• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Beeching & beyond Lines that should have been kept open

Status
Not open for further replies.

chorleyjeff

Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
677
I contend that if the service were operated by and as part of the Railway, it matters little what sort of rolling stock is used. As long as there are such niceties as integrated timetabling and ticketing and interchange facilities.

Agreed that it makes through services impossible. In the case of the Esk Valley, they are not a substantial part of its pattern. The same is (or at least, could be) true of many other routes both open and shut. And if costs are substantially reduced, then increased frequency (and hence convenience for those connecting) might be feasible.

In all other respects, why would a vehicle on rubber tyres with steering (vs. a train proper) make any material difference to anyone (except, perhaps, enthusiasts!)?

It would have reduced costs, I suspect, by a big margin. It may even have been a means by which many other routes now sadly long lost might have been retained. It seems to me that running limited stop buses on a paved trackbed (in other words, a train-like service in all respects other than the vehicle itself) would offer trip times commensurate with those seen by branch line trains and much reduced over conventional bus services on conventional roads.

Sounds loke the Runcorn busways.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
26,661
Location
Nottingham
Running buses instead of trains would reduce operating costs somewhat. But if they were on their own dedicated roadways the infrastructure conversion costs would be huge and the costs to maintain it would be significant. The journey would be a bit faster than a bus on existing roads (no rural traffic congestion in the 60s) but probably slower than the train, and anywhere the train failed to serve would also be missed by the replacement bus.

I feel sure that on a whole life cost basis and taking account of the loss of revenue it would be cheaper to keep the train running in a rationalised form than to replace it by a bus on a dedicated busway. However a bus running on the highway is far cheaper than either and that was the solution adopted in almost all cases.

Even today the proportion of our disused railways that have been converted to roads of any type is quite small, and the number that are busways is even smaller.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top