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

[Class15]

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!)

Clearly it won’t fund those two projects, but I agree with your sentiments!

 

[yorksrob]

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!)

Those places already have decent rail links. Why further isolate areas that already have limited public transport !

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?

I'm quite risk averse in these things and while the financial savings of closing these lines are fairly miniscule in the context of transport budgets, the risk of closures becoming politically contemplated is potentially devastating for rail users.

It's not worth it.

 

[BlueLeanie]

2. Stranraer to Ayr

Just get it electrified and improve the frequency and speed of the service.

As for the line North of Dingwall, if an electric coach can run from Inversneckie to Wick, then so can a battery powered train.

 

[InOban]

For Stranraer to Ayr read Stranraer to Girvan. The line south of Girvan serves no useful purpose. It neither serves the ferries or the settlements in between such as Ballantrae Even the RailSail through ticket sold by Scotrail transfers you on to a coach at Girvan,

I believe that there are still occasional nuclear flask trains on the Far North line.

Network Rail have a duty to maintain every line. It's not up to them to question whether the £11.5 million would be better spent elsewhere

 

[yorksrob]

For Stranraer to Ayr read Stranraer to Girvan. The line south of Girvan serves no useful purpose. It neither serves the ferries or the settlements in between such as Ballantrae Even the RailSail through ticket sold by Scotrail transfers you on to a coach at Girvan,

I believe that there are still occasional nuclear flask trains on the Far North line.

Network Rail have a duty to maintain every line. It's not up to them to question whether the £11.5 million would be better spent elsewhere

I've never visited Stranraer myself, however it does appear to be quite a emote settlement in the UK context.

Perhaps the railway could be better timed to serve the population.

I agree that NR are public servants and it's not for them to pick and choose which routes they deign to maintain.

 

[35B]

I've never visited Stranraer myself, however it does appear to be quite a emote settlement in the UK context.

Perhaps the railway could be better timed to serve the population.

I agree that NR are public servants and it's not for them to pick and choose which routes they deign to maintain.

The Stranraer line is an example of where a set of interacting changes over decades have created a stupid situation.

Pre-Beeching, there were two railways to Stranraer. The "Port Road" from Dumfries, and the line from Girvan. Both go through the back end of beyond, with little intermediate local traffic.

Both were put up for closure, and the end decision was to reatin the line from Ayr because it would maintain the connection from Glasgow, and the traffic for the ferry could be diverted (45 miles further) via Ayr.

More recently, the ferries have been moved from Stranraer to Cairnryan and the connecting coaches run from Ayr because it's more direct (15 miles shorter distance than the train to Stranraer), slightly quicker, and can connect with the half hourly Scotrail service from Glasgow, rather than a boat train timetable. The rail service has now largely been curtailed to run to/from Ayr rather than through to Glasgow.

That leaves a 60 mile (40 from Girvan) branch that serves few local communities, runs through challenging country (long stretches at 1:50 - 1:60 in both direction) and delivers limited value to those communities - even back in the 1930s, Dorothy Sayers' "Five Red Herrings" had characters driving cross country rather than relying on making connections by train. Diverting it to Cairnryan would be expensive, even using the trackbed of the "rather lumpy line" of the Cairnryan military railway; serving Cairnryan (pop. 142) and Stranraer (pop. 10.5k) would be challenging.

This isn't about timetabling, but some really fundamental constraints on what you can do in remote country.

I'd be sad to see it close - it's a lovely line (and with a class 56 makes a lovely noise!), but it has much less social value than the Far North.

 

[The Planner]

I agree that NR are public servants and it's not for them to pick and choose which routes they deign to maintain.

Its in NRs gift to spend their funds in a prioritised manner.

 

[35B]

Its in NRs gift to spend their funds in a prioritised manner.

And one of their priorities is ensuring that services can run over the network.

 

[Ploughman]

Isn't there a Spaceport planned for the Far North? Or is it somewhere else?
Would that have any effect on proposals?

 

[yorksrob]

The Stranraer line is an example of where a set of interacting changes over decades have created a stupid situation.

Pre-Beeching, there were two railways to Stranraer. The "Port Road" from Dumfries, and the line from Girvan. Both go through the back end of beyond, with little intermediate local traffic.

Both were put up for closure, and the end decision was to reatin the line from Ayr because it would maintain the connection from Glasgow, and the traffic for the ferry could be diverted (45 miles further) via Ayr.

