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

[tbtc]

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

1. The pendulum has apparently swung back to “There’s no point in making any savings because when closing a few lines won’t make much difference in the grand scene of things” (Rather than the alternative of “closing a lightly used station like Breich/ Brigg / Berney Arms would lead to a huge drop in main line passengers and would encourage the Government to make vindictive cuts, so that before you know it things are worse than Serpell”)

2. Given how expensive land is in the UK, surely if we close a few lines down (as per your example) then we could sell off some land (to pay off some of that debt)? I suspect that the answer to this will similarly be along the lines of “There’s no point in making any small improvements” though

 

[yorksrob]

@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.

Fundamentally this is nonsense.

Rail is performing the same role as it did before the pandemic except for some peak time commuting which has dropped back. Some of the commuter services need to refocus more on the all day market and rail needs to stop being in permanent turmoil.

 

[lachlan]

Fundamentally this is nonsense.

Rail is performing the same role as it did before the pandemic except for some peak time commuting which has dropped back. Some of the commuter services need to refocus more on the all day market and rail needs to stop being in permanent turmoil.

Indeed. Given how few people currently take the train vs driving, even a small modal shift would see a relatively large increase in rail ridership. We should stop road building and take serious action to reduce car usage and this will see increased numbers of rail and bus users.

 

[yorksrob]

1. The pendulum has apparently swung back to “There’s no point in making any savings because when closing a few lines won’t make much difference in the grand scene of things” (Rather than the alternative of “closing a lightly used station like Breich/ Brigg / Berney Arms would lead to a huge drop in main line passengers and would encourage the Government to make vindictive cuts, so that before you know it things are worse than Serpell”)

2. Given how expensive land is in the UK, surely if we close a few lines down (as per your example) then we could sell off some land (to pay off some of that debt)? I suspect that the answer to this will similarly be along the lines of “There’s no point in making any small improvements” though

It is fascinating how certain sections of the community can completely dismiss the cost of paying to keep several private companies involved year on year and leasing rolling stock for ever, yet they seem to be under the impression that flogging off a few branch lines in rural areas will make a huge dent in the railways costs.

It is somewhat of a stretch of the imagination.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2022 ==

Indeed. Given how few people currently take the train vs driving, even a small modal shift would see a relatively large increase in rail ridership. We should stop road building and take serious action to reduce car usage and this will see increased numbers of rail and bus users.

Indeed. The never ending list of road projects could be trimmed.

 

[tbtc]

It is fascinating how certain sections of the community can completely dismiss the cost of paying to keep several private companies involved year on year and leasing rolling stock for ever

How long are you going to fixate on the leasing costs, Rob?

As discussed on more than one occasion, BR were leasing locomotives in the 1960s, it’s hardly a new phenomena

Bus companies lease some of their new fleets because it’s more efficient than outright purchase (in fact my local bus depot don’t even own the bus tyres; they lease them from a major provider, so that the tyres are replaced by new ones once they’ve done a certain mileage/ treads are lower)

(Back when commercial decisions could be taken rather than the dead hand of the DfT dominating everything) an increasing number of TOCs seemed to prefer contracts that bundled together maintenance and leasing (not as onerous as the IET contracts that the Government signed up to, but in the same ball park) - other than a couple of old HST power cars/ 143s that First acquired, i don’t remember any TOCs trying to buy trains outright (if leasing costs so much)?

And we’re not leasing stock “for ever”. That’s the point. There’s a contact, a finite period, after which we are free to walk away, which means not being lumbered with stock that we don’t want (e.g. the Government have decided that they are unwilling to pay for various 360/379s etc so their disposal isn’t something that the tax payer has to write off - the alternative is obviously being lumbered with unfit trains that you have no use for)

Your way of trying to defend basket case lines seems to be “look over there at a completely different issue” and hope that the debate will move away from people wondering what purpose a station with a couple of hundred departing passengers a year will ever have

 

[cactustwirly]

Fundamentally this is nonsense.

