Should some longer rural routes be sacrificed and the money spent elsewhere on the network?

[Nicholas Lewis]

Indeed, and that will be a small fraction of the cost of running the train service.

mods note - split from this thread

£11.5m track upgrade will mean three-week closure for rail line north of Dingwall

The Far North Line will be closed north of Dingwall for a three-week period this summer so that an £11.5 million track upgrading programme can be carried out. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78e8jzj291o The work will see a five-mile (8km) stretch between Brora and Helmsdale refurbished...

www.railforums.co.uk

You do have to wonder whether in these straightened times whether lines like this should be shut to release support for other more worthy routes. Won't happen for political reasons of course.

 

[John R]

You do have to wonder whether in these straightened times whether lines like this should be shut to release support for other more worthy routes. Won't happen for political reasons of course.

Once shut it is very unlikely to reopen. So you are not taking a temporary decision for "these straightened times", but have to work on the assumption that it is permanent move, even if the financial situation improves in future.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Once shut it is very unlikely to reopen. So you are not taking a temporary decision for "these straightened times", but have to work on the assumption that it is permanent move, even if the financial situation improves in future.

When @Bald Rick tells us the replacement coach service during the works costs a fraction of the cost of running the train service albeit after Scottish govt have spent a shed load on the A9 upgrade you have question whether the lines like this should be kept open. As i say its rhetorical question as politically no party will go there currently.

 

[InOban]

There's been little improvement to the A9 North of Dornoch Bridge

I suspect that the coaches are not only cheaper but produce less CO2

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Once shut it is very unlikely to reopen. So you are not taking a temporary decision for "these straightened times", but have to work on the assumption that it is permanent move, even if the financial situation improves in future.

Yeah, that's the problem. I totally understand the argument that, if a coach service can be provided cheaper than the railway, why not just have a coach service. And that argument looks particularly tempting for the Far North line when a coach can actually be faster than the train. But this is the kind of long-distance route that we ought to be encouraging the train for (I say long-distance, bearing in mind that may journeys will originate South of Inverness). I'd like to think that, a few decades in the future we'll have got a much bigger share of journeys being made by train and the Far North line will therefore be much better used and better able to pay its way. If that was the case I'd much rather the line was already open rather than having to go the expense of re-opening it and then probably paying a fortune to restore track that had been neglected for that time.

(Plus the Far North line also doubles as a commuter service at the Inverness end, and I doubt we'd want to lose that. And although passenger numbers mean it's not going to be a priority for investment, there probably are conceivable investments that would get journey times to be rather more competitive with cars)

 

[Killingworth]

Once shut it is very unlikely to reopen. So you are not taking a temporary decision for "these straightened times", but have to work on the assumption that it is permanent move, even if the financial situation improves in future.

Is the Thurso U.K.A.E.A connection ever used nowadays? In the past the line was strategically important to serve Royal Navy bases at Invergordon and Scapa Flow.

 

[John R]

(Plus the Far North line also doubles as a commuter service at the Inverness end, and I doubt we'd want to lose that. And although passenger numbers mean it's not going to be a priority for investment, there probably are conceivable investments that would get journey times to be rather more competitive with cars)

The Delmore loop, between Inverness and Muir of Ord would at the very least improve reliability, and potentially facilitate additional services, but despite encouraging signs a couple of years ago, it seems more like it has been kicked towards if not into the long grass atm.

 

[Llandudno]

An hourly ‘electric’ coach service operating 0500-2359 seven days a week would save a fortune and provide a much better service for local residents and tourists alike!

Offer through rail/bus tickets, railcard discounts etc. and guarantee no cuts to the timetable for at least a decade!

Same could be said of the Conwy Valley Line. Llandudno - Bleanau Ffestiniog - Porthmadog!

 

[Bald Rick]

But this is the kind of long-distance route that we ought to be encouraging the train for (I say long-distance, bearing in mind that may journeys will originate South of Inverness).

