How would the U.K. need to adapt if the railway system were abolished?

[urbophile]

Yes, well done you for finding a map and putting no context in it - let me help you a bit.

Let's take a state at random - Nevada will do - according to your map there's one railway line running through it - how terrible you'll say. Except most of Nevada is desert. It has an area of 110,000 square miles - England is 50,000 square miles - so half the size. Population - Nevada has a population of 3.1 million - that's less than 1/3rd the population of Greater London in an area double the size of England.

On what basis is car dependency when you have that kind of population in that kind of area a 'bad thing' ? How does that make it a 'car dependant hell hole' ? Frankly the railways are an anachronism in that environment for anything except freight shipping - which guess what, is exactly what US railways do alot of.

So conversely you can't argue for the abolition of railways in a densely populated region.

 

[A0wen]

It might be that that extra 20-30 minutes does influence your decision (the 2309, a more likely choice, is an "all but Bushey, Apsley, Kings Langley and Cheddington" run and is 10 minutes quicker than the one you cited which is probably a bit early for the theatre anyway), but I can guarantee you that people from Bletchley and MK (and definitely places south of there like Berko and Tring) do indeed do evening theatre trips to London, with matinees mostly being for kids and older people who don't like being out late. I have done it multiple times myself and I know plenty of other people who have.

I've even done weekday evening drinking after work and ended up on the 0134 on a weekday, though that train to be fair is very quiet, you probably could get away with removing that and the 03xx return without annoying *too* many people, though there would be some who would have to give up London Underground jobs if they did, the 03xx is typically full of London Underground uniforms.

The 2309 is only 10 minutes quicker and gets you to Northampton at 00.30, so really no difference.

 

[43066]

The present "Tory" Government is not in fact a Tory, or Conservative, one, it's a curiously self-serving, high tax, populist right-wing one which has more in common with e.g. UKIP than Thatcherism or even traditional Conservatism.

Precisely.

I really don't - which is why I've said several times focusing the railways on freight makes alot of sense.

You’re seriously suggesting they the passenger focussed UK railway should be refocused on freight!? You seem to start from a Trumpian-USA vision of what the UK railway and wider economy should look like, and refuse to deviate from it, despite the very obvious differences between the USA and here.

Carting fresh air around rural parts of the UK really doesn't.

Given that over 50% of UK train journeys are either entirely within the South East, or start or end in London, carting fresh air around rural parts of the UK doesn’t actually happen that much, and doesn’t cost very much at all. Closing down these parts of the railway/axing services will save hardly anything, as has been established elsewhere. They will mean that infrastructure is lost for good, despite a growing population and (supposedly) a desire to level up the North.

And I don't sense an appetite from any of the major political parties to spend more on the rail network. Labour want to "renationalise" it, whatever that may look like, but have failed to explain why that's beneficial, who benefits and how they'll contain the costs. After all, the already nationalised bit of the rail network, Network Rail, isn't exactly known for its cost efficiency or on time, on budget delivery of major projects.

I agree that renationalisation isn’t a panacea. However the current government is actively starving it of funding for ideological reasons. This is making it less useful for many of those who use it, and may be costing more in lost revenue than promoting growth through fares reform etc.

Or to put it another way - you're paying for your own healthcare and education - and its eminently possible you haven't yet covered those costs.

Actually as a healthy long term higher rate tax payer with no kids, student loan long since repaid, I will certainly have more than covered my own education and healthcare costs. If you’ve got kids in the state education sector you’re almost certainly a bigger drain on the economy than I am. That doesn’t (and shouldn’t) mean you get more or less of a say than I do, or anyone else.

The point is you don’t get to play the “why should my taxes pay for your train travel” card with any credibility when others are subsidising aspects of your lifestyle, too.

On the second point - the industrial dispute, ironically, is keeping costs down, as people on strike don't get paid. And if passengers are travelling using air, coach or car, then they'll be contributing to the exchequer via the various taxes those forms of transport attract.

But the 99.9% of the time the staff aren’t on strike they still need to be paid, and the fixed railway costs you complain about still need to be covered. And the action has cost more than the revenue lost, even without looking at the wider economic costs.

The industrial dispute isn’t saving money at all, as even the government has admitted, but you’re happy for public money to be wasted fighting trade unions.

