Economic Case for the Far North Line

[class26]

No it couldn't, at least not to a level that would justify the investment.

One of the reasons the line goes inland at Helmsdale rather than directly up the coast is to avoid cliffs and other natural obstacles which would, even in the late nineteenth century (during railway mania) have been prohibitively expensive. The inland route via Forsinard was much easier to construct but adds many miles to the journey, especially if going to Wick and goes through virtually unihabited country

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A few days ago, out of interest, I went through the station usage figures on Wikipedia to tabulate the passenger figures for the Far North and Kyle of Lochalsh lines.

What I found was a 13% decline between 2012 and 2017 across both lines. And it wasn't isolated to a few stations. Practically every station of any significance along both lines saw passenger numbers decline. During that period both Wick and Thurso saw their passenger usage go down by 19%, Tain went down by 16%, Dingwall by 23%. Even newly opened Beauly saw a 4% drop.

Be interested to see what people think the cause of this is. And what can be done about it. Clearly if something isn't done and this trend continues, eventually, various authorities will conclude that it's no longer be possible to justify the level of service currently being provided, and the line will start to see service cuts.

Thoughts?

Spreadsheet attached (may be worth double checking figures as I can't guarantee I haven't made a few isolated mistakes in transcribing from Wikipedia). I didn't collect figures form intermediate years, but eyeballing them showed it was a continuous gradual decline between 2012-13 and 2016-17. It wasn't a case of one individual year being unusual.

 

[70014IronDuke]

A few days ago, out of interest, I went through the station usage figures on Wikipedia to tabulate the passenger figures for the Far North and Kyle of Lochalsh lines.

What I found was a 13% decline between 2012 and 2017 across both lines. And it wasn't isolated to a few stations. Practically every station of any significance along both lines saw passenger numbers decline. During that period both Wick and Thurso saw their passenger usage go down by 19%, Tain went down by 16%, Dingwall by 23%. Even newly opened Beauly saw a 4% drop.....

I'm glad you did this work. I started to look at exactly the same thing a week or two ago. I have no doubt you are correct in the main, even if you have made an odd slip.

And, sadly, it is not just the FNL. The S&C and (from memory) the Cumbrian Coast follow a similar pattern - perhaps with the odd exceptional station (Settle, I believe, was one on the S&C.)

It's fine for keyboard rail planners to bang on about 'other economic benefits' - if the farebox take is going doon, doon, doon - at some stage, someone will say: enough - except, perhaps, in some devolved territories, where they will sceam for more support from the hated Westminster and southern English taxpayers.

 

[Southsider]

I'ts fine for keyboard rail planners to bang on about 'other economic benefits' - if the farebox take is going doon, doon, doon - at some stage, someone will say: enough - except, perhaps, in some devolved territories, where they will sceam for more support from the hated Westminster and southern English taxpayers.

Or perhaps they'll levy a tax of their own to cover it? Either way, a pretty crass remark and no, I'm not a Scottish Nationalist.

 

[Esker-pades]

A few days ago, out of interest, I went through the station usage figures on Wikipedia to tabulate the passenger figures for the Far North and Kyle of Lochalsh lines.

What I found was a 13% decline between 2012 and 2017 across both lines. And it wasn't isolated to a few stations. Practically every station of any significance along both lines saw passenger numbers decline. During that period both Wick and Thurso saw their passenger usage go down by 19%, Tain went down by 16%, Dingwall by 23%. Even newly opened Beauly saw a 4% drop.

Be interested to see what people think the cause of this is. And what can be done about it. Clearly if something isn't done and this trend continues, eventually, various authorities will conclude that it's no longer be possible to justify the level of service currently being provided, and the line will start to see service cuts.

Thoughts?

Spreadsheet attached (may be worth double checking figures as I can't guarantee I haven't made a few isolated mistakes in transcribing from Wikipedia). I didn't collect figures form intermediate years, but eyeballing them showed it was a continuous gradual decline between 2012-13 and 2016-17. It wasn't a case of one individual year being unusual.

I'm glad you did this work. I started to look at exactly the same thing a week or two ago. I have no doubt you are correct in the main, even if you have made an odd slip.

And, sadly, it is not just the FNL. The S&C and (from memory) the Cumbrian Coast follow a similar pattern - perhaps with the odd exceptional station (Settle, I believe, was one on the S&C.)

It's fine for keyboard rail planners to bang on about 'other economic benefits' - if the farebox take is going doon, doon, doon - at some stage, someone will say: enough - except, perhaps, in some devolved territories, where they will sceam for more support from the hated Westminster and southern English taxpayers.

