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

[Mark J]

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



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.

Uckfield to Lewes is a ridiculously over complicated journey by train nowadays.

East Grinstead, coming from the West, south, or east is now more difficult. West to east, thanks to the removal of the high level line that ran from Three Bridges to Royal Tunbridge Wells.

The Beeching cuts did make some relatively simple journeys more complicated to do, and expensive, by having to travel the extra miles to complete.

 

[35B]

Uckfield to Lewes is a ridiculously over complicated journey by train nowadays.

East Grinstead, coming from the West, south, or east is now more difficult. West to east, thanks to the removal of the high level line that ran from Three Bridges to Royal Tunbridge Wells.

The Beeching cuts did make some relatively simple journeys more complicated to do, and expensive, by having to travel the extra miles to complete.

By comparing arbitrary point A with arbitrary point B, split by closure many decades ago, you can argue just about any journey may be necessary to restore. The question not addressed is that of demand for those journeys. So, using those examples, you undermine a credible argument about the Three Bridges - East Grinstead - Tunbridge Wells route by lumping in what is now the Bluebell, which carries more passengers on an average running day than the line carried in a year when open, and which was removed long before Dr Beeching was involved with the railways.

There’s then a wider point raised, about the premise of this thread. If a line is shut to save money (not automatically unreasonable in itself), then the value of the savings transfer to other routes needs to be questioned. Someone suggested an exchange between Far North and XC. Ignoring the constitutional questions there, that proposition assumes that the operating cost savings on the FNL could be translated into additional purchase costs for XC, and that they would be sufficient for that. I very much doubt that either assumption works. Open/capex divides are really difficult for organisations, especially Treasury controlled ones, to bridge. And the costs of the FNL are I suspect very low in the overall scheme of things, leaving less value available if transfers were made.

 

[zwk500]

The Sussex network is wholly inadequate for Sussex.

The fact that such a large proportion of its residents rely on and support London for work is a good reason to have a more adequate network (Kent would be a good example of a decently adequate network for its area in this context).

And lets not forget that there are pockets of deprivation in Sussex as well.

But of course, many larger, more rural counties such as Devon have also been left with wholly inadequate railway provision by the closure programme.

Perhaps you could identify the corridors of travel which you think are wholly inadequately served, rather than sticking to the rather broad generalisation so that people can't start picking holes in it?

I lived in East Sussex for 20 years and the only corridor that I think is 'wholly inadequate' for Sussex is Tunbridge Wells-Brighton via Uckfield and Lewes. Funnily enough, that's a line I've supported reopening since I've been interested in rail! Hailsham and Steyning also arguably justify a rail connection but would not justify their own through routes necessarily.

 

[Mark J]

By comparing arbitrary point A with arbitrary point B, split by closure many decades ago, you can argue just about any journey may be necessary to restore. The question not addressed is that of demand for those journeys. So, using those examples, you undermine a credible argument about the Three Bridges - East Grinstead - Tunbridge Wells route by lumping in what is now the Bluebell, which carries more passengers on an average running day than the line carried in a year when open, and which was removed long before Dr Beeching was involved with the railways.

There’s then a wider point raised, about the premise of this thread. If a line is shut to save money (not automatically unreasonable in itself), then the value of the savings transfer to other routes needs to be questioned. Someone suggested an exchange between Far North and XC. Ignoring the constitutional questions there, that proposition assumes that the operating cost savings on the FNL could be translated into additional purchase costs for XC, and that they would be sufficient for that. I very much doubt that either assumption works. Open/capex divides are really difficult for organisations, especially Treasury controlled ones, to bridge. And the costs of the FNL are I suspect very low in the overall scheme of things, leaving less value available if transfers were made.

When some are suggesting the Heart of Wales line for closure, then the realms of stupidity kick in.

The Heart of Wales line is the only line that interects mid Wales now.

There does seem to be an element of 'if we close this line, there will be more money to improve my local services.'

What about those that would be affected by some of the rather barmy ideas?

Stuff them, as long as my local services are improved - seems to be the attitude of some.

I live 35 miles from Paddington, however that doesn't stop me believing people in other parts of the country are entitled to good rail services too. Which is why I support their efforts in getting better services and rail reopening efforts - even though I don't live in those locations.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Sussex network is wholly inadequate for Sussex.