More recently, the ferries have been moved from Stranraer to Cairnryan and the connecting coaches run from Ayr because it's more direct (15 miles shorter distance than the train to Stranraer), slightly quicker, and can connect with the half hourly Scotrail service from Glasgow, rather than a boat train timetable. The rail service has now largely been curtailed to run to/from Ayr rather than through to Glasgow.

That leaves a 60 mile (40 from Girvan) branch that serves few local communities, runs through challenging country (long stretches at 1:50 - 1:60 in both direction) and delivers limited value to those communities - even back in the 1930s, Dorothy Sayers' "Five Red Herrings" had characters driving cross country rather than relying on making connections by train. Diverting it to Cairnryan would be expensive, even using the trackbed of the "rather lumpy line" of the Cairnryan military railway; serving Cairnryan (pop. 142) and Stranraer (pop. 10.5k) would be challenging.

This isn't about timetabling, but some really fundamental constraints on what you can do in remote country.

I'd be sad to see it close - it's a lovely line (and with a class 56 makes a lovely noise!), but it has much less social value than the Far North.

Stranraer needs and deserves its railway link. But it needs to be timed to support its residents, rather than the departed ferries.

Its in NRs gift to spend their funds in a prioritised manner.

NR's job is to provide the infrastructure deemed necessary to provide the service required by the country. It's not it's place to pick and choose.

 

[The Planner]

And one of their priorities is ensuring that services can run over the network.

It is, but if its a decision of delaying something and running with a TSR vs something else then that is still a decision in NRs gift.

 

[yorksrob]

It is, but if its a decision of delaying something and running with a TSR vs something else then that is still a decision in NRs gift.

Yes, it's absolutely within its remit to prioritise works. It's not its choice to decide which routes it wants to keep.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

It would probably make more sense first to ask why coach travel is quicker and whether that reflects some issue with the railway infrastructure that could be fixed. After all the nature of the technologies is that, all other things being equal, you'd expect rail to be faster.

 

[InOban]

It would probably make more sense first to ask why coach travel is quicker and whether that reflects some issue with the railway infrastructure that could be fixed. After all the nature of the technologies is that, all other things being equal, you'd expect rail to be faster.

It's much quicker by coach between Fort William and Glasgow because the road takes a much shorter route and nothing can be donr about that

The coaches are also more frequent and, since we're stuck with 156s, more comfortable. I can't imagine why any local uses a daytime train unless they need an accessible toilet or live in Glen Spean.

 

[D6130]

It would probably make more sense first to ask why coach travel is quicker and whether that reflects some issue with the railway infrastructure that could be fixed. After all the nature of the technologies is that, all other things being equal, you'd expect rail to be faster.

The answer to that is fairly obvious if you look at a map of the area. Since the opening of the Dornoch bridge in the 1980s, the road route is about 40 miles shorter than the railway, which makes two huge inland curves away from the coast....between Tain and Golspie and between Helmsdale and Wick.

A lot of people - including local MPs, the then Highlands & Islands Development Board and even ScotRail (BR) themselves - campaigned hard for a joint road and rail bridge across the Dornoch Firth....but it fell upon deaf ears in the then - very anti-rail - Conservative government. Had that project come to fruition, a new section of line would have been built from a junction a couple of miles North of Tain, around the golf courses from the North end of the bridge to Dornoch - which would have regained a railway station for the first time since about 1959 - before following the course of the old Dornoch branch line over the causeway to a reinstated junction at The Mound, between Rogart and Golspie.

The existing line between Tain and Lairg would have been retained as a branch - Lairg still had mail and oil traffic at that time - but the section between there and The Mound, including Rogart station, would have closed. Perhaps @waverley47 can remember more about the scheme....I was only a very junior train planner at the time.

 

[Falcon1200]

A lot of people - including local MPs, the then Highlands & Islands Development Board and even ScotRail (BR) themselves - campaigned hard for a joint road and rail bridge across the Dornoch Firth....but it fell upon deaf ears in the then - very anti-rail - Conservative government.

I'm not sure that any Government would have sanctioned the expenditure needed for such a scheme, for a railway which even today can support only 4 trains a day on its northern section. Whereas the Ness bridge in Inverness, which collapsed in 1989 and could have given BR, and the Government, the justification for closing both the Far North and Kyle lines, was instead replaced!