There is clearly a case for reviewing services - I gave this example elsewhere quite recently - I went to Nuneaton from Northampton where I live for a meal on a Friday night. Both trains up (change at Rugby) were fairly full having originated in the London evening peak. The return (last train from Nuneaton and one of the last from Rugby to Northampton) were a different matter. The Nuneaton train had a handful of people on it. The Northampton train (ex Birmingham) was barely 1/4 full when it arrived at Rugby. Now, whilst there may be some case about ensuring trains end their day at certain places etc - is carting around fresh air like that a good use of resource ? What if the last train had been an hour earlier ? Or replaced by a bus at much lower cost ?

Not all trains have to be full all of the time to make the railway cost effective, you do get that, right?

The biggest proponents for that change were the British Medical Association who were arguing that the effect of the current restrictions meant doctors were retiring from NHS service.

A trade union representing doctors wants more favourable pension rules for a tiny minority of doctors, what a shock. When asked, Hunt was also unable to produce any actual figures on how many doctors have genuinely retired due to pension rules.

The pension changes are costing the public purse £2.75bn over five years. That is equivalent to the annual railway revenue “shortfall” post Covid that you have claimed to be so concerned about elsewhere.

The ideology you’ve swallowed sums up the current state of this country: people such as yourself don’t mind the government squandering public money on tax breaks you won’t even benefit from yourself, but you still (for some bizarre reason) want to see the railway deprived of funding because you’ve been convinced by a cabinet of self serving millionaires that spending on public services = bad.

And addressing that couldn't be limited to just the public sector - the public sector already get massively preferential pension schemes whereas private sector pensions were pillaged by Gordon Brown.

This is factually incorrect - they could easily have limited it to doctors/the NHS had they wished to do so. The reason they didn’t is that it’s very obviously primarily aimed at high net worths who work in the city who can now squirrel away huge amounts more tax free at a time when - as you have rightly pointed out - the rest of us are having to pay more.

Set against total government spending, no doubt. But lets narrow it down and look at transport spending. As slide 5 points out "Most of DfT’s budget is for the railways, and Network Rail in particular" https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons/scrutiny/dft-slides-me2021-22.pdf

Rail spending dwarfs spending on pretty much every other form of transport spending.

So you’re now admitting that your previous statement that the railway “is bloody expensive for the taxpayer” is nonsense.

Just like last time we discussed this, you’re selectively using stats from during Covid again. Also (again) ignoring that the road’s costs to the public purse (policing, accidents etc.) are externalised.

Suggesting that railway spending “dwarfs” spending on other forms of transport (not that it does when compared to roads), also says nothing about whether it’s expensive to the taxpayer in absolute terms. It might simply mean that we spend too little on those other areas.

That's opex. Most opex on the roads is paid for by private people. Not only that but also covid was still a thing, so the railways were being heavily supported

The capex figure on the same slide is more relevant. Which is only national expenditure and doesn't include local councils or devolved administrations. The road investment budget is slightly higher than the Network Rail budget

Indeed.

Yes, there are people who go into London to meet up and have a few drinks

Keeping in mind that around 50% of the population of the South East already live in London, you’re seriously suggesting these are edge cases?! I agree with @Bletchleyite here.

 

[A0wen]

So conversely you can't argue for the abolition of railways in a densely populated region.

And I haven't particularly - I've made the point that for suburban services into major conurbations there's a case. But lines across rural Norfolk, Lincolnshire or Northumberland ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And I haven't particularly - I've made the point that for suburban services into major conurbations there's a case. But lines across rural Norfolk, Lincolnshire or Northumberland ?

Being true to the subject of the thread, closing rural lines would have little effect on the economy, however closing urban commuter and regional lines would have a considerable effect.

 

[zwk500]

I think you need to separate theatre i.e West End in London from cinema. If you live in Hemel, Luton or Stevenage, let alone Milton Keynes, Bedford or Northampton, you're not going to go to London to go to the cinema, not when all of those places have at least one multiplex cinema chain locally.

People won't travel so far for the cinema (unless it's Imax) but may still want to get the train to the cinema.

