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

[daodao]

How many reports have we had since privatisation? How many more do we need? We have just had a major report in the form of Williams / Shapps, whose implementation is yet to happen, never mind the subsequent bedding down to see where things stand before we think of committing another one.

The OP puts me in mind of a gambler who wants to have yet another throw of the dice. Here's an idea: if we want to see savings on running railway why not stop wasting money on consultants to produce yet more reports to gather dust? These reports are a distraction.

Gerald Feinnes famously said in I tried to run a railway - "when you reorganise you bleed". So to answer, no, another report is not needed for another decade at least as that is how long GBR will take to bed in. Proposed alterations to the physical network can be considered on an individual basis under the current "reversing beeching" programme.

Previous reports pre-2020 are of limited value because of major changes in passenger travel patterns since then, a major deterioration in the UK's economic situation, and massive decline in certain types of freight traffic.

 

[Wynd]

Of all the wrong things one may read on this forum, the premise of this thread is by far and away the wronest I have read so far.

The railways need to play an advancing role in transporting people and goods, not a diminsihign one.
We need to be expanding, aggressively, expanding the network, not pruning it further.

The traffic, social, and economic problems in the UK would be hugely improved with more high quality public transport, rail, and active travel.

Unconstrained car growth needs serious curtailment and rationalisation. $ car households are a symptom of a failed public transport policy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Public transport, yes. We need an integrated public transport system and policy. This will mean some branch lines closing to be replaced with fully integrated bus services, but some new ones (e.g. EWR) opening.

This country basically doesn't have a strategic transport policy at all. It's make-do-and-mend, even with roads. And HS2 is just a thing on its own with no view to proper integration.

It's all like a tin-pot banana republic, not a European country.

 

[squizzler]

Previous reports pre-2020 are of limited value because of major changes in passenger travel patterns since then, a major deterioration in the UK's economic situation, and massive decline in certain types of freight traffic.

I am not sure why those things make previous reports of "limited value". Restructuring for greater efficiency is desirable, virus or no. The Williams review is criticised in Modern Railways as rather wooly; which on the flip side means it can be interpreted loosely as facts on the ground change.

Perhaps you are proposing an even more "wishy-washy" report than any of the others so that it does not end up a hostage to further changes in circumstances?

Or better still no new report until the current ones have a chance to bed in. I reckon it will take ten years. We might also have personal jetpacks by then.

 

[yorksrob]

Of all the wrong things one may read on this forum, the premise of this thread is by far and away the wronest I have read so far.

The railways need to play an advancing role in transporting people and goods, not a diminsihign one.
We need to be expanding, aggressively, expanding the network, not pruning it further.

The traffic, social, and economic problems in the UK would be hugely improved with more high quality public transport, rail, and active travel.

Unconstrained car growth needs serious curtailment and rationalisation. $ car households are a symptom of a failed public transport policy.

So true.

Public transport, yes. We need an integrated public transport system and policy. This will mean some branch lines closing to be replaced with fully integrated bus services, but some new ones (e.g. EWR) opening.

This country basically doesn't have a strategic transport policy at all. It's make-do-and-mend, even with roads. And HS2 is just a thing on its own with no view to proper integration.

It's all like a tin-pot banana republic, not a European country.

It needs to be quality public transport. On the Skipton - Lancaster route for example, you have bus and rail complementing eachother serving their markets. You won't have a quality system if you try and push one onto the other.

 

[stuu]

Found this on street view, dated July this year, surely a simpler cheaper solution could have been found.
View attachment 125299

This is what it replaced (2009 picture)
View attachment 125300
There doesnt look to be much wrong with it, but even if there were invisible issues spending 1.3m for 44 people a week...

£16000 for every single metre. For somewhere so unused a) just close it, or b) build a 10m long platform and only open one door. Spending that sort of money there is insanity

 

[158756]

Found this on street view, dated July this year, surely a simpler cheaper solution could have been found.
View attachment 125299

This is what it replaced (2009 picture)
View attachment 125300
There doesnt look to be much wrong with it, but even if there were invisible issues spending 1.3m for 44 people a week...

Whatever issues there were with it, how did it cost £1.3m and take six months? You could build a row of houses for that sort of money, what is there there that costs that much? And on the railway that's probably considered cheap, given that a footbridge seems to cost several million, and a basic new station £20m now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It needs to be quality public transport. On the Skipton - Lancaster route for example, you have bus and rail complementing eachother serving their markets. You won't have a quality system if you try and push one onto the other.

If you mean "push current rail users on to the current low quality* bus operation" then maybe, but that's not what I mean.

* OK, Kirby Lonsdale Coaches are pretty good so far as independents go, but you know what I mean.

