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

[urbophile]

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.

Quite. But British politicians have for many years (and especially since Thatcher) been besotted with America and their supposed 'solutions'. Arguably US politics have arisen out of the peculiar historical and geographical circumstances of the country: adventurers seeking a new world to conquer, seemingly limitless land and resources to plunder, and a buccaneering spirit of 'every man [sic] for himself'. It is now clear that this approach is threatening the future of the planet, but even if it was a valid one for the US itself, it is far from appropriate or feasible when applied to Europe and similar long-settled and densely populated regions.

Particularly when it comes to transport. British and most other European cities were built before the motor age; many of them also before the railways. We've adapted to the latter at some cost (eg Newcastle and York), but even comparatively modern suburbs find it hard to cope when every household seems to have two or three cars. Even if it were possible for electric cars to have no impact whatsoever on the carbon footprint, they still cause congestion and chaos. An efficient and ubiquitous public transport network is the only answer. Maybe if we didn't have railways we'd find alternative and equally effective alternatives, but we do have them and the only sensible way forward is to continue to use and develop them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Places like Corrour and Altnabreac might be nice curiosities, but in reality if the railway closed they would not get any replacement and really wouldn't justify one.

 

[Clayton]

It seems clear that there is no very strong commitment to radical Green policies among the main U.K. political parties (or the electorate), and it is also clear that our economy is going to struggle for a very long time. This not only means that there is no money for our railways but that there is never going to be, condemning them to managed decline with occasional tinkering around the edges. Depressing as it is, knowledgeable posters on this forum are always quick to point out that the UK’s geography and railway history, and the realities of economics, mean that substial improvement and growth of our railway system are extraordinarily unlikely. I imagine therefore it is only a matter of time before the idea that we can’t afford either our climate commitments or an increasingly unreliable railway becomes mainstream.

If a radical populist government came to power, pledging to help the motorist by cutting fuel duty and building more roads, funding this in part by getting rid of the railways, redirecting the subsidy and selling off railway land and property, what sort of adaptations/consequences would follow? (Before you tell me that such an act of self harm is implausible, consider what governments in the last 10 years have done). I’m envisaging at least a boom in bus/coach services and multi-story car parks!

There won’t be any fuel duty to cut because there won’t be any petrol or diesel cars. And try going round the M25 during a rail strike.

 

[Mikey C]

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.

Nobody is talking about this, other than a few people speculating on an internet thread

 

[lachlan]

Places like Corrour and Altnabreac might be nice curiosities, but in reality if the railway closed they would not get any replacement and really wouldn't justify one.

Exactly, and this is why coaches aren’t a viable replacement for railway lines despite what some posters here claim. Going back to the title of the thread, if the railway system was closed vast areas of the country would become only accessible by private car, or occasionally only by hiking from somewhere else accessible by car.

This isn’t acceptable in my view and so these rural lines should remain open no matter the cost.

 

[A0wen]

Exactly, and this is why coaches aren’t a viable replacement for railway lines despite what some posters here claim. Going back to the title of the thread, if the railway system was closed vast areas of the country would become only accessible by private car, or occasionally only by hiking from somewhere else accessible by car.

This isn’t acceptable in my view and so these rural lines should remain open no matter the cost.

What utter rubbish.

If the prime reason for using those stations is walking / hiking, then as @Bletchleyite pointed out other options could be put in place from the nearest main road - as happens in other countries, whether the solution is a Range Rover or a Minibus of some description is immaterial.

Altnabraec station has fewer than 1000 users a year - if your argument against closures is based on the requirements of less than 0.01% of the population then your argument is very weak indeed. Out of interest, if you're happy with incurring the costs for such a low usage, would you also support a tax cut for the richest 0.01% of the population, and if not, why ? Why is it OK to incur huge costs for less than 0.01% of the population but not reduce the liability on a similar number ?

 

[43066]

Altnabraec station has fewer than 1000 users a year - if your argument against closures is based on the requirements of less than 0.01% of the population then your argument is very weak indeed. Out of interest, if you're happy with incurring the costs for such a low usage, would you also support a tax cut for the richest 0.01% of the population, and if not, why ? Why is it OK to incur huge costs for less than 0.01% of the population but not reduce the liability on a similar number ?

