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

[yorksrob]

Those stations were still costing of the order of £ 0.5m in today's prices. They wouldn't meet current safety standards. And there's a small matter of how much maintenance they've needed in the subsequent years - wooden platforms have a much shorter working life and require much more maintenance than a properly build brick /concrete one.

That's still less than half of £1.3m. A platform next to the railway is a platform next to the railway regardless of what it's built of.

And if you don't like wood, you could always reprise the Southern's Exmouth Junction concrete designs. Plenty of those are still around 60/70 years later.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thing I'm finding difficult is how it's that expensive to build a brick wall, tip a load of hardcore in it and surface the top.

Building a house doesn't cost that sort of figure.

 

[A0]

That's still less than half of £1.3m. A platform next to the railway is a platform next to the railway regardless of what it's built of.

And if you don't like wood, you could always reprise the Southern's Exmouth Junction concrete designs. Plenty of those are still around 60/70 years later.

Bit in bold - and were they really that much cheaper ? It would be more than 70 years old now as well given the Southern Railway ceased to exist in 1948.

Add in, you still need to meet current safety and accessibility legislation, which many of the 'simple' platform designs of times past absolutely do not.

 

[A0]

The thing I'm finding difficult is how it's that expensive to build a brick wall, tip a load of hardcore in it and surface the top.

Building a house doesn't cost that sort of figure.

The total cost of building a house is rather more than you think - you're taking the 'rebuild' cost I assume ?

The whole process of planning, planning approval and then working alongside a live railway all adds to the costs. Like I said above, you can't just ask the local brickie to come and knock up a platform.

 

[RT4038]

This.

The UK's public transport system has very close to infinite possible custom, it's there in cars on the roads. It just needs to, you know, attract some of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Dec 2022 ==



I completely agree. But it has to be the full "Bahnbus"/"Postauto" treatment, not just what is going on on the Marston Vale at the moment with totally unsuitable* vehicles. I'd say use the MV, but it isn't really suitable because it's not one where you'd directly replace rail with bus because the route doesn't lend itself to that - you'd need different solutions for different stations - which is in fact why it survived Beeching - it was all a bit much for United Counties to deal with. If it was in England the Conwy Valley might be the one, but I'm sure someone could think of another one where it could be tried properly.

* The Marston Vale stopping bus this morning, a filthy ex-TfL Enviro200 which hadn't even had its roundels removed, was parked badly by the station and appeared to have a bit of floor hanging off under the rear doors. That is NEVER going to attract passengers. I don't know whose it was, but I bet it was one of the "Red *" Aylesbury operators, and disreputable companies like those need to be as far from this concept as is physically possible.

It would be 'horses for courses' obviously. Some lines still operating are in a similar position to those shut in the 60s - so few passengers that even a replacement bus is hardly worth it. The showcases (and it needs in the plural because of different circumstances in different areas) do not necessaril;y have to be all existing rail routes, but they need to be the best (and worst!) chosen to sell the concept.

The Marston Vale is actually quite a complicated one, though possibly easier before Milton Keynes existed.

What you would probably need is:
- Fenny Stratford/Bow Brickhill - a matter for Milton Keynes local bus services more than the railway
- Woburn Sands - reasonably frequent bus to Central MK via Kingston as part of the urban MK system (as it had until the planning gain ran out)
- MK-Bedford fast - already provided by the X5
- MK-Bedford slow via A421, Ridgmont, Lidlington, Marston Moretaine, Wootton Broadmead then either Wootton or the B530 (and Wixams once it's finished and has a way through), occasional, timed around schools/office commuter times and Amazon shift changes at Ridgmont

Which notably is totally different to what was needed when Beeching was about!

How many buses to carry (outside of the school movements) about 15 passengers per train? About 4 pax on each? And of course that was the same issue with the replacement (however it was done, extra service or existing modified) at the time of Dr. B.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Dec 2022 ==

The failure in the past of line closure rail replacement bus services, in my opinion, was that they replicated the railway route and thereby missed out nearby traffic opportunities.