If you're travelling more than an hour, people will often opt for a matinee show rather than an evening one, not least because if the show finishes at 10, you've then got to get to whichever terminus you're heading back from - and if we look at the WCML from Euston then the journeys are incredibly slow - the 2237 from Euston to Northampton takes almost 90 minutes getting you back into Northampton after mid-night. It's much easier to have a matinee show, go for a meal afterwards and then get a train about 9pm.

I'm painfully aware how slow those trains are, yes. But a matinee isn't always easy to get tickets to (or to get into london for the start time if you're working in the morning) and sometimes people would rather have the fewer kids in the evening crowds.

 

[43074]

And I haven't particularly - I've made the point that for suburban services into major conurbations there's a case. But lines across rural Norfolk, Lincolnshire or Northumberland ?

Beeching dealt with most of the basket cases in those areas though - take Lincolnshire, at best there's only the Brigg line and the Barton line left where there's even a remote chance of closure happening. Peterborough to Doncaster via Lincoln is mainly used by freight, Nottingham to Lincoln is an inter-urban route

Norwich to Yarmouth, Sheringham and Lowestoft are quasi-suburban services in nature these days anyway, the first trains are around 0500 and the last trains around 2300, they wouldn't exist if there wasn't demand for them.

Just about the only railways in Northumberland are the East Coast Main Line and the Ashington line, the latter will to all intents and purposes be a suburban service feeding into Newcastle.

 

[yorksrob]

I really don't - which is why I've said several times focusing the railways on freight makes alot of sense. Carting fresh air around rural parts of the UK really doesn't.

And I don't sense an appetite from any of the major political parties to spend more on the rail network. Labour want to "renationalise" it, whatever that may look like, but have failed to explain why that's beneficial, who benefits and how they'll contain the costs. After all, the already nationalised bit of the rail network, Network Rail, isn't exactly known for its cost efficiency or on time, on budget delivery of major projects.



Or to put it another way - you're paying for your own healthcare and education - and its eminently possible you haven't yet covered those costs.



The South East lost relatively few lines to Beeching - and quite alot of those which people claim were Beeching of course closed long before his report or in the years after his departure so were BR initiated.

On the second point - the industrial dispute, ironically, is keeping costs down, as people on strike don't get paid. And if passengers are travelling using air, coach or car, then they'll be contributing to the exchequer via the various taxes those forms of transport attract.

There is clearly a case for reviewing services - I gave this example elsewhere quite recently - I went to Nuneaton from Northampton where I live for a meal on a Friday night. Both trains up (change at Rugby) were fairly full having originated in the London evening peak. The return (last train from Nuneaton and one of the last from Rugby to Northampton) were a different matter. The Nuneaton train had a handful of people on it. The Northampton train (ex Birmingham) was barely 1/4 full when it arrived at Rugby. Now, whilst there may be some case about ensuring trains end their day at certain places etc - is carting around fresh air like that a good use of resource ? What if the last train had been an hour earlier ? Or replaced by a bus at much lower cost ?


The biggest proponents for that change were the British Medical Association who were arguing that the effect of the current restrictions meant doctors were retiring from NHS service.

And addressing that couldn't be limited to just the public sector - the public sector already get massively preferential pension schemes whereas private sector pensions were pillaged by Gordon Brown.



Set against total government spending, no doubt. But lets narrow it down and look at transport spending. As slide 5 points out "Most of DfT’s budget is for the railways, and Network Rail in particular" https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons/scrutiny/dft-slides-me2021-22.pdf

Rail spending dwarfs spending on pretty much every other form of transport spending.



Not sure how high tax and high spending have somehow become "right wing"......

A better comparison would be to look at spending on rail per person, compared to other similar Western countries.

If we spend more and get a worse service, then you have a point to say that the system is "bloody expensive"

If we spend less and get a worse service, there should be a debate as to whether we should be spending more to get an equivalent service.

I think you need to separate theatre i.e West End in London from cinema. If you live in Hemel, Luton or Stevenage, let alone Milton Keynes, Bedford or Northampton, you're not going to go to London to go to the cinema, not when all of those places have at least one multiplex cinema chain locally.

If you're travelling more than an hour, people will often opt for a matinee show rather than an evening one, not least because if the show finishes at 10, you've then got to get to whichever terminus you're heading back from - and if we look at the WCML from Euston then the journeys are incredibly slow - the 2237 from Euston to Northampton takes almost 90 minutes getting you back into Northampton after mid-night. It's much easier to have a matinee show, go for a meal afterwards and then get a train about 9pm.