So you’re now suggesting that one of the most geographically isolated stations in the UK (which must cost buttons to run - not huge costs - given that it’s unmanned) needs to somehow be balanced by a tax cut on the richest 0.01% of the population (by the way the government has indeed just cut taxes for the wealthy via the pension reforms)…

Utter rubbish indeed, and impossible to take seriously.

Nobody is talking about this, other than a few people speculating on an internet thread

Never a truer word spoken! Closure of the railway is an obscure, madcap idea that nobody in the real world would take seriously. Yet it appears to be an obsession of some on this forum.

 

[A0wen]

So you’re now suggesting that one of the most geographically isolated stations in the UK (which must cost buttons to run - not huge costs - given that it’s unmanned) needs to somehow be balanced by a tax cut on the richest 0.01% of the population (by the way the government has indeed just cut taxes for the wealthy via the pension reforms)…

Utter rubbish indeed, and impossible to take seriously.

The point is a very simple one, but clearly not explained simply enough, so I'll try again.

Some people argue that something which is used by less than 0.01% of the population is essential and should be retained regardless of cost in the next breath will argue its unacceptable for a similar percentage of the population who hapoen to be in a different group (usually "the rich") to receive a benefit of some kind. A tad inconsistent, no ?

 

[yorksrob]

What utter rubbish.

If the prime reason for using those stations is walking / hiking, then as @Bletchleyite pointed out other options could be put in place from the nearest main road - as happens in other countries, whether the solution is a Range Rover or a Minibus of some description is immaterial.

Altnabraec station has fewer than 1000 users a year - if your argument against closures is based on the requirements of less than 0.01% of the population then your argument is very weak indeed. Out of interest, if you're happy with incurring the costs for such a low usage, would you also support a tax cut for the richest 0.01% of the population, and if not, why ? Why is it OK to incur huge costs for less than 0.01% of the population but not reduce the liability on a similar number ?

Your argument is infact rubbish, because Altnabraec and the like are en route to larger population centres/railheads, therefore the majority of operating costs will be incurred for the service to the larger settlements.

Are you suggesting that in your dystopian vision of a road based society, coaches wouldn't stop at intermediate stations ?

 

[lachlan]

The point is a very simple one, but clearly not explained simply enough, so I'll try again.

Some people argue that something which is used by less than 0.01% of the population is essential and should be retained regardless of cost in the next breath will argue its unacceptable for a similar percentage of the population who hapoen to be in a different group (usually "the rich") to receive a benefit of some kind. A tad inconsistent, no ?

Nope. Keeping these little used stations open has obvious social benefit as including encouraging domestic tourism.

The richest 0.01% already have far more money than anyone ever needs and so yes they should be taxed to help support the state and the less well off.

 

[43066]

The point is a very simple one, but clearly not explained simply enough, so I'll try again.

Nice attempt to be insulting/patronising .

Some people argue that something which is used by less than 0.01% of the population is essential and should be retained regardless of cost in the next breath will argue its unacceptable for a similar percentage of the population who hapoen to be in a different group (usually "the rich") to receive a benefit of some kind. A tad inconsistent, no ?

It’s just facile to compare a piece of long-since-built-and-now-incredibly-low maintenance public transport infrastructure, which anyone can use with a tax cut to a tiny % of the population.

As always, you’re curiously in thrall to a government which is cutting taxes in a way that doesn’t benefit you, yet also running down the infrastructure that you could use but choose not to…

Nope. Keeping these little used stations open has obvious social benefit as including encouraging domestic tourism.

Indeed. However the poster you’ve quoted appears not to acknowledge that the railways have any benefit outside of those who actually travel on them.

 

[nw1]

Places like Corrour and Altnabreac might be nice curiosities, but in reality if the railway closed they would not get any replacement and really wouldn't justify one.

I'm not sure the West Highland railway would be an at all sensible candidate for closure anyway. It must surely be very popular as a tourist route.
My one and only journey on it was to and from Corrour (strangely enough!) from Spean Bridge (was staying in the area) over the Easter weekend 2008, it was cold and wintry, and Easter was exceptionally early that year. Yet ISTR the evening train out of Glasgow was fairly busy.