For instance, the limited stop replacement bus of the Northampton - Peterborough rail service called at Ringstead and Addington but didn't stop in Rushden or Higham Ferrers, even though they're on the road route. From what I remember, they also called at the station sites in the Nene valley rather than the villages on higher ground, perpetuating the reason the railway was not useful. That service didn't last long - only as long as B.R. paid for it - but, much later, Northampton - Peterborough through services were introduced, and these seemed to be very successful but they did not follow the railway route at all, going via Kettering rather than Wellingborough. Maybe a lesson for the future.

But the point at the time of the rail replacement service was to give a replacement for the trains, not compete against other bus services. There was already bus service between Rushden, Higham Ferrers and Northampton, and for the few likely takers to Peterborough could take a 413 to Kettering and change to the 266/312. I presume that, at the time, through Northampton-Peterborough passenger business was hardly anything, and catered for by bus via either Kettering or Corby using existing mileage being run. I know some of this seems a bit unadventurous now, but it is fairly easy to understand the thinking of then.

 

[eldomtom2]

Sort out the cost base first, become lean and mean, then go for the passenger volume.

Define "sorting out the cost base".

 

[RT4038]

Define "sorting out the cost base".

Infrastructure costs, labour costs, rolling stock costs, management costs

 

[yorksrob]

Bit in bold - and were they really that much cheaper ? It would be more than 70 years old now as well given the Southern Railway ceased to exist in 1948.

Add in, you still need to meet current safety and accessibility legislation, which many of the 'simple' platform designs of times past absolutely do not.

They're just pre-fabricated bits of concrete. How much does a slab or a concrete fence post cost at the garden centre ?

The station in the picture was next to a road. a ramp could have been easily built.

 

[PTR 444]

No, very much not. I want a fully integrated system, where regional and interregional buses are tendered by the same authority as pays for rail and treated as trains. Bus operators would be paid for operating the bus, not for the passengers. The timetable would be set by the tendering authority on both modes.

It's also about flexibiilty. Not every route involved is a branch line. It should for instance be possible to do Luton-Bedford-Bicester N-Banbury with the X5 in the middle on one return ticket and back via the Marston Vale. The "RailLinks" setup that was tried in the early 2000s failed on that.

Another key is it including "missed connection insurance" of some kind.

I also want urban integration, but this is probably slightly separate from the regional integration we are talking about.



Traveline is rubbish and Google not always up to date. It's a shame we don't have an equivalent of the Dutch 9292ov.nl site and app.

Agreed.

Rail is never going to achieve its full potential without effective integration from other modes of transport. A fully nationalised integrated public transport and fares system might not work in the UK due to its size, political will and cultural factors, but I definitely think there would be merit in at least having a national journey planning database for all UK local buses and trains.

The idea is that such an app sees public transport as a whole, and users can plan and pay in advance for a journey right from door to door. Ok, maybe not as precise as my front door, but say I wanted to travel from my nearest town, the app’s location system would show Wimborne as my nearest ‘stop’ (one ‘stop’ could cover a multitude of bus stops within a single town/village). If I wanted to travel to another destination away from the rail network, let’s say Alton (Hants)*, the app would show an itinerary for the best possible journeys using any mode of transport (which would show as 3/4 to Poole, SWR to Winchester and 64 to Alton). A bit like Google journey planner except there would also be the option to buy all tickets for respective operators at once, saving time. The app could then display a combined QR code ticket for the journey, valid for all operators involved on a particular itinerary. Full fares integration might be nice but contactless has removed one of the drawbacks of separate fare systems, which is the need to carry separate travelcards or book/pay for multiple journeys which can be time consuming.