I would agree. Even ignoring the most obvious gaps (Three Bridges - East Grinstead, and Brighton-Uckfield Tunbridge Wells), the service on many of the existing lines seems inadequate. Away from the main Brighton-London line, travel times tend to be very slow because just about everything, even longish-distance services like Brighton-Southampton, runs as stoppers or stoppers-omitting-just-a-few stations. Hastings-Brighton has only 1tph which, with its long diversion to Eastbourne, takes over an hour. Lots of large towns (Horsham, Hastings, Eastbourne, Worthing) have journey times to London that are far longer than you'd expect given the distance to London and how big the towns are. Bexhill has no London services at all. Brighton is surely large enough that it should have had some kind of light rail system - especially considering its main station isn't that conveniently sited - and there is no railway/light rail at all serving the fairly well populated area directly East of Brighton town centre.

Just because other counties have even worse services doesn't seem a reason to deny that Sussex services ought to be a lot better.

 

[yoyothehobo]

When some are suggesting the Heart of Wales line for closure, then the realms of stupidity kick in.

The Heart of Wales line is the only line that interects mid Wales now.

There does seem to be an element of 'if we close this line, there will be more money to improve my local services.'

What about those that would be affected by some of the rather barmy ideas?

Stuff them, as long as my local services are improved - seems to be the attitude of some.

I live 35 miles from Paddington, however that doesn't stop me believing people in other parts of the country are entitled to good rail services too. Which is why I support their efforts in getting better services and rail reopening efforts - even though I don't live in those locations.

But that is the entire premise of the topic.

The HOWL is a very long, lightly used line. Precisely the sort of line which would be at risk from closure.

If the line was severed for some reason and the decision came down to many millions to reopen a very lightly used line (irrespective of any social benefit) or keep health services running what would the local population think?

The initial question somewhat skews the argument.

Think of it this way:

With a fixed, finite budget would these routes have to be sacrificed as there is no money left over to maintain the main lines.

Note i do not think we should be closing lines, but i think it is an issue we may face in the not too distant future.

 

[Harpo]

The Heart of Wales line is the only line that interects mid Wales now.

Cambrian?

 

[35B]

When some are suggesting the Heart of Wales line for closure, then the realms of stupidity kick in.

The Heart of Wales line is the only line that interects mid Wales now.

There does seem to be an element of 'if we close this line, there will be more money to improve my local services.'

What about those that would be affected by some of the rather barmy ideas?

Stuff them, as long as my local services are improved - seems to be the attitude of some.

I live 35 miles from Paddington, however that doesn't stop me believing people in other parts of the country are entitled to good rail services too. Which is why I support their efforts in getting better services and rail reopening efforts - even though I don't live in those locations.

I'd turn that question round, and ask what transport function the Heart of Wales now serves beyond providing a line on a map across the middle of Wales.

It runs a very infrequent service, and coped using single 153s while they were allowed - despite some promotion.

That is partly a reflection of the country it runs through, but also raises serious questions about whether it actually meets local transport needs, or even goes where people need to go.

That then (see say the Whitby line) allows a sensible discussion over why a given level of subsidy is or isn't value for money.

 

[al78]

I would agree. Even ignoring the most obvious gaps (Three Bridges - East Grinstead, and Brighton-Uckfield Tunbridge Wells), the service on many of the existing lines seems inadequate. Away from the main Brighton-London line, travel times tend to be very slow because just about everything, even longish-distance services like Brighton-Southampton, runs as stoppers or stoppers-omitting-just-a-few stations. Hastings-Brighton has only 1tph which, with its long diversion to Eastbourne, takes over an hour. Lots of large towns (Horsham, Hastings, Eastbourne, Worthing) have journey times to London that are far longer than you'd expect given the distance to London and how big the towns are. Bexhill has no London services at all. Brighton is surely large enough that it should have had some kind of light rail system - especially considering its main station isn't that conveniently sited - and there is no railway/light rail at all serving the fairly well populated area directly East of Brighton town centre.

Just because other counties have even worse services doesn't seem a reason to deny that Sussex services ought to be a lot better.

I'd somewhat agree with this. Milton Keynes is slightly further from London than Horsham yet the train takes about 35-45 minutes whereas it takes nearly an hour to get from Horsham to London. The other annoying thing about the SE is that cross-country routes can be difficult or impossible. When I wanted to go from Horsham to Guildford to do a linear walk along the North Downs Way on a Sunday, the only way to do it was to drive to Dorking and get the North Downs line to Guildford. Even going to Haywards Heath can be slow enough that it is almost quicker to go by bicycle at times. It seems like the UK is trying to become a clone of America with its car-is-king mentality, hence we have some of the most congested roads in Europe, London is one of the most congested cities in the world, and the public transport network is suffering from decades of trying to get away with doing the bare minimum to keep it running*.