Quite. But British politicians have for many years (and especially since Thatcher) been besotted with America and their supposed 'solutions'. Arguably US politics have arisen out of the peculiar historical and geographical circumstances of the country: adventurers seeking a new world to conquer, seemingly limitless land and resources to plunder, and a buccaneering spirit of 'every man [sic] for himself'. It is now clear that this approach is threatening the future of the planet, but even if it was a valid one for the US itself, it is far from appropriate or feasible when applied to Europe and similar long-settled and densely populated regions.

Particularly when it comes to transport. British and most other European cities were built before the motor age; many of them also before the railways. We've adapted to the latter at some cost (eg Newcastle and York), but even comparatively modern suburbs find it hard to cope when every household seems to have two or three cars. Even if it were possible for electric cars to have no impact whatsoever on the carbon footprint, they still cause congestion and chaos. An efficient and ubiquitous public transport network is the only answer. Maybe if we didn't have railways we'd find alternative and equally effective alternatives, but we do have them and the only sensible way forward is to continue to use and develop them.

Exactly. Despite what some of the population seem to think (I won't bring up the six-letter profanity here...) the closest match to the UK in terms of general character can be found in continental countries, particularly the more densely-populated northern ones. So if we want to be looking anywhere for ideas on how to run a public transport system, then why not Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands?

The UK is nothing like the USA in terms of population density and size. Nowhere in the UK do we have large cities, then 1000 miles of utter nothingness before the next urban area of note. In the USA you can see why air travel is the more viable option for inter-city travel, because of the vast distances involved and the lack of anything in between many of the urban centres. And strangely, that part of the USA which is more "European" in terms of population density - the northeastern corridor - has something approaching a European-style rail service.

Plus, even in other areas of the USA there is a tendency to improve the rail network. The LA and Denver metro networks spring to mind. So the USA, or parts of it, are at least moving in the right direction. It would surely be madness to move the UK in the wrong direction!

 

[A0wen]

Nope. Keeping these little used stations open has obvious social benefit as including encouraging domestic tourism.

Don't be silly - places like Altnabraec make no tangible difference to the tourist trade in that part of the world. And since nobody actually *lives* there, the "social benefit" argument is pretty hollow as well.

The richest 0.01% already have far more money than anyone ever needs and so yes they should be taxed to help support the state and the less well off.

Ah, the good old "it's not fair somebody's got something and I don't so they must lose some or all of it to benefit me argument". I never advocate higher taxes for anyone else, because I don't want my own tax bill to increase. Interestingly the biggest advocates for tax increases always do it on the basis it's somebody else who'll pay.

It’s just facile to compare a piece of long-since-built-and-now-incredibly-low maintenance public transport infrastructure, which anyone can use with a tax cut to a tiny % of the population.

The question is whether those lines are viable - we've already seen on other threads that lines like Fort William are not quicker by train and don't serve the main population areas, which coaches can and do - so why keep a very expensive piece of infrastructure open when there is a viable alternative which isn't demanding public subsidy to operate ?

As always, you’re curiously in thrall to a government which is cutting taxes in a way that doesn’t benefit you, yet also running down the infrastructure that you could use but choose not to…

See above - I'll argue for lower taxes for anyone. I'll never argue for higher taxes because I don't want to pay higher taxes and view it as somewhat hypocritical to argue for higher taxes as long as it's somebody else paying it.

Are you suggesting that in your dystopian vision of a road based society, coaches wouldn't stop at intermediate stations ?

If you look at the Scottish Citylink coaches which *already run* and are quicker than the train - e.g. Fort William, they do stop at various places along the route, usually where there is demand i.e. where people live, where there are shops, hotels etc where people want to go. Taking Tyndrum for example, the coach stop is *on the main A82* not half a mile up a hill or a third the mile down a hill depending on which station. All the coaches stop at one place, right in the middle of the village.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you look at the Scottish Citylink coaches which *already run* and are quicker than the train - e.g. Fort William, they do stop at various places along the route, usually where there is demand i.e. where people live, where there are shops, hotels etc where people want to go. Taking Tyndrum for example, the coach stop is *on the main A82* not half a mile up a hill or a third the mile down a hill depending on which station. All the coaches stop at one place, right in the middle of the village.

