Controversial opinion: The UK has a pretty decent rail system

[yorksrob]

Proof?

The proof is in the many lines listed for closure (Ashford-Hastings, the Hope valley line, Leeds - Ilkley, many of the Cornish branches, etc) that were listed for closure, yet remain vital links in the network today.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The closure programme, taken as a whole, was a disaster, perpetuated out of ideological zealotry, with little genuine assessment of its effectiveness in reducing costs.

The "closure programme" running from the early 1950s until the early 1970s was carried out in an attempt to reduce British Railways' financial deficit. The only ideological element was the principle of protecting taxpayers from exploitation, a principle that today has been abandoned completely.

Closing little used lines was not a disaster across the board as most served no useful purpose. Even today with growing patronage the minor routes still lose money hand over fist, and these are the ones which were not closed!

 

[Mikey C]

The proof is in the many lines listed for closure (Ashford-Hastings, the Hope valley line, Leeds - Ilkley, many of the Cornish branches, etc) that were listed for closure, yet remain vital links in the network today.

I'm happy that those lines are still open, but I'm dubious that they are vital links in the modern network

 

[cuccir]

I don't think it's too bad. Walk up fares are high - reflecting costs of operation and demand, yes, but still high - and crowding is clearly an issue in patches. But it's still not too bad. On balance, the privatized era has been good for the network (the cause of those benefits is up for debate though!)

However, one major concern is that there have been multiple examples of mismanagment in the last two years - the May 2018 timetable fiasco, Crossrail delays, poor industrial relations, class 800 problems, etc. Overall, this suggests a network which is getting worse and I hope that this trend does not continue.

 

[Wivenswold]

Our railway network and some ex-lines have huge potential. The network and its services are maintained by hugely dedicated and professional individuals and we should also be proud of our railway's heritage.

Sadly, the road lobby has consistently carried more weight with Governments during my lifetime (all the way back to Ted Heath) and therefore railways have been funded badly. The focus remains on the business market that's shrinking thanks to skype meetings and cheap flights. Meanwhile the standard class offering becomes less and less appealing thanks to the poor seating, cramped conditions and a migraine-inducing environment (constant PA announcements, bleeping doors, stark interiors and lighting at saturation point).

I remain proud of our network and those who work with their hands to maintain it and also optimistic for the future as eventually environmental concerns, gridlock on the roads and the rising price of fuel will force Westminster's hand. The country is heading for a bright future but not in the way most people currently think. It'll get worse on the railway before it gets better though and that will also be the case for the country.

 

[Modron]

I'm happy that those lines are still open, but I'm dubious that they are vital links in the modern network

It depends whom you talk to.

A friend of mine lives in Rye, and has mentioned that the Brighton-Ashford route is a 'Godsend' on many occasions. He has said that without it the A roads around the area would be 'a complete nightmare - especially during the Summer.'

Travelling on a 170 to/from Rye to Ashford/Brighton in comfort or be stuck on a single-track A road for hours...hmmm...

 

[yorksrob]

The "closure programme" running from the early 1950s until the early 1970s was carried out in an attempt to reduce British Railways' financial deficit. The only ideological element was the principle of protecting taxpayers from exploitation, a principle that today has been abandoned completely.

Closing little used lines was not a disaster across the board as most served no useful purpose. Even today with growing patronage the minor routes still lose money hand over fist, and these are the ones which were not closed!

It was a disaster both in the extent to closures were pursued and the flawed way in which lines were selected.

And as for "exploiting taxpayers", those very same taxpayers voted decisively against the Beeching proposals in 1964 and 1966, and continued to be subjected to them, largely because Tom Fraser couldn't be bothered to come up with his own policy on the subject.

I'm happy that those lines are still open, but I'm dubious that they are vital links in the modern network

Yes, they are. The network only works as a whole.

 

[yorksrob]

It depends whom you talk to.

A friend of mine lives in Rye, and has mentioned that the Brighton-Ashford route is a 'Godsend' on many occasions. He has said that without it the A roads around the area would be 'a complete nightmare - especially during the Summer.'

Travelling on a 170 to/from Rye to Ashford/Brighton in comfort or be stuck on a single-track A road for hours...hmmm...

Indeed. I know that line well.

It was on Beeching's list and formally placed under closure notice in around 1970. It survived due to difficulties arranging the replacement bus, and it's loss would have been one of the many local disasters.

 

[class26]

From a French perspective and taking into account a "customer" standpoint, the UK network does indeed provide a pretty decent service.
But I cannot help at being outraged by the fares, especially for commuters. A Cambridge-London (50 km!) annual season ticket is almost £5,000.