The reason for the decline is because the service became more and more unreliable. Until this April, services were frequently cancelled, significantly delayed, stopped short (passengers going to Thurso and Wick were turfed off at Helmsdale) and short-staffed. If this happens for months or years, then people will use other forms of transport. One can see exactly the same thing happening with Southern stations. The prolonged industrial action means the service is so unreliable people have had to find alternative forms of transport. Or just not travel at all.

Recent reliability improvements brought about be concentrated local campaigning won't show in the figures until they are published (December 2020).

When the First ScotRail service improvements came about in 2008 (an extra train each way on the full length as well as extra services to more commuter towns (Tain, Invergordon, Dingwall)), patronage doubled. So, investing and making the service better does mean more people use the line. A lot more people.

 

[haggishunter]

What I found was a 13% decline between 2012 and 2017 across both lines....

Be interested to see what people think the cause of this is. And what can be done about it.

There was a substantial increase in line usage following the opening of Beauly and the increase from 3 full line services per day to 4. However various factors have lead to a significant lengthening of the journey time (between 20 and 30 minutes), but it is not that increase on it's own which caused decline it was the knock on consequences that a tight timetable became an almost unachievable timetable and there was frequent complete meltdowns of the service because one late train early on wrecks the entire days schedule. This was amplified by a lack of train crews which was a frequent reason for cancellations. When there are several trains an hour, one being cancelled doesn't matter, when there are 4 a day it matters hugely.

There has been some calls locally for the service to return to 3 full line trains per day until there are infrastructure improvements to provide a more resilient service but I've heard others saying that unless journey times can go back to what they were in the past that wouldn't actually help. Perhaps those with more in depth knowledge of the situation can provide some insight?

However in the last while there has been a marked improvement in reliability and one would expect that if maintained would start to be reflected in the use figures.

When a single cancellation is 25% of the service gone, then very poor operating reliability will have a negative impact on usage. Another factor in recent times might be that the issues with the smartcard scheme roll out, possibly means an increase in ticketless travel.

A major constraint on usage around the Inner Moray Firth area and overall reliability is the erratic timetable caused by the lengthy single track from Muir of Ord to Inverness. Some hours services from Beauly to Inverness reach metro-esq frequency, only for there then to be a 3 hour gap in services. The Lentran Loop is essential.

 

[InOban]

One factor which may have caused a temporary increase a few years ago was a lengthy period when the Kessock bridge was under major maintenance and the rush hour queues got even longer.

 

[Highland37]

No it couldn't, at least not to a level that would justify the investment.

I think this is the nub of the disagreement here. In the UK, there is a very sceptical, negative attitude to peripheral communities. In Norway it's almost the polar opposite which goes some way to explaining why they are so far ahead in terms of infrastructure in rural areas.

 

[najaB]

Of course in the past Westminster had ideas of closing every line North of Perth.

Wasn't that a BR suggestion rather than a Westminster one?

 

[Highlandspring]

No, the Serpell report was commissioned by David Howell Secretary of State for Transport in 1982.

 

[47802]

It does strike me the line is a bit a nonsense, you've got the Kyle line for Tourists, maybe you could justify retaining the line up to Invergordon or Tain for commuters but surely it doesn't make sense to retain it beyond that. Given the remoteness of the area your basically not going to live there without at least one car in the family.

Of course if you go up there the first thing you notice is that by and large the A9 is pretty good overall and no doubt much improved from the days when the line was retained on Social grounds.

The last time I went on that line 26's were still running and it was a fabulous trip for a rail fan, however I'm not sure I would want to spend 4 hours on 158 just for a pleasure trip, the Kyle line is a shorter journey and more viable for a day trip.

 

[backontrack]

If I'm getting you tone correctly, you are proposing closing the line north of Tain.

Firstly, how much money would this save? Money would be saved on maintanence and day-to-day running, but a significant amount would be spent on closure and providing alternative transport. (Buses.) Also, don't forget that the capacity of a bus is 50% or less that of a 158, meaning that one would need at least 8 additional services in each direction. As I have said on either this or another thread, there would also be a need to improve road infrastructure north of Helmsdale and the provision of actual roads to some stations. This all costs money and nullifies any savings.

Secondly, if you propose closing the line and not providing any additional public transport then you a ignoring the needs of a large area of the country. The impact on people's lives would be significantly detrimental.

Thirdly, the islands further north would also feel the adverse effects due to the ferry connections that the railway provides for services to/from Scrabster.