I don't advocate closure unlike yourself, however it is true that it would be feasible to replace the West Highland Line with coaches. And they can serve obscure places too, I remember once being on the Sunday morning coach (no way to get to the South East on a Sunday by day train back then, there was only an afternoon train which was too late on) and as we approached a father and son who had clearly been wild camping appeared out of the mist in the middle of nowhere on Rannoch Moor and flagged us down.

I don't see an awful lot of point in closing Corrour, Altnabreac etc while the railway is there, they cost a pittance. However they don't justify the railway being there on their own.

 

[A0wen]

I'm not sure the West Highland railway would be an at all sensible candidate for closure anyway. It must surely be very popular as a tourist route.

4 x 2 car trains a day - hardly suggests overwhelming demand.

 

[nw1]

4 x 2 car trains a day - hardly suggests overwhelming demand.

But those trains are (based on my experience - admittedly limited, but also a long way off peak season) well used.

 

[Bletchleyite]

4 x 2 car trains a day - hardly suggests overwhelming demand.

While it doesn't really detract from your point, most trains are longer than that. Remember there's an Oban portion. 5 or 6 in total is the norm, plus there are a few Oban portions without FW ones.

 

[yorksrob]

If you look at the Scottish Citylink coaches which *already run* and are quicker than the train - e.g. Fort William, they do stop at various places along the route, usually where there is demand i.e. where people live, where there are shops, hotels etc where people want to go. Taking Tyndrum for example, the coach stop is *on the main A82* not half a mile up a hill or a third the mile down a hill depending on which station. All the coaches stop at one place, right in the middle of the village.

Then you'll appreciate that the costs associated by serving those places are primarily part of the cost of running the overall route.

 

[zwk500]

The West highland line (and the far north line tbh) are red herrings - it'd be perfectly feasible to close them and replace the service with coaches for a far better overall service and social benefit but it's never going to happen for political reasons.
But the WHL isn't a line that would be built today, unlike, say, a line between Glasgow and Edinburgh, or a line from Manchester to Birmingham and London. These are lines where it is difficult to see alternate forms of transport being able to cope with demand, and the result is that if the rail system were to be abolished there'd be a lot less journeys being made.

 

[nw1]

See above - I'll argue for lower taxes for anyone. I'll never argue for higher taxes because I don't want to pay higher taxes and view it as somewhat hypocritical to argue for higher taxes as long as it's somebody else paying it.

Lower taxes means worse public services. Given the state of the country at the moment, it's a very bad idea. "I don't use public services, so why should I pay for them?"

You might not use the railway, but what about the NHS? It's in an appalling state. It would be even worse if tax income was lowered.

I now have to pay for private dental treatment because my dentist won't do NHS anymore. Costs are significantly increased, to me personally. Is that right? Or is it better to increase taxes (for everyone) a little to pay for restoring NHS dental treatment to everyone? I would certainly support the latter.

 

[43066]

The question is whether those lines are viable - we've already seen on other threads that lines like Fort William are not quicker by train and don't serve the main population areas, which coaches can and do - so why keep a very expensive piece of infrastructure open when there is a viable alternative which isn't demanding public subsidy to operate ?

It isn’t particularly expensive once it’s there. Much like many roads.

See above - I'll argue for lower taxes for anyone. I'll never argue for higher taxes because I don't want to pay higher taxes and view it as somewhat hypocritical to argue for higher taxes as long as it's somebody else paying it.

So you are in favour of the government cutting taxes for those who have paid more than £1m into a pension pot, while the overall tax burden is increased, and public services are defunded. Can you honestly not see how bizarre that viewpoint is?! I guess that’s the Murdoch press for you!

Rest assured it’s something that many long term Tory voters (myself included) won’t be voting for at the next GE.

4 x 2 car trains a day - hardly suggests overwhelming demand.

