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

[yorkie]

Just a reminder this thread is to discuss whether some rural local route could be sacrificed.

...As I've previously highlighted the government could provide all public transport for free ...

ALL public transport?...

We have covered this previously, in threads such as:

Would free public transport work in the UK?

Having stumbled upon the below article from the Yahoo website (see https://uk.news.yahoo.com/germany-eyes-free-transport-banish-air-pollution-190415292.html ) "Car nation" Germany has surprised neighbours with a radical proposal to reduce road traffic by making public transport free, as...

www.railforums.co.uk

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-transport-become-free-after-covid-19.204667/

Should public transport be free?

Evening. We're often hearing about how much damage cars cause to the environment, and how we should go by train to reduce pollution. But trains are expensive. Should we make them free to use to persuade people, for the main part, out of their cars? Personally, as a left leaning person, my...

www.railforums.co.uk

However, if anyone would like to add anything that hasn't already been debated before on this topic, feel free to create a new thread.

We do ask that any spin-off discussions take place in new threads, rather than drag a thread off topic. Feel free to link to any such new thread from the original.

 

[InkyScrolls]

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

No. Because we all know that's not how it would work. However...

"Should some little-used routes not ideally-suited to rail transport be mothballed, and the money saved used to provide a more regular, and safeguarded, bus service?"

Then yes.

 

[Mikey C]

The motivation might be different but the effect would be similar, some people living in more sparsely populated areas losing their rail service.

But other people would get a BETTER rail service with the money saved, that's the point of this thread.

Taking a hypothetical example, if closing down the Far North line meant that Cross Country could have a new fleet of double length bimodes, that would benefit a lot more people. Of course we all want both, but that's a separate debate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But other people would get a BETTER rail service with the money saved, that's the point of this thread.

Taking a hypothetical example, if closing down the Far North line meant that Cross Country could have a new fleet of double length bimodes, that would benefit a lot more people. Of course we all want both, but that's a separate debate.

Trouble is do you believe for a moment that that would happen?

 

[Mikey C]

Trouble is do you believe for a moment that that would happen?

Why not?

That's the assumption of this thread. It's not "close railway lines, and build roads with the money" or "close lines and use the money on the NHS".

 

[Egg Centric]

Why not?

That's the assumption of this thread. It's not "close railway lines, and build roads with the money" or "close lines and use the money on the NHS".

That's what the title of the thread is, but I think consensus has been to look at the national economic situation anyway. So rather than suspend our disbelief and assume it's plowed back into other rail services, consider the alternative of something like it going on something else like nurses. Certainly it's the calculus that is going to matter longer term if everyone ignores my wise suggestion of pushing the intrinsic value of having a railway for railway's sake. Not immediately, but once we have self driving cars at a sensible price point. At that point non-commuter/non-high speed long distance passenger railways become totally pointless for any reason other than being a railway.

I am toying with the idea of pricing tickets in micro-nurses in terms of subsidy - if we guess a nurse costs £50k/annum on average as a total cost of employment then a £10 ticket subsidy is 200 micro-nurses

 

[NCT]

Looking at route-by-route numbers, it's not the odd rural lines that are sucking in subsidies, it's the commuter lines that serve non-London metropolitan areas that are having hundreds of millions every year and those are the markets that ought not need subsidies.

In the current demographic and financial climate the railway, or certainly the day-to-day operation of the railway would have to be completely tone-deaf to be demanding ring-fenced budgets. Discretionary parts of the society should enable a shrinking of the state in order that the statutory parts of the state can remain functional.

 

[HighlandStorm]

Taking a hypothetical example, if closing down the Far North line meant that Cross Country could have a new fleet of double length bimodes, that would benefit a lot more people. Of course we all want both, but that's a separate debate.

I suppose this is a speculative thread, but your hypothetical example would require fundamental constitutional change. It would be a decision of the Scottish Ministers and/or Scottish Parliament to curtail the Far North Line and any resultant budget savings would accrue to Scot Gov, not the DfT.

If the FNL was curtailed, then the vultures would be after the Kyle line.

On the comment about soulless electric bus on rails, well I’d quite like the quiet and lack of engine vibrations from under the floor. You’d have better acceleration, improved journey times and potentially more journey opportunities if arrivals at passing loops match up better.

 

[Egg Centric]

On the comment about soulless electric bus on rails, well I’d quite like the quiet and lack of engine vibrations from under the floor. You’d have better acceleration, improved journey times and potentially more journey opportunities if arrivals at passing loops match up better.

But this comes at a great cost and if we don't stress rail for rail's sake then I see no way for a rational technocratic government to avoid closures long term. That's the truth and we* need to get ahead of it now. As transport, for the use case of these lines, self driving cars are going to be better in essentially every "objective" way. Even now buses and non-self-driving cars are (hence the comparative usage figures).