Rail is performing the same role as it did before the pandemic except for some peak time commuting which has dropped back. Some of the commuter services need to refocus more on the all day market and rail needs to stop being in permanent turmoil.

It depends on the line, for some journeys rail is hands down the best option, such as travelling into London or other big cities.

However there are some journeys where rail is not competitive, for example journeys between different towns in the South East. Such as Bracknell to Guildford, which takes ages with 3 changes of train, or a relatively simple drive taking 20-30 minutes.

Then you have relatively large places like Cirencester which have no station at all, but then we have pointless basket cases like Teeside Airport and Elton and Orston which have one.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

Moderator note: Split from

Article in the Spectator yesterday - "It's time we stopped subsidising the railways"

mod note - thread moved to the Speculative section of the forum as it is ostensibly just that - a speculative idea! By Ross Clark in the Spectator - in their blog not the magazine - some interesting/questionable figures in this article...

www.railforums.co.uk

That sums up the essence of the article.

The railway network in Great Britain needs to focus on what rail does best in the light of the changed economic circumstances, which are at least partly self-inflicted. The basic principles were outlined in the Beeching reports from 60 years ago:

1. The Reshaping of British Railways
2. The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes

Rail is best at:

• Carrying large numbers of passengers between major urban centres, and into big cities from their suburbs and neighbouring settlements
• bulk freight

A new Beeching-style report is needed, with timely implementation. New factors that need to be taken into account include:

• reduction in commuting, enabling a reduction in peak hour services (particularly to/from London), which are expensive to run in terms of staff/trains/infrastructure
• potential conversion of lines to light rail, with reduced costs and improved service frequency (vis-a-vis heavy rail), in which Manchester has led the way
• the major decline in certain freight flows, which has reduced the need for certain rural lines such as the Settle & Carlisle and Brigg lines, and thus raises the question as to whether their retention is either affordable or necessary

Such a report should be about refocussing the role of rail and not just about closing lines or track. Re-opening of lines into major cities (e.g. Ashington to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Portishead to Bristol) could still be justified. However, rail cannot continue doing what it has done over the last 30 years, eating up more and more government subsidy. The elephant in the room, namely HS2b north of Crewe/NPR/HS2 eastern leg, also needs to be re-evaluated.

If you're worried about government subsidies I suggest you target your ire at the world of welfare or the NHS. Far more cash to be saved in those areas than transport.

 

[RT4038]

Indeed. Given how few people currently take the train vs driving, even a small modal shift would see a relatively large increase in rail ridership. We should stop road building and take serious action to reduce car usage and this will see increased numbers of rail and bus users.

The only problem being that the (large) majority of the voters do not want to be modally shifted onto inconvenient and unreliable public transport. They certainly don't want 'serious action to reduce car usage' because they like the convenience and reliability of their cars. Even if they haven't got a car currently, many aspire to one. As the voters elect the Government, and those making up the Government want to get elected, this 'serious action' seems to be flogging a dead horse.

 

[yorksrob]

How long are you going to fixate on the leasing costs, Rob?

As discussed on more than one occasion, BR were leasing locomotives in the 1960s, it’s hardly a new phenomena

Bus companies lease some of their new fleets because it’s more efficient than outright purchase (in fact my local bus depot don’t even own the bus tyres; they lease them from a major provider, so that the tyres are replaced by new ones once they’ve done a certain mileage/ treads are lower)

(Back when commercial decisions could be taken rather than the dead hand of the DfT dominating everything) an increasing number of TOCs seemed to prefer contracts that bundled together maintenance and leasing (not as onerous as the IET contracts that the Government signed up to, but in the same ball park) - other than a couple of old HST power cars/ 143s that First acquired, i don’t remember any TOCs trying to buy trains outright (if leasing costs so much)?

