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.
Proof?
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.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 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
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!
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...
Err Cambridge to Kings Cross is more closer to 60 miles or 100 kmsFrom 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
The only ideological element was the principle of protecting taxpayers from exploitation
. . . 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.
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.
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.Amazing how money spent on rail is "taxpayer exploitation" but money spent on roads isn't.
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.
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.
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.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).
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.
The network only works as a whole.
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.
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
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?
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.. . . 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 . . .
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.Have average fares really gone by "well above inflation" over the period you are talking about?
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.(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)
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?
Taxpayers in general do not pay for roads
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......
Read the second sentence in the post you snipped.Who does then? The magic money fairy?
Read the second sentence in the post you snipped.