It doesn’t suggest much in the way of potential savings if it’s cut/closed, either - which it isn’t going to be, thankfully.

Dialling this country back to second world status where coach or car is the only option also doesn’t appeal to me, and isn’t something I’ll be voting for.

But the WHL isn't a line that would be built today, unlike, say, a line between Glasgow and Edinburgh, or a line from Manchester to Birmingham and London. These are lines where it is difficult to see alternate forms of transport being able to cope with demand, and the result is that if the rail system were to be abolished there'd be a lot less journeys being made.

And while there might not be a business case to build the line today, it doesn’t follow that the savings from closure would be particularly significant, given that the line is single tracked, many of the intermediate stops are unstaffed, etc.

 

[zwk500]

And while there might not be a business case to build the line today, it doesn’t follow that the savings from closure would be particularly significant, given that the line is single tracked, many of the intermediate stops are unstaffed, etc.

I'd be interested to see the what the actual impact of single track is as a cost saving - I bet it's actually minimal if all other things are equal. The WHL will be cheaper to run than a mainline because it's a light RA and low speed, as well as RETB so no detection to worry about. Although I bet sending a P-way patrol out isn't cheap, not to mention the cost of works when you do have to do them, like widening bridges to deal with flood control or responding to landslips and accidents.

 

[43066]

I'd be interested to see the what the actual impact of single track is as a cost saving - I bet it's actually minimal if all other things are equal. The WHL will be cheaper to run than a mainline because it's a light RA and low speed, as well as RETB so no detection to worry about. Although I bet sending a P-way patrol out isn't cheap, not to mention the cost of works when you do have to do them, like widening bridges to deal with flood control or responding to landslips and accidents.

I bet it isn’t expensive in the context of the NHS costing £5,388 every 0.97 seconds.(From the Days of NHS twitter site)!

I know where I’d start looking for public sector efficiency savings, and closing a lightly used railway line would be a long way down the list…

 

[A0wen]

It isn’t particularly expensive once it’s there. Much like many roads.

Apart from all the routine maintenance, preventative maintenance against landslips etc etc All of which needs to be done for 3 or 4 trains a day.

So you are in favour of the government cutting taxes for those who have paid more than £1m into a pension pot, while the overall tax burden is increased, and public services are defunded. Can you honestly not see how bizarre that viewpoint is?! I guess that’s the Murdoch press for you!

Rest assured it’s something that many long term Tory voters (myself included) won’t be voting for at the next GE.

I'm in favour for lower taxes across the board - and despite your "Murdoch press" quip - the tax burden, since 2010 has increased on higher rate taxpayers (those on 40% rates and higher). And I'm also a long term Conservative voter - and I will vote for such measures because taxes need to come down - and they need to come down across the board. At the moment the tax burden is falling on a smaller and smaller proportion of people - and that's not sustainable. The tax base needs to be broadened, not virtue signalling tax raids on a few "rich" people - because the latter isn't a sustainable revenue stream. France, for example, tried a 'wealth tax' quite recently and it was an abject failure:

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/education/2021/02/11/lessons-from-history-france-s-wealth-tax-did-more-harm-than-good/

The rate was charged on individuals with a net worth over €1.3m (£1.14m), with the rate ranging from 0.5 per cent to 1.5 per cent (on assets over €10m). While it might have helped social solidarity in France, the revenue it raised was paltry. In 2015, a total of 343,000 households paid €5.22bn, an average of about €15,200 per household, according to the Financial Times. It accounted for less than 2 per cent of France’s tax receipts.

What’s more, it led to an exodus of France’s richest. More than 12,000 millionaires left France in 2016, according to research group New World Wealth. In total, they say the country experienced a net outflow of more than 60,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2016. When these people left, France lost not only the revenue generated from the wealth tax, but all the others too, including income tax and VAT.

French economist Eric Pichet estimated that the ISF ended up costing France almost twice as much revenue as it generated

Dialling this country back to second world status where coach or car is the only option also doesn’t appeal to me, and isn’t something I’ll be voting for.

Canada closed some lines in places like Newfoundland in the 1980s - very similar to the Far North of Scotland and others of that ilk, replacing them with coach services. Are you arguing Canada isn't a first world country ?

