• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Shapps to reverse Beeching cuts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Was the starting point (vs Bicester to Oxford) broadly the same, i.e. as I understand could a minimal service have been provided at minimalist cost?

No chance. Some of the track had been stolen.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
Trains running between Oxford and Bicester go to Marylebone.

Is it so hard to grasp that not everyone using those trains is travelling to and from London?

Far more people are now using the trains to get between Bicester and Oxford station (not Parkway) than ever did when it was a single-track branch line with a low speed limit and a limited service. And the number making local and regional journeys by rail going nowhere near almighty London will increase substantially once again when the link to Milton Keynes is in place.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Is it so hard to grasp that not everyone using those trains is travelling to and from London?

Far more people are now using the trains to get between Bicester and Oxford station (not Parkway) than ever did when it was a single-track branch line with a low speed limit and a limited service. And the number making local and regional journeys by rail going nowhere near almighty London will increase substantially once again when the link to Milton Keynes is in place.

As another example, although this is on a line which does head towards London, if you ever travel on a peak hour train towards London from Basingstoke the trains are just as busy before Farnborough Main as after. This has nothing to do with Farnborough Main not adding many people to the trains, but rather due to the large numbers of people getting off being broadly the same as are getting on.

To give an idea of scale, if you are near the back the number of people in front of you pretty much fills the bridge. The bridge is quite wide (easily 4 people can walk across it next to to each other) and fairly long (4 tracks plus the width of a, missing, platform) so it's quite a sight.

Another example is at Farnborough North when a southbound train comes in during the morning peak and they have to wait for the barriers, there's quite a lot. It looks fairly substantial, then you realise that they've just all fitted into a the coach train!

It's why I've suggested the following, and actually think that the numbers using it could be quite a bit higher than the 1 million to 2 million which I've used for working out the average ticket price (note it is technically a reopening as there was a chord their in the past, although only for West to North):

In fact there's probably a fair case for connecting between the SWML and the line through Camberley to improve the interaction between the main line and the radial routes as neither have a good connection (the Reading Redhill line requires a 15 minute walk across Farnborough whilst the Gatwick services don't call at Farnborough North). Such a link would require a grade separated junction and could allow a new service to run Basingstoke to Ascot as a stopping service.

This would increase capacity for the local communities without a very large cost. Probably the cost of the junction would be circa £100 million, and to provide a half hourly service would require 4 extra EMU's. This could also serve (with a few miles of extra electrification) the new development of Manydown to the West of Basingstoke, which (with a expected population of 8,000) could fairly easily see rail usage of about 500,000 a year.

If you assume it'll add 10% to other stations (excluding Basingstoke, even though you'd be doubling the frequency at many stations and by at least 50% at others) that's another half a million to million passengers a year. To break even, assuming £110,000 per coach in least costs and other costs being about 3 times your lease costs, that's an average ticket cost of £3.50 to £5.50 per passenger (£7 to £11 return) which would be fairly high for local travel.

However it's not unlikely that passenger numbers could be higher. For instance if it's 2 million passengers a year that's down to £5.30 return. Also the costs could be a bit high, in that typically total TOC costs are the times that of the lease costs, however with (as an example) no extra stations some of those costs would already be covered.

The fact that there's a high frequency bus route running from Farnborough Main to Frimley and Camberley would suggest that there's demand.

The other thing to consider is that quite a lot of people use Farnborough Main as a rail grad from those areas having driven. As long as the rail season ticket isn't more than the parking charges then you could find a lot of people shift to the new service with a change at Farnborough Main or Basingstoke depending on where they are going.

Not least as the time it would take to drive, park and then walk (especially from the further edges of the car park) would be fairly likely to be comparable with getting the train with a change, even in the off peak. During the peaks the train will win hands down.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,820
Location
Yorks
Marginal, I would imagine.

Your original claim was not that these branches were of benefit to the locality, but were nationally important.

Which - frankly - they are not.

You just don't get it do you.

It is important to have a railway network that serves as much of the country, and provides as much access to and from elsewhere as possible.

That is important to Whitby and Looe, and it is important to the rest of the train travelling public in the country to have access to everywhere else.

