A new Beeching-style report is needed, to refocus the role of rail

[haggishunter]

In relation to the reliability and convenience of private car transport

Roads close, traffic jams occur, accidents occur, weather disrupts road transport too etc. More to the point I’m going to Aberdeen to watch the Tennis tomorrow / Thursday. I could drive and have to well drive and not do anything else, but swear at people that can’t use roundabouts. But I’m going by train, because A) I can B) I don’t have to drive the train, so I can do something constructive with that time. How is that less convenient?

Even in Scotland, services have been cut drastically - just look at the Cathcart Circle or Fife.

It is becoming increasingly unreliable and passengers (customers) are deserting.

In the vast majority of locations, with the exception of inner London, there are alternatives, in particular private road transport (cars/vans/lorries), which most individuals/companies consider better.

The present situation cannot continue and needs addressing urgently if the network is to survive without drastic pruning.

Financial basket cases cannot be propped up forever.

Well yes, the Cathcart Circle is a personally annoying considerable reduction in service level, but it is somewhat of an anomaly in extent of reductions, even though there have been other service reductions and things have gone the opposite direction somewhat from the revolution in rail that was promised for Scotland before covid.

Have services been that drastically cut in Fife, there has been a significant recasting of routing and timetables and certainly for going to Inverness from the Central Belt it makes sense as you can now change at Stirling from a much more frequent and higher capacity electric service from Edinburgh and Glasgow, with all Inverness services now calling at Stirling.

As for the Billions of £££s of Network Rail debt, does anyone really think closing Altnabreac is going to help?

 

[The Ham]

It already is concentrated in the relevant bit of the UK. IIRC 60% of railway journeys take place in London and the South East (no doubt @The Ham will correct that if necessary).

In 2019/20 of the 1.5bn trips made 0.821bn were made within London, within the South East or between the two (about 55%).

If you add in all journeys which start/end in London or the South East (obviously not double counting those which travel between the two) this rises to ~1bn (about 2/3rds).

The latest set of data is for 2020/21 which being over the biggest impact from Covid probably doesn't give a good picture of how things are now, however this data is only released annually.

Having said that if the 344 million trips made 208 were made within London or the South East or between the two, this does equal 60%.

As the data in generally released in February we're a few months away from the 2021/22 data being available.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

How much do you estimate this would save?

If we look at the stopping and starting costs of fuel useage on the diesel routes, you'd probably save around £2Million annually as you'd only have to glide through stations if there is no one there rather than stop, release doors, check, close doors, buzz and off you go plus it'd speed up journey times and fast journey times are attractive to the passenger.

I'd rather keep as many stations open as possible but if they are halt type stations as per my examples then turn then into request stops. If it works well on the Tarka Line in Devon and the Looe Valley in Cornwall then it'll work in Yorkshire.

 

[JamesT]

Roads close, traffic jams occur, accidents occur, weather disrupts road transport too etc. More to the point I’m going to Aberdeen to watch the Tennis tomorrow / Thursday. I could drive and have to well drive and not do anything else, but swear at people that can’t use roundabouts. But I’m going by train, because A) I can B) I don’t have to drive the train, so I can do something constructive with that time. How is that less convenient?

You’re constrained with public transport to going to the places it serves at the times it serves. Today I made a trip which google maps reckons would have taken me 25 minutes by bus, 20 minutes of which is walking to the bus stops at either end. I used my car, which took 10 minutes door to door. (And then allowed visiting other locations afterwards, including picking up some heavy shopping). I don’t have to worry about whether my car will turn up on time or be cancelled for my trip home, it’s sitting there waiting for me.
Unfortunately everyone using their cars like that leads to pollution and congestion, but it’s pretty indisputable that outside somewhere with London-style public transport provision the car wins on convenience.

Well yes, the Cathcart Circle is a personally annoying considerable reduction in service level, but it is somewhat of an anomaly in extent of reductions, even though there have been other service reductions and things have gone the opposite direction somewhat from the revolution in rail that was promised for Scotland before covid.