 

[squizzler]

The railways need to play an advancing role in transporting people and goods, not a diminsihign one.
We need to be expanding, aggressively, expanding the network, not pruning it further.

These are good points. The pretext of the OP's report - to refocus the role of rail - in my opinion betrays a stale mindset of "efficiency" which is no longer relevant. Ford-style mass production of a minimal range of products is just so last century. In a growing economy it probably made sense to stick to a small niche, but in a declining society it is those with general skill sets that will prosper.

For example, whereas Beeching wanted to concede local passenger service in the face of a growing and competitive bus network, is this really the case today? It is busses that are dying these days, and that is why rail needs to serve communities that it thought could to be left to bus in the 1960s. Freight is more nuanced, but I understand we still have vacancies on the lorries and experimentation is going on to whither a parcels EMU with local distribution by cargo bike can compete with a cumbersome large van or light lorry.

I suggest reading the new star columnist in Modern Railways - All the Station's Vicky Pipe. Community rail partnerships especially are pushing the envelope as to what can be done with even within the constraints of minimal branch rail service. Stations need not be just a platform and info display but real community hubs with cafes and activities. The DMU itself can carry perishable goods between producers and communities en route.

We don't need another top-down report from Whitehall, we need more people actually doing things from the bottom-up, like community rail partnerships. People generally love their local railway and happily engage with it if given the chance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whatever issues there were with it, how did it cost £1.3m and take six months? You could build a row of houses for that sort of money, what is there there that costs that much? And on the railway that's probably considered cheap, given that a footbridge seems to cost several million, and a basic new station £20m now.

"Railway inflation" is certainly something that needs tackling. A platform is a simple thing to build and there's no reason the prices should be in the millions. Couple of hundred thousand at most.

 

[quantinghome]

"Railway inflation" is certainly something that needs tackling. A platform is a simple thing to build and there's no reason the prices should be in the millions. Couple of hundred thousand at most.

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

 

[Bletchleyite]

For example, whereas Beeching wanted to concede local passenger service in the face of a growing and competitive bus network, is this really the case today? It is busses that are dying these days, and that is why rail needs to serve communities that it thought could to be left to bus in the 1960s.

Commercial bus operation is dying, yes. But we haven't, in this country, really tried doing it properly, like say the Swiss do. It's more expensive than a typical UK commercial operation, sure, but it's massively cheaper than rail.

There is a lot of difference in desirability* between one of the old X5 coaches and a rotting Dennis Dart or even a rattly new Enviro200.

* (c) Ray Stenning. But I don't think his primarily branding and marketing based approach is everything that needs improving.

 

[Wynd]

This will mean some branch lines closing to be replaced with fully integrated bus services...

This country basically doesn't have a strategic transport policy at all.

It's all like a tin-pot banana republic, not a European country.

This "strategy" of replacing rail with busses has been proven, beyond any doubt, to be a resounding and categoric failure. Newer busses may be quieter, and even have heating, but they are still slow and uncomfortable with the jerking stop start nature that is not present on rail, and most importantly, they share space on the road, meaning delays and frsutrations. Then there is Freight, which needs to be driven back on to rail by parcel load, but I appreciate there is a lot of groundwork to do to make that happen.

I do agree that the UK approach for too long has been too disparate, with genuinely joined up transport not taken seriously enough, hence why we have nearly 40 million cars and vans on this island. Think about that. It's insane. An insane use of resources, space and capital.

 

[mike57]

"Railway inflation" is certainly something that needs tackling. A platform is a simple thing to build and there's no reason the prices should be in the millions. Couple of hundred thousand at most.

And it only needs to be long enough for single door access, 10m as suggested above, make it a request stop, at 44 passengers per week its not going to be a problem. As a request stop passengers have to inform the guard, and they can then direct them to the correct door.

I think the current disjointed nature of the railways is making matters worse, If you go back to BR days or even to LNER as it would have been here prior to 1948, if a proposal to spend this amount of money on a platform here had surfaced a cheaper solution would have been demanded by management. Now with Network Rail, TOCs, DfT it seems like no one is really in charge and projects get hatched and take on a life of their own, with no one able to say STOP, this is a waste of money we will do it a different way.

 

[quantinghome]

Of all the wrong things one may read on this forum, the premise of this thread is by far and away the wronest I have read so far.

The railways need to play an advancing role in transporting people and goods, not a diminsihign one.
We need to be expanding, aggressively, expanding the network, not pruning it further.

The traffic, social, and economic problems in the UK would be hugely improved with more high quality public transport, rail, and active travel.

Unconstrained car growth needs serious curtailment and rationalisation. $ car households are a symptom of a failed public transport policy.