*This is because we have a lot of public services that need investment and there isn't the money to go around, the question of why there isn't the money to go around despite having a very high tax burden is a topic of discussion for another day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd somewhat agree with this. Milton Keynes is slightly further from London than Horsham yet the train takes about 35-45 minutes whereas it takes nearly an hour to get from Horsham to London.

MK is a bit skewed because it's on the WCML. See also Peterborough/Stevenage, Reading and Bedford which have fast journeys to London due to being on 125mph mainlines.

I don't think it would ever be justified to get the Southern up to a 125mph overhead powered railway, and the cost of doing so would dwarf the savings by closing the Heart of Wales line or the bottom end* of the Conwy Valley. The lines south of London are more about connectivity and capacity, and to some extent that longer journey is offset by their termini being nearer the City anyway.

* I think closing all of it would be hard to justify given the touristy nature of Betws. Indeed I do see a fairly strong case to close south of Betws because it would allow the Betws part to have a more frequent service, and have wondered if a French style timetable might be worth a go with only a couple of round trips over the full line for those who really want to tick it off and a bus connection for the rest.

*This is because we have a lot of public services that need investment and there isn't the money to go around, the question of why there isn't the money to go around despite having a very high tax burden is a topic of discussion for another day.

Deep discussion would be one for General, but I think it's worth saying in this specific context that the tax burden is generally measured by percentage of GDP but the cost of public services is not measured in that way. You don't get a cheaper railway because your GDP is lower. You might if wages are lower, but that doesn't apply to the UK. Thus, taxation can easily both be inadequate (in terms of what needs to be spent) and excessive (in terms of per unit GDP) at the same time, and arguably that is the case.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps you could identify the corridors of travel which you think are wholly inadequately served, rather than sticking to the rather broad generalisation so that people can't start picking holes in it?

I lived in East Sussex for 20 years and the only corridor that I think is 'wholly inadequate' for Sussex is Tunbridge Wells-Brighton via Uckfield and Lewes. Funnily enough, that's a line I've supported reopening since I've been interested in rail! Hailsham and Steyning also arguably justify a rail connection but would not justify their own through routes necessarily.

I would agree. Even ignoring the most obvious gaps (Three Bridges - East Grinstead, and Brighton-Uckfield Tunbridge Wells), the service on many of the existing lines seems inadequate. Away from the main Brighton-London line, travel times tend to be very slow because just about everything, even longish-distance services like Brighton-Southampton, runs as stoppers or stoppers-omitting-just-a-few stations. Hastings-Brighton has only 1tph which, with its long diversion to Eastbourne, takes over an hour. Lots of large towns (Horsham, Hastings, Eastbourne, Worthing) have journey times to London that are far longer than you'd expect given the distance to London and how big the towns are. Bexhill has no London services at all. Brighton is surely large enough that it should have had some kind of light rail system - especially considering its main station isn't that conveniently sited - and there is no railway/light rail at all serving the fairly well populated area directly East of Brighton town centre.

Just because other counties have even worse services doesn't seem a reason to deny that Sussex services ought to be a lot better.

The main ones are:

Tunbridge Wells - Crowborough - Uckfield - Brighton

Hailsham and Heathfield

Steyning and Henfield.

These are major gaps for an area of the South East commuter belt.

 

[Mark J]

I'd somewhat agree with this. Milton Keynes is slightly further from London than Horsham yet the train takes about 35-45 minutes whereas it takes nearly an hour to get from Horsham to London. The other annoying thing about the SE is that cross-country routes can be difficult or impossible. When I wanted to go from Horsham to Guildford to do a linear walk along the North Downs Way on a Sunday, the only way to do it was to drive to Dorking and get the North Downs line to Guildford. Even going to Haywards Heath can be slow enough that it is almost quicker to go by bicycle at times. It seems like the UK is trying to become a clone of America with its car-is-king mentality, hence we have some of the most congested roads in Europe, London is one of the most congested cities in the world, and the public transport network is suffering from decades of trying to get away with doing the bare minimum to keep it running*.