Have services been that drastically cut in Fife, there has been a significant recasting of routing and timetables and certainly for going to Inverness from the Central Belt it makes sense as you can now change at Stirling from a much more frequent and higher capacity electric service from Edinburgh and Glasgow, with all Inverness services now calling at Stirling.

As for the Billions of £££s of Network Rail debt, does anyone really think closing Altnabreac is going to help?

I would say Fife services have been cut severely. To start with, the circle has been broken so to get between the two halves you’ll have to change at Inverkeithing. Kirkcaldy previously had two (semi-) fast and two stopping services to Edinburgh each hour plus LNER and XC. Now there’s just the stoppers plus an occasional LNER.

Cutting Altnabreac by itself won’t make a huge difference, but it adds up eventually. If it was closed, NR wouldn’t be spending money installing request to stop kiosks there. Even the massive overspends on things like GWML electrification will have come from several smaller things going over. The problem is there isn’t the visibility down to that level to say the marginal cost (subsidy) of say Altnabreac is £x/year, it’s mostly aggregated into “the railway”. Without that fundamental data it’s hard to have a reasoned discussion over whether that £x should be spent there, or given to the local council to provide frequent bus services.

 

[daodao]

Have services been that drastically cut in Fife, there has been a significant recasting of routing and timetables and certainly for going to Inverness from the Central Belt it makes sense as you can now change at Stirling from a much more frequent and higher capacity electric service from Edinburgh and Glasgow, with all Inverness services now calling at Stirling.

One fast train per hour from Edinburgh to Perth, calling at Kirkcaldy, has been removed from the timetable, and the Fife Circle trains have been removed, except at peak hours. Glenrothes station now has just 1 terminating train per hour. The service from the Highlands and Perth to Scotland's capital city of Edinburgh, and thus easy connections to England, has been made longer in mileage (by 14 miles) and slower (by 15-20 minutes) by diverting through trains from Inverness to Edinburgh via Stirling. This is a retrograde step, not only for Fife.

 

[A0]

These lightly used lines still serve an important transportation service. Having used the Kyle line personally, it provided access for a walk that I otherwise would have had no way of doing. Totally agree that we should increase subsidies for buses but that shouldn't come at the expense of rail.

Bit in bold - but you paid *nowhere near* the true cost of your journey with lines like Kyle needing huge subsidies.

So why should your personal enjoyment be heavily subsidised by everyone else? You doubtless wouldn't accept a hobby which only millionaires enjoy should be subsidised to the same extent.

 

[A0]

Roads close, traffic jams occur, accidents occur, weather disrupts road transport too etc. More to the point I’m going to Aberdeen to watch the Tennis tomorrow / Thursday. I could drive and have to well drive and not do anything else, but swear at people that can’t use roundabouts. But I’m going by train, because A) I can B) I don’t have to drive the train, so I can do something constructive with that time. How is that less convenient?

Bit in bold: I'll answer that

I live 50 miles from my parents a journey I can drive in a shade over an hour and make a dozen times a year.

To make such a journey by public transport would mean getting to one of two stations - both of which are at least 5 miles away, in one case getting a train to a station which is about 10 miles away from my parents and then relying on a bus which runs 3 or 4 times a day and not on Sundays, or travelling into London and back out again and again relying on a bus if similar frequency to the one above or using a taxi to cover the 5 miles from the station.

Journeys like yours people make once or twice a year, journeys like mine people make much more frequently.

Public transport doesn't account for the diversity (I hate using that word) of journeys which people make on a daily basis. At best you might be lucky and have a frequent bus from door to door but it will be slower than using a car. At worst you'll be having to get to a station some distance away to get a train - possibly 2, possibly more - and then have a distance to cover at the other end. Chances are your journey will be slower and constrained by a timetable.