^^^ THIS ^^^

The problem with the railways isn't lines like Settle-Carlisle. Looked at in isolation rural lines are naturally financial basket cases, but they contribute little to the railways' overall subsidy.

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.

Adrian Shooter showed the way on this, transforming a backwater service into a new mainline. Similar things have been achieved over the years on several city commuter routes. But it requires a change in mindset from assuming passenger demand is only ever going to be what it is at present.

 

[SussexSeagull]

Public transport, yes. We need an integrated public transport system and policy. This will mean some branch lines closing to be replaced with fully integrated bus services, but some new ones (e.g. EWR) opening.

This country basically doesn't have a strategic transport policy at all. It's make-do-and-mend, even with roads. And HS2 is just a thing on its own with no view to proper integration.

It's all like a tin-pot banana republic, not a European country.

I agree we need an integrated public transport strategy.

I think HS2 started life with a plan behind it but has been knocked off course through the years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This "strategy" of replacing rail with busses has been proven, beyond any doubt, to be a resounding and categoric failure.

I'm not sure it has, because the style and structure of bus operation necessary to do it well has never, ever existed in the UK since the day the first ever bus turned its wheel in service.

Alexander Dennis, for instance, does not sell one single suitable product. Kasseboehrer Setra does, though they don't do right hand drive, and so does Mercedes-Benz. But it's not just a nice bus you need (though you DO need that), it's the whole service concept, the professionalism, the integrated fares and timetables...

 

[RT4038]

This "strategy" of replacing rail with busses has been proven, beyond any doubt, to be a resounding and categoric failure.

Not been proven at all. During the Beeching closure era buses only replaced rail as a coincidence really, to cater for the often tiny numbers of passengers left when the empty branch and secondary trains were withdrawn. Where additional 'replacement' services were provided they were never assimilated with the remaining railway services and operated/marketed as part of the railway network. With a few exceptions, bus operations in this country have been completely separate from the rail industry. What we need is some properly funded showcases, with suitable legislative guarantees, to prove either way.

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 sounds like another 'wish-wash' to paper over the cost inefficiencies, (failure to do so which will always bite in the end). Spend, spend spend - buy off the staff, buy more rolling stock, cut fares and hope the finances come right. This approach has been tried before and flunked. Sort out the cost base first, become lean and mean, then go for the passenger volume.

 

[urbophile]

Any closures proposed by this Government would probably be revered by Labour.

That's probably a typo but if not I fear you'd be right. As with most other Tory policies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Adrian Shooter showed the way on this, transforming a backwater service into a new mainline. Similar things have been achieved over the years on several city commuter routes. But it requires a change in mindset from assuming passenger demand is only ever going to be what it is at present.

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 ==

What we need is some properly funded showcases to prove either way.

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.

 

[Merle Haggard]

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.

It's a little ironic that the reason the Bletchley - Bedford section of the Oxford - Cambridge line remains open is because the local bus operator was unable to provide the resources for a replacement service when closure was agreed, not that it was considered that hardship would be caused by the rail closure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Yep. And that they haven't been integrated into railway systems.

It is very, very easy to travel from London to Keswick by public transport. Euston to Penrith, walk outside, board the X4/X5.

But if you type Keswick into the railway journey planner, there's no station, so they drive.

Ambleside via Windermere is the same. As is Pen y Pass for Snowdon. How many cars could avoid being driven into National Parks without changing the physical service in any way by just integrating fares and information provision?

It's a little ironic that the reason the Bletchley - Bedford section of the Oxford - Cambridge line remains open is because the local bus operator was unable to provide the resources for a replacement service when closure was agreed, not that it was considered that hardship would be caused by the rail closure.

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!

 

[JonathanH]

the integrated fares

I think you continue to overplay this as an issue. It no longer is an issue since contactless payment has been possible although better information on fares is often lacking. Essentially you seem to want buses to accept train tickets and bus operators to get a smaller cut of revenue.

I can (and did on Monday) travel around North Wales for £6 on any bus I like. I paid £6.60 for a single on the train from Llandudno to Betws-y-Coed (to sample a 197).

My bus journeys were from Colwyn Bay to Llandudno, Betws-y-Coed to Corwen, Corwen to Llangollen and Llangollen to Ruabon, all for £6.

The train fare from Betws-y-Coed to Ruabon is £25.90 single.

information provision?

Yes, that would help. Of course, if you use Google or traveline to plan your journeys you have that information. Easier access to fares information would help a lot too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you continue to overplay this as an issue. It no longer is an issue since contactless payment has been possible although better information on fares is often lacking. Essentially you seem to want buses to accept train tickets and bus operators to get a smaller cut of revenue.