Fourthly, it has been proven that if one invests money, the patronage of the line increases. When service levels were improved, patronage doubled. Currently, the patronage is falling because of serious reliability issues that lead to frequent cancellations and significant delays until a few months ago.

Finally, 125 people per day is perfectly reasonable for the level of service provided.

Agreed. Completely.

 

[Robertj21a]

It does strike me the line is a bit a nonsense, you've got the Kyle line for Tourists, maybe you could justify retaining the line up to Invergordon or Tain for commuters but surely it doesn't make sense to retain it beyond that. Given the remoteness of the area your basically not going to live there without at least one car in the family.

Of course if you go up there the first thing you notice is that by and large the A9 is pretty good overall and no doubt much improved from the days when the line was retained on Social grounds.

The last time I went on that line 26's were still running and it was a fabulous trip for a rail fan, however I'm not sure I would want to spend 4 hours on 158 just for a pleasure trip, the Kyle line is a shorter journey and more viable for a day trip.

How do non-drivers cope without a train ?

What about those who find that they are no longer able to drive ?

You seem to just assume that a car solves everything !

 

[47802]

How do non-drivers cope without a train ?

What about those who find that they are no longer able to drive ?

You seem to just assume that a car solves everything !

Large areas of that part of the world don't have a Rail Station or good Bus service and never will reality.

If I'm getting you tone correctly, you are proposing closing the line north of Tain.

Firstly, how much money would this save? Money would be saved on maintanence and day-to-day running, but a significant amount would be spent on closure and providing alternative transport. (Buses.) Also, don't forget that the capacity of a bus is 50% or less that of a 158, meaning that one would need at least 8 additional services in each direction. As I have said on either this or another thread, there would also be a need to improve road infrastructure north of Helmsdale and the provision of actual roads to some stations. This all costs money and nullifies any savings.

Secondly, if you propose closing the line and not providing any additional public transport then you a ignoring the needs of a large area of the country. The impact on people's lives would be significantly detrimental.

Thirdly, the islands further north would also feel the adverse effects due to the ferry connections that the railway provides for services to/from Scrabster.

Fourthly, it has been proven that if one invests money, the patronage of the line increases. When service levels were improved, patronage doubled. Currently, the patronage is falling because of serious reliability issues that lead to frequent cancellations and significant delays until a few months ago.

Finally, 125 people per day is perfectly reasonable for the level of service provided.

The idea that you have to nessesarly provide twice as many services because the bus has half the capacity is complete nonsense, you could have a limited direct service between Tain and Thurso ie 3 to 4 services each way via Dornoch Firth Bridge, Wick has alternate buses to both Thurso and Inverness, and possibly a local service for the Lairg loop, even if you provided 8 each way services as you suggest I suspect it will be a hell of a lot cheaper

You can then loose the maintenance cost of around 120 miles of track, 17 stations, sell off the land and buildings, reduced requirement of 158's etc.

 

[najaB]

You can then loose the maintenance cost of around 120 miles of track, 17 stations, sell off the land and buildings, reduced requirement of 158's etc.

The railway doesn't only exist for passengers...

 

[47802]

The railway doesn't only exist for passengers...

No but does the other traffic justify its existence in the long term? should we spend large amounts of money for a few people to have there own personal railway or to accommodate very limited freight traffic, are more cost effective alternatives available? and even if the line survived freight only beyond Tain there is still scope for cost reductions with closed stations and freight level maintenance.

Is it value for money? or could the money be better spent elsewhere?

Unfortunately there are a lot of people on here who think the current network should be cast in stone regardless of economics and that a Train Service is some kind of right.

 

[NeilNX]

I would say this all bit fanciful tbh. If you want to close the far north line, as it doesnt make economical sense, you might aswell have a sift through rural routes in england and wales aswell, how about heart of wales line or whitby line maybe and all lines in the highlands or how about all request stops and and the lowest 400 stations in terms of passenger usage , its politically not exceptable anymore close railways, if holyrood refused to close briech then far north line certainly aint going to happen. Todays focus is improving and rebuilding, you may agree or disagree with that depending on your perspective. Reading this thread it seems like usage was growing until it started having problems and its having a downturn so effort should be fix whats gone wrong and getting it growing again as it was doing. Its a very remote line, serving remote communities. If the serpell report got put in the bin as it wasnt exceptable even under thatcher i believe and certainly wont happen now.

 

[Esker-pades]

Large areas of that part of the world don't have a Rail Station or good Bus service and never will reality.