Being Devil’s advocate…

Give that the train on this route is:

Slower than a coach
More expensive to provide than a coach (much, much, more)
More polluting than a coach (much, much more)
Less convenient that an a coach in the ability to serve town / village centres….

Why should ‘we’ (society) be encouraging use of the train?

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

Being Devil’s advocate…

Give that the train on this route is:

Slower than a coach
More expensive to provide than a coach (much, much, more)
More polluting than a coach (much, much more)
Less convenient that an a coach in the ability to serve town / village centres….

Why should ‘we’ (society) be encouraging use of the train?

Given those assumptions, and remembering I'm on a railway forum where this opinion is likely to be unpopular, we absolutely shouldn't be spending any money fixing this line, and should plough the money into getting some PCVs running a decent service instead, but we'll spend it anyway because transporting the public around isn't seen as "public transport", it's seen as "railway" or "bus" or "light rail" rather than as an integrated system where things fit together.

This, sadly, is common throughout government (local and central) where each department tends to work in isolation with their own budget rather than thinking about the bigger picture.

 

[Meole]

Similar to the recent Cambrian line closure and upgrade.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Being Devil’s advocate…

Give that the train on this route is:

Slower than a coach
More expensive to provide than a coach (much, much, more)
More polluting than a coach (much, much more)
Less convenient that an a coach in the ability to serve town / village centres….

Why should ‘we’ (society) be encouraging use of the train?

Fair questions, but I was possibly a bit unclear. When I say we should be encouraging use of the train, I don't mean we should be encouraging people to switch from coaches to trains! There would obviously be little to no environmental or congestion benefit in that! I mean we should be encouraging people to switch from cars to trains (or aeroplanes to trains but I don't think that's relevant on this route?) And the question is then, does this line have a potential role in getting people out of cars. Coaches are never going to be able to do that to any great extent because they are simply so uncomfortable to ride in, and because of their vulnerability to road congestion. They have a great niche role in enabling travel for people who are looking for the very cheapest fares/are sufficiently eco-conscious to be willing to put up with the lack of comfort, but I can't see them getting beyond that market.

On the other hand, in a future where we have managed to get more people to use the train, the Far North line would be essential to ensure that part of the country is connected to the railway so you don't end up with all long-distance people still driving. I can imagine most of the problems you identify being solved: Batteries (if electrification is not worth it) to sort out the pollution, the cost being amortised over many more people per train than is possible for a coach, and future upgrades to speed up journeys. So I guess I'd see today's subsidies etc. an insurance policy to make sure the line is actually there when that future (hopefully) arrives.

 

[lachlan]

Could a coach serve all intermediate stops and still keep to the times of the train? There are already coach services on this route and they are faster but they serve different intermediate stops. Despite this, the train services remain busy which would suggest people value a train over a bus.

These people aren't all going to switch to coaches - many will drive or won't come at all. I know when I'm looking for places to visit, rail connectivity is a big factor in my decision.

 

[Bald Rick]

And the question is then, does this line have a potential role in getting people out of cars.

Well, I would argue getting people out of cars on this specific route is not necessary.

Coaches are never going to be able to do that to any great extent because they are simply so uncomfortable to ride in, and because of their vulnerability to road congestion.

Opinions vary about coach comfort. Lots of people use them. And road congestion really isn’t a problem on this route!

Could a coach serve all intermediate stops and still keep to the times of the train?

Probably not. I suspect the better question is would a coach need to serve all the intermediate stops on the route? I suspect a subsidised hail and ride service would be more than sufficient for some of the stops, and certainly cheaper to provide, and better for the environment. Hell, we might even be back to the helicopter proposal

 

[lachlan]

Probably not. I suspect the better questionis would a coach need to serve all the intermediate stops on the route? I suspect a sunsidised hail and ride service would be more than sufficient for some of the stops, and certainly cheaper to provide, and better for the environment. Hell, we might even be back to the helicopter proposal

That would be great! But The argument often comes down to how easy a service would be to be cut in the future. For better or worse, these works on the Far North Line suggest it isn't going anywhere any time soon.

