a year to travel.

Providing stuff for free works for something like schools because every child basically needs roughly the same amount of teaching, and it's easy to in effect ration what each child consumes (to one school, for a fixed number of hours each week). Healthcare on the other hand provides a good example of the problems of providing for free something that actually costs a lot to provide: You end up with people using it as much as they can, with the result that healthcare in the UK is now effectively rationed by long queues and massive waits for treatment and most people are deeply unhappy with the service they get. Do you really want public transport to be like that?

Part of the issue with the NHS is that often the alternative is a lot of money, however the cost of going private in the UK is far cheaper than in the US.

An ultrasound in the US costs like $2,000, whilst in the UK and go to a Harley Street practice and it's like $300.

Likewise libraries are free to use, yet book shops still exist. The reason being that borrowing a book is good some of the time, whilst buying a book is better some of the time. For example it's not always possible to borrow the book you want at the time you want.

I've never suggested that public transport is the only option or that car ownership would be more heavily taxed, as such people would be entirely free to pay to use a car (as they do now) or to pick to use public transport.

 

[NCT]

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?

How did you come to that conclusion?

I never said or implied that 12-car trains running on minimum headways over four-track formations was the only way to achieve financial sustainability. It was merely to demonstrate that a railway with financially/economically (as opposed to politically) set fares that allows itself to expand to meet demand is one that attracts passengers.

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.

Now that's just selectively taking one thing and taking it to an extreme.

The E&G is a self funding route so you shouldn't try to extract any additional producer surplus (at the expense of consumer surplus) from that route in order to subsidise other passengers. As it happens such is ScotRail's resource constraint that the off-peak service is only half-hourly - so a 50% capacity provision compared to pre Covid so not that different from your 8-car to 3-car (if no reduction in frequency). What you are warning against is already happening but not for the reasons you state.

I've already mentioned several ways to improve the railway finances. Incrementally raise yield, incrementally raise utilisation, and densifying city and town centres thereby reducing parking provision and increasing the overall market for travel thus making rail demand more 'captive'. If you pull several levers at once then you won't have to pull any one of them to an extreme level.

If the Central Belt railway operation is currently 50% fare and 50% tax funded, then a policy mix of plugging the 50% funding gap - over the course of several years - might be 15% from yield growth, 15% from utlisation growth, 20% from new passengers (mode shift and new housing).

Densification is already happening to an extent - must of Glasgow's east end is being repaired; there is a lot of building activity around places like Dalmarnock and along the Yoker line. The pace of that needs to increase, with mixed-use redevelopments around multiple North Electric stations. This is the 'how to fill the seats' part. Ultimately, the way railway finances works is that you have to generate a certain revenue density - revenue per vehicle km, because vehicle km is the driver of most of your cost terms - you have to improve yield and passenger density.

If you look at ORR data on network rail funding and TOC subsidies, Scotland's network grant spending per head is actually slightly lower than England's, but operational subsidies are about 5 times higher than England's. And as we've seen it's the Central Belt suburbans that gobble up the lion's share of the subsidy bill. The rural routes are actually a distraction. A modest investment is likely to see the intercity routes turning to profit - lower operating costs and more competitive journey times.

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.

Arguably London and South East passengers have been whipped into shape by RPI+1 fares (from an already high base) and the only aggressively anti-car policies in the country.

Scotland's railway has had a generation of poorly-directed carrots - the below RPI fare rises and overly generous capacity. The war-chest is bare. Scotland's annual government borrowing limit is £450m, which is about the same as the pre-Covid ScotRail annual subsidy. This cannot be sustainable. The Scottish government will want to protect free tuition and free prescriptions, and the railway isn't actually high on the political agenda (they talk a good talk but spend money where their mouth is).

Unlikely some other areas of government spending the railway has alternative funding models (for the day-to-day marginal part). Being a more discretionary consumer expenditure (and yes, how you choose where to work and where to live has a large discretionary choice element to it), commercial funding is a viable route. Some transport advocates seem determined to stick to the path of highest resistance - if you insist on substantial / majority government funding then you are a low priority player in a negative sum game - you will lose. The only outcome is a salami-sliced railway. The railway should rely less on politics and more on economics. Where possible - to use English parlance - there's a lot of merit in taking it out of the Treasury.

Good politics and bad governance can often be a good way a cohort of politicians stay in power. However, ask yourself this - ultimately, what is politics there to serve, if not good governance?

 

[35B]

Good politics and bad governance can often be a good way a cohort of politicians stay in power. However, ask yourself this - ultimately, what is politics there to serve, if not good governance?

