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

[Harpo]

I can't make sense of your maths there……. If you say 40 return passengers served on a round trip (I don't know how accurate that is but it feels low to me), then that's a £100 subsidy per return journey - which is still extremely high

My simple £1.25m divided by 40 was facetious to say the least. But, like yourself, am still struck by the enormous £subsidy per user.

Hence why I called the line a basket case somewhere earlier upthread.

 

[The Ham]

f you say 40 return passengers served on a round trip (I don't know how accurate that is but it feels low to me), then that's a £100 subsidy per return journey - which is still extremely high, but is a lot less than £30k.

Whilst using the total number of passengers from every station would mean a lot of double counting, there's 142,700 passenger movements on the stations which are solely on the line.

If we assume (and this is never going to be the case) that all those movements are solely between those stations then that the equivalent of 35,675 return tickets.

That's then £35 in subsidy per return ticket. Although as established a wholely inaccurate number.

Chances are if you assume that 30% of movements are "internal" (so reduce the total number of passengers by 15% and then half that total to get the number of return tickets) which would give you a subsidy of £21 per return ticket.

My guess would be that is probably closer to the amount per return ticket.

 

[Killingworth]

My simple £1.25m divided by 40 was facetious to say the least. But, like yourself, am still struck by the enormous £subsidy per user.

Hence why I called the line a basket case somewhere earlier upthread.

Scotrail is the most subsidised TOC. Last year I heard figures quoted by Northern to the effect that their subsidy worked out at an average of 42p per passenger mile travelled. Every route was effectively subsidised with even the best requiring maybe 5-10p per mile and the worst well over £1.

50 years after the period of mass closures it's not unreasonable to look at where those subsidies are going and ask if they're all still appropriate. Emotional extravagance to preserve vestiges of a past age weighed against essential service for today?

 

[JamesT]

Whilst using the total number of passengers from every station would mean a lot of double counting, there's 142,700 passenger movements on the stations which are solely on the line.

If we assume (and this is never going to be the case) that all those movements are solely between those stations then that the equivalent of 35,675 return tickets.

That's then £35 in subsidy per return ticket. Although as established a wholely inaccurate number.

Chances are if you assume that 30% of movements are "internal" (so reduce the total number of passengers by 15% and then half that total to get the number of return tickets) which would give you a subsidy of £21 per return ticket.

My guess would be that is probably closer to the amount per return ticket.

That’s an interesting calculation, however the subsidy mentioned is for additional services. So it’s a valid point to consider that is only spread across the additional passengers gained.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Scotrail is the most subsidised TOC. Last year I heard figures quoted by Northern to the effect that their subsidy worked out at an average of 42p per passenger mile travelled. Every route was effectively subsidised with even the best requiring maybe 5-10p per mile and the worst well over £1.

50 years after the period of mass closures it's not unreasonable to look at where those subsidies are going and ask if they're all still appropriate. Emotional extravagance to preserve vestiges of a past age weighed against essential service for today?

As part of a proper Swiss style integrated transport strategy with defined criteria for who must be served by what? Absolutely. Just closures? No.

Only Wales seems to be sort of headed that way.

 

[Killingworth]

As part of a proper Swiss style integrated transport strategy with defined criteria for who must be served by what? Absolutely. Just closures? No.

Only Wales seems to be sort of headed that way.

That's the danger. Reduction of services making those remaining less attractive so fewer travel with downward spiral to withdrawal of all services. That followed by ripping up the tracks then irrevocably selling off the track bed for development.

Return in 25 years and critical sites for restoration or improvements have been built over for roads, sports centres, supermarkets and the like - and that's not just on rural branch lines.

I'm thinking of a 4 track section into Sheffield from the south, reduced to 2 to save track maintenance costs 50 years ago when stopping services were withdrawn between Sheffield and Derby. A Tesco superstore now blocks the track bed and restricts restoration.

However I look at that meandering route to Stranraer and do struggle to justify retention. At least the Brigg line has potential diversionary capacity.