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.

Yes, that would help. Of course, if you use Google or traveline to plan your journeys you have that information. Easier access to fares information would help a lot too.

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.

 

[yorksrob]

To what though ? On what basis are you saying that ?

You can't just let an itinerant band of builders rock up and re-lay a platform.

As @DarloRich and others have pointed out, the costs pertaining to H&S in particular are there to stop people getting killed - and you'd be the first to complain if the railway did it "on the cheap" and somebody was killed in the process. You can't have it both ways. Also things like disability access rules have changed - it's no good harking back to the 70s and 80s when BR sent a gang out with a load of timber, screws, Postcrete and fencing from Texas Homecare and spent £ 3.50 putting up a station which was easily accessed if you were fit and able but if you were even slightly disabled, forget it. Those rules were put in place to ensure access was available to all - many of us warned about the consequences of such measures at the time, but were shouted down.

The work itself was taking ~3 months, which I presume means demolishing the old platform removal of old materials (legally, rather than fly-tipping them) and other works.

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 ==

If you mean "push current rail users on to the current low quality* bus operation" then maybe, but that's not what I mean.

* OK, Kirby Lonsdale Coaches are pretty good so far as independents go, but you know what I mean.

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

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

It could do it better in some cases, e.g. an hourly bus from Llandudno to Blaenau Ffestiniog would cost less than the present train-per-three-hours and have similar running times. Or talking of Bentham, it could serve all the settlements rather than a pavementless country road a couple of miles away.

(Bentham is useful for relatively few journeys, because if you're going to Yorkshire from Preston there's another route, and if going from Penrith or Carlisle there's the S&C - you're basically talking journeys connecting at Oxenholme or Lancaster only)

 

[Merle Haggard]

Yep. And that they haven't been integrated into railway systems.

It is very, very easy to travel from London to Keswick by public transport. Euston to Penrith, walk outside, board the X4/X5.

But if you type Keswick into the railway journey planner, there's no station, so they drive.

Ambleside via Windermere is the same. As is Pen y Pass for Snowdon. How many cars could avoid being driven into National Parks without changing the physical service in any way by just integrating fares and information provision?



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!

And, although perhaps not entirely relevantly nowadays, new railways* are always 're-openings' follow exactly the same route as it was before closure, regardless of the difference in traffic objectives between 1860 and 2022. Stony Stratford and Towcester were important towns on the Watling Street from Roman days, but the M1 wasn't built via them!

For instance, as EWR is pretty much a new railway (and I know it was led by sound economic reasons) it would have been better to have built on a partly new route that served Milton Keynes directly, in my opinion - Oxford - Milton Keynes - Cambridge in a straight-ish line, also giving better connections from other large towns on the line through MK. You've set out how the Bletchley - Bedford traffic could be better provided for by road.

I used to worry about the last bus turning up, or not running because of snow or cold and not being told; never worried on that score about rail. Not true about the latter any more, though - the buses actually seem more reliable. Haven't heard of National Express dumping London passengers at Preston with no forward service til the next day...

* yes I know HS1 and 2 aren't like that; I'm thinking mostly of those re-openings proposed by people who travelled on the line before it closed, or wish they had.

 

[yorksrob]

It could do it better in some cases, e.g. an hourly bus from Llandudno to Blaenau Ffestiniog would cost less than the present train-per-three-hours and have similar running times. Or talking of Bentham, it could serve all the settlements rather than a pavementless country road a couple of miles away.

That's what the current service that takes three hours does though. Ok, you could lop a couple of bits off (Kirby Stephen, Ingleborough) but it still wouldn't be the quality link that the railway is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For instance, as EWR is pretty much a new railway (and I know it was led by sound economic reasons) it would have been better to have built on a partly new route that served Milton Keynes directly, in my opinion - Oxford - Milton Keynes - Cambridge in a straight-ish line, also giving better connections from other large towns on the line through MK. You've set out how the Bletchley - Bedford traffic could be better provided for by road.

Given an unlimited supply of Crayola, my EWR plan would be:

2tph Oxford-MKC
2tph Aylesbury-MKC (1tph of these originating from Princes Risborough and the direct service from Marylebone that way withdrawn)
2tph MKC-Bedford via a new Denbigh Chord, calling at something like the 5-station proposal
Probably not bothering with Cambridge, the case is much weaker.

Easily deliverable post HS2. I agree going straight across isn't particularly useful, but I also don't see a lot gained by building a line north of MK just to avoid the reversal, and the Marston Vale could be made useful by way of significant housing development, and more so by the service being Bedford-MKC and not Bedford-Bletchley.

 

[A0]

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.

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.