Err Cambridge to Kings Cross is more closer to 60 miles or 100 kms

 

[SHD]

Err Cambridge to Kings Cross is more closer to 60 miles or 100 kms

Thank you for the correction. I know where the confusion came from - I was thinking of Stevenage (27m 45ch / 44 km), not Cambridge, but mixed the two in my mind when searching for fares and writing the post.

(A yearly season ticket from Stevenage to King’s Cross is £3,856, with a Z1-6 travelcard added it is £5,244.)

 

[squizzler]

The UK railway network still carries many of the compromises of the way construction was carried out by aggressively territorial businesses in various "manias". This manifests in a less than optimal network topology and cities and towns with multiple stations that force cross-town transfer (London, Manchester and Bradford are egregious examples).

As for the operation today, I think with the advent of the partnership model we are finally doing the right thing after having tried all the others (monolithic state-level nationalisation, 1990's privatisation, 2010's monolithic state-level micromanagement, etc). It is great to see all these new fleets coming on stream.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The only ideological element was the principle of protecting taxpayers from exploitation

Amazing how money spent on rail is "taxpayer exploitation" but money spent on roads isn't.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

. . . And as for "exploiting taxpayers", those very same taxpayers voted decisively against the Beeching proposals in 1964 and 1966, and continued to be subjected to them, largely because Tom Fraser couldn't be bothered to come up with his own policy on the subject.

When the country voted for Labour in 1964 and 1966, it was not because of Labour's fraudulent promise to reverse Dr. Beeching's policy. It was primarily to reject the Tories post Profumo.

 

[Mikey C]

It was a disaster both in the extent to closures were pursued and the flawed way in which lines were selected.

And as for "exploiting taxpayers", those very same taxpayers voted decisively against the Beeching proposals in 1964 and 1966, and continued to be subjected to them, largely because Tom Fraser couldn't be bothered to come up with his own policy on the subject.



Yes, they are. The network only works as a whole.

It doesn't follow that EVERY branch line has to stay open for the network to work. Especially in rural areas where buses CAN provide a reliable feeder role, especially when they can serve far more places than the railways can.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Amazing how money spent on rail is "taxpayer exploitation" but money spent on roads isn't.

Taxpayers in general do not pay for roads and therefore the issue of exploitation does not come into it. The total amount of money spent on roads in this country is substantially less than the total revenue received from vehicle owners through excise duty, road tax, VAT, insurance surcharge and parking charges.

 

[yorksrob]

When the country voted for Labour in 1964 and 1966, it was not because of Labour's fraudulent promise to reverse Dr. Beeching's policy. It was primarily to reject the Tories post Profumo.

'64 was one of the few elections I can think of where railway policy featured prominently as part of the campaign (the plight of Whitby being the catalyst), even though the Profumo affair played its part.

The only other one I can think of was 1997 (incidentally another case of opposing a Tory policy then changing their minds once in power).

It doesn't follow that EVERY branch line has to stay open for the network to work. Especially in rural areas where buses CAN provide a reliable feeder role, especially when they can serve far more places than the railways can.

All the ones I use are fairly central to getting people (and sometimes goods) where they need to be.

For a large proportion of people to consider rail as a viable transport option, it has to reach a very large proportion of the country.

 

[transplanted]

The main gripe with the system is the extortionate cost of season tickets and travel cards around the South-East. Would like to see some analysis to see if these are at, or above-cost, of providing the rail service. St Albans to Central London is just criminal in my opinion at those prices.

Some of the rolling stock, particularly in the North is dire and the overcrowding on them is horrendous.

 

[geoffk]

The UK railway network still carries many of the compromises of the way construction was carried out by aggressively territorial businesses in various "manias". This manifests in a less than optimal network topology and cities and towns with multiple stations that force cross-town transfer (London, Manchester and Bradford are egregious examples).

I read once that the UK rail network is like a jigsaw puzzle in which some pieces have always been missing, others thrown away in the 1960s and some belong to different puzzles altogether. This is the result of the way railways were built. In most European countries the state took a hand in network planning at an early stage but in the UK "laissez faire" attitudes prevailed. There are as a result gaps which would be difficult and expensive to fill now but on the whole we have a comprehensive network with trains running at good or acceptable frequencies. Brits are less willing to change trains than their counterparts on the continent as connections here are not guaranteed, performance targets having priority. Hence the emphasis on through trains crossing Manchester and Leeds (two examples near me) which are a cause of delays being spread across the region.

 

[deltic]

Paid £33 for a walk up return ticket yesterday from London to Birmingham in a comfortable train with a table to work on, wifi and socket to charge my laptop, train was on time in both directions - saw a couple of red kites - on the whole we are fortunate to have a pretty good rail network

The other week traveled London to Edinburgh for about £110 return booked a few days in advance - travelled there and back in a day during peak times - rtn train was an hour late so effectively got half my fare back. So even when its not perfect the compensation offered more than makes up for it in my view. No-one paid me any compensation when I spent nearly an hour trying to drive less than a mile in central London the next weekend.