*I'm assuming everyone here wants at least the existing level of rail, if not more

 

[Bald Rick]

You have to remember that the Settle and Carlisle line wasn't saved by outside enthusiasts because of the beautiful scenery. It was saved by the local people because of the perceived value to their communities.

It was saved by Michael Portillo, who is the very definition of an “outside enthusiast”!

If any other (then) Government Minister had been in the hot seat at that point, it would have closed. (my opinion, having spoken to a couple of lags who were around at the time)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not?

That's the assumption of this thread. It's not "close railway lines, and build roads with the money" or "close lines and use the money on the NHS".

True. I just don't think the money would stay on the railway in reality.

 

[NCT]

But this comes at a great cost and if we don't stress rail for rail's sake then I see no way for a rational technocratic government to avoid closures long term. That's the truth and we* need to get ahead of it now. As transport, for the use case of these lines, self driving cars are going to be better in essentially every "objective" way. Even now buses and non-self-driving cars are (hence the comparative usage figures).

If closures are a rational technocratic outcome for some of the lines, would that be a wrong outcome?

And no, self-driving cars are not going to be better in every 'objective' way. In urban settings they still cause congestion and are still energy/emission inefficient.

In a very remote rural setting however, trains running lightly loaded all year round that are difficult to decarb are neither efficient nor green compared with the finite number of car trips the static rural population generates.

*I'm assuming everyone here wants at least the existing level of rail, if not more

Not unconditionally, at least not for a distribution of resources frozen in time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we are talking self driving cars, there is also the possibility of self driving trains (probably guard only operated). Neither is more far fetched than the other, and £50K off the wage bill per diagram is significant.

 

[Egg Centric]

If closures are a rational technocratic outcome for some of the lines, would that be a wrong outcome?

Depends how much you like trains. Obviously it's not wrong in the sense that it's a legitimate way to govern. It's just not what I would personally prefer. For the same reason I'm willing to spend money at heritage railways.

And no, self-driving cars are not going to be better in every 'objective' way. In urban settings they still cause congestion and are still energy/emission inefficient.

Absolutely, but that's not really relevant to the lines we're talking about.

(Sorry, that was just in reference to congestion. The energy/emission inefficiency is again something we can reasonably assume is a solved problem longer term, looking at solar power kwh prices)

Not unconditionally, at least not for a distribution of resources frozen in time.

Boo hiss!

 

[NCT]

Depends how much you like trains. Obviously it's not wrong in the sense that it's a legitimate way to govern. It's just not what I would personally prefer. For the same reason I'm willing to spend money at heritage railways.



Absolutely, but that's not really relevant to the lines we're talking about.

(Sorry, that was just in reference to congestion. The energy/emission inefficiency is again something we can reasonably assume is a solved problem longer term, looking at solar power kwh prices)


Boo hiss!

I think the 'we all unconditionally like trains' is a premise you've invented, even in the context of this thread, and even more generally for somewhere like Railforums.

 

[yorksrob]

It was saved by Michael Portillo, who is the very defition of an “outside enthusiast”!

If any other (then) Government Minister had been in the hot seat at that point, it would have closed. (my opinion, having spoken to a couple of lags who were around at the time)

Yes, I'll give you him !

But it was locals who battled for it.

 

[Bald Rick]

But it was locals who battled for it.

Well, yes, but locals battled for almost everyline that closed too.

 

[Egg Centric]

I think the 'we all unconditionally like trains' is a premise you've invented, even in the context of this thread, and even more generally for somewhere like Railforums.

*I* don't even unconditionally like trains! One trip on a 230 was enough for me. Same for the 139 (although I'd like those to be kept as long as humanely possible as a curiosity and I've also no idea if Stourbridge branch is even realistically under threat). Hence what I'm trying to get across about soul.

But keeping our current network is going to need loving all the parts of it and I think that's presently doable on the most basket case lines (even if they'd be helped with more archaic traction). If they get upgraded too much I don't think so.

 

[NCT]

I think thankfully truly basket case lines are rare enough and small enough in Britain that they don't demand too much of the tax base.

For a hypothetically more rural setting where the weight of loss making routes places an unsustainable burden on the exchequer, there are only two ways of keeping as many of those going. Either go full quaint - the heritage route, or go the Swiss route of using the railway to promote volume tourism. Notice in the latter the Swiss are quite unapologetic about modernising their lines and having the railway serving the general travelling public over the enthusiast. They are unapologetically commercial in their pricing too.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

At that point non-commuter/non-high speed long distance passenger railways become totally pointless for any reason other than being a railway.