Frankly I have no interest in what the "I drive everywhere, so everyone else can drive there if they really want to get there" brigade have to say on the matter.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
It is important to have a railway network that serves as much of the country, and provides as much access to and from elsewhere as possible.

Important to you, and to some others, but I’m afraid it’s a very small minority of the population.


Frankly I have no interest in what the "I drive everywhere, so everyone else can drive there if they really want to get there" brigade have to say on the matter.

That’s your prerogative of course, but the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people who travel to places like Whitby, Looe, and most other locations served by similar lines do drive there, and wouldn’t consider using the train even if it was free.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,820
Location
Yorks
Important to you, and to some others, but I’m afraid it’s a very small minority of the population.




That’s your prerogative of course, but the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people who travel to places like Whitby, Looe, and most other locations served by similar lines do drive there, and wouldn’t consider using the train even if it was free.

Well, my parents probably wouldn't have thought about it - until they had to give up driving due to failing eyesight.

Anyhow, I bet those Whitby and Looe visitors wouldn't want the likes of me and my fellow rail passengers clogging up their roads and car parks.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
Important to you, and to some others, but I’m afraid it’s a very small minority of the population.




That’s your prerogative of course, but the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people who travel to places like Whitby, Looe, and most other locations served by similar lines do drive there, and wouldn’t consider using the train even if it was free.


Both are small places , with (basically) low levels of economic activity and a propensity for an ageing population. Whitby produces incredibly roughly , about 5 rail journeys per head of populaton , Looe around 10 a year. The vast % of this is I suspect , pure tourist traffic. In effect , discretionary.

Now a short walk away is a 6.5 million journeys per year station , with the local population making around 100 rail journeys per annum each. Obviously some "leisure" traffic there - maybe 15% at a guess , so you could argue that the / my local station is important.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
Actually, given the numbers involved, I don’t suppose they’d notice.

See comment made just now - Whitby has a falling population in any case - nearly 10% down in a decade , so a cruel cynic might argue there is some space.

I am not having a go - the railway is there - and is funded for now. I just see very little scope for doing very much more , unless there is a serious cash input from somewhere. Not obvious.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Now a short walk away is a 6.5 million journeys per year station , with the local population making around 100 rail journeys per annum each. Obviously some "leisure" traffic there - maybe 15% at a guess , so you could argue that the / my local station is important.

Slightly longer walk for me, Guv’, and it’s 7.5m pa now.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
Now a General Election has been called, it will surely be worth waiting to see the outcome of it and formation of the eventual new Government in office, before any decisions on any matter are actually made.

Well , I for one , await tangible and funded initiatives with very great interest.
 

Dr Day

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2018
Messages
541
Location
Bristol
It is important to have a railway network that serves as much of the country, and provides as much access to and from elsewhere as possible.
I would say it is important to have a public transport network, however the respective role rail/bus/trams should play will depend on what benefit they can bring relative to the cost of providing them (including the ongoing infrastructure maintenance/renewal cost).

Probably more one for speculative ideas, but if vertically integrated multi-modal micro-franchises were created with freedom to have the optimal mix of rail, bus and tram, for the same tax-payer contribution in those areas as today (including the Network Rail element), then you may have an overall better public transport service, in terms of 'providing as much access to and from elsewhere as possible'.

I agree that the current situation with buses being either commercially operated or subsidised by cash-strapped local authorities does make them far more vulnerable than rail. A means of getting the same commitment and funding on a per-trip basis in rural/semi-rural areas for buses as current given to rail I would suggest would get more trips out of cars than re-opening many closed railways (trying to get back on-topic).
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
I would say it is important to have a public transport network, however the respective role rail/bus/trams should play will depend on what benefit they can bring relative to the cost of providing them (including the ongoing infrastructure maintenance/renewal cost).