 

[Class 170101]

Isn't there a Spaceport planned for the Far North? Or is it somewhere else?
Would that have any effect on proposals?

SaxaVord on the Shetland Islands, however I imagine most would go by air to get there.

 

[D6130]

I'm not sure that any Government would have sanctioned the expenditure needed for such a scheme, for a railway which even today can support only 4 trains a day on its northern section. Whereas the Ness bridge in Inverness, which collapsed in 1989 and could have given BR, and the Government, the justification for closing both the Far North and Kyle lines, was instead replaced!

Very true....although at the time there was still a substantial freight traffic - consisting mainly of pipes for the North Sea oil industry - at least as far as Invergordon, plus the Dounreay nuclear flasks. It will be interesting to see whether anything comes of the timber train tests undertaken a year or two back. An ideal location for loading such traffic would be a little-used station platform in the middle of the Caithness forests with a name beginning with 'A'. (Oh, wait....that's the subject of a different thread! )

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The answer to that is fairly obvious if you look at a map of the area. Since the opening of the Dornoch bridge in the 1980s, the road route is about 40 miles shorter than the railway, which makes two huge inland curves away from the coast....between Tain and Golspie and between Helmsdale and Wick.

I think that for the Far North line, that's part of the reason. Also probably relevant are the diversion to Thurso, the fact that the train makes 25 stops en route (and on a diesel so probably not the fastest accelerating service) and line speeds (15 minutes or more for the 10 miles Inverness to Beauly for example. You'd think a train could do better than that on a 10-mile non-stop stretch!)

 

[Ploughman]

SaxaVord on the Shetland Islands, however I imagine most would go by air to get there.

I was thinking more of construction materials, vehicle building materials and fuel supply rather than people.

 

[skyetraveller]

I think that for the Far North line, that's part of the reason. Also probably relevant are the diversion to Thurso, the fact that the train makes 25 stops en route (and on a diesel so probably not the fastest accelerating service) and line speeds (15 minutes or more for the 10 miles Inverness to Beauly for example. You'd think a train could do better than that on a 10-mile non-stop stretch!)

You would think so but you have to factor in a slow departure from Inverness station, 5mph across the Caledonian canal swing bridge, the speed restriction over Bunchrew crossing (which interrupts an otherwise nice fast stretch) and sometimes a dead stop in the middle of nowhere (again a fast stretch) to exchange tokens if the long section to Muir of Ord isn't available on departure from Inverness!

 

[bspahh]

I was thinking more of construction materials, vehicle building materials and fuel supply rather than people.

Its 215 miles from the station at Thurso to the Saxavord Spaceport launchpad. I think rail freight will struggle to compete with shipping for construction materials

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You would think so but you have to factor in a slow departure from Inverness station, 5mph across the Caledonian canal swing bridge, the speed restriction over Bunchrew crossing (which interrupts an otherwise nice fast stretch) and sometimes a dead stop in the middle of nowhere (again a fast stretch) to exchange tokens if the long section to Muir of Ord isn't available on departure from Inverness!

Sounds to me like you've just identified some of the issues that need sorting out on the Far North line. (And before anyone protests about 4 trains a day, these are all on the Southern section that sustains a roughly hourly service albeit with a few gaps).

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

I'd argue Heysham to Morecambe simply needs investment: It runs through semi-urban area. Put stations at - say - Westgate, Meldon Road and a Middleton Road Park-and-ride and I'd bet the line would be able to sustain a half-hourly service to Lancaster. The only questionable part of the line is the very end, beyond Middleton Road: It's hard to imagine Heysham Port itself getting many passengers.

The Brigg line on the other hand just needs some trains, because the line does actually connect significant population centres, providing an alternative route from Sheffield to Cleethorpes. I'd bet an hourly Sheffield-Worksop-Retford-Gainsborough-Brigg-Grimsby-Cleethorpes would not be a basket case at all (Or alternatively run from Nottingham, providing a fast Nottingham-Mansfield-Worksop service at that end of the route).

The Far North line - needs investment as discussed earlier in the thread. Similarly, Stranraer needs a station in the town. Those two lines arguably provide an important community link because without them, parts of Scotland would be a very long way from any station at all. And I think the same is true to a slightly lesser extent of the Heart of Wales line. Even though they require significant subsidies, I'd feel the money is probably worth it in those cases. Realistically, if we want all parts of the country to flourish, we probably have to accept that urban areas are going to be subsidising the most rural areas to some extent because lots of parts of normal life (not just railways) can't be economically provided without subsidy to the most rural areas.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

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.