 

[tbtc]

The main gripe with the system is the extortionate cost of season tickets and travel cards around the South-East. Would like to see some analysis to see if these are at, or above-cost, of providing the rail service. St Albans to Central London is just criminal in my opinion at those prices.

Some of the rolling stock, particularly in the North is dire and the overcrowding on them is horrendous.

Again though, what's the solution? What should a season ticket into central London cost?

Given that:
a. any reduction in price is going to save an already above-average-wealth demographic large sums of money (compared to what they are currently willing to pay)
b. people already complain about over-crowding, so any reduction in season ticket prices will make these already-busy services even busier

Taking the £5,000 benchmark of Cambridge mentioned earlier in the thread - nobody has suggested what a more appropriate cost would be. £1,000? £3,000?

The network only works as a whole.

Most passengers only travel on relatively simple journeys - they do straightforward journeys like from their local station into the nearest big city - you could cut thousands of miles of track overnight and it wouldn't affect the vast majority of passengers.

Enthusiasts get excited about "networks" but it's irrelevant to the majority of journeys that normal people make.

For a large proportion of people to consider rail as a viable transport option, it has to reach a very large proportion of the country.

I don't think that rail ought to be a viable transport option for most journeys - most journeys that people undertake (mainly driving, some buses, a little flying etc) are the kind of flows where heavy rail is never going to be practical.

And that's fine - I don't think that rail is the answer to everything - I don't think we should be trying to manipulate it to be - it's great at certain roles but certainly not all ones.

But I think you're mistaking "a large proportion of the people in the country" with "a large proportion of the area of the country". If you want to bemoan every small town/village with a few thousand people and say that they "deserve" a station then does that mean every suburb deserves a station too? If your rate is one station per ten thousand rural people then how may stations are you going to build in Sheffield?

Well the oft repeated mantra about the "biggest upgrade/investment ever" begins to wear a bit thin when passengers are still crammed into the same overcrowded Pacers/Voyagers and the like that they had to suffer 10 or more years ago, yet the cost for that same experience has gone up by an amount well above inflation

Have average fares really gone by "well above inflation" over the period you are talking about?

(ignoring corrections like the idea that Northern passengers should really pay for a "peak" ticket if they want to travel at "peak" times, which doesn't sound that unreasonable in the grand scheme of things)

I remember reading somewhere, once quite long ago, that somebody proposed doing 'Orbital Railways' around major cities like Manchester, London and Birmingham (like an M25, but for trains). I think I read it in RAIL back in the early 2000s but am not 100% sure.

Although it would cost a lot of money to do, would the idea of these 'Orbital Railways' as a bypass to these cities be a good or bad idea, so that trains don't get held up in city centres?

I can see the merits on paper (in practice is another story) - we'd be better of doing something to remove the mess of cross-city service patterns that lines are currently hamstrung by (for the sake of tiny numbers of people travelling hundreds of miles in a typical day).

 

[Starmill]

Rail has a very low market share nationwide, and there is an overwhelming majority of the population who use the railway never. These are as much to do with problems in other areas as problems in the railway e.g. driving and flying can be much too cheap, as the burden of the external costs of these activities are often not placed on those undertaking them. The railway could feasibly be much larger than it is and still practical, but this is unlikely unless our approach to unsustainable transport changes.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

. . . This is the result of the way railways were built. In most European countries the state took a hand in network planning at an early stage but in the UK "laissez faire" attitudes prevailed. There are as a result gaps which would be difficult and expensive to fill now . . .

It has been persuasively argued that our country was the first to build railways on a large scale, and that other European countries observed what we had done and decided to do things differently. In particular they resolved not to have more railway routes than they needed.

Although I disagree almost totally with those who believe closing redundant railways was wrong, I do think we made a mistake in abandoning railway links between fairly large towns; examples being Gloucester to Hereford and Rugby to Leamington Spa. With today's increased passenger numbers, running a regular service on such routes along a single track alignment ought to incur minimal and manageable losses.

 

[Starmill]

Have average fares really gone by "well above inflation" over the period you are talking about?

How can you of all people be asking this question? Rail fares are in the ONS' basket for inflation calculation. Since 1995, fares have increased in real terms by around 20%. Unregulated fares have risen about twice as fast as regulated ones. Fares on intercity services have risen in real terms by as much as 50%. Since 2010 they've increased in real terms by around 30%. None of these figures account for passengers forced to pay for more expensive types of ticket to travel on the same train. Regulated fares fell in early privatisation, and were about the same in 2007 as in 1995. Unregulated fares had risen significantly in that time, and regulated fares have seen a stratospheric rise since.