You sound as though you know a lot about the arts, many of which are publicly funded to an extent.

 

[eldomtom2]

Yes, well done you for finding a map and putting no context in it - let me help you a bit.

Let's take a state at random - Nevada will do - according to your map there's one railway line running through it - how terrible you'll say. Except most of Nevada is desert. It has an area of 110,000 square miles - England is 50,000 square miles - so half the size. Population - Nevada has a population of 3.1 million - that's less than 1/3rd the population of Greater London in an area double the size of England.

On what basis is car dependency when you have that kind of population in that kind of area a 'bad thing' ? How does that make it a 'car dependant hell hole' ? Frankly the railways are an anachronism in that environment for anything except freight shipping - which guess what, is exactly what US railways do alot of.

Somehow I doubt you actually picked Nevada, the ninth-least populated state in the country, at random. Look at anywhere east of the Great Plains and the paucity of rail service becomes much harder to justify.

And even Nevada looks pretty bad when you consider that their largest city, a metropolitan area of over 2 million, has no rail service at all...

the US Passenger railroads may be not up to match, but the US very pointedly DOES have a railroad system, and according to 2010 figures was carrying nearly 40% of the ton-miles in the country.

Mainly due to geographic factors. The private freight railroads pointedly refuse to modernise.

 

[A0wen]

Somehow I doubt you actually picked Nevada, the ninth-least populated state in the country, at random. Look at anywhere east of the Great Plains and the paucity of rail service becomes much harder to justify.

And even Nevada looks pretty bad when you consider that their largest city, a metropolitan area of over 2 million, has no rail service at all...

Mainly due to geographic factors. The private freight railroads pointedly refuse to modernise.

I'm happy to look at other states. But Nevada really isn't "pretty bad" - that large city is Las Vegas, the next nearest cities of any size are Los Angeles and Phoenix - both are about 300 miles away or, to put it another way, the distance between London and Carlisle and unlike London - Carlisle you don't have anywhere significant either en route or close by. In fact you don't even have anywhere the size of Milton Keynes between Vegas and LA or Vegas and Phoenix, let alone places like Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham or anything like that.

Your argument the freight railroads "refused to modernise" is simply wrong - they carry alot of freight efficiently. The sheer scale of the country means they operate the way they do.

 

[RT4038]

Mainly due to geographic factors. The private freight railroads pointedly refuse to modernise.

The private freight railroads have modernised, in the context of the traffics which they believe can be conveyed profitably. After all, they have no steam engines left, and main lines are centrally signalled etc. What they have not done is paid for any modernisation likely to benefit passenger rail (which they do not see as ever profitable, much like it is not in most parts of the world).

 

[PGAT]

I'm happy to look at other states. But Nevada really isn't "pretty bad" - that large city is Las Vegas, means they operate the way they do.

So the sheer fact that the city is Las Vegas makes it all okay?

 

[nw1]

The fact that people are even talking about this is worrying.

Radical right-wing ideas, such as closing down much of the railway, would have been laughed out of court 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 30. Yet, since Covid, they are seemingly becoming increasingly fashionable.

We can't surely just go closing regional rail and cutting the network down to InterCity, "NSE" and big-city metro systems. To take a good example, Portsmouth to Cardiff. Is this quiet and under-used? Every time I've used it, or seen trains on this route, it's been crowded, sometimes too much so.

The only sensible case at all for closing a railway or withdrawing a service (and even in that case, I would be very sceptical for social reasons) would be some line which is literally only carrying a few passengers.

And if green issues are so important, a radical slimming down of the UK network is surely counter-productive to that.

 

[RT4038]

So the sheer fact that the city is Las Vegas makes it all okay?

Presumably they don't need a (passenger) railway. There are more populous places in the world without (passenger) railways at all, or where they are insignificant to the transport network (perhaps aside from pure suburban provision) Las Vegas is an indication (a mere indication, not a template.......) as to how places adapt to having no (passenger) rail as per the OP.

