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

[A0wen]

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.

Funnily enough I did last Friday and Saturday and it was fine.

 

[yorksrob]

My argument is that the Birchden Chord would have been the least missed of all the possible closures in the area. The closure of Lewes-Uckfield, which is the one I say should not have happened, would potentially have spared it, but I also don't think that if it was still running today then Tunbridge Wells-Brighton would be very busy or successful.
The flows on that line would have been Brighton-Wealden towns, and from flows to London.

It was for a long time, mind you when 2-Cars sufficed. Also Ashford is a much different offering in service connectivity terms than Brighton, especially if you're travelling from Kent where you have the already excellent links to London.

less Empty certainly, but a lot less? I'd be far from convinced about that. The buses from Uckfield to Brighton aren't heaving by any means.

I disagree with all of those points.

Tonbridge - Brighton was the service that survived longest and reflected its inter-urban potential.

Yes the Marshlink survived with two (andcat times, three) thumper carriages for a long time. Yes, Ashford has always had excellent connectivity to London (even before HS1 we had Charing Cross or Victoria). Are you seriously suggesting that Brighton's long standing main line connections aren't also excellent ?

 

[zwk500]

Tonbridge - Brighton was the service that survived longest and reflected its inter-urban potential.

No it didn't, the service that lasted the longest is Tunbridge Wells-London. The link from Tunbridge Wells West to Tonbridge was never upgraded from Single Track.

Yes the Marshlink survived with two (andcat times, three) thumper carriages for a long time. Yes, Ashford has always had excellent connectivity to London (even before HS1 we had Charing Cross or Victoria). Are you seriously suggesting that Brighton's long standing main line connections aren't also excellent ?

I'm suggesting the Brighton would be less useful as an interchange points for the traffic on the Wealden line that already has access to London and the Redhill-Tonbridge Line than Ashford is to the Romney Marsh. Why would you get a train from Tunbridge Wells to Brighton to London when you can go by SE direct? Tunbridge Wells to Southampton is also quicker via changing at Waterloo/East.

People from the coastway generally change at Haywards heath or Gatwick, not Brighton, if they're heading north - brighton itself is busy enough with originating/departing traffic. Cross-Brighton traffic is a pretty small amount of the total. All the main destination areas of Brighton are best accessed from Brighton station itself apart from the football ground (Falmer) and the Cricket ground (Hove).

Again: I am not dealing in absolutes. I am saying the line would be no busier than other comparable secondary lines between mainlines that serve comparatively smaller places. Think of it as a scaled down version of Chiltern if you will. Does very well on certain connections, but some of them (Aylesbury-Risborough) just aren't serious money. You however seem to think that unless I project hundreds of millions of journeys a year I am saying the line is worthless.

 

[nw1]

You have an odd definition of "progressive" - Progressive doesn't mean keeping things forever and never closing or changing things.

A progressive would argue for change and if something is lightly used to replace it with something that is more modern or better used.

I'd say a progressive would argue for improvement, not change for change's sake or change merely to cut costs.

 

[yorksrob]

No it didn't, the service that lasted the longest is Tunbridge Wells-London. The link from Tunbridge Wells West to Tonbridge was never upgraded from Single Track.

I'm suggesting the Brighton would be less useful as an interchange points for the traffic on the Wealden line that already has access to London and the Redhill-Tonbridge Line than Ashford is to the Romney Marsh. Why would you get a train from Tunbridge Wells to Brighton to London when you can go by SE direct? Tunbridge Wells to Southampton is also quicker via changing at Waterloo/East.

People from the coastway generally change at Haywards heath or Gatwick, not Brighton, if they're heading north - brighton itself is busy enough with originating/departing traffic. Cross-Brighton traffic is a pretty small amount of the total. All the main destination areas of Brighton are best accessed from Brighton station itself apart from the football ground (Falmer) and the Cricket ground (Hove).

Again: I am not dealing in absolutes. I am saying the line would be no busier than other comparable secondary lines between mainlines that serve comparatively smaller places. Think of it as a scaled down version of Chiltern if you will. Does very well on certain connections, but some of them (Aylesbury-Risborough) just aren't serious money. You however seem to think that unless I project hundreds of millions of journeys a year I am saying the line is worthless.