And we’re not leasing stock “for ever”. That’s the point. There’s a contact, a finite period, after which we are free to walk away, which means not being lumbered with stock that we don’t want (e.g. the Government have decided that they are unwilling to pay for various 360/379s etc so their disposal isn’t something that the tax payer has to write off - the alternative is obviously being lumbered with unfit trains that you have no use for)

Your way of trying to defend basket case lines seems to be “look over there at a completely different issue” and hope that the debate will move away from people wondering what purpose a station with a couple of hundred departing passengers a year will ever have

Probably as long as people such as your good self fixate on trying to cut passenger services, which are the core reason for the railway today.

The railway always had the option to ditch rolling stock that was no longer needed or life expired. It sold it to the scrap man. What they didn't have to do was to pay twice over for the cost of building it.

 

[RT4038]

Indeed. The never ending list of road projects could be trimmed.

However, this seems unlikely, because fast journeys and free flowing roads is what the majority of voters want (whether in their cars, or removing traffic out of their communities). Modal shift to public transport is not on most people's radar, mostly because of the inconvenience and unreliability.

 

[The Ham]

1. The pendulum has apparently swung back to “There’s no point in making any savings because when closing a few lines won’t make much difference in the grand scene of things” (Rather than the alternative of “closing a lightly used station like Breich/ Brigg / Berney Arms would lead to a huge drop in main line passengers and would encourage the Government to make vindictive cuts, so that before you know it things are worse than Serpell”)

2. Given how expensive land is in the UK, surely if we close a few lines down (as per your example) then we could sell off some land (to pay off some of that debt)? I suspect that the answer to this will similarly be along the lines of “There’s no point in making any small improvements” though

I did say that there may well be cuts. However the point was that we can't only do this.

If there are sensible (costed) examples then I would have no issue with there being cuts.

The problem with selling land is that it's only realty with anything of note if its for permission to build something on. Agricultural land isn't worth a lot (£5,000 to £10,000 per acre) so we'd need something like 100,000 acres to cover the first year's debt payments.

Whilst city centre land is worth a lot more, that's effectively been ruled out as there's no lightweight used lines within cities.

 

[yorksrob]

However, this seems unlikely, because fast journeys and free flowing roads is what the majority of voters want (whether in their cars, or removing traffic out of their communities). Modal shift to public transport is not on most people's radar, mostly because of the inconvenience and unreliability.

Well, a start would be running a service that wasn't hobbled with unreliability in the first place.

 

[RT4038]

Well, a start would be running a service that wasn't hobbled with unreliability in the first place.

As it has always been, in one way or another. Reliability costs money, so is it really worth it? The question has to be asked 'Will public transport ever get to get to the convenience and reliability to get any worthwhile modal shift?' Note - modal shift rather than encouraging journeys that wouldn't otherwise have been made.

 

[A0]

Well, a start would be running a service that wasn't hobbled with unreliability in the first place.

Perhaps that could be achieved by simplifying the rail network then ?

There's already plentiful evidence that when networks are simple, have simple stopping patterns with sensibly spaced trains that reliability can be very high - London Underground being a case in point.

But when you start to complicate it e.g. with a small branch line handling a couple of people a day entering into the mainline, that's where it starts to create problems. So to give some practical examples (which coincidentally also touch some of your pets) the S&C and Bentham lines should only run to Skipton, not all the way into Leeds where they can cause delays, Marshlink becomes self contained only running between Ashford and Ore etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

@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 other side of that is that there are so many car journeys and so few rail journeys that rail, other than on small branches, has a near-infinite potential market. So if e.g. Avanti doesn't fill its trains it's doing things wrong.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2022 ==

As it has always been, in one way or another. Reliability costs money, so is it really worth it?

If we are asking that question at all we should close it all forthwith. Business which operates a bad service (rather than one with limited scope) should not exist - indeed should probably not be allowed to exist by law.

 

[JonathanH]

Business which operates a bad service (rather than one with limited scope) should not exist - indeed should probably not be allowed to exist by law.