 

[RT4038]

Does it? It was estimated to be the cost by UKHospitality. Are you suggesting they’re being misleading?

I know of a great many Christmas work and social events (include my own work get together) that have been cancelled. Nobody is going to go by car instead because a. Many are in central london, b. Nobody will drive to an event at which alcohol will be consumed.

Loss of business to UKHospitality - although they have an agenda obviously. Loss to UK Economy - not so sure. The money (or a portion thereof) will likely be spent elsewhere in the economy.
Quite likely that after an event has been cancelled, individual participants have made alternative activity journeys, by car.
But as we don't know how this figure has been calculated, a pinch of salt to be taken, whilst accepting that the strikes are costing the British economy something. Personally, and amongst my friends and cronies - bit of inconvenience and mode substitution, but otherwise not a lot - but then I'm not in 'the bit of the UK that counts in economic terms'.

Lots of assumptions being made here…

Are railway labour costs inflated? Specifically which ones? There are many agency staff on the railway these days, and far fewer staff overall than in the past.

In fact a reliance on overtime and staff shortages are what is driving many of the issues at the moment (both on the railway and wider economy). A shortage of labour tends to drive wages up, not down.

As for low productivity - specifically where is productivity on the railway lower than other comparable industries?

As for “unreliable services”, this has got significantly worse of late, and is largely of the government’s own making. Cack handed is something of an understatement.




I’m not sure this really stacks up. “Buying off the labour force” has generally meant various Ts and Cs being sold.

As for “hiding the inefficiencies”, specifically which inefficiencies are you talking about? Can you give any specific examples? I’m keen to hear how you know about them if they’re being hidden, as you claim!




Subsidies have never been unlimited. TOC profit margins are separate and distinct from subsidies, and have also historically been relatively low (notably compared to ROSCOs), so there is still incentive to be efficient despite the fact the industry itself is subsidised.

Unfortunately it sounds like you have a blinkered and quite stereotyped view of the way the railway operates, and it’s not clear what, if anything, actually informs this position in addition to poor quality journalism?

As I have said, I fully understand why rail staff, steeped in years of working in a particular fashion, fiercely guarding ways of working and terms and conditions that are no longer fit for purpose or affordable are not able/wanting to see where this is taking the industry. Don't change anything - just pay more and more subsidy please. Change has got to come. That isn't to say rail staff shouldn't be well rewarded, but productivity and reliability needs to rise in order for it to be affordable and acceptable to the public at large. [Relying on overtime to cover services hasn't given an acceptable level of reliability, and increasing establishments to eliminate this doesn't give an acceptable level of cost. Productivity (in one way or another) has to rise or there will be a downward spiral].

 

[geordieblue]

If we look at the stopping and starting costs of fuel useage on the diesel routes, you'd probably save around £2Million annually as you'd only have to glide through stations if there is no one there rather than stop, release doors, check, close doors, buzz and off you go plus it'd speed up journey times and fast journey times are attractive to the passenger.

I'd rather keep as many stations open as possible but if they are halt type stations as per my examples then turn then into request stops. If it works well on the Tarka Line in Devon and the Looe Valley in Cornwall then it'll work in Yorkshire.

Except the stations you've listed above are mostly far busier than their Cornish counterparts - I can't imagine you'd save a great deal, and you'd probably also confuse thousands of passengers too

 

[lachlan]

Bit in bold - but you paid *nowhere near* the true cost of your journey with lines like Kyle needing huge subsidies.

So why should your personal enjoyment be heavily subsidised by everyone else? You doubtless wouldn't accept a hobby which only millionaires enjoy should be subsidised to the same extent.

Because fundamentally disabled people deserve the same mobility and access as non-disabled. Public transport provides independence and it is vital that is preserved. Also your question ignores the fact there are people either living along these lines or visiting relatives along them who rely on these services.