*This is because we have a lot of public services that need investment and there isn't the money to go around, the question of why there isn't the money to go around despite having a very high tax burden is a topic of discussion for another day.

Horsham has the Mole Valley Line which does not run after about 6pm on a Saturday, or at all on a Sunday. With trains terminating at Dorking during these periods.

Then have to go via Crawley, Gatwick and North Downs Line.

I really can't understand why the service isn't all the way to Horsham, at all time when trains are running.

Obviously years ago, there was the Cranleigh Line which was direct to Guildford.

 

[35B]

Horsham has the Mole Valley Line which does not run after about 6pm on a Saturday, or at all on a Sunday. With trains terminating at Dorking during these periods.

Then have to go via Crawley, Gatwick and North Downs Line.

I really can't understand why the service isn't all the way to Horsham, at all time when trains are running.

Obviously years ago, there was the Cranleigh Line which was direct to Guildford.

Because when the Southern Region moved the Arun valley services to run via Gatwick, demand (and signaller shifts before the boxes closed?) meant that Dorking - Horsham wasn't worth serving, and then the service pattern has been set in DfT concrete?

 

[cle]

Tunbridge Wells - Crowborough - Uckfield - Brighton

-> what services would run on this? Obviously there would be London Bridge - Uckfield - Lewes services also, but heading up to Tunbridge Wells, there isn't really anywhere to terminate facing south (Tonbridge?) - or do you just run the Charing Cross-Tunbridge Wells semis on to Lewes/Brighton?

Redhill - > Tonbridge is also massively underutilized.

Arun - Horsham - Epsom equally feels underused as a trunk route.

 

[The Ham]

MK is a bit skewed because it's on the WCML. See also Peterborough/Stevenage, Reading and Bedford which have fast journeys to London due to being on 125mph mainlines.

I don't think it would ever be justified to get the Southern up to a 125mph overhead powered railway, and the cost of doing so would dwarf the savings by closing the Heart of Wales line or the bottom end* of the Conwy Valley. The lines south of London are more about connectivity and capacity, and to some extent that longer journey is offset by their termini being nearer the City anyway.

* I think closing all of it would be hard to justify given the touristy nature of Betws. Indeed I do see a fairly strong case to close south of Betws because it would allow the Betws part to have a more frequent service, and have wondered if a French style timetable might be worth a go with only a couple of round trips over the full line for those who really want to tick it off and a bus connection for the rest.



Deep discussion would be one for General, but I think it's worth saying in this specific context that the tax burden is generally measured by percentage of GDP but the cost of public services is not measured in that way. You don't get a cheaper railway because your GDP is lower. You might if wages are lower, but that doesn't apply to the UK. Thus, taxation can easily both be inadequate (in terms of what needs to be spent) and excessive (in terms of per unit GDP) at the same time, and arguably that is the case.

The thing with the railways (and transport in general) the easier it is to get about the more likely that there'll be growth.

Road congestion, is a major drain on GDP, just implanting Operation Stack impacts the economy by £1.45 million a day.

Could we use money differently, probably. However the issue is that it's not easy to move the money to be spent elsewhere.

Likewise there's likely to be unintended consequences. As I highlight earlier, rural parking could be an issue, the drop in tourists to the area could be quite noticeable (the ability to walk or cycle between two stations is very desirable).

 

[Bald Rick]

Bexhill has no London services at all.

*Checks departure board right now…*

 

[al78]

Because when the Southern Region moved the Arun valley services to run via Gatwick, demand (and signaller shifts before the boxes closed?) meant that Dorking - Horsham wasn't worth serving, and then the service pattern has been set in DfT concrete?

The services that came from Portsmouth/Bognor used to go up the Mole valley line? Interesting, I didn't know that.

 

[Bald Rick]

The services that came from Portsmouth/Bognor used to go up the Mole valley line? Interesting, I didn't know that.

Changed in 1977 IIRC

 

[yorksrob]

Tunbridge Wells - Crowborough - Uckfield - Brighton

-> what services would run on this? Obviously there would be London Bridge - Uckfield - Lewes services also, but heading up to Tunbridge Wells, there isn't really anywhere to terminate facing south (Tonbridge?) - or do you just run the Charing Cross-Tunbridge Wells semis on to Lewes/Brighton?

Redhill - > Tonbridge is also massively underutilized.

Arun - Horsham - Epsom equally feels underused as a trunk route.

The up loop at Tonbridge would be the most likely, I imagine.