Usually managed by not allowing them to allow to continue to trade once their debts cannot be recovered by normal trading - eg bankruptcy.

As we know, the railways are to all intents and purposes bankrupt but allowed to continue to trade thanks to state funding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Usually managed by not allowing them to allow to continue to trade once their debts cannot be recovered by normal trading - eg bankruptcy.

As we know, the railways are to all intents and purposes bankrupt but allowed to continue to trade thanks to state funding.

Not the same thing at all. We all know a parcel company, for instance, that operates such excessively poor service that it should be forced by law to improve or close even though it is profitable. Consumer law exists to ensure businesses do what they are selling that they will, and e.g. Avanti West Coast and TPE are presently failing this.

The railways are not "bankrupt" - this is Serpellesque hyperbole - they are operating a service under a cost-plus contract (i.e. they are paid the cost of operating it plus a profit margin), which is not in itself an entirely unusual thing in business and is for obvious reasons a very desirable thing for a supplier!

They may be in breach of that contract I suppose, depending what it actually says.

 

[yorksrob]

As it has always been, in one way or another. Reliability costs money, so is it really worth it? The question has to be asked 'Will public transport ever get to get to the convenience and reliability to get any worthwhile modal shift?' Note - modal shift rather than encouraging journeys that wouldn't otherwise have been made.

I'm not talking about the moon on a stick, Japanese metro type reliability.

Just the level of reliability we had before and during the pandemic would be enough get people in. By the way, transport is an enabling factor for people to live and work. I don't see why someone who doesn't own a car being able to take part in lifes opportunities where they wouldn't previously have been, is less valid a reason for providing public transport as getting someone out of a car

 

[43066]

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.

As it has always been, in one way or another. Reliability costs money, so is it really worth it?

The two emboldened statements above perhaps go some way to explain why public transport in this country is in such a sorry state of managed decline…

 

[Xavi]

Network Rail cost allocation is poor. The true cost of multi-track routes through urban areas with a high volumes of S&C is generally understated whilst the cost of a rural single track line is overstated. Consequently, some commentators (and decision-makers) can be fooled into thinking the allocated costs will disappear if a rural route is closed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The two emboldened statements above perhaps go some way to explain why public transport in this country is in such a sorry state of managed decline…

Well, quite.

My business ethic is that you do something properly or you don't do it at all. Hence my favouring of a much reduced emergency timetable on the "bad" TOCs - better to run once an hour reasonably reliably than 2 or 3tph inconsistently.

Mind you there are enough foolish people who continue to use a certain courier, so there's profit in mediocrity. (I don't mean Ryanair - its service is basic and there are fees for almost all services, but it is pretty reliable - they do what they say they will do pretty well).

 

[RT4038]

The railways are not "bankrupt" - this is Serpellesque hyperbole - they are operating a service under a cost-plus contract (i.e. they are paid the cost of operating it plus a profit margin), which is not in itself an entirely unusual thing in business and is for obvious reasons a very desirable thing for a supplier!

As an industry the railway is 'bankrupt'. For the individual operating businesses they are not trading insolvently because their revenue is being guaranteed by Government.

Just the level of reliability we had before and during the pandemic would be enough get people in. By the way, transport is an enabling factor for people to live and work. I don't see why someone who doesn't own a car being able to take part in lifes opportunities where they wouldn't previously have been, is less valid a reason for providing public transport as getting someone out of a car

But the level of reliability (and coverage) before the pandemic was nowhere near good enough to encourage modal shift. I am questioning whether the cost of changing that in order to encourage modal shift is worth it. It is a little sad that the current state of affairs is meaning that you would consider the situation in 2019 as acceptable. It wasn't - it was **!"*.

Unfortunately, so many of the population (and so many voters) do not wish to take part in the pleasure of public transport, so the remaining use is such that does not economically justify utility service. So it has become a niche activity (albeit a fair sized niche) which has to be increasingly propped up with public money. This money needs to be spent wisely and efficiently to get the best coverage with the most appropriate mode.