Agreed that it's a comprehensive public transport network is needed rather than say railways to/from everywhere. Buses/trams are perfectly adequate alternatives. BUT, the buses MUST link easily and smoothly to the railway network to allow for onward transport for longer distances. That means bus routes/timetables being fit for purpose incorporating railway stations. There are far too many towns (and even small cities) where the railway station isn't close to the bus station/regular bus route, meaning unrealistic journeys by foot/taxi from one end of town to the other, or long waits for connecting buses from the bus station to a local bus that does pass by the train station. For true integration, the railway stations should act as a hub/station for buses too. Alongside that, there's a need for "through" ticketing so that an entire journey incorporating bus/tram/train can be covered by a single ticket. At the moment, outside London, it's made so hard for people to use public transport.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I would say it is important to have a public transport network, however the respective role rail/bus/trams should play will depend on what benefit they can bring relative to the cost of providing them (including the ongoing infrastructure maintenance/renewal cost).

Probably more one for speculative ideas, but if vertically integrated multi-modal micro-franchises were created with freedom to have the optimal mix of rail, bus and tram, for the same tax-payer contribution in those areas as today (including the Network Rail element), then you may have an overall better public transport service, in terms of 'providing as much access to and from elsewhere as possible'.

I agree that the current situation with buses being either commercially operated or subsidised by cash-strapped local authorities does make them far more vulnerable than rail. A means of getting the same commitment and funding on a per-trip basis in rural/semi-rural areas for buses as current given to rail I would suggest would get more trips out of cars than re-opening many closed railways (trying to get back on-topic).

Great post, absolutely spot on. Given that it requires significant political will and effort to enable a new lin to be opened, perhaps it would be better to use that political will and effort to provide better public transport overall, which in many cases would provide a far better service far more efficiently.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
I think this is the right moment to bring this thread to a close.

While many people will have no idea who others on the forum are, but I happen to know that @Bald Rick, @ChiefPlanner, @Dr Day (to list just three of the recent contributors to this thread) are extremely knowledgable and experienced in this area; people are welcome to agree or disagree with anyone they like and any point they like but my personal recommendation would be to heed the points they have made.

People are, of course, still very welcome to post suggestions for routes they think could be reopened in the Given the Shapps announcement, which lines would you propose for reopening? thread, which remains open :)
 

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,103
Just seen this

Beeching rail cuts: Fund to restore lines goes ahead amid criticism

A government fund is to be launched later to help restore historic railway lines closed more than 50 years ago under the so-called Beeching cuts.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps will visit Fleetwood to announce £21.9m for two railway lines and a New Stations Fund.

The £500m fund was promised in the Tory election manifesto in November.

But Labour called the plan "meaningless", adding that £500m would reopen just 25 miles of railway.

And the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT) described the funds as a "drop in the ocean".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51272817

The same old story the government wants to reopen closed lines that closed under Beeching however given how many times both Labour and Conservative governments have mentioned this I don't have much confidence in it happening.
 

trainbow

Member
Joined
14 May 2019
Messages
20
Any investment is welcome, and I’m sure there’ll be some lovely works, but really £500mil is a drop in the ocean for reopening actually closed lines.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,820
Location
Yorks
Reading the article, I think it's a bit rich Labour banging on about how this won't come to anything, given their absolute lack of achievement during their tenure. A couple of guided busways, no growth franchises and a lot of drivel about "trains carting around fresh air" are my abiding memories of those years.

I don't have as much knowledge about the Fleetwood project but Blythe and Tyne seems like a very good place to begin for such a project.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
Following the announcement, all I see today from various commentators, press, media, here, etc, is moaning. Wooooah it's not enough. Wooooah you can't do anything for half a billion pounds. Etc etc. It's enough to make Grant Schapps say "OK then, I'll find something else ...".
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
Reading the article, I think it's a bit rich Labour banging on about how this won't come to anything, given their absolute lack of achievement during their tenure. A couple of guided busways, no growth franchises and a lot of drivel about "trains carting around fresh air" are my abiding memories of those years.

I don't have as much knowledge about the Fleetwood project but Blythe and Tyne seems like a very good place to begin for such a project.
As I just noted in the thread in the speculation section, the Ashington/Blyth project has the same status as Cambridge South in the DfT enhancement pipeline, published in October. I think it’s more than speculation.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,820
Location
Yorks
As I just noted in the thread in the speculation section, the Ashington/Blyth project has the same status as Cambridge South in the DfT enhancement pipeline, published in October. I think it’s more than speculation.

If I were the Government in its current position, I'd be quite eager to get it done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top