 

[PGAT]

Presumably they don't need a (passenger) railway. There are more populous places in the world without (passenger) railways at all, or where they are insignificant to the transport provision. Las Vegas is an indication (a mere indication, not a template.......) as to how places adapt to having no (passenger) rail as per the OP.

Obviously there are populated areas without train stations, but that doesn’t mean they are nice areas to live in or sustainable at all.

 

[A0wen]

So the sheer fact that the city is Las Vegas makes it all okay?

A city of 2m which represents 2/3rds of the state's population, with the next nearest big cities about 300 miles away means there is little practical need for passenger rail transport within that state.

That would be true in pretty much any setting. There are Greyhound coaches to the likes of Phoenix and LA which are far more flexible.

The fact that people are even talking about this is worrying.

Radical right-wing ideas, such as closing down much of the railway, would have been laughed out of court 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 30. Yet, since Covid, they are seemingly becoming increasingly fashionable.

We can't surely just go closing regional rail and cutting the network down to InterCity, "NSE" and big-city metro systems. To take a good example, Portsmouth to Cardiff. Is this quiet and under-used? Every time I've used it, or seen trains on this route, it's been crowded, sometimes too much so.

The only sensible case at all for closing a railway or withdrawing a service (and even in that case, I would be very sceptical for social reasons) would be some line which is literally only carrying a few passengers.

And if green issues are so important, a radical slimming down of the UK network is surely counter-productive to that.

Bit in bold - you do realise plenty of left wing governments and countries have closed down parts of their rail networks ?

 

[RT4038]

Obviously there are populated areas without train stations, but that doesn’t mean they are nice areas to live in or sustainable at all.

True, but having a railway station doesn't mean that either. For example Lima, Peru has a population of 11 million. It has no passenger rail at all. There are nice areas to live in and I don't see any obvious evidence of unsustainability. No doubt the city has all sorts of problems, and I'm not sure how much railway stations would necessarily relieve them. The City is adapted to buses. Most of South America has largely passed out of the railway age (and what little remains is suburban or tourist operations generally), in spite of lots of cities with populations far greater than Las Vegas.

We must take the OP's question with a bit of a pinch of salt - railways in the UK are not going to be 'abolished' - gradually decline and be replaced by other modes possibly, with 'gradually' being the operative word.

 

[nw1]

Bit in bold - you do realise plenty of left wing governments and countries have closed down parts of their rail networks ?

But the motivation here, in the UK, seems to be to cut (in the eyes of some) unnecessary public spending, and the side-effects are social: people who rely on the railway will be less able to travel. Thus, to my mind, it's firmly a right-wing idea, and contrary to left-wing principles.

 

[RT4038]

We can't surely just go closing regional rail and cutting the network down to InterCity, "NSE" and big-city metro systems. To take a good example, Portsmouth to Cardiff. Is this quiet and under-used? Every time I've used it, or seen trains on this route, it's been crowded, sometimes too much so.

I think you are pigeon holing things too much - how British Rail branded their operations need not be taken too literally - Portsmouth-Cardiff could be Inter City [it is after all between two cities, passing through four others], or it could be replaced by motorway coaches (as would be in South America for instance)

The catalyst for any substantive changes to the size of the network will come when either the railway (or parts of it) lose their business and cease to be relevant ( superiority of other modes in speed, reliability, cost) and/or the costs (either in size or relative to other modes) are judged to be too great. I am sure you can think of examples of these conditions in the past both in the UK and elsewhere in the world.

 

[A0wen]

But the motivation here, in the UK, seems to be to cut (in the eyes of some) unnecessary public spending, and the side-effects are social: people who rely on the railway will be less able to travel. Thus, to my mind, it's firmly a right-wing idea, and contrary to left-wing principles.

Because they can't use a bus or coach ?.......

 

[Thirteen]

Let's be realistic, we're not going to see major cities ever agreeing to get rid of rail. London alone would not survive without railways and public transport in general.

 

[eldomtom2]

I'm happy to look at other states.

Take a look at Ohio, for instance. Three major cities - Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, that together hold over one and a half million people, and are neatly organised on a 250-mile line with several other smaller population centres on the way. No passenger rail service.

Your argument the freight railroads "refused to modernise" is simply wrong - they carry alot of freight efficiently. The sheer scale of the country means they operate the way they do.