My business ethic is that you do something properly or you don't do it at all. Hence my favouring of a much reduced emergency timetable on the "bad" TOCs - better to run once an hour reasonably reliably than 2 or 3tph inconsistently.

You are right. If we do not want to/cannot afford the current service/network size at an acceptable level of reliability then we reduce their size to the level that can be run reliably. One of the ways to do this is to improve efficiency and another is to identify the worst revenue/cost ratio parts and lop them.

We all accept a certain level of unreliability in our lives (the car sometime does not start/puncture/etc) and a certain amount of inconvenience (the shop we like is further away than an alternative we don't like etc) . However, reliability, and convenience costs money and there is always a trade off. There is such a large gap between private car and public transport (and I accept that this changes depending on the journey being undertaken - but those instances where public transport wins is niche) that it would be an impossibly large sum of money to be poured down to make a much of a difference.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As an industry the railway is 'bankrupt'. For the individual operating businesses they are not trading insolvently because their revenue is being guaranteed by Government.

Again, no it's not. It is subsidised. It is not bankrupt. This is gross hyperbole even if you do (as I suspect you do) disagree with it being subsidised.

But the level of reliability (and coverage) before the pandemic was nowhere near good enough to encourage modal shift. I am questioning whether the cost of changing that in order to encourage modal shift is worth it. It is a little sad that the current state of affairs is meaning that you would consider the situation in 2019 as acceptable. It wasn't - it was **!"*.

Was it? The LNR Liverpool through services were stupid, but say the 2018 state of latter day London Midland was pretty decent, and latter day Virgin Trains could be relied upon, too, as could early-days Avanti West Coast however much it might have lacked sparkle. What part of the network did you use that was particularly bad? I found it worked more often than not.

Yes, XC was always rammed, but it was rammed and mostly on time. Which is in many ways quite impressive with a 500+ mile route and so many interactions.

Unfortunately, so many of the population (and so many voters) do not wish to take part in the pleasure of public transport, so the remaining use is such that does not economically justify utility service. So it has become a niche activity (albeit a fair sized niche) which has to be increasingly propped up with public money. This money needs to be spent wisely and efficiently to get the best coverage with the most appropriate mode.

This depends on whether you consider we should accept that the car continues as the main mode of transport (with a switch to EVs) or we consider that we need to move on from that before the climate emergency gets any worse.

I've said already that that requires a quality public transport system in which bus/coach also plays a key role, though.

You are right. If we do not want to/cannot afford the current service/network size at an acceptable level of reliability then we reduce their size to the level that can be run reliably. One of the ways to do this is to improve efficiency and another is to identify the worst revenue/cost ratio parts and lop them.

Or those with the worst social benefits.

We all accept a certain level of unreliability in our lives (the car sometime does not start/puncture/etc) and a certain amount of inconvenience (the shop we like is further away than an alternative we don't like etc) . However, reliability, and convenience costs money and there is always a trade off. There is such a large gap between private car and public transport (and I accept that this changes depending on the journey being undertaken - but those instances where public transport wins is niche) that it would be an impossibly large sum of money to be poured down to make a much of a difference.

I really don't agree. It just requires a shift in mentality and professionalism. Better hourly and punctual/reliable than half-hourly and hotchpotch. Better simple than complex.

FWIW (and I know I may be tempting fate) in my whole time driving I have only once broken down in a manner I could not continue my journey in some form (and that was in a 1983 Series Landy I had for a bit which I knew was a bit of a wreck), and have had four punctures ever that I can remember (two on my parents' cars when I used to drive those) and almost none on my bicycle since I switched to Schwalbe Marathon Plus tyres - now I never fit anything else. Road travel can be a bit unpunctual, but with satnav with traffic I find it's better than many think. I would suggest that people who have substantially more issues than that are probably dealing in somewhat reactionary maintenance.