I'd be interested to see the what the actual impact of single track is as a cost saving - I bet it's actually minimal if all other things are equal. The WHL will be cheaper to run than a mainline because it's a light RA and low speed, as well as RETB so no detection to worry about. Although I bet sending a P-way patrol out isn't cheap, not to mention the cost of works when you do have to do them, like widening bridges to deal with flood control or responding to landslips and accidents.

Quite - paradoxically a single track line probably costs more - because if you send out the Network Rail NMT to Fort William it's an out and back on a single line, whereas doing 40 miles on a twin track line, means double the track length can be inspected in the same journey. And the line's remote, so you have to send staff out further from base, more time incurred in travelling etc.

 

[zwk500]

I bet it isn’t expensive in the context of the NHS costing £5,388 every 0.97 seconds.(From the Days of NHS twitter site)!

I know where I’d start looking for public sector efficiency savings, and closing a lightly used railway line would be a long way down the list…

Unfortunately that's not the premise of the thread.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately that's not the premise of the thread.

The premise isn't even whether we should close any railways, rather how it would cope if it *was* closed.

The answer is probably along the lines that rural services could be replaced by buses and coaches just fine, but cities would struggle, and there'd be a large number of widebody domestic flights (as can be seen in countries with poorly developed rail networks e.g. SE Asia).

 

[43066]

At the moment the tax burden is falling on a smaller and smaller proportion of people - and that's not sustainable. The tax base needs to be broadened, not virtue signalling tax raids on a few "rich" people - because the latter isn't a sustainable revenue stream. France, for example, tried a 'wealth tax' quite recently and it was an abject failure:

And I would agree with that generally. The “non dom” scapegoating from Labour is particularly short sighted when you look at how much tax revenue they actually account for simply by paying to keep their non UK assets outside the UK tax net.

But what the current government are giving us is a higher overall tax burden worse public services and cuts for the wealthiest. Basically government (led by a man on the rich list) is currently being conducted to benefit a tiny elite section of the population, while the rest of us work harder and get less, both in terms of pay and public services received. Very much the worst of all worlds!

Canada closed some lines in places like Newfoundland in the 1980s - very similar to the Far North of Scotland and others of that ilk, replacing them with coach services. Are you arguing Canada isn't a first world country ?

Canada isn’t a particularly relevant comparator. Are any other densely populated Northern European countries closing lines?

Unfortunately that's not the premise of the thread.

But if the suggestion is that the railway is closed because it’s too expensive, it makes no sense to do imagine that happening while other (vastly more expensive, vastly more wasteful) areas of spending are left untouched.

The whole discussion is a tad pointless, really!

 

[zwk500]

The whole discussion is a tad pointless, really!

True, especially as we've got a bit personal and very individual politcs, maybe the Mods want to consider if this has reached the course. I think @Bletchleyite has answered the OP fairly comprehensively in their most recent post anyway.

 

[43066]

True, especially as we've got a bit personal and very individual politcs, maybe the Mods want to consider if this has reached the course. I think @Bletchleyite has answered the OP fairly comprehensively in their most recent post anyway.

True.

The answer is probably along the lines that rural services could be replaced by buses and coaches just fine, but cities would struggle, and there'd be a large number of widebody domestic flights (as can be seen in countries with poorly developed rail networks e.g. SE Asia)

Yes. Based on that vision of the future, it’s clear to see why large scale railway closure (other than isolated examples such as Newhaven town) is unlikely ever to be politically acceptable in this country.

 

[A0wen]

Canada isn’t a particularly relevant comparator. Are any other densely populated Northern European countries closing lines?

You did say closing rail lines would make us a 2nd world state - I pointed out a first world state that has done this and is still a first world state.

That said - and I may be doing him a disservice - but I think @Bletchleyite did give some recent examples in Germany of rural closures on a different thread.

And in 2019 a report was being done in France on the future of its rural network https://www.railway-technology.com/features/french-rural-railways/ I can't find anything more recent as to what's happened with that - and it may be that it got pushed to the bottom of the pile due to the pandemic, but line closures were considered a distinct possibility.