But in those cases, it's simply nonsense to have the coach running alongside the train when the train is much better suited to the long distance travel.

A properly integrated system would recognise that, and have longer distances covered by train, and shorter feeder routes covered by bus or coach, meaning resources could be concentrated on making those run reliably and with sufficient capacity. That doesn't mean the closure of every branch line either, mind you, although again you could do some rationalisation - for example, do Parton and Harrington both need railway stations? Both are close enough to bigger stations - with buses available to do pickups between the existing Harrington and Workington, you could get a lot more people onto the now more economical and quicker train as it isn't stopping as often...

Unfortunately, the country runs on a lot of "we do it this way because we've always done it this way" so things will never change.

 

[brad465]

My issue with coaches are as follows:

1) Do they allow non-folding bikes on board? If not, the railway is the only option, or if a railway was to close in favour of a coach service, non-folding bikes must be allowed on them.
2) Do we even have the drivers for coaches? I doubt the lost railway drivers would go to work as a coach driver, especially as the railway has a driver shortage as it is, so I assume could easily be redeployed, but coach drivers still seem to be hard to come by. I suspect autonomous coaches are a while off as a fix to this too.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

My issue with coaches are as follows:

1) Do they allow non-folding bikes on board? If not, the railway is the only option, or if a railway was to close in favour of a coach service, non-folding bikes must be allowed on them.
2) Do we even have the drivers for coaches? I doubt the lost railway drivers would go to work as a coach driver, especially as the railway has a driver shortage as it is, so I assume could easily be redeployed, but coach drivers still seem to be hard to come by. I suspect autonomous coaches are a while off as a fix to this too.

I can't speak for any current operator policies on bikes, but on the continent it's not uncommon to see bike racks at the front or rear of a PCV, so I don't think that's a problem necessarily.

The big problem with drivers has been the race to the bottom on costs, driving wages down and costs (training, CPC etc) being passed on to drivers causing some part timers to pack in completely. I'd quite happily potter back and forth on rail replacement or private hire, but the odd weekend doing that won't pay for me to do my CPC again, so I can only do not for hire or reward stuff these days!

Temperamentally, I'm not sure train drivers would be suited to coaching either.

 

[HSTEd]

I'd argue Heysham to Morecambe simply needs investment: It runs through semi-urban area. Put stations at - say - Westgate, Meldon Road and a Middleton Road Park-and-ride and I'd bet the line would be able to sustain a half-hourly service to Lancaster. The only questionable part of the line is the very end, beyond Middleton Road: It's hard to imagine Heysham Port itself getting many passengers.

I personally think it is a plausible candidate for a conversion to some sort of automated metro.
Once nuclear flask traffic from Heysham ceases in a handful of years (when the plant closes), then there will be no need for freight capability on the route.
Heysham-Morecambe is just about within the lengths (<~6000m) where a cable hauled system like Luton Airport's is practical.

It would only need one operational staff member and comparatively little maintenance and could run back and forth all day with several stops.

 

[DDB]

I suspect the Far North Line is safe while there is any nuclear waste to ship. I'm against closing lines because once they are gone they are gone forever. I do think it should be easier to close unused stations and also easier (cheaper) to open new ones.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I suspect the Far North Line is safe while there is any nuclear waste to ship.

I was going to mention the Nuclear traffic, but you got there before me!

I was so suprised seeing 68s up at Georgemas Junction, but the guard noticed me paying attention to them and told me about them.
I knew it was gonna be something nuclear because DRS double 68s for just 1 carriage, but didn't know they travelled with armed guards.

If the expenses involved are justifyable to Nuclear Transport Solutions, then it is likely the line will remain.

While I was the only passenger to travel all the way from Dingwall to Wick (and was alone in my carriage most of the time), the trains going the other way in the early morning looked very busy.

 

[brad465]

I personally think it is a plausible candidate for a conversion to some sort of automated metro.
Once nuclear flask traffic from Heysham ceases in a handful of years (when the plant closes), then there will be no need for freight capability on the route.

If Dungeness and Hinkley Point B are anything to go by, nuclear flask trains will still be running for a while after the plant closes, given decommissioning is a long job.