 

[RT4038]

Because fundamentally disabled people deserve the same mobility and access as non-disabled. Public transport provides independence and it is vital that is preserved. Also your question ignores the fact there are people either living along these lines or visiting relatives along them who rely on these services.

A fully accessible bus in compliance with legal standards in force, the same which is used to the vast majority of rural settlements in this country which do not have railway stations?

 

[yorksrob]

Bit in bold - but you paid *nowhere near* the true cost of your journey with lines like Kyle needing huge subsidies.

So why should your personal enjoyment be heavily subsidised by everyone else? You doubtless wouldn't accept a hobby which only millionaires enjoy should be subsidised to the same extent.

As a country, we rightly subsidise the arts, many of which are considered to be an elite passtime.

Why shouldn't we subsidise vital public services that provide an economic lifeline to whole regions ?

 

[A0]

Because fundamentally disabled people deserve the same mobility and access as non-disabled. Public transport provides independence and it is vital that is preserved. Also your question ignores the fact there are people either living along these lines or visiting relatives along them who rely on these services.

Both the Kyle line and Mallaig lines are shadowed by Citylink coaches - in the case of the latter the coach is actually quicker to Glasgow than the train.

 

[A0]

As a country, we rightly subsidise the arts, many of which are considered to be an elite passtime.

Why shouldn't we subsidise vital public services that provide an economic lifeline to whole regions ?

Arts Council budget £ 400m vs Rail subsidy £ 13 bn.

And whilst you may consider many of "the arts" to be an "elite passtime" - that's actually not the case. The genuinely "elite" ones like Glyndebourne receive no public subsidy. In fact the subsidies tend to go to galleries or theatres in towns up and down the land - you know, the ones which put on the local Christmas Panto, those kind of places.

 

[43066]

Loss of business to UKHospitality - although they have an agenda obviously. Loss to UK Economy - not so sure. The money (or a portion thereof) will likely be spent elsewhere in the economy.

The simple reality is many of the dos in central London will not have taken place, and will not take place elsewhere. The current IA has clearly has a significant effect, akin to the Omicron issues last year. Split hairs about the cost all you like.

As I have said, I fully understand why rail staff,
steeped in years of working in a particular fashion, fiercely guarding ways of working and terms and conditions that are no longer fit for purpose or affordable are not able/wanting to see where this is taking the industry.

You haven’t addressed my comments and, just as I suspected, you can’t actually give specific examples of these Ts and Cs that are “are no longer fit for purpose or affordable” and appear to be parroting stereotypes you’ve most probably read in the press.

I’m not sure what’s more to be gained by discussing further!

[Relying on overtime to cover services hasn't given an acceptable level of reliability, and increasing establishments to eliminate this doesn't give an acceptable level of cost. Productivity (in one way or another) has to rise or there will be a downward spiral].

But, as we have established, you don’t actually know how productive staff on the railway are currently, yet your solution is to try and get more out of already scarce thinly stretched front line staff! That’s a bit like saying the problems with the NHS will be solved if the staff can just be made to work harder.

Re. overtime it works fine and is cheaper (hence favoured by TOCs and BR historically), but it relies on goodwill. If employers don’t care about goodwill they need to employ more staff to ensure reliability - whether that is “acceptable” is neither here or there. If people are underpaid and/or treated badly they will leave - especially during a labour crisis. This is something the bus industry, with its notoriously dreadful pay and Ts and Cs, seems to be learning a lot about currently, and I sincerely hope it isn’t brought to the railway.

 

[RT4038]

As a country, we rightly subsidise the arts, many of which are considered to be an elite passtime.

Why shouldn't we subsidise vital public services that provide an economic lifeline to whole regions ?

Quite. And like we don't subsidise all of the Arts, or the full quantity of Arts that Art enthusiasts would like, we can take a discerning view as to which vital public services we do subsidise and what form those vital public services are rendered.

 

[yorksrob]

Quite. And like we don't subsidise all of the Arts, or the full quantity of Arts that Art enthusiasts would like, we can take a discerning view as to which vital public services we do subsidise and what form those vital public services are rendered.