The only reason Tunbridge Wells West - Central was single was that it was built as a single track connection between competing railway companies. This bears no relevance to the value of the route in later years.

Brighton might be less important as an interchange point, but what it lacks in that respect is more than made up for by its status as a destination in itself. Brighton would be an important traffic source.

As for your comparison, the central division is a scaled up, rather than a scaled down equivalent to Chiltern, and the Tonbridge - Brighton potential would be far nearer to the Marshlink experience than the Risborough/Aylesbury line.

 

[nw1]

If policy was truly progressive and integration-minded, it's hard to say that converting the Conwy Valley to a cycleway and using the money currently spent on it to run a fully integrated hourly high quality coach style* service instead of a three hourly train service wouldn't be a good idea.

I oppose closures simply because the UK is pathologically incapable of doing buses properly. You just have to look to e.g. Switzerland for how to do them correctly.

* Would need to be low floor, but should be a vehicle with high quality coach seating, double glazing, air conditioning, lots of luggage space and cycle carriage.

Perhaps. But any coach-type service would need to be "just like a train", with through ticketing, connections, etc.
Also I'm not sure what traffic congestion is like in that part of the world. Would a road-based service be more subject to delays than the train?

 

[A0wen]

I'd say a progressive would argue for improvement, not change for change's sake or change merely to cut costs.

On which basis, you'd never close anything.

Perhaps. But any coach-type service would need to be "just like a train", with through ticketing, connections, etc.
Also I'm not sure what traffic congestion is like in that part of the world. Would a road-based service be more subject to delays than the train?

The train's subject to delays because the line gets washed out, seemingly on an annual basis.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd say a progressive would argue for improvement, not change for change's sake or change merely to cut costs.

Progress can include saving money on one thing so you can spend more on something else, though. I'd agree simply cutting costs isn't progress.

The train's subject to delays because the line gets washed out, seemingly on an annual basis.

To be fair this hasn't happened since the work was done during COVID to reinforce the line in a number of problem places with a load of large rocks rather like you'd see on a line like Dawlish along the coast, including rebuilding Dolwyddelan station to be flood resistant. The only thing that's likely to kill it now would be a major collapse in the unlined Blaenau tunnel.

Perhaps. But any coach-type service would need to be "just like a train", with through ticketing, connections, etc.

I totally agree.

Also I'm not sure what traffic congestion is like in that part of the world. Would a road-based service be more subject to delays than the train?

I've never known there to be congestion of any kind on the road that parallels the Conwy Valley line.

 

[Mikey C]

Well, I mentioned the closure programme as a whole, including Shoreham - Horsham, Lewes - Tunbridge Wells, Bodmin - Padstow, York - Beverley etc, all of which would be very useful.

As nobody else has commented on it, Padstow to Bodmin is of much more use now as a cycle path popular with visitors than it was as a railway, built to transport fish to London. Such a service would be carting around air in the winter months.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The M1 would become a car park

And the M62 - almost already is.

 

[yorksrob]

As nobody else has commented on it, Padstow to Bodmin is of much more use now as a cycle path popular with visitors than it was as a railway, built to transport fish to London. Such a service would be carting around air in the winter months.

I expect that the cycle way is little used in the depths of winter.

On your general point, you only have to look at the remaining branches in Cornwall to see that it would be extremely useful if it still existed. The closure of the line to Bodmin Road was a disastrous decision.

 

[johncrossley]

Without looking through all 9 pages, surely we've had a taster of what would happen if the railway system was abolished? In very recent memory, governments around the world discouraged people from travelling by train unless necessary. Most sectors of the economy continued largely as usual. During Covid there was a similar discouragement from using buses but that wouldn't be the case with a rail shutdown. So we know that the UK and other significant rail countries could adapt should railways shut down. Working from home has now been proven, so more use of that would happen in the unlikely event of roads not being able cope. Similarly, the world doesn't stop when there is a train strike. Train strikes don't result in road chaos.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Though that's mainly because people just don't travel during strikes, they work from home even if not normally allowed or reschedule other trips.