The private freight railroads have modernised, in the context of the traffics which they believe can be conveyed profitably. After all, they have no steam engines left, and main lines are centrally signalled etc. What they have not done is paid for any modernisation likely to benefit passenger rail (which they do not see as ever profitable, much like it is not in most parts of the world).

Their refusal to modernise is not just about passenger rail. I can think of no other country with a rail industry who's trade association has explicitly declared itself anti-electrification, for instance. It is well known that the American railroads operate with the bare minimum of capital investment. And that doesn't get into their terrible records on labour relations, shipper satisfication, safety...
The US freight rail industry has a high modal share because it is in a country where there is no other means of shipping bulk goods. Unfortunately for them, two core sources of bulk goods (coal and oil) are on the way out...

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the motivation here, in the UK, seems to be to cut (in the eyes of some) unnecessary public spending, and the side-effects are social: people who rely on the railway will be less able to travel. Thus, to my mind, it's firmly a right-wing idea, and contrary to left-wing principles.

Is that really true if a high quality integrated bus service was provided?

(Very big "if" I know)

 

[zwk500]

The comparison with the US is pretty pointless, the country is a continent in itself and has numerous economic, political, cultural and historic factors affecting it's network that make it different from ours.
US passenger railroads used to be fundamental to the economy, now they're pretty much a non-entity.

Is that really true if a high quality integrated bus service was provided?

(Very big "if" I know)

In theory no, a BRT could easily provide the social benefits of a train. However culturally in the UK busses are shunned and politically buses are derided so I wouldn't advocate tearing up the railways in favour of a BRT anytime soon.

 

[bramling]

It doesn’t really demonstrate the point at all. It’s grossly simplistic; many of the population of Stevenage will be family members who depend on a breadwinner who uses the train for their jobs etc., so they’re fairly likely to notice. It also (as always) ignores the wider economic contribution made by the railway.

Stevenage for sure isn’t really typical of anything. For starters, a significant proportion of the working population there do “white van man” type jobs (dodgy to variable extents), which is well known locally to snarl up the A1 every morning. Then there’s the way the town is designed, which is heavily skewed towards the car, the network of cycle paths has never really taken off. It’s a completely different demographic to commuter towns in the area.

I’m quite sure the aforementioned white van man would certainly notice if there was no railway, not just serving Stevenage but the wider area, and his journey on the A1 every morning became *even* more congested than it already is.

 

[stuu]

True, but having a railway station doesn't mean that either. For example Lima, Peru has a population of 11 million. It has no passenger rail at all. There are nice areas to live in and I don't see any obvious evidence of unsustainability. No doubt the city has all sorts of problems, and I'm not sure how much railway stations would necessarily relieve them. The City is adapted to buses. Most of South America has largely passed out of the railway age (and what little remains is suburban or tourist operations generally), in spite of lots of cities with populations far greater than Las Vegas.

Lima has a metro line and is building two more, with plans for a full network.

 

[tomuk]

Is that really true if a high quality integrated bus service was provided?

(Very big "if" I know)

Well even TfGM own predictions for bus franchising predict only a reduction in rate to the fated decline of bus use.

 

[nw1]

Because they can't use a bus or coach ?.......

But others on here have suggested that buses and coaches might also be cut, due to congestion on the roads (as a result of closed railways) rendering them financially less viable.

Is that really true if a high quality integrated bus service was provided?

(Very big "if" I know)

Fair enough if that is the case (see my reply above).

 

[lachlan]

Because they can't use a bus or coach ?.......

Buses and coaches are less comfortable and often (though not always) slower. Also in the case of more rural rail lines railway stations are either impossible to reach (Corrour) or doing so would make the coach journey incredibly slow.

 

[RT4038]

Buses and coaches are less comfortable and often (though not always) slower. Also in the case of more rural rail lines railway stations are either impossible to reach (Corrour) or doing so would make the coach journey incredibly slow.

Whether they are less comfortable or slower will have little to do with the decision making, which would be based on costs vs. revenue. (revenue not necessarily exceeding costs, but an acceptable relationship between the two). Corrour could be reached by a connecting Rangerover along the rail track bed converted into a dirt track road quite easily (as has been done in similar circumstances elsewhere in the world, such as Newfoundland).