Good governance is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

The E&G is a self funding route so you shouldn't try to extract any additional producer surplus (at the expense of consumer surplus) from that route in order to subsidise other passengers. As it happens such is ScotRail's resource constraint that the off-peak service is only half-hourly - so a 50% capacity provision compared to pre Covid so not that different from your 8-car to 3-car (if no reduction in frequency). What you are warning against is already happening but not for the reasons you state.

Why is it unreasonable to attract a producer surplus in one place, and use it to offset producer deficits elsewhere? Most businesses have cash cows; products that for one reason or another generate disproportionate profit at a line item level.

Densification is already happening to an extent - must of Glasgow's east end is being repaired; there is a lot of building activity around places like Dalmarnock and along the Yoker line. The pace of that needs to increase, with mixed-use redevelopments around multiple North Electric stations. This is the 'how to fill the seats' part. Ultimately, the way railway finances works is that you have to generate a certain revenue density - revenue per vehicle km, because vehicle km is the driver of most of your cost terms - you have to improve yield and passenger density.

Arguably London and South East passengers have been whipped into shape by RPI+1 fares (from an already high base) and the only aggressively anti-car policies in the country.

Unlikely some other areas of government spending the railway has alternative funding models (for the day-to-day marginal part). Being a more discretionary consumer expenditure (and yes, how you choose where to work and where to live has a large discretionary choice element to it), commercial funding is a viable route.

Densification as a market driven answer I have no problem with. It is densification as a matter of policy that raises political problems where people object to being "densified". This has happened in London because of limited alternative options, and because government policies have chosen to amplify economic growth in London rather than try to distribute it more evenly.

This leads to the point about where one lives being discretionary. That is true in that I may choose where I live (and did in moving from Orpington to Grantham). But where it is a compelled choice, it is not discretionary and comes with significant non-economic costs.

Some transport advocates seem determined to stick to the path of highest resistance - if you insist on substantial / majority government funding then you are a low priority player in a negative sum game - you will lose. The only outcome is a salami-sliced railway. The railway should rely less on politics and more on economics. Where possible - to use English parlance - there's a lot of merit in taking it out of the Treasury.

This puts cart before horse. There is merit in taking many things out of the Treasury, but the underlying issue has more to do with the over-intrusive approach of the Treasury. It is noticeable that other systems are less prone to extremes of spending feast and famine, and able to have sensible conversations about priorities without the British disease of feast/famine.

 

[weeklycommuter]

That's fine, but it needs to be remembered that some of the lines that survive - the Heart of Wales being a classic - survived not for any merits as a transport corridor, but because of the raw politics of the areas they served - 8 marginal seats in that case.

The article "More subsidy for TfW Rail despite revenue growth" on page 18 of Modern Railways June 2025 includes the following paragraph. This shows that it is unlikely to be politically possible to close any lightly used rural routes including the Heart of Wales line.

This year's £381.15 million of revenue funding includes £1.25 million for TfW Rail to operate an additional daily service on the Heart of Wales line from December 2025, reversing last December's service reduction. This was a condition of the government's overall budget for 2025/26 receiving the support of Jane Dodds, the Sennedd's only Liberal Democrat. Her Mid and West Wales constituency includes most of the Heart of Wales line.

 

[Harpo]

This year's £381.15 million of revenue funding includes £1.25 million for TfW Rail to operate an additional daily service on the Heart of Wales line from December 2025

Even if there were (charitably) 40 regular users, that’s around £30k per user, enough to buy each of them a small car and still have change.

 

[HSTEd]

With the rise of split ticketing websites, I do wonder if we should just admit the reality of the situation and build split ticketing into the Network Rail journey planner.

We are losing the revenue either way, and if we allow split ticketing "officially" we will at least get journey statistics that reflect reality.
It would also allow us to identify useless tickets as a starting point to reducing the total number of fares in the system

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Even if there were (charitably) 40 regular users, that’s around £30k per user, enough to buy each of them a small car and still have change.

I can't make sense of your maths there. And to me it seems misleading to only count regular users on a line that will be carrying a high proportion of tourist traffic - therefore, occasional users. My maths says £1.25M/year works out at about £3K/day or £3K for each round trip by the trainset. I'm not sure how many passengers a train on that route would carry, but because there are so many intermediate stops, the total number of passengers served is likely to be rather higher than the number of people you can see on the train at any one time. If you say 40 return passengers served on a round trip (I don't know how accurate that is but it feels low to me), then that's a £100 subsidy per return journey - which is still extremely high, but is a lot less than £30k.