 

[yorksrob]

You do have to wonder whether in these straightened times whether lines like this should be shut to release support for other more worthy routes. Won't happen for political reasons of course.

Why ?

Once they start down that road, it'll be carte blanche for them to shut anything they don't fancy subsidising.

Give the Establishment an inch and they'll take several miles.

Well, I would argue getting people out of cars on this specific route is not necessary.



Opinions vary about coach comfort. Lots of people use them. And road congestion really isn’t a problem on this route!




Probably not. I suspect the better questionis would a coach need to serve all the intermediate stops on the route? I suspect a sunsidised hail and ride service would be more than sufficient for some of the stops, and certainly cheaper to provide, and better for the environment. Hell, we might even be back to the helicopter proposal

Coach travel is a niche product.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Coach travel is a niche product.

So what? In a national context so is rail travel. But that doesn't mean either mode should simply be dismissed as irrelevant.

However in wider discussions it has to be recognised that affordability is part of the equation where subsidies are involved. The rail network as a whole loses money so it is quite right that the value of continuing to operate the basket case routes, of which the Far North route is clearly one, is reviewed from time to time.

Public finances are particularly stretched currently, with improvement difficult to foresee, so now is a reasonable time to review the value of the rail network. Politically it remains true that full scale closures of rail routes are generally unacceptable but given a different legislative framework covering buses and coaches some road based replacement of rail journeys could generate welcome savings to the public purse. It does however require a more European way of thinking!

 

[yorksrob]

So what? In a national context so is rail travel. But that doesn't mean either mode should simply be dismissed as irrelevant.

However in wider discussions it has to be recognised that affordability is part of the equation where subsidies are involved. The rail network as a whole loses money so it is quite right that the value of continuing to operate the basket case routes, of which the Far North route is clearly one, is reviewed from time to time.

Public finances are particularly stretched currently, with improvement difficult to foresee, so now is a reasonable time to review the value of the rail network. Politically it remains true that full scale closures of rail routes are generally unacceptable but given a different legislative framework covering buses and coaches some road based replacement of rail journeys could generate welcome savings to the public purse. It does however require a more European way of thinking!

This is all a slippery slope and will lead to the destruction of our rail network. Anybody thinking otherwise is delusional.

Take the major rail trunk routes. They will likely have a parallel coach service. This well carry many times fewer passengers than the corresponding rail service. That's not to say that coach travel isn't an important product for its niche. Simply that it isn't an adequate replacement for rail.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

This is all a slippery slope and will lead to the destruction of our rail network. Anybody thinking otherwise is delusional.

Take the major rail trunk routes. They will likely have a parallel coach service. This well carry many times fewer passengers than the corresponding rail service. That's not to say that coach travel isn't an important product for its niche. Simply that it isn't an adequate replacement for rail.

Nobody is talking about closing major trunk rail routes, that's just paranoia. The discussion is about lightly used routes through very thinly populated areas where the relative cost of provision is very high. And to what extent that cost might be reduced by the use of road transport. Just because you hate buses doesn't prevent them from being a useful part of the overall public transport offer.

I have made it clear that politically rail closures are generally unacceptable. The squeeze on public spending might possibly change that situation in due course. But the fact that the track repairs on the Far North line are being funded should demonstrate that in Scotland at least the political mood around possible rail closures has not changed.

 

[yorksrob]

Nobody is talking about closing major trunk rail routes, that's just paranoia. The discussion is about lightly used routes through very thinly populated areas where the relative cost of provision is very high. And to what extent that cost might be reduced by the use of road transport. Just because you hate buses doesn't prevent them from being a useful part of the overall public transport offer.