Indeed, as in the case of the railways we've been doing for the last seventy years or so. Unfortunately the process has gone too far and left us with a smaller network than we actually need.

 

[lachlan]

A fully accessible bus in compliance with legal standards in force, the same which is used to the vast majority of rural settlements in this country which do not have railway stations?

The line specifically mentioned (Kyle) and other rural lines often are not easily replaceable by road transport. Also watch as those bus services get withdrawn journey by journey.

 

[43066]

Because fundamentally disabled people deserve the same mobility and access as non-disabled. Public transport provides independence and it is vital that is preserved. Also your question ignores the fact there are people either living along these lines or visiting relatives along them who rely on these services.

Yes, there’s rather dystopian and “out of sight, out of mind” about shoving disabled people off public transport, even if it is into taxis, as is often suggested.

 

[A0]

A fully accessible bus in compliance with legal standards in force, the same which is used to the vast majority of rural settlements in this country which do not have railway stations?

Is, of course, the correct answer. But cue the usual suspects claiming that a coach isn't acceptable because they "don't like travelling on a coach".

 

[lachlan]

Yes, there’s rather dystopian and “out of sight, out of mind” about shoving disabled people off public transport, even if it is into taxis, as is often suggested.

I have to agree. I appreciate my pro-public transport views may be seen as quite extreme but I don't think simply maintaining what we have today is too much to ask given how much the rail network has been cut back over time. Same goes for buses. I don't want to be reliant on taxis and "dial a bus".

 

[A0]

Yes, there’s rather dystopian and “out of sight, out of mind” about shoving disabled people off public transport, even if it is into taxis, as is often suggested.

I don't think anyone's suggesting "shoving disabled people off public transport" - if they have then with respect, I think you've misunderstood the points being made.

The point is a simple one - disabled people should have access to transport, that's not in doubt, but public transport isn't just rail based. It's about providing transport *the public can use*. So as @RT4038 points out, buses are legally required to be accessible for disabled people. And in many cases the bus is actually more convenient - if we look at lines like the Kyle or those to Fort William or Mallaig, many of the stations are in the middle of nowhere, so not accessible, not close to the nearest settlement (because many of these are barely hamlets let alone villages).

Like able bodied people, the vast majority of journeys made by disabled people are local ones - to work, to the shops, to the doctors or hospital. A handful of times a year they'll make a longer journey to visit friends, relatives or go on holiday - and nobody is trying to deny them that. But to argue a lightly used, rural line being closed would isolate disabled people is being disingenuous, particularly if there's an alternative provision - which could be a taxi - is put in place. And before anyone claims taxis aren't part of the public transport system they might like to reflect on quite how extensively local authorities use taxis to transport Special Education Needs (SEN) children to alterative education provision (AEP - which are either schools or special units designed to support children with complex needs).

 

[A0]

I have to agree. I appreciate my pro-public transport views may be seen as quite extreme but I don't think simply maintaining what we have today is too much to ask given how much the rail network has been cut back over time. Same goes for buses. I don't want to be reliant on taxis and "dial a bus".

The last railway closures were over 50 years ago - long before many people on this board were alive, let alone able to use the network.

And despite the protestations that such lines provided a "vital link" - the reality was quite the opposite. Take a look at timetable world at the service frequencies on some of those lines - at best a handful of trains, timetabled at erratic times, often 6 days a week. To give a practical example Welwyn Gdn City to Luton, 1961 (so before Beeching report) from Luton there were trains at 6.44, 7.14 and 8.13 Mon-Sat, then next was 9.16 (weekdays) 9.53, 13.32, 14.58 (Sat), 15.39, 18.00, 18.54/19.01 (SO/SX), 20.51 - that was it. The returns were no better.