 

[30907]

The Far North and Kyle lines probably should have gone over to DMU operation a lot earlier than the late 80s. .... A 2 car 101 instead of a class 37 and 5 or 6 mk1s would have saved a lot of money. Was there a good reason why loco hauled trains lasted as long as they did? There must have been more carriages than passengers on some of the trains.

Belated response, but no-one else has, so:
the answer is parcels and mail traffic, and DMUs simply wouldn't have coped (from memory the early Far North had 4 vans and 4 coaches, one of the two portions in the 70s being BCK+RMB, with the late morning return train gaining 2 extra TSOs instead of the vans).
It was an efficient, if traditional, way of operation - and I for one am glad I didn't have to face 4 hours each way in a 101.

 

[yorksrob]

50 years after the period of mass closures it's not unreasonable to look at where those subsidies are going and ask if they're all still appropriate. Emotional extravagance to preserve vestiges of a past age weighed against essential service for today?

It is if it risks a runaway slew of closures. Once the dam is breached, the government will push it too far. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive in the extreme.

 

[weeklycommuter]

50 years after the period of mass closures it's not unreasonable to look at where those subsidies are going and ask if they're all still appropriate. Emotional extravagance to preserve vestiges of a past age weighed against essential service for today?

They will still be appropriate for the people who use the train services and the people who may want to use the train services and therefore for their elected representatives. The mass closures of the 1960s and earlier removed all railway lines of significant length that could have no possible use today.

 

[zwk500]

It is if it risks a runaway slew of closures. Once the dam is breached, the government will push it too far. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive in the extreme.

It can't if the current law is followed.

 

[778]

Belated response, but no-one else has, so:
the answer is parcels and mail traffic, and DMUs simply wouldn't have coped (from memory the early Far North had 4 vans and 4 coaches, one of the two portions in the 70s being BCK+RMB, with the late morning return train gaining 2 extra TSOs instead of the vans).
It was an efficient, if traditional, way of operation - and I for one am glad I didn't have to face 4 hours each way in a 101.

Did the 156s replace the loco hauled trains as soon as the parcels and mail traffic ended? I know 4 hours each way in a 101 might not be very comfortable but you would have got very good views out of the windows.

I first travelled the Kyle line in 1958. Corridor stock with a compartment for my rail enthusiast father and myself. Getting in as many miles as possible in a week was his aim. In the next compartment there was a loud conversation in a language we couldn't understand - Gaelic. Fellow travellers were heading for the Stornaway steamer moored at the end of the Kyle pier. We were able to get a good lunch aboard before our connecting boat from Mallaig arrived and we took that to Portree where it stayed overnight. This was integrated transport that clearly worked, although passenger numbers in August weren't great. We took the boat down to Mallaig the following morning for the West Highland line. No road bridge to Skye, it was a totally different world from today.

Was it still steam hauled in 1958?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What does it matter?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that it doesn't matter if people who need to use peak trains (and would have been willing to pay high fares to get on them too) can't board the trains? Seriously?

You would still have a time insensitive to live within a reasonable journey time. Also, standing on a peak hour bus for 15 minutes isn't too bad, don't so on a train 30 minutes is going to impact your thinking.

I disagree: It will influence people's thinking in ways that would be economically damaging.

In this scenario, living further away carries the benefit to the commuter of a nicer house. It also has two disbenefits: To the commuter of the longer commute and an external disbenefit to everyone else of the increased pollution plus resources used.

Best resource use/economic efficiency is achieved if the commuter chooses the nicer house ONLY if all benefits outweigh all disbenefits. A sensible pricing system for the railways, in which the fare roughly covers the external costs, will achieve that: The commuter will choose the nicer house if she/he feels the niceness outweighs the longer commuting time plus higher fares (which represent the external disbenefits).

On the other hand, if rail travel is free, the commuter will likely choose to travel further if the niceness outweighs the longer commuting time alone, without taking into consideration the external disbenefits. So they may well choose to commute longer even if the total disbenefits outweigh the total benefits.