I should also say that I am very fascinated by your vision for a fully integrated public transport network within the UK. Last week I had the pleasure to visit Konstanz, Germany and was astonished by the reliability and efficiency of its bus and train network. City buses running at hourly intervals throughout the night with loadings nearing capacity, trains neatly organised into Intercity and Regional categories and fully-integrated RegioBuses serving areas not on the rail network. It’s no wonder Europe are leading the way in terms of integrated user-friendly transit.

* I know, Alton is on the rail network, but like with many other routings seems to ignore the fact that coming from the Southampton direction it is quicker to use a bus for part of the journey.

 

[Kilopylae]

Is it railway inflation or infrastructure inflation? Road schemes seem to be suffering just as much from this.

Inter alia, it's private-sector construction contractors. If the DfT or Network Rail directly employed construction staff (or in the case of roads, the council), that would reduce costs significantly.

 

[quantinghome]

Inter alia, it's private-sector construction contractors. If the DfT or Network Rail directly employed construction staff (or in the case of roads, the council), that would reduce costs significantly.

Has this ever been done? Even in the heyday of motorway construction it was all private contractors.

Construction contractors don't actually make much profit - 4% is considered to be doing well. The problems are manifold but basically lie in a lack of investment in productivity improvements which is in turn due to the lack of a continuous pipeline of work. This feast to famine approach means staff are trained up at vast expense for a project, only for the work to dry up and their skills go to waste. And the same goes for equipment - no point investing in an expensive bit of high productivity kit if you don't know whether it's going to get used.

 

[eldomtom2]

Infrastructure costs, labour costs, rolling stock costs, management costs

I know what the cost base is. What I want to know is what you define as a cost base that has been "sorted out".

 

[RT4038]

I know what the cost base is. What I want to know is what you define as a cost base that has been "sorted out".

Not sure much has been, more what needs to be. (hence the list).

 

[eldomtom2]

Not sure much has been, more what needs to be. (hence the list).

That does not answer the question. Are you expecting the railway to turn a profit?

 

[miklcct]

I suspect our TOCs are more efficient than most European ones, but also that Network Rail isn't.

One thing we could do is stop wasting money chasing tiny safety improvements.

Another (controversial) is accepting small safety reductions for big savings. For instance, platform staff are not a thing at all in most of Europe, the guard or driver dispatch themselves with only very few exceptions. DOO is much more common (though not in some countries, e.g. the Netherlands and Belgium).

The railway in the UK is the safest in Europe and we shouldn't make even one penny of compromise on this.

I refute this 100%.

There are plenty of forces that would like to start chipping away at the railway. If these "interests" succeed in chipping away one passenger service, there is a very real risk that the momentum to chip away at others will become irresistible.

It is our job as passengers to make the point that the network is a national rail network, it is not just there to enable isolated groups of commuters to undertake self-contained journeys, it is there to enable citizens across the nation to travel to a wide range of destinations nationwide, going about their business.

I actually hope the national network to disintegrate into a number of self-contained regional and local networks, and an intercity network on top of that. The job is to enable isolated group of commuters to undertake self-contained journeys.

For example, the TfL network should be a self-contained network with limited through fares to the wider Network SouthEast network, while the Network SouthEast network should not have through fares to the intercity network, as part of fare simplification. Any through journey should just be priced as the sum of components.

- Chiltern innersuburban stations. Keep West Ruislip as an outer Tube interchange. Close South Ruislip (has the Central), Northolt Park (lots of buses and not far from South Harrow Picc line), Sudbury Hull Harrow (has Picc line), Sudbury and Harrow Road (near Sudbury Town LU). Keep Wembley Stadium but to be served on event days only. This would make pathing on the Chiltern route easier and may allow a bit of a recast to the slower services.

I'm sorry that this will be a huge inconvenience for me living in North West London, where Wembley Stadium is the preferred interchange to the line. I live in Cricklewood and if I want to go to High Wycombe, I take two buses to Wembley Stadium to pick up the train. It will be a bus + tube journey to West Ruislip, 20 minutes more than the 2 buses from Wembley Stadium from where I live.