I have made it clear that politically rail closures are generally unacceptable. The squeeze on public spending might possibly change that situation in due course. But the fact that the track repairs on the Far North line are being funded should demonstrate that in Scotland at least the political mood around possible rail closures has not changed.

Just because "nobody is talking about" larger scale closures doesn't mean that that won't be the end result.

I agree that the fact that maintenance is being done is a good sign, however we must be forever vigilant.

 

[slowroad]

Just because "nobody is talking about" larger scale closures doesn't mean that that won't be the end result.

I agree that the fact that maintenance is being done is a good sign, however we must be forever vigilant.

Surely in the relatively small number of cases where coach travel is quicker it is simply good sense to replace (diesel) rail trains with (electric) coaches.

 

[yorksrob]

Surely in the relatively small number of cases where coach travel is quicker it is simply good sense to replace (diesel) rail trains with (electric) coaches.

I think that those are some of the routes which would benefit from electric (battery) trains.

 

[35B]

Could a coach serve all intermediate stops and still keep to the times of the train? There are already coach services on this route and they are faster but they serve different intermediate stops. Despite this, the train services remain busy which would suggest people value a train over a bus.

These people aren't all going to switch to coaches - many will drive or won't come at all. I know when I'm looking for places to visit, rail connectivity is a big factor in my decision.

The question about a coach is whether and how it would serve settlements off the main road. Those settlements, especially Lairg, are a large part of why the line survived attempts to close it, and why rerouting over the Dornoch Bridge was troublesome.

That route being open, it needs to be maintained. That includes capital investment in track renewals such as this. It is classic "Treasury Brain" to assume that, by deferring or avoiding such expenditure, costs will be saved - or that closure suddenly needs considering. The same applies to discussion of diesel vs. electric - I think I've seen it noted that one Voyager running (under the wires) between Edinburgh and York emits as much CO2 as the Far North does in a month.

Whether this line, or other deep rural lines, justify the investment/subsidy required to keep them open is a fundamentally political question. That question is, for the time at least, resolved in favour of maintaining and developing the Far North Lines.

 

[Class15]

Surely in the relatively small number of cases where coach travel is quicker it is simply good sense to replace (diesel) rail trains with (electric) coaches.

I would agree with this for the Far North line. I don’t think anyone is proposing closing more major routes but it could make sense to ditch some of the real basket-cases.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I would agree with this for the Far North line. I don’t think anyone is proposing closing more major routes but it could make sense to ditch some of the real basket-cases.

Such as?

 

[Class15]

Such as?

Obviously going to be controversial but this is my opinion. Feel free to disagree!

1. Far North lines
2. Stranraer to Ayr
3. Brigg line
4. Central Wales line
5. Heysham to Morecambe

 

[yorksrob]

I would agree with this for the Far North line. I don’t think anyone is proposing closing more major routes but it could make sense to ditch some of the real basket-cases.

The use of the phrase "basket case" is a clear red flag to me in these discussions.

 

[sh24]

Obviously going to be controversial but this is my opinion. Feel free to disagree!

1. Far North lines
2. Stranraer to Ayr
3. Brigg line
4. Central Wales line
5. Heysham to Morecambe

There is logic to that list. Doubly so if the savings were ploughed into advancing projects that will add value to the national economy eg Crossrail 2, HS link across the north. (Yes I know cutting those 5 routes won’t pay for all of that!)

 

[Class15]

The use of the phrase "basket case" is a clear red flag to me in these discussions.

Very fair! I completely understand that there are good reasons for keeping all railways in the UK open. I probably would do the same, but maybe we should at least consider alternatives?

 

[yorksrob]

Obviously going to be controversial but this is my opinion. Feel free to disagree!

1. Far North lines
2. Stranraer to Ayr
3. Brigg line
4. Central Wales line
5. Heysham to Morecambe

Three of those are used by their communities, one of those links to a ferry service and the other hasn't had a proper train service for decades, so we don't know what the demand is.