(And as a side note, that's an example of how providing stuff for free will in general cause economically inefficient decisions that ultimately make us all worse off.)

 

[yorksrob]

The discussion about making fares free is an interesting one. I'm inclined to agree with @DynamicSpirit that abolishing rail fares altogether would lead to unsustainable passenger behaviours in terms of usage.

That aside, it's noticeable that the £2 and £3 bus fare schemes, whilst keeping fares largely "reasonable", in the eyes of most bus users, hasn't led to the buses being unsustainably flooded with passengers.

Whilst that sort of flat fare wouldn't work in the railway scenario, it does suggest that the sky wouldn't fall in, in terms of capacity if we moved away from the "extract as much money as possible from every passenger" yield management approach favoured by successive governments.

 

[The Ham]

Are you seriously trying to suggest that it doesn't matter if people who need to use peak trains (and would have been willing to pay high fares to get on them too) can't board the trains? Seriously?

Let's turn this around, if it's such a great idea, should we do the same thing for road travel?

I'm sure there's quite a few people who would be willing to pay to drive their cars on much quieter roads.

I disagree: It will influence people's thinking in ways that would be economically damaging.

Again, we have free to use roads and the economic costs of congestion (see for example the case of the economic harm which is caused each time Operation Stack is implemented).

In this scenario, living further away carries the benefit to the commuter of a nicer house. It also has two disbenefits: To the commuter of the longer commute and an external disbenefit to everyone else of the increased pollution plus resources used.

There are already quite a few people doing some very long commutes. The fact that there's congestion would impact people's behaviour. However, you only need to see the impact of house prices as you get further from London to see that people do apply a significant value to their time.

As I said, increased population is unlikely to be as impact as you make out:
- if a train is running anyway the extra energy required to be carrying 500 people over 200 people isn't that large
- you wouldn't need many of those extra people to switch from cars (and even fewer from flying) to wipe out those extra energy requirements
- you wouldn't need many people to not buy a car to offset the resources to build an extra coach (in part due to the fact that train is likely to make it 35, whilst cars typically only make it to 17)

Best resource use/economic efficiency is achieved if the commuter chooses the nicer house ONLY if all benefits outweigh all disbenefits. A sensible pricing system for the railways, in which the fare roughly covers the external costs, will achieve that: The commuter will choose the nicer house if she/he feels the niceness outweighs the longer commuting time plus higher fares (which represent the external disbenefits).

Sorry to keep bringing it up, but again the provision of free roads would have a far larger negative impact than free rail.

On the other hand, if rail travel is free, the commuter will likely choose to travel further if the niceness outweighs the longer commuting time alone, without taking into consideration the external disbenefits. So they may well choose to commute longer even if the total disbenefits outweigh the total benefits.

(And as a side note, that's an example of how providing stuff for free will in general cause economically inefficient decisions that ultimately make us all worse off.)

Although charging for stuff also brings about a lot of economic inefficiencies too.

 

[Mikey C]

Drivers don't pay for road use (other a few tiny exceptions) BUT they do pay for the fuel, which is massively taxed, raising an expected £24.3bn in 24/25. Plus VAT on top of the Duty.

Unless you're talking about cyclists of course.

 

[yoyothehobo]

I cant see a programme of railway closures coming through.

But...

If you have these lightly used lines get affected by major failures, akin to Eden Brows on the Settle and Carlisle. I could see long term truncations being done.

Difficult to repair assets with, difficult access and basically no localised work force with which to do it. Its not outside the realms of possibility that a closure could occur.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you have these lightly used lines get affected by major failures, akin to Eden Brows on the Settle and Carlisle. I could see long term truncations being done.