 

[stuu]

As an industry the railway is 'bankrupt'. For the individual operating businesses they are not trading insolvently because their revenue is being guaranteed by Government.

Of course it isn't, it's business model is based on receiving support from the government to ensure it's costs are covered. The same as the NHS

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course it isn't, it's business model is based on receiving support from the government to ensure it's costs are covered. The same as the NHS

As I said, describing it as bankrupt is Serpellesque hyperbole, being used to make a point.

Even if making the point that the railway is too expensive to the taxpayer compared to its benefits, why not simply say that?

@RT4038 - do you believe the NHS is bankrupt? Or the army? Or National Highways? I think it's useful to know your political perspective here.

 

[43066]

do you believe the NHS is bankrupt? Or the army? Or National Highways? I think it's useful to know your political perspective here.

It does rather sound like that poster’s “long years in transport management” date from the 1960s, and were perhaps spent in the bus industry….

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does rather sound like that poster’s “long years in transport management” date from the 1960s, and were perhaps spent in the bus industry….

I think their background is almost certainly buses given that an RT is a type of bus. The bus industry has existed on managed decline ever since 1985, with a few notable exceptions, almost all of which have involved Alex Hornby and Ray Stenning. Giving up and managing decline is just that - giving up. The railway needn't be rubbish, and making it not rubbish isn't necessarily expensive.

 

[yorksrob]

As an industry the railway is 'bankrupt'. For the individual operating businesses they are not trading insolvently because their revenue is being guaranteed by Government.


But the level of reliability (and coverage) before the pandemic was nowhere near good enough to encourage modal shift. I am questioning whether the cost of changing that in order to encourage modal shift is worth it. It is a little sad that the current state of affairs is meaning that you would consider the situation in 2019 as acceptable. It wasn't - it was **!"*.

Unfortunately, so many of the population (and so many voters) do not wish to take part in the pleasure of public transport, so the remaining use is such that does not economically justify utility service. So it has become a niche activity (albeit a fair sized niche) which has to be increasingly propped up with public money. This money needs to be spent wisely and efficiently to get the best coverage with the most appropriate mode.


You are right. If we do not want to/cannot afford the current service/network size at an acceptable level of reliability then we reduce their size to the level that can be run reliably. One of the ways to do this is to improve efficiency and another is to identify the worst revenue/cost ratio parts and lop them.

We all accept a certain level of unreliability in our lives (the car sometime does not start/puncture/etc) and a certain amount of inconvenience (the shop we like is further away than an alternative we don't like etc) . However, reliability, and convenience costs money and there is always a trade off. There is such a large gap between private car and public transport (and I accept that this changes depending on the journey being undertaken - but those instances where public transport wins is niche) that it would be an impossibly large sum of money to be poured down to make a much of a difference.

Well, the situation in 2019, might or might not have been acceptable, but it was a considerable improvement on the shambles today. Continuing the current slide will undoubtedly lead to a spiral of decline, whereas 2019 reliability might at least get things back to an even keel from which improvements could be made.

As LUMO shows, there are opportunities for modal shift where the right product is available, however that is not all the railway is about.

And it is well known that a large proportion of households who run a motor car do have occasions when public transport should suit their need. Unfortunately the railway in its current state doesn't meet this need. Trying to pretend that there is some great schism between public transport users and motoring households as an excuse to further run down the service when we need to be improving it, will be to the benefit of nobody, motorists included.

 

[The Ham]

As an industry the railway is 'bankrupt'. For the individual operating businesses they are not trading insolvently because their revenue is being guaranteed by Government.


But the level of reliability (and coverage) before the pandemic was nowhere near good enough to encourage modal shift. I am questioning whether the cost of changing that in order to encourage modal shift is worth it. It is a little sad that the current state of affairs is meaning that you would consider the situation in 2019 as acceptable. It wasn't - it was **!"*.