 

[yorksrob]

I actually hope the national network to disintegrate into a number of self-contained regional and local networks, and an intercity network on top of that. The job is to enable isolated group of commuters to undertake self-contained journeys.

For example, the TfL network should be a self-contained network with limited through fares to the wider Network SouthEast network, while the Network SouthEast network should not have through fares to the intercity network, as part of fare simplification. Any through journey should just be priced as the sum of components.

In a funny sort of way, you're describing a sort of extreme "sectorisation".

BR did this very successfully in the 1980's by having different marketing and management for Network SouthEast, InterCity and Regional Railways.

The key thing that they got, was thst they retained the unified fares system. It does need to be a single system with a single shop window, but you can manage different bits of it according to local needs

 

[AndrewE]

In a funny sort of way, you're describing a sort of extreme "sectorisation".

BR did this very successfully in the 1980's by having different marketing and management for Network SouthEast, InterCity and Regional Railways.

The key thing that they got, was that they retained the unified fares system. It does need to be a single system with a single shop window, but you can manage different bits of it according to local needs

It sounds more like Balkanisation to me...
I joined BR in 1974, and have only just realised that the whole-country timetable was a very recent innovation back then!

One of the worst consequences of sectorisation was the focus on small-company "bottom lines." It is a national network (both words equally important) and the main-line people need to realise that if people can't get from, say, Wolves to Wrexham then they won't buy a ticket from Exeter to Wolves, they will just go all the way by car. People either go by train - or they don't.

We need one system and one fare structure, especially as it's part of our infrastructure and an important part of addressing our carbon reduction targets.

 

[yorksrob]

It sounds more like Balkanisation to me...
I joined BR in 1974, and have only just realised that the whole-country timetable was a very recent innovation back then!

One of the worst consequences of sectorisation was the focus on small-company "bottom lines." It is a national network (both words equally important) and the main-line people need to realise that if people can't get from, say, Wolves to Wrexham then they won't buy a ticket from Exeter to Wolves, they will just go all the way by car. People either go by train - or they don't.

We need one system and one fare structure, especially as it's part of our infrastructure and an important part of addressing our carbon reduction targets.

Well, ultimately the sectors answered to the Chairman.

I'd take that over the system/s ever since.

 

[JonathanH]

We need one system and one fare structure, especially as it's part of our infrastructure and an important part of addressing our carbon reduction targets.

Arguably we don't. Contactless has been a great success in London and can be extended to similar local networks. E-tickets, often issued as advances, have been a great success for longer distance travel. Two types of ticket for two types of journey. It is simplest to limit the overlap of these types of fares.

 

[stuu]

The railway in the UK is the safest in Europe and we shouldn't make even one penny of compromise on this.


I actually hope the national network to disintegrate into a number of self-contained regional and local networks, and an intercity network on top of that. The job is to enable isolated group of commuters to undertake self-contained journeys.

For example, the TfL network should be a self-contained network with limited through fares to the wider Network SouthEast network, while the Network SouthEast network should not have through fares to the intercity network, as part of fare simplification. Any through journey should just be priced as the sum of components.


I'm sorry that this will be a huge inconvenience for me living in North West London, where Wembley Stadium is the preferred interchange to the line. I live in Cricklewood and if I want to go to High Wycombe, I take two buses to Wembley Stadium to pick up the train. It will be a bus + tube journey to West Ruislip, 20 minutes more than the 2 buses from Wembley Stadium from where I live.

You call changing the stopping pattern at some very poorly used stations as a huge inconvenience, but at the same time propose ruining the ticketing system for the entire network

Have you thought that through?

 

[miklcct]

You call changing the stopping pattern at some very poorly used stations as a huge inconvenience, but at the same time propose ruining the ticketing system for the entire network

Have you thought that through?

My stance is that the National Rail network should be disintegrated. When the network is disintegrated, those "very poorly used" Chiltern stations you want to close will have a chance to thrive in the metro network, where under the current franchise model they are overlooked to give way to long distance services.