Compare that with the combined 366 and 610 buses which run between Luton and Welwyn GC (366) and Hatfield (610):

The 366 runs M-F with departures at 6.05, then hourly from 9.22 - 14.22, 15.00/15.20 (depending on school dates) and 17.25, the 610 runs Mon - Sat with weekday departures at 6.15, 7.15/7.20 (depending on Uni dates), 8.25, 8.50 and 9.15 on Uni days, and then 9.40. From that point on it pretty much runs half hourly during Uni term time and hourly not until 16.25, then 17.20, 17.50, 18.35 and 19.35. Saturdays it's hourly from 8.30 - 18.30.

The bus can, of course, serve intermediate points which the train couldn't and the bus is no slower than the train was.

 

[lachlan]

I don't think anyone's suggesting "shoving disabled people off public transport" - if they have then with respect, I think you've misunderstood the points being made.

The point is a simple one - disabled people should have access to transport, that's not in doubt, but public transport isn't just rail based. It's about providing transport *the public can use*. So as @RT4038 points out, buses are legally required to be accessible for disabled people. And in many cases the bus is actually more convenient - if we look at lines like the Kyle or those to Fort William or Mallaig, many of the stations are in the middle of nowhere, so not accessible, not close to the nearest settlement (because many of these are barely hamlets let alone villages).

Like able bodied people, the vast majority of journeys made by disabled people are local ones - to work, to the shops, to the doctors or hospital. A handful of times a year they'll make a longer journey to visit friends, relatives or go on holiday - and nobody is trying to deny them that. But to argue a lightly used, rural line being closed would isolate disabled people is being disingenuous, particularly if there's an alternative provision - which could be a taxi - is put in place. And before anyone claims taxis aren't part of the public transport system they might like to reflect on quite how extensively local authorities use taxis to transport Special Education Needs (SEN) children to alterative education provision (AEP - which are either schools or special units designed to support children with complex needs).

I have experience with disabled bus pass systems - there's no way a taxi scheme would have the same availability to all people across the UK as the railway currently does. It would likely be devolved for a start and then there will be other restrictions like not being available until after 9:30 like the bus pass.

By arguing stations are "not accessible" you're ignoring the many disabled people who can't drive but are able to walk and use steps. Plus I fully support making the railway system more accessible.

The last railway closures were over 50 years ago - long before many people on this board were alive, let alone able to use the network.

And despite the protestations that such lines provided a "vital link" - the reality was quite the opposite. Take a look at timetable world at the service frequencies on some of those lines - at best a handful of trains, timetabled at erratic times, often 6 days a week. To give a practical example Welwyn Gdn City to Luton, 1961 (so before Beeching report) from Luton there were trains at 6.44, 7.14 and 8.13 Mon-Sat, then next was 9.16 (weekdays) 9.53, 13.32, 14.58 (Sat), 15.39, 18.00, 18.54/19.01 (SO/SX), 20.51 - that was it. The returns were no better.

Compare that with the combined 366 and 610 buses which run between Luton and Welwyn GC (366) and Hatfield (610):

The 366 runs M-F with departures at 6.05, then hourly from 9.22 - 14.22, 15.00/15.20 (depending on school dates) and 17.25, the 610 runs Mon - Sat with weekday departures at 6.15, 7.15/7.20 (depending on Uni dates), 8.25, 8.50 and 9.15 on Uni days, and then 9.40. From that point on it pretty much runs half hourly during Uni term time and hourly not until 16.25, then 17.20, 17.50, 18.35 and 19.35. Saturdays it's hourly from 8.30 - 18.30.

The bus can, of course, serve intermediate points which the train couldn't and the bus is no slower than the train was.

Not sure how this is relevant. Some areas can be better served by bus but many stops are not easily accessible by road. The ideal is for bus and train to complement one another (which is what we have today).

 

[The Ham]

Arts Council budget £ 400m vs Rail subsidy £ 13 bn.