Err, no. The point of the railway is that one Pendolino can have 600+ seats. Try and fit those 600 people into cars with 1.5 people per car and you've basically completely filled a single-lane A road for 20 minutes. And when those cars reach London or Manchester they could easily turn a few existing roads into gridlock for that 20 minutes. That's why there will always be an important place for the railway: Nothing else can match that capacity.

A second reason is comfort: I can easily work on a train. Even if a car was completely self-driving, there's no way I could work in a car with the small vertical space to sit in plus all the constant bumps etc. the road causes.

 

[Egg Centric]

Err, no. The point of the railway is that one Pendolino can have 600+ seats. Try and fit those 600 people into cars with 1.5 people per car and you've basically completely filled a single-lane A road for 20 minutes. And when those cars reach London or Manchester they could easily turn a few existing roads into gridlock for that 20 minutes. That's why there will always be an important place for the railway: Nothing else can match that capacity.

Those are not within what I was referring to as they're clearly high speed long distance (and sometimes commuter).

A second reason is comfort: I can easily work on a train. Even if a car was completely self-driving, there's no way I could work in a car with the small vertical space to sit in plus all the constant bumps etc. the road causes.

Realistically true - but how many people will be working on the lines this thread is about? It's not zero, but it's not a lot.

 

[778]

But other people would get a BETTER rail service with the money saved, that's the point of this thread.

Taking a hypothetical example, if closing down the Far North line meant that Cross Country could have a new fleet of double length bimodes, that would benefit a lot more people. Of course we all want both, but that's a separate debate.

Would the money saved from closing the far north line be enough to buy a new fleet of bimodes for Cross Country?

As transport, for the use case of these lines, self driving cars are going to be better in essentially every "objective" way. Even now buses and non-self-driving cars are (hence the comparative usage figures).

Why are you so convinced we will ever get self driving cars any time soon?

If the FNL was curtailed, then the vultures would be after the Kyle line.

The vultures would not stop at the Kyle line they would try and close as much as they could get away with.

 

[Egg Centric]

Why are you so convinced we will ever get self driving cars any time soon?

Because they already exist (imprefectly at SAE 4, but good enough for taxis to actually work) in some localities with "easy level" roads. To be clear I suppose it depends what you mean by "any time soon" - if I were to guess at time frame I'm going for about 15 years for it (SAE 5) being something you can buy in the UK privately and 25-30 years for them being the norm on a rental scheme with only those of us who love driving actually bothering. But we need to start thinking about this now.

 

[Mark J]

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.

No thank you!

We had Beeching many decades ago, for which the network still suffers the effects of.

We don't want any more line closures!

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

I also find it laughable that some come onto a railway discussion forum, trying to propose yet more line closures.

If anything, the network needs expanding.

Not further pruning!

 

[zwk500]

No thank you!

We had Beeching many decades ago, for which the network still suffers the effects of.

The Network, as a whole, is better for Beeching. The report didn't get everything right, but the network was unbalanced with far more route mileage than it could possibly justify for the traffic available, or likely to be available, at the time. Trains need to move people and goods to be useful.

We certainly don't need another Beeching/Serpell now, but it was a medicine that had to be taken at some point.

We don't want any more line closures!

I also find it laughable that some come onto a railway discussion forum, trying to propose yet more line closures.

If anything, the network needs expanding.

Not further pruning!

Like any healthy management, the network needs both development, trimming, and expansion at the same time. Wholesale closure of lines isn't likely - there's only a few real candidates left, most discussed in this thread already (Heart of Wales, Berney Arms, Far North, West Highland, Blaenau), and most of those perform a fairly clear social role and have absolute minimal costs.

It's worth reiterating the premise of the thread is essentially that the railway be given one complete budget and allowed to run the network as best it can from it, and I do agree with posters that the likely outcome of any line closure is simply a reduction in the subsidy that was being paid to operate it. So line closures in real life are a political, not railway, choice.

 

[yorksrob]

I also find it laughable that some come onto a railway discussion forum, trying to propose yet more line closures.

If anything, the network needs expanding.

Not further pruning!

Exactly. There are far too many gaps in the network as it is.

The Network, as a whole, is better for Beeching. The report didn't get everything right, but the network was unbalanced with far more route mileage than it could possibly justify for the traffic available, or likely to be available, at the time. Trains need to move people and goods to be useful.

We certainly don't need another Beeching/Serpell now, but it was a medicine that had to be taken at some point.

Like any healthy management, the network needs both development, trimming, and expansion at the same time. Wholesale closure of lines isn't likely - there's only a few real candidates left, most discussed in this thread already (Heart of Wales, Berney Arms, Far North, West Highland, Blaenau), and most of those perform a fairly clear social role and have absolute minimal costs.