 

[Silenos]

Though that's mainly because people just don't travel during strikes, they work from home even if not normally allowed or reschedule other trips.

and if we’re using Covid restrictions as a model, the economy took a huge hit as a result.

 

[zwk500]

Without looking through all 9 pages, surely we've had a taster of what would happen if the railway system was abolished? In very recent memory, governments around the world discouraged people from travelling by train unless necessary. Most sectors of the economy continued largely as usual. During Covid there was a similar discouragement from using buses but that wouldn't be the case with a rail shutdown. So we know that the UK and other significant rail countries could adapt should railways shut down. Working from home has now been proven, so more use of that would happen in the unlikely event of roads not being able cope. Similarly, the world doesn't stop when there is a train strike. Train strikes don't result in road chaos.

A train strike is temporary. We've really had nothing close to what would happen if the network shut down. During lockdown nobody was travelling and the hospitality industry did pretty much completely shut down. Much of it never recovered.

 

[johncrossley]

and if we’re using Covid restrictions as a model, the economy took a huge hit as a result.

The huge hit was because of the consequences of having to stay away from other people, which wouldn't apply in a rail shutdown.

 

[zwk500]

The huge hit was because of the consequences of having to stay away from other people, which wouldn't apply in a rail shutdown.

There would still be a hit though, because a large part of the hit came from people being unable to travel to businesses.

 

[Silenos]

The huge hit was because of the consequences of having to stay away from other people, which wouldn't apply in a rail shutdown.

which means it isn’t a helpfully predictive model for the consequences of the loss of the railway network.

 

[johncrossley]

A train strike is temporary. We've really had nothing close to what would happen if the network shut down. During lockdown nobody was travelling and the hospitality industry did pretty much completely shut down. Much of it never recovered.

During the strictest lockdown periods few people were travelling, even by car, but people continued to stay away from trains when restrictions were partially lifted, whereas car use returned a lot sooner. Most people already travel to pubs and restaurants without using the train.

which means it isn’t a helpfully predictive model for the consequences of the loss of the railway network.

But there was a fair amount of time when car use was considered OK but trains and buses were still discouraged. Buses would continue in this hypothetical scenario. Without trains there would probably be some improvements to coaches, although most of the former train passengers would probably alter destination, for example work nearer to or at home or use the car where congestion is tolerable. This thread seems to be talking primarily about National Rail so you might also have urban rail such as the tube.

 

[geoffk]

Can someone suggest how car owners, many of whom also use trains, can be persuaded to use to buses instead? The fact is there's a stigma attached to bus use, a bit like living in social housing, which doesn't exist elsewhere else in Europe (nor in London). In the "provinces" buses are predominantly used by concessionary pass holders, students and young mothers. Post Beeching, most replacement bus services lasted less than two years before they were removed due to a lack of patronage.

 

[43066]

Can someone suggest how car owners, many of whom also use trains, can be persuaded to use to buses instead?

By making them convenient and quick, and going to places where they want to go!

The fact is there's a stigma attached to bus use, a bit like living in social housing, which doesn't exist elsewhere else in Europe (nor in London). In the "provinces" buses are predominantly used by concessionary pass holders, students and young mothers. Post Beeching, most replacement bus services lasted less than two years before they were removed due to a lack of patronage.

It’s certainly true they they’re used by less affluent people as a rule (part of the reason they’re so important in London), but is there really a stigma to using them?

 

[zwk500]

Can someone suggest how car owners, many of whom also use trains, can be persuaded to use to buses instead?

First, Thatcher needs to stop being held up as some infallible prophet. She got a lot right but she also got a lot wrong. Her reputed comment about being a failure if you're still riding a bus at whatever age it was is wrong.

The other 2 most important things will be for buses to actually run and fares to be sensibly priced.

 

[geoffk]

First, stop holding Thatcher up as some infallible prophet. She got a lot right but she also got a lot wrong.

I certainly wasn't doing that! And I would like to see a wider demographic using buses, not just in London but across the UK - but currently there's little sign of it happening.