That's not a good thing.

The idea that you have to nessesarly provide twice as many services because the bus has half the capacity is complete nonsense, you could have a limited direct service between Tain and Thurso ie 3 to 4 services each way via Dornoch Firth Bridge, Wick has alternate buses to both Thurso and Inverness, and possibly a local service for the Lairg loop, even if you provided 8 each way services as you suggest I suspect it will be a hell of a lot cheaper
You can then loose the maintenance cost of around 120 miles of track, 17 stations, sell off the land and buildings, reduced requirement of 158's etc.

The last bus service from Thurso/Wick to Inverness is at 11am. The bus service doesn't serve any settlements between Wick and Helmsdale. The road infrastructure would need significant investment to allow buses to go up it (again, between Wick and Helmsdale). Most of the bus services have been withdrawn because Stagecoach said it didn't make economic sense. So, whatever public transport one provides, there will be a need for a subsidy. Government has chosen the railway. If you would rather there was no public transport, then I'm happy to discuss that aspect.

Most station buildings have already been sold off. Once one gets north of Tain, ~33% of stations don't even have a station building to sell.

But, this ignores the point. Taxes and subsidies exist to fund public services for the public good. The Far North Line is this. Despite the problems with reliability and increased journey times that have occurred in recent years (an extra 20 minutes since '01, only a maximum of 5 of which can be down to the two new stations), the locals continue to use the service, campaign for a better service and, when services do improve, they vote with their feet and use the train over any other public transport. The alternative is a very limited bus service, one which keeps getting cut or driving. The problem with assuming everyone drives is fairly obvious, but, evven if one can assume that, that would be nearly 100,000 extra journeys, which would increase traffic, especially at peak times where the A9 is already congested, and have a negative effect on the environment, which is more important than money.

 

[Esker-pades]

It is worth noting that, since 2004, patronage on the Far North Line has increased by 200%, including the recent declines due to service level. If one looks at the peak patronage level before recent declines, then the rise is 250%, including 169% on the Tain to Wick section which various members consider pointless.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It is worth noting that, since 2004, patronage on the Far North Line has increased by 200%, including the recent declines due to service level. If one looks at the peak patronage level before recent declines, then the rise is 250%, including 169% on the Tain to Wick section which various members consider pointless.

Are there any figures available about patronage/station usages prior to the 2012 which is as far back as Wikipedia goes?

 

[Esker-pades]

Are there any figures available about patronage/station usages prior to the 2012 which is as far back as Wikipedia goes?

Yes. If you click on the "Edit" button in the top right-hand corner of the page, one can see the annual patronage right back to '04. One can also get the information from the Office of Rail and Road (orr.gov.uk) .

 

[47802]

That's not a good thing.


The last bus service from Thurso/Wick to Inverness is at 11am. The bus service doesn't serve any settlements between Wick and Helmsdale. The road infrastructure would need significant investment to allow buses to go up it (again, between Wick and Helmsdale). Most of the bus services have been withdrawn because Stagecoach said it didn't make economic sense. So, whatever public transport one provides, there will be a need for a subsidy. Government has chosen the railway. If you would rather there was no public transport, then I'm happy to discuss that aspect.

Most station buildings have already been sold off. Once one gets north of Tain, ~33% of stations don't even have a station building to sell.

But, this ignores the point. Taxes and subsidies exist to fund public services for the public good. The Far North Line is this. Despite the problems with reliability and increased journey times that have occurred in recent years (an extra 20 minutes since '01, only a maximum of 5 of which can be down to the two new stations), the locals continue to use the service, campaign for a better service and, when services do improve, they vote with their feet and use the train over any other public transport. The alternative is a very limited bus service, one which keeps getting cut or driving. The problem with assuming everyone drives is fairly obvious, but, evven if one can assume that, that would be nearly 100,000 extra journeys, which would increase traffic, especially at peak times where the A9 is already congested, and have a negative effect on the environment, which is more important than money.

Without the Train service such as Stagecoach may be inclined to provide a better service, at present the bus service gives preference to Wick which is presumably because the Train gives preference to Thurso, alternatively a subsidised bus service may be substancially cheaper. I'm of the view that there should be a strategic bus network which compliments Rail, subsidised if required which serves some areas that don't have a train service and may replace some least used rail lines, giving a strategic Public Transport network that can offer value for money.