Unfortunately, so many of the population (and so many voters) do not wish to take part in the pleasure of public transport, so the remaining use is such that does not economically justify utility service. So it has become a niche activity (albeit a fair sized niche) which has to be increasingly propped up with public money. This money needs to be spent wisely and efficiently to get the best coverage with the most appropriate mode.


You are right. If we do not want to/cannot afford the current service/network size at an acceptable level of reliability then we reduce their size to the level that can be run reliably. One of the ways to do this is to improve efficiency and another is to identify the worst revenue/cost ratio parts and lop them.

We all accept a certain level of unreliability in our lives (the car sometime does not start/puncture/etc) and a certain amount of inconvenience (the shop we like is further away than an alternative we don't like etc) . However, reliability, and convenience costs money and there is always a trade off. There is such a large gap between private car and public transport (and I accept that this changes depending on the journey being undertaken - but those instances where public transport wins is niche) that it would be an impossibly large sum of money to be poured down to make a much of a difference.

The issue is that lopping off one part of the network doesn't always bring the cost savings expected (for example National Highways has been given the costs of maintaining historic rail routes, i.e. those from the Beeching report, and the infilling of bridges which has caused complaints) and even if it does it may not result in the passenger numbers being retained on longer distance routes.

That's not too say that there can't be cuts, just that there should be a viable business case which considers these factors (effectively the opposite of a reopening business case).

As I highlighted previously we can't just focus on reducing the £25bn of spending on rail by the public sector if we ignore the £18bn of income. As we could end up cutting the £25bn to £15bn but also end up cutting the £18bn of income to £6bn and so the level of support would rise from £7bn to £9bn.

For example the cheapest way (at least in staffing costs)to provide for a longer with 2 coach trains every 2 hours would be to run a single 10 coach train. The problem is that no one would use such a service and so the income would fall much further than the savings made.

Of that £7bn (pre Covid) an easy short term cut could be to enhancement spending (£3bn), however it maybe better to keep that spending if it results in lower costs (for example through electrification). Likewise some of that spending would also be on HS2, which in their could reduce the costs now.

However with more passengers and services per driver and a reduction in coaches needed (even though the trains are longer) to run the same frequency of service actually if you want to maximise the income while reducing costs HS2 actually could be sensible to do.

11 coach 390 taking 5 hours to do the round trip London to Manchester at 3tph requires 165 coaches, do the same for HS2, but it's 16 coaches and the round trip is 3 hours and the number of coaches needed falls to 144.

Likewise 1 driver per 589 seats on a 390 vs ~1,100 on a HS2 train. However given that over a 10 hour window two return trips can be run with a 390 vs three by HS2 this further reduces the cost of staff on a per seat basis.

As an example of currently it costs £25 million a year to run 3tph the cost per seat would be £12, this could fall to £20 million (due to the better use of rolling stock and staff) however even if it didn't (let's for argument say we had extra maintainance and energy bills which offset those savings) the cost per seat would already be at about £7 due to the extra seats per train. That could allow slightly lower ticket prices and still generate the same income if more people used the servicess. (Numbers are for illustrative purposes, as the proportions stay the same, factor up by double and it goes to £24 vs £14, factor up by 10 and it's £120 vs £70)

The other thing to bear in mind is that rail use hasn't fallen to 1980 levels, or even 1990 levels but rather circa 2010 levels (at least this year). At the time rail was having significant levels of investment due to carrying near record numbers of passengers. Yes costs have increased over the time between then and now, as well as a shift in who is traveling and when and how much they pay, however few were suggesting cuts at the time. Yes there's a need for change, but it's useful to put passenger numbers in context.

 

[HSTEd]

2. Given how expensive land is in the UK, surely if we close a few lines down (as per your example) then we could sell off some land (to pay off some of that debt)? I suspect that the answer to this will similarly be along the lines of “There’s no point in making any small improvements” though

With very minor exceptions land is not expensive in the UK.

The expensive part of land in the UK is a piece of paper from the state saying you can build on it.