When the National Rail network is disintegrated, the ticketing system will become a primarily e-ticket advance-purchase based for the intercity network and PAYG-style in the metro and regional networks, and a through fare will no longer be possible, which means it will be no longer be possible to buy a through ticket for, let's say, Glasgow to Watford High Street and you will need to use an intercity ticket from Glasgow to Watford Junction and switch to PAYG to complete the local journey. Clearly one size doesn't fit all here and I don't see how ticketing for London Overground should be different from London Underground and DLR.

In fact, all the interavailability mess should be withdrawn and simply make all London Underground / DLR tickets valid for all stations in the zones and withdraw all the existing point-to-point fares, like what has been done in the Elizabeth line core.

 

[AndrewE]

Arguably we don't. Contactless has been a great success in London and can be extended to similar local networks. E-tickets, often issued as advances, have been a great success for longer distance travel. Two types of ticket for two types of journey. It is simplest to limit the overlap of these types of fares.

Those are just different ways of paying. The fare structure is unchanged, apart from things like capping to limit fares at the price of a day rover. We still have different "offers" from all the TOCs, plus local initiatives in cities big enough to fund them.

 

[matacaster]

The main reason against any cutbacks (even if a few could be justified) is that it could create a domino effect. If politicians got away with closing a couple of branch lines, they would not stop there, but the goalposts would be moved and we could end up with Beeching 2. If would start of as "we will only close these 2 branch lines, don't worry there will be no more closures after this", but in reality they would just be testing the water to see what they could get away with. Some politicians would love to get rid of half the network if they thought there would be no backlash against it.

If Labour win the the next election (in 2025?) they would be much less likely to close anything. Any closures proposed by this Government would probably be revered by Labour.

I presume you don't remember Barbara castle then?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Dec 2022 ==

WYPTE managed it with its wooden platforms.

The industry needs to understand that it's the service that's the most important thing. There's no point having a swish new station if the service is deteriorating.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Dec 2022 ==



Even a "high quality" bus service couldn't replicate what the railway does.

Whilst disabled access to all stations and facilities is desirable, it is generally at an eye watering cost.
In view of the very small number of disabled persons who actually use many rural stations, it would surely make economic sense and be more convenient for the railway AND disabled people to provide a taxi service from their nearest station to the nearest disability access station?

 

[RT4038]

That does not answer the question. Are you expecting the railway to turn a profit?

Quite a loaded question!
Do I think the railways could turn a profit (depending on how that profit is defined) - yes, but it would require a network shrunken to the size of one of Dr. B's later maps. Do I think that a network shrunken to that size would be in the country's interests - no. Ergo, I accept that a degree of subsidy is going to be required. Do I think that the subsidy should be unlimited, and be paying for inflated costs (be they inefficiencies in labour, service, infrastructure, management, asset) - certainly not.

 

[eldomtom2]

Quite a loaded question!
Do I think the railways could turn a profit (depending on how that profit is defined) - yes, but it would require a network shrunken to the size of one of Dr. B's later maps. Do I think that a network shrunken to that size would be in the country's interests - no. Ergo, I accept that a degree of subsidy is going to be required. Do I think that the subsidy should be unlimited, and be paying for inflated costs (be they inefficiencies in labour, service, infrastructure, management, asset) - certainly not.

So where are you placing the line then? You keep dodging this.

 

[RT4038]

So where are you placing the line then? You keep dodging this.

My post was in reply to post # 135 by @quantinghome 'The best way to reduce the subsidy on the existing network is to grow passenger numbers. In the short term that means getting the railways reliable again. Sort out staff relations. No more macho posturing from government - get a pay deal done and sort out rest day working. Once the network is operating at an acceptable level, get a good marketing programme combined with a temporary fare offer to get passengers back and used to using rail. Next, focus on lengthening trains on the busiest routes, particularly cross country and regional services. It's amazing how low capacity some rail services are.'