Of course its a mute argument anyway because none of the Politicians seem to have the bottle to propose significant Rail Closures at present because they know that every so called enthusiast and environmentalist will come out of the woodwork, plus Michael Portillo, when really we should try and have a good sensible debate as whether all current lines offer good value compared to the money spent on them.

 

[najaB]

...when really we should try and have a good sensible debate as whether all current lines offer good value compared to the money spent on them.

In the case of the FNL: yes it does.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes. If you click on the "Edit" button in the top right-hand corner of the page, one can see the annual patronage right back to '04. One can also get the information from the Office of Rail and Road (orr.gov.uk) .

Thanks! I've found it

 

[47802]

In the case of the FNL: yes it does.

Well if you say so then that's alright then for 1 occasional freight train.

Plus if fully autonomous vehicle becomes a reality in the next 10 years along with electric vehicles then the those that carn't drive argument goes out the window, and there are probably a number of lightly used routes that can be closed and the money better spent on road improvements instead, yes we will still need trains for the heavily congested cities but they can concentrate on what they are good at moving large number of people not the occasional 2 car unit pottering down a branch line.

 

[yorksrob]

No but does the other traffic justify its existence in the long term? should we spend large amounts of money for a few people to have there own personal railway or to accommodate very limited freight traffic, are more cost effective alternatives available? and even if the line survived freight only beyond Tain there is still scope for cost reductions with closed stations and freight level maintenance.

Is it value for money? or could the money be better spent elsewhere?

Unfortunately there are a lot of people on here who think the current network should be cast in stone regardless of economics and that a Train Service is some kind of right.

Yes I do, and yes it should be. I don't see why we have to accept the faux economics of the closure brigade, whove already gotten away with destroying so much of the network on flimsy credentials.

 

[47802]

Yes I do, and yes it should be. I don't see why we have to accept the faux economics of the closure brigade, whove already gotten away with destroying so much of the network on flimsy credentials.

Another one who thinks we have a bottomless pit of money to spend lightly used transport which may give a poor cost benefit.

A lot of the Network was rightly destroyed which otherwise would have cost the country large amounts of money which couldnt have been spent elsewhere, and certainly if we can get autonomous vehicles then its a good opportunity to bin of a number of lightly used routes along with road improvements where needed.

 

[yorksrob]

Another one who thinks we have a bottomless pit of money to spend lightly used transport which may give a poor cost benefit.

A lot of the Network was rightly destroyed which otherwise would have cost the country large amounts of money which couldnt have been spent elsewhere, and certainly if we can get autonomous vehicles then its a good opportunity to bin of a number of lightly used routes along with road improvements where needed.

We haven't got autonomous vehicles yet, and whilst the route continues to attract passengers (and will more, so long as acceptible reliability levels are maintained) such routes should be supported as the vital lifeline they are.

I certainly wouldn't want my taxes to be squandered on tarting up a few roads just to provide a fig leaf for another closure programme.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Another one who thinks we have a bottomless pit of money to spend lightly used transport which may give a poor cost benefit.

The question is, why is it lightly used. Certainly, low population levels in the area mean it's never going to sustain a metro frequency, but from what I've read and seen, it does seem that part of the reason for it being lightly used is that the far north line hasn't seen the investment required to enable a decent service to run on it, while possibly at least some investment has gone on roads instead. Personally, I do appreciate that investing in the Far North line is going to give a poor return compared to - say - investing in some commuter line in the middle of Glasgow or somewhere. But I also strongly suspect that with appropriate investment, the line would become much better used. And I think in the long term, that would be worth while because the advantages of rail over road make it a near certainty that rail will become more important over the coming decades (assuming the Government is at least vaguely sensible in its transport policies). Plus of course all those well-rehearsed social issues. And I feel very confident that if we did allow the Far North Line to close, then in about 30 or 40 years time, we'd be almost universally bemoaning why we allowed that to happen and how now we've got to rebuild the line from scratch again to provide decent connectivity for the area.

Looking through it, it seems to me that the main problems are:

• Between Tain and Golspie, the service takes an hour to cover an as-the-crow-flies distance of about 15 miles, without serving anywhere of significance en route. Building that Dornoch link should, if done with good linespeeds, be able to shave about 40 minutes off journey times, with the bonus of actually serving a couple of reasonable-sized places in between too.
• The diversion to Thurso adds nearly 30 minutes to journey times to Wick. Presumably you could fix that by having the through train go to just one of the two places, with a guaranteed connecting shuttle at Georgemas Junction (or at Halkirk if that bit of line was rebuilt). Since the Shuttle would be running almost completely isolated from all other routes, reliability ought not to be an issue, and there should be few operational problems with having the shuttle wait for late-running Inverness trains to guarantee connections. That could be another 25 minutes knocked off Wick journeys
• Sorting out the reasons why the timetable has had to be slowed down over the last 15 years ought to save another 10 minutes.
• And you could probably get a few more minutes by closing a couple of stations that have almost no patronage.