This is how a lot of lines in mainland Europe have been closed - Canfranc is one good example. For instance if the Blaenau tunnel suffered a severe collapse the Conwy Valley would almost certainly be truncated to Betws-y-Coed (and probably be all the more useful for it as you could then get the service to two-hourly with one unit, or even consider adding a suitably located passing loop* and another unit to get it to hourly at which point I think it would become very well used). The bit south of there as far as the tunnel could become a cycleway a la Woodhead, and the Sherpa/Traws bus network adjusted to suit.

See also lopping Stranraer but electrifying to Girvan in return. Though Wales does seem to be the only UK country that is serious about moving to properly integrated bus and rail on a national rather than just urban basis which would potentially allow a combined service that's more useful overall to be provided.

* Tal-y-Cafn would make sense as it's roughly in the middle, and already has two platforms with one presently disused.

 

[A S Leib]

Though Wales does seem to be the only UK country that is serious about moving to properly integrated bus and rail on a national rather than just urban basis

What's the situation in Northern Ireland? I thought that e.g. iLink fares were already integrated.

(Given that Portrush, Dhu Varren and University had 650,000 passengers, around the same as Paignton, in 2018-9 and only needs one unit for an hourly service, and the other lines connect larger cities or Belfast commuter towns, I don't think any lines in NI are at threat of closure.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

What's the situation in Northern Ireland? I thought that e.g. iLink fares were already integrated.

Sorry, should have said Great Britain really - NI domestic is of course all Translink so easier to integrate.

I do find it strange that Scotland isn't moving towards more integration. If you combined the railway, Citylink and CalMac into one operation* you would have something far stronger than its parts.

* in a customer-facing sense.

 

[NCT]

When you get an SPT one-day travelcard you still get an SPT card and a National Rail ticket on separate coupons ...

 

[yorksrob]

I cant see a programme of railway closures coming through.

But...

If you have these lightly used lines get affected by major failures, akin to Eden Brows on the Settle and Carlisle. I could see long term truncations being done.

Difficult to repair assets with, difficult access and basically no localised work force with which to do it. Its not outside the realms of possibility that a closure could occur.

This is the sort of thing that needs to be guarded against - infact NR are making noises in this direction already regarding climate change.

 

[Meerkat]

I think you’re missing the fact that the Far North Line, while loss making to the railways, is functional. It’s used for transport by locals and tourists, and (if only occasionally) for freight. It’s not just a toy train set.

The region the line passes through is one of the remotest in the UK. It’s in effect a subsidy to the region. I agree it should be utilised better, but it is serving a purpose.

The bit the line goes through isn’t that remote - it parallels the main roads (Except for Altnabreac and well…..).
So a coach could do it

 

[Bletchleyite]

When you get an SPT one-day travelcard you still get an SPT card and a National Rail ticket on separate coupons ...

That's shocking.

This is the sort of thing that needs to be guarded against - infact NR are making noises in this direction already regarding climate change.

To be fair there are some places where that will be unavoidable. When (and it is when, it's Government policy) Fairbourne is abandoned to the sea, the Cambrian Coast line past Tywyn may need to be abandoned unless a LOT of money is provided to relocate a fairly long length of it inland or raise it up on stilts. Network Rail is making noises to try to get that funding, though.

 

[lachlan]

The bit the line goes through isn’t that remote - it parallels the main roads (Except for Altnabreac and well…..).
So a coach could do it

A coach could connect the main stops faster than the train. Coaches already do. But coaches could not connect all stops the train does in a single service while being faster.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A coach could connect the main stops faster than the train. Coaches already do. But coaches could not connect all stops the train does in a single service while being faster.

It's questionable as to whether every station on the route justifies any kind of public transport service. It would be difficult to justify for instance having stations at Scotscalder, Forsinard and Altnabreac, but at the same time it's ridiculous that Halkirk doesn't have a station - whoever did the closures of minor stations along there must have been throwing darts at a map. Georgemas probably doesn't need a station nowadays either, and the small cost of a single track curve towards Thurso would probably be justified to speed things up up there without it.