I'm disappointed to read this comment from you because I always thought you of all people appreciate the evidence-based approach rather than the speculative. The evidence suggests that fares have gone up significantly more than what most people think, even though most people forget that in the early days of privatisation, regulated fares fell in real terms. The effect of that continued for years. Actually, it's an approch I'd like to see us returning to.

(ignoring corrections like the idea that Northern passengers should really pay for a "peak" ticket if they want to travel at "peak" times, which doesn't sound that unreasonable in the grand scheme of things)

There are many specific cases where fares have gone down for some of the busiest trains in the country. For example TransPennine Express between Manchester and Preston, these are some of the most overcrowded trains anywhere in the country but a year or so ago a cheaper ticket valid only on these trains was introduced. Transport for Wales between Manchester and Wilmslow is another similar example where trains are often at capacity, but new cheaper tickets encouraging people to use those ones and not the local trains were introduced.

Extra time restrictions have also been introduced on Northern contra-peak services, which on most routes are lightly loaded with many empty seats. But still, the price went up. Even though it would be incredibly easy to change restrictions so they apply specifically to boarding at a list of central stations. Given the percentage increases in fares, and the fact that some local off peak fares as much as doubled in Greater Manchester in 3 years, this had contributed to a significant reduction in the competitiveness of the railway and a corresponding fall in usage.

 

[yorksrob]

Most passengers only travel on relatively simple journeys - they do straightforward journeys like from their local station into the nearest big city - you could cut thousands of miles of track overnight and it wouldn't affect the vast majority of passengers.

Enthusiasts get excited about "networks" but it's irrelevant to the majority of journeys that normal people make.



I don't think that rail ought to be a viable transport option for most journeys - most journeys that people undertake (mainly driving, some buses, a little flying etc) are the kind of flows where heavy rail is never going to be practical.

And that's fine - I don't think that rail is the answer to everything - I don't think we should be trying to manipulate it to be - it's great at certain roles but certainly not all ones.

But I think you're mistaking "a large proportion of the people in the country" with "a large proportion of the area of the country". If you want to bemoan every small town/village with a few thousand people and say that they "deserve" a station then does that mean every suburb deserves a station too? If your rate is one station per ten thousand rural people then how may stations are you going to build in Sheffield?

A lot of people might make relatively simple journeys over the network, but they are all over the country. For rail to be a viable option for most people, it has to be within reach of a large proportion of them. Then when they move, for example, rail will still be an option.

I agree that not every journey sjould have a viable rail option. My journey to the supermarket for example.

However, when "reshaping" (or destroying) the network, policy should have been to ensure that towns of a reasonable size, such as Seaton, Hailsham, Wisbech, Tavistock etc remained linked to the network.

 

[Meerkat]

Most fares complaints are of the “I want more and I want someone else to pay for it” variety.
It’s particularly annoying when voiced by someone making a leisure journey that they want the taxpayer to subsidise, and are holding a coffee they just paid £3 for......
Or by a commuter who is being subsidised to travel to a higher paid job than available locally whilst making housing more expensive for the locals who don’t commute.

We really need to have a good look at what we are subsidising on the railways - some bits need higher subsidy, others shouldn’t really be getting any at all.
I don’t think the National fares policy helps

 

[radamfi]

Do high fares mean that some people make journeys by car that could have been done by train?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Taxpayers in general do not pay for roads

Who does then? The magic money fairy?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Most fares complaints are of the “I want more and I want someone else to pay for it” variety.

It’s particularly annoying when voiced by someone making a leisure journey that they want the taxpayer to subsidise, and are holding a coffee they just paid £3 for......

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. It isn't leisure passengers who pay the high fares, it is commuters. And it's commuters with season tickets who feel the pinch.

The idea that all commuters are wanting the best of both worlds is silly. My situation when I lived down south- my partner worked locally and I worked in central London- is not unusual. Of course we lived in Hemel: no point paying high train costs AND high rent, is there? And it's not like I could get a job with the University of Hemel Hempstead.

It is clear that commuter tickets are unaffordable for many low earners, and the cost of travel penalises poor people far more than rich people. £5k is impossible for someone on £20k, expensive for someone on £40k but a drop in the ocean for someone on £80k. Train travel is a rich person's pursuit.

My view is that there should be more subsidy from taxpayers, and this can be funded by tax on the richest, both income tax and CGT. Thus would distribute things more fairly; more burden would fall on those with more money. But that's not the Tory way.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Who does then? The magic money fairy?

Read the second sentence in the post you snipped.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Read the second sentence in the post you snipped.

So it IS the taxpayer?

I'm confused!