This was not specifically aimed at 'the line', but the industry in general.

Do I think the rail industry is as efficient as it should be? Certainly not. Do I think 'the line' is being operated as efficiently as it could be? Certainly not. This nettle needs to be grasped. In respect of the thread title, an action plan needs to focus on realising efficiencies (however unpleasant and unpalatable they may seem) . Part of that focus needs to be on whether it is worth continuing with operation of lines outside of acceptable revenue/cost parameters - the efficiencies achieved will have a bearing on what falls within and what does not. Where 'the line' fits would be conjecture on my part - if I were a betting man, coupled with my long years in transport management, I suspect it will struggle.

 

[leytongabriel]

Having boundaries between different fare networks can create its own problems. Where Isle de France cheaper season tickets end and SNCF begin there's massive car communting to the nearest IdF station, to the detriment sometimes of the nearest established town station eg Dreux. Nearer home there's the extra road traffic and parking from people in Harlow coming to Epping for the Central line.

 

[The Ham]

Should we look at what the railway does, yes.

However one of the big issues (and closing a few stations or even lines isn't really doubt to do much) is that the Network Rail costs are high, for instance the debt costs £1bn a year, so even if we closed everything down that would still need to be covered (a related question, what's the National Highways debt? There isn't any as support for roads is seen as investment whilst support for railways is seen as subsidy).

Therefore, if rail has to cover the costs of enhancements (which was about £3bn a year in 2019, with about £1bn of debt payments doesn't leave much of the £6.7bn of support for the railways to cover the cost of day to day costs.

Now there's some debate as to if roads cover their costs from road based taxes (especially if you factor in costs from emissions, costs from injuries and deaths, and wider public health issues from inactivity due to people driving rather than walking) however it's clear that we can't provide enough road space in this country without harming a lot of existing property to cater for all rail based travel.

If anything we should be looking to reduce car based travel, so that we reduce our overall carbon emissions (EV's are broadly comparable per person per km as the average of rail, and whilst EV's will improve - so will rail and of there's investment in electrification and bimodals at a faster rate than EV's will and there's still going to be at least some ICE cars for a few decades yet) rail is part of that.

The issue currently is with the likes of Avanti, XC and TPE running 60% to 65% of services km (compared to GWR who are running 95%) it's going to be very hard to encourage people to use rail as it's unreliable, overcrowded, and has poor connections between services.

Any report should also need to look at where rail needs to improve its offering to maximise income to enable it cover those high NR costs.

Whilst season ticket income is still much lower than it was, in the last year we've seen it grow by 1/3, yes it'll be hard to get it back to 50%, but it's likely that anytime tickets (already around 100%) would also likely result in increases further reducing the gap.

WFH could be useful for railways, as if you're going to the office 2 days a week owning a car (which suits around doing nothing for 3 days a week) probably isn't cost effective. Few could, including all costs, run a car for £1,000 a year or about £20 a week, if you're going to the office twice a week that's £10 per trip (rather than the, say £2 in fuel costs - about 15 mike's round trip) if rail was £5 return then there's scope for rail to offer a cheaper way to get to work. Yes rail could be more for longer distances, however then your fuel costs would be higher, as would your maintenance costs).

Clearly that's a hard sell if that the only car, but if that allows a household to reduce their cars from 2+ to 1+ it maybe a viable option for more people.

If you already own a car or are in a lease the extra costs to keep going are lower, however with the higher than normal purchase costs of all cars it could be something more consider as cars need replacing.

Yes rail is never going to replace roads (it's not viable in certain cases, just as roads replacing rail isn't viable in others), however a reduction in car use (and even 2% would be noticeable, as that's the daily variation - so those days for no reason you get to work late vs those days you get there early for no reason that's a 2% change between the two) is likely to benefit everyone (especially those who continue to use the roads.

