I am sure the stats DO bear this out as you say - however, many people may well be completely put off travelling longer distance as large parts of the network are shut or severely affected by engineering works, so they simply give up and don't travel. Whilst it is clearly true that their are less commuters at such times (and on a Sunday), the concentration of engineering works on Sunday also leads to reduced passenger numbers which is self-perpetuating. Also, how can they be sure there is no demand on days when the whole railway system is shut completely?
If one just looked at the statistics for Northern on Saturday strike days, then one would conclude that fewer people travel on Saturdays and there was no need to offer a service after 19.00. Happily, looking at non-strike Saturday statistics it is perfectly clear there is demand. However, if you don't have statistics because you don't offer a service now, then its down to random surveys and they are far from accurate look at the projected demand and actual demand for the partially reopened Waverley route.
It's a tricky balance - there's no "ideal" time to do it - but if you regularly disrupt a line during the weekday daytime then that means people can't get to work, that means that they can't do their jobs, that means that they'll have to either switch jobs or switch modes of transport - it may only be a delay for a week but it'll be enough to lose a lot of regular "customers".
If you disrupt a line late in the evenings or at weekends then you'll dissuade people from travelling on those days, but a lot of the time it'll only be those days that they choose not to travel - if I can't use the train to get to where I want at a Bank Holiday the I'll have a different leisure journey or stay at home or drive. But if I can't get to work for a week then I'll have to seriously consider whether I should keep using the train long term (because I can't afford to use up my limited annual leave to suit the railway).
Essentially (since we have to close lines from time to time), it's much better to disrupt people making occasional leisure journeys than disrupt people who use the train daily (since they might not return to the train once the disruption is over, meaning a lot of regular income is lost).
Is this really a "persistent myth"? Where is it perpetuated?
A lot of the things on this thread aren't myths, they are people clutching at strawman arguments. But I think that there is one "myth" that I've seen a number of people suggest on the Forum... "
if HS2 is cancelled then the money will become available for lots of nice little local projects" (spoiler - it won't - the HS2 money isn't coming out of the regular rail budget and cancelling it won't see the money diverted to rebuilding some old branchlines)
Also "
it's a bad thing to refer to Customers rather than Passengers". I don't mind "customers" - it suggests Customer Service, it suggests rights, it suggests being treated as a valued person. Passengers was the old word for it, but I'm happy with "Customers" in the twenty first century.
That it made sense to close the Woodhead line
Agreed - it made a lot of sense to close the Woodhead line, once the freight dwindled (and I say this as someone living in Sheffield)