Do all those and you've saved maybe an hour and 10-15 minutes on Inverness-Wick times and maybe 45 minutes on Inverness-Thurso times. Add in a bit of infrastructure to give timetable robustness and my guess is you'd now have a much better used line that can seriously compete with cars on journey times. Indeed you might then have enough passengers to justify a couple of additional trains per day, which would make the line even more attractive as a journey option. Perhaps with that scenario, a long-term ideal would be a straight 2-hourly frequency?

Add to that - obviously you also want the infrastructure to allow a regular hourly service from Inverness at least as far as Dingwall. Again, that should pull a few more people off the roads.

I appreciate that this would cost a lot, and some people are going to question the cost vs numbers of people benefitting, but I would suspect in this case, the social/etc. benefits to a very remote area, and the wider environmental/economic benefits of taking people out of cars for journeys that may in some cases continue south of Inverness would make it worthwhile.

 

[47802]

The question is, why is it lightly used. Certainly, low population levels in the area mean it's never going to sustain a metro frequency, but from what I've read and seen, it does seem that part of the reason for it being lightly used is that the far north line hasn't seen the investment required to enable a decent service to run on it, while possibly at least some investment has gone on roads instead. Personally, I do appreciate that investing in the Far North line is going to give a poor return compared to - say - investing in some commuter line in the middle of Glasgow or somewhere. But I also strongly suspect that with appropriate investment, the line would become much better used. And I think in the long term, that would be worth while because the advantages of rail over road make it a near certainty that rail will become more important over the coming decades (assuming the Government is at least vaguely sensible in its transport policies). Plus of course all those well-rehearsed social issues. And I feel very confident that if we did allow the Far North Line to close, then in about 30 or 40 years time, we'd be almost universally bemoaning why we allowed that to happen and how now we've got to rebuild the line from scratch again to provide decent connectivity for the area.

Looking through it, it seems to me that the main problems are:

• Between Tain and Golspie, the service takes an hour to cover an as-the-crow-flies distance of about 15 miles, without serving anywhere of significance en route. Building that Dornoch link should, if done with good linespeeds, be able to shave about 40 minutes off journey times, with the bonus of actually serving a couple of reasonable-sized places in between too.
• The diversion to Thurso adds nearly 30 minutes to journey times to Wick. Presumably you could fix that by having the through train go to just one of the two places, with a guaranteed connecting shuttle at Georgemas Junction (or at Halkirk if that bit of line was rebuilt). Since the Shuttle would be running almost completely isolated from all other routes, reliability ought not to be an issue, and there should be few operational problems with having the shuttle wait for late-running Inverness trains to guarantee connections. That could be another 25 minutes knocked off Wick journeys
• Sorting out the reasons why the timetable has had to be slowed down over the last 15 years ought to save another 10 minutes.
• And you could probably get a few more minutes by closing a couple of stations that have almost no patronage.

Do all those and you've saved maybe an hour and 10-15 minutes on Inverness-Wick times and maybe 45 minutes on Inverness-Thurso times. Add in a bit of infrastructure to give timetable robustness and my guess is you'd now have a much better used line that can seriously compete with cars on journey times. Indeed you might then have enough passengers to justify a couple of additional trains per day, which would make the line even more attractive as a journey option. Perhaps with that scenario, a long-term ideal would be a straight 2-hourly frequency?

Add to that - obviously you also want the infrastructure to allow a regular hourly service from Inverness at least as far as Dingwall. Again, that should pull a few more people off the roads.

I appreciate that this would cost a lot, and some people are going to question the cost vs numbers of people benefitting, but I would suspect in this case, the social/etc. benefits to a very remote area, and the wider environmental/economic benefits of taking people out of cars for journeys that may in some cases continue south of Inverness would make it worthwhile.

Your suggestions are very expensive for a route which has 4 trains per day on section you propose to speed up, is that good value for money? Why should we be pulling people out of cars in rural areas, given that electric vehicles can fix the environmental objections, and further down the line autonomous vehicles can fix the carnt drive problem, 21st century solutions instead of 19th century solutions just as the Railways superseded the Canals, the Electric Driverless vehicle can supersede Railways in rural areas.