A 10% fall in road use would be comparable to it being school holiday traffic (obviously a bad example in tourist hot spots) during term time, with the very much reduced delays. Term time someone I know has to allow 50-70 minutes for a journey, school holidays that falls to about 30 minutes. As such there's an argument that if you are a car driver you want as many other people as possible not to be driving so that it benefits you.

The cost per household of rail (even the gross £25bn in public sector spending - which excludes any rail revenue, such as ticket sales) is £833 out of the £36,000 per household of all government income (the reality is that it was £233 in 2019).

It maybe hard work but it shouldn't be impossible, by improving services, to get close to that again. Something which is highly unlikely if we try and cut our way to reaching that goal (although there maybe a need for some cuts in the improving services option).

 

[daodao]

@The Ham

Wittering on about reducing car/road use as a way to help railway finances is irrelevant. Rail is not, and cannot become, an effective substitute for most passenger or freight journeys within GB, and is a niche form of transport. It does have a role, but needs to refocus on doing this in a more cost-effective and streamlined manner, which is the premise of this thread.

 

[The Ham]

@The Ham

Wittering on about reducing car/road use as a way to help railway finances is irrelevant. Rail is not, and cannot become, an effective substitute for most passenger or freight journeys within GB, and is a niche form of transport. It does have a role, but needs to refocus on doing this in a more cost-effective and streamlined manner, which is the premise of this thread.

Why is increasing rail use (where it's suitable - and I fully admit that it's not suitable everywhere) irrelevant to getting the railways back to a place where they are cost effective for the government (which ultimately is the goal of the article at the start of the post)?

Personally I do not think that is possible to cut our way to that goal, not least because of the significant NR costs. Yes there may well be some cuts which are needed, however trying to get there only by cuts is unlikely to work.

All I am doing by wittering on about this is highlighting that any look at the role of rail also needs to look at the wider picture to understand how it could be useful. Without understanding that wider picture could mean that and conclusion on how rail should be could be wrong.

For example just because the likes of XC, Avanti and TPE are running 60% to 65% of services could mean that there's an argument that rail isn't needed as much in the North, which could result in further cuts in the North. In turn they could result in Manchester declining as it's roads clog up (other cities could also are this).

If you think I'm wrong feel free to argue against the base of my argument (that the NR costs are significant and cutting a few stations, services and even a few lines is unlikely to make much of a dent in this; however having a viable - which could be different from pre Covid - rail network generating lots of income to cover as many of those costs as possible) however part of that is the biggest picture stuff, as the role of the railways and if it has a viable future will always need to consider that.

Avanti not running 1/3 fewer services isn't going to change the NR bill for the WCML by very much. However it could mean that there's far less money going to the government, so the government feels that it needs to make cost savings. The fact that it may cost Avanti 100 (non value just to illustrate the difference) to run an extra service but generate 150 doesn't appear to enter the DfT's head, as whilst that might mean the gross costs of the network are higher the support needed is lower. Yes it may well be that pre Covid the share of the overall cost was 225 means that it's not covering it's costs, however if by not running it then it saves 10 the industry is actually worse off by 40 than they would be by running the service.

Where are most of those passengers going to come from, most likely from car use.

Just by focusing on reducing the £25bn of public sector spending as to how to fix the rail network means you are missing out on the £18bn of income to the public sector.

Not all of that is ticket sales, some will be rents (i.e. shops at stations), by not encouraging footfall at stations the income from rent is likely to reduce over time as business move out or negotiate lower rents.

Again something which is part of the bigger picture, which could mean running more services to a big station, to keep footfall levels high, costing the industry 10 after the train costs/income have been accounted for but earning the industry an extra 20 from rents, is something which also needs to be considered.

However the bottom line is that it's unlikely that railways are every going to be able to cover all their costs, so unless you propose closing then down (with the costs to the country in doing so - which will be big road costs, not least significant delays to road users from the extra traffic) it's a case of how much railway support is viable?

However even at zero railways there'll be £1bn in debt payments going forwards which need to be covered.