 

[johncrossley]

which doesn't exist elsewhere else in Europe (nor in London).

Perhaps you could try what they do elsewhere in Europe and London?

In terms of long distance coaches, in the absence of rail there could be a market for a more upmarket coach service with 2+1 seating. There is such a luxurious coach between Tallinn and Riga. There is no direct train service between those cities. On routes like London to Birmingham there could be a coach up to every 10 minutes or even more frequent in the unlikely event there is no longer a train service.

 

[zwk500]

I certainly wasn't doing that! And I would like to see a wider demographic using buses, not just in London but across the UK - but currently there's little sign of it happening.

Sorry, it wasn't meant as a personal attack! It was more a general comment about societal perceptions.

 

[Clayton]

Perhaps you could try what they do elsewhere in Europe and London?

In terms of long distance coaches, in the absence of rail there could be a market for a more upmarket coach service with 2+1 seating. There is such a luxurious coach between Tallinn and Riga. There is no direct train service between those cities. On routes like London to Birmingham there could be a coach up to every 10 minutes or even more frequent in the unlikely event there is no longer a train service.

I appreciate this is just a hypothetical chat but this would be hopeless. It would take an hour to get out of London and think of all the staff a coach every ten minutes would require- and coaches are hopeless for bikes, pushchairs, etc as well as luggage. Plus where would you put all the coaches? There’s no advantage at all.

 

[SussexSeagull]

Firstly if there was any consideration being given to this then Crossrail wouldn't have happened and HS2 and East-Wet rail (in addition to any new projects) wouldn't be happening.

But to entertain the question, it would kill commuting into London as there is no way buses and coaches could pick up the slack and driving into Central London would be even more unrealistic as it is now. That would mean property in London would become even more expensive and several hundred thousand people would need to change jobs, quite possibly taking a wage cut. While people in other areas might say 'so what?', it would tank the economy and bring in a recession that would make the Great Depression look like a cake walk and drag the rest of the country down.

As for the Steyning Line, I believe it was a marginal call when it closed and in hindsight had it and the Cranleigh Line had stayed open it would have opened up a lot of options in Sussex and Surrey - especially with Thameslink reaching Horsham - but it has been partially built on so won't happen.

 

[johncrossley]

I appreciate this is just a hypothetical chat but this would be hopeless. It would take an hour to get out of London and think of all the staff a coach every ten minutes would require- and coaches are hopeless for bikes, pushchairs, etc as well as luggage. Plus where would you put all the coaches? There’s no advantage at all.

Luggage is probably easier on coaches than trains as it goes underneath without having to be lifted onto the luggage racks. UK scheduled coaches don't generally take bikes but they could if they wanted. The Oxford Tube takes bikes as does Flixbus outside the UK. If the tube or suburban rail is still running then you could have coach stations at outlying stations. There's not meant to be an "advantage". It is clearly better if the trains are running, but the world wouldn't stop if trains stopped.

A more likely scenario would be a subsidy free railway, meaning that only the prime routes would be running. For example, London-Birmingham/Manchester/Woking/Brighton/Reading etc. That would be enough to keep London functioning.

several hundred thousand people would need to change jobs, quite possibly taking a wage cut.

As we now know, office jobs can be done from home. With future improvements in technology, for example widespread adoption of full fibre, it will be easier than ever to mimic the office environment at home, should that be important.

 

[Thirteen]

Surely in a world where the railway is proposed to be closed down, that would include metro services as well as the Tube, Light rail etc Trams would also be vulnerable as well.

 

[johncrossley]

Surely in a world where the railway is proposed to be closed down, that would include metro services as well as the Tube, Light rail etc Trams would also be vulnerable as well.

Not necessarily. They are now mostly governed by city region mayors who have remits to improve and integrate public transport in their respective regions, so have an added layer of political protection compared to National Rail which is more exposed to the whims of the national government. Some city metro and tram systems cover a good proportion of their operating costs and some may even make a profit. They are a more obvious tool in the fight against urban road congestion than regional and rural National Rail.