It's worth reiterating the premise of the thread is essentially that the railway be given one complete budget and allowed to run the network as best it can from it, and I do agree with posters that the likely outcome of any line closure is simply a reduction in the subsidy that was being paid to operate it. So line closures in real life are a political, not railway, choice.

I disagree with the premise.

Sussex, for example has been left with a wholly inadequate passenger network that lacks resilience at times of perturbation, primarily because of the hawkish obsession wil line closures pushed by Beeching from the Stedeford Committee onwards, and continued through to the 1970's.

The real failures of that era need to be digested and understood to avoid repetition.

I also disagree with the premise of pruning the passenger network. In a developed society like Britain in a geographically confined land area, there are unlikely to be large scale population abandonments (at least until climate change makes large areas uninhabitable), so its unlikely that there will be a justification for pruning.

 

[zwk500]

I disagree with the premise.

Sussex, for example has been left with a wholly inadequate passenger network that lacks resilience at times of perturbation, primarily because of the hawkish obsession wil line closures pushed by Beeching from the Stedeford Committee onwards, and continued through to the 1970's.

Disagree. Sussex's network is well set up for the major demand flows - to Brighton, Gatwick and London. While it would be beneficial for additional lines to have been retained, it is completely misrepresenting the situation to describe it as 'wholly inadequate'.

The real failures of that era need to be digested and understood to avoid repetition.

On this point I 100% agree, although I think far worse errors than Beeching were made in the 60s and 70s (e.g. government grants to single random sections of line).

 

[The Ham]

What percentage of the passengers on any train are remotely interested in "soul"? I would suggest the enormous majority of passengers want a reliable service in reasonable degree of comfort, and couldn't care less what is powering it.

Most people would like a boring, reliable railway than one with a "soul" (which I would argue would change depending on when you started travelling in the railways - for a case in point the love of the class 442's).

But other people would get a BETTER rail service with the money saved, that's the point of this thread.

Taking a hypothetical example, if closing down the Far North line meant that Cross Country could have a new fleet of double length bimodes, that would benefit a lot more people. Of course we all want both, but that's a separate debate.

Only, for most things people can think of (especially the length of XC services) it's a political choice and probably not actually something which would require ongoing support to do.

I think thankfully truly basket case lines are rare enough and small enough in Britain that they don't demand too much of the tax base.

For a hypothetically more rural setting where the weight of loss making routes places an unsustainable burden on the exchequer, there are only two ways of keeping as many of those going. Either go full quaint - the heritage route, or go the Swiss route of using the railway to promote volume tourism. Notice in the latter the Swiss are quite unapologetic about modernising their lines and having the railway serving the general travelling public over the enthusiast. They are unapologetically commercial in their pricing too.

Indeed, it's fairly easy to categorize the Swiss railways as soulless, but they are very good at moving people about.

Something which is overlooked is it you cut the railways you'll encourage car travel, which when you are looking at the capacity of the roads isn't an issue. However the bigger issue is where do those cars park?

For example 100 cars parked along the length of the line on a summer Saturday may not sound a lot, but they will likely block farm gates, churn up verges, reduce capacity of roads (by making the road too narrow for two vehicles to pass) and so on.

There may never be more than two in any one location, but they will cause issues.

 

[yorksrob]

Disagree. Sussex's network is well set up for the major demand flows - to Brighton, Gatwick and London. While it would be beneficial for additional lines to have been retained, it is completely misrepresenting the situation to describe it as 'wholly inadequate'.

We shall have to agree to disagree in this case.

On this point I 100% agree, although I think far worse errors than Beeching were made in the 60s and 70s (e.g. government grants to single random sections of line).

I'm not sure the grants to individual routes were such a bad thing. Certainly, if a grant is provided for a particular route, then there's less incentive to slash the route to spend the funding elsewhere.

The individual route grants only came about in 1968 and were the first subsidies, so I'd be loathe to call them a mistake. Whatever their effectiveness, the slash and burn closure programme was a far worse policy.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Why are you so convinced we will ever get self driving cars any time soon?

The techbros and venture capitalists behind self-driving cars have put an awful lot of effort into convincing the world that they're (a) possible and (b) necessary. Whether they actually are or not is irrelevant - they want a return on their capital, and they'll force the issue if need be.

Sussex, for example has been left with a wholly inadequate passenger network

Checks map for location of Sussex. Laughs.

There are significant chunks of the country that would kill for the 'inadequate' network that Sussex has.

Playing devil's advocate - removing subsidies from the vast London commuter network, which is primarily used by richer-than-average people to travel to well-paid jobs, would free up vast amounts to improve the social railway.

Yes, that logic is fundamentally flawed. But it could be very popular in large parts of the UK.