And whilst you may consider many of "the arts" to be an "elite passtime" - that's actually not the case. The genuinely "elite" ones like Glyndebourne receive no public subsidy. In fact the subsidies tend to go to galleries or theatres in towns up and down the land - you know, the ones which put on the local Christmas Panto, those kind of places.

How many years had the railway subsidy exceeded £8bn in the last 20 years, or are you only using the year or two in which Covid happened?

Also it should be noted that for many of years when there's been railway support much of that has been allocated as enhancements to the existing network and/or spending on projects like Crossrail and HS2.

It's also worth noting that debt incurred by Network Rail has to be accounted for by Network Rail, the same isn't true of National Highways (was Highways England), that currently costs NR £1bn a year and even if we shut all the railways would still be an ongoing cost.

That's before you consider the ongoing maintainance of any legacy infrastructure (which would also exist if you closed the railways).

As such what would the cost be to the government of zero railways vs maintaining the existing network?

I don't know, however probably not a vastly different amount. Especially if you consider the extra delay (and cost to the country) from the extra traffic which would then be wishing to use the roads.

That's before you consider that something like 40% of the pay of railway staff ends up back with the government through PAYE taxes. Based on the old rule of 1/3 of railway costs being staff costs this could well be about £3bn (or about 1/2 the support pre Covid).

The last railway closures were over 50 years ago - long before many people on this board were alive, let alone able to use the network.

Whilst that is true, there's vocal groups who would like there to be more railway closures going forwards.

A year ago that may have made sense, even 6 months ago there was probably a good case for it, however the current trend is upwards and the current usage level is around the level seen in about 2010.

The fact that in November the drop in rail use reached the high points in March and possibly April and then saw a spike which almost replicated the volume of the dip in the days after probably means that we need to sort out the industrial relations before we look at what we need to cut (and I accept that some cuts maybe needed) to see how the industry is at that time (as currently, even with the strikes, it's in not too bad a shape).

Should buses be improved, yes. However, that should be too complement all travel options (other than perhaps the private car), as by doing so you could grow the use of walking, cycling, buses and rail. Don't anything to harm any one of those would likely result in more car use and less bus use.

For example if someone isn't able to make a rail trip (as the railway has been removed) may well opt to use a car rather than use buses, even if the rail trip is something they do once a month. As they then feel that they need a car for those rail trips and so their daily trips then also switch to car based travel.

 

[yorksrob]

Arts Council budget £ 400m vs Rail subsidy £ 13 bn.

And whilst you may consider many of "the arts" to be an "elite passtime" - that's actually not the case. The genuinely "elite" ones like Glyndebourne receive no public subsidy. In fact the subsidies tend to go to galleries or theatres in towns up and down the land - you know, the ones which put on the local Christmas Panto, those kind of places.

Well, rail travel is certainly not an elite passtime !

 

[Thirteen]

Realistically, shutting the entire railway network isn't and never will be an option for any Government because the political fallout would be too great and no one would agree to it. I'm sure there has been modelling what a UK without railways would look like but I imagine the results would show a huge increase in congestion and a huge impact on the economy.

 

[geordieblue]

The last railway closures were over 50 years ago - long before many people on this board were alive, let alone able to use the network.

Alston, Clayton West, Bridport, Kilmalcolm, Tunbridge Wells West... there's a pretty long list on the 'Late Closures' thread

 

[HSTEd]

The last railway closures were over 50 years ago - long before many people on this board were alive, let alone able to use the network.

Whilst you are technically correct in broad terms, you are not strictly correct.

The Sinfin branch, for example, closed much later than that!

 

[A0]

Alston, Clayton West, Bridport, Kilmalcolm, Tunbridge Wells West... there's a pretty long list on the 'Late Closures' thread

There weren't many and they were pretty insignificant.

Most of the closures were stations, usually due to re-sites. In terms of track miles, you'll be struggling to hit 100 miles since 1971 where there was a closure with no replacement (so excluding things like the ECML diversion).