To refer back to the above, this is why the Swiss have it right - they define criteria for what sort of public transport settlements of given sizes should have, and work towards that with both openings and closures of lines and stations. Defined sensibly, such criteria would result in both openings and closures in the UK.

The network shouldn't be frozen in aspic, but equally the network shouldn't stand alone - it should be part of a national* public transport strategy and fully integrated with bus and coach (and ferry where applicable).

* Not necessarily UK wide but devolved, but either way it's needed.

 

[lachlan]

It's questionable as to whether every station on the route justifies any kind of public transport service. It would be difficult to justify for instance having stations at Scotscalder, Forsinard and Altnabreac, but at the same time it's ridiculous that Halkirk doesn't have a station - whoever did the closures of minor stations along there must have been throwing darts at a map. Georgemas probably doesn't need a station nowadays either, and the small cost of a single track curve towards Thurso would probably be justified to speed things up up there without it.

To refer back to the above, this is why the Swiss have it right - they define criteria for what sort of public transport settlements of given sizes should have, and work towards that with both openings and closures of lines and stations. Defined sensibly, such criteria would result in both openings and closures in the UK.

The network shouldn't be frozen in aspic, but equally the network shouldn't stand alone - it should be part of a national* public transport strategy and fully integrated with bus and coach (and ferry where applicable).

* Not necessarily UK wide but devolved, but either way it's needed.

Agreed on most of this, though as a non-driver I've had great days out by train reaching places I otherwise would have no means of getting to. I can't argue in good faith for taking away connectivity from non-drivers or for bustitution, when bus services have been slashed so much already.

You would think though that the Georgemas curve and Halkirk station, while significant upfront cost, would reduce the ongoing subsidy required by encouraging more people to take the train

 

[Technologist]

No. But the absence of charging capabilities in rural areas forces petrol vehicle use and payment of the fuel taxes that EVs avoid in more affluent areas.

The fuel tax ‘subsidy’ map for road is probably the reverse of rail’s subsidy map.

The only people who find lack of charging the countryside is visitors, anyone who actually lives in an area invariably has a fully charged car in the morning due to off road parking and generally doesn't have 200-300 miles of driving to do in that day without heading on to the strategic road network.

The number of people who live right in the middle of a densely populated small village without off road parking a small enough not to write policy around.

 

[eldomtom2]

When (and it is when, it's Government policy) Fairbourne is abandoned to the sea

I'd say it's still "if" until it actually happens when it comes to such a contentious policy as managed retreat, especially as it's decades out in any event.

 

[HSTEd]

No. But the absence of charging capabilities in rural areas forces petrol vehicle use and payment of the fuel taxes that EVs avoid in more affluent areas.

The fuel tax ‘subsidy’ map for road is probably the reverse of rail’s subsidy map.

The most important determinant of cost of EV charging is the availability of off road parking.

Off road parking is rather more normal in rural areas than in heavily urbanised ones, at least in my experience of growing up in a fairly rural area.

 

[Mikey C]

It's questionable as to whether every station on the route justifies any kind of public transport service. It would be difficult to justify for instance having stations at Scotscalder, Forsinard and Altnabreac, but at the same time it's ridiculous that Halkirk doesn't have a station - whoever did the closures of minor stations along there must have been throwing darts at a map. Georgemas probably doesn't need a station nowadays either, and the small cost of a single track curve towards Thurso would probably be justified to speed things up up there without it.

To refer back to the above, this is why the Swiss have it right - they define criteria for what sort of public transport settlements of given sizes should have, and work towards that with both openings and closures of lines and stations. Defined sensibly, such criteria would result in both openings and closures in the UK.

The network shouldn't be frozen in aspic, but equally the network shouldn't stand alone - it should be part of a national* public transport strategy and fully integrated with bus and coach (and ferry where applicable).

* Not necessarily UK wide but devolved, but either way it's needed.

And you wouldn't necessarily want to replicate every railway station on a coach service anyway, as many stations are poorly located. Buses and coaches can stop outside more useful locations, like GP surgeries, shops (and pubs!)