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

[GlitterUnicorn]

The Swiss seem to manage to avoid that question, while having criteria based on what settlements of different population levels should have.

None of the precedent from Switzerland appears to be comparable. They've closed stations on some lines, but none of the lines are comparable to the FNL.

Setting a criteria doesn't avoid the question though. Historically in the UK we have never taken the position that populations of certain sizes do or do not deserve transport links. There are obvious inequalities there.

That’s not the question being asked, though.

The question being asked is, “we need a public tranpsort offer to rural places “x”, “y”, and ”z”, what is the best way of doing so that balances effectiveness and efficiency?”

It would be folly to assume that the railway will always be the correct answer to that question, even where one already exists.

I don't think that a good assessment of the situation would recommend removing it, as there are some clear benefits. But in principle I agree, it does not have to be the way things are done. But, I think it's hard to ignore the fact that it does exist, and that if it's gone, it's unlikely to come back.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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

Correct. And I think almost any professional economist will tell you that road pricing is, in economic terms, a very good idea (obviously, the politics are more difficult)

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.

That's irrelevant. You're (correctly) pointing out that people apply value to their time. But the point is, in order to make economically efficient decisions people also need to take into account the external costs to everyone else: The pollution and increased energy use, for example. People will not take that into account if you don't charge them for it.

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

If more people choose to commute longer distances because you've made trains free, then you'll probably need to provide more trains to carry them. That's what will use the extra energy.

 

[daodao]

There is a focus in this thread on discussing redundancy of the Far North and Stranraer lines. However, they do provide rail services to corners of Scotland with at least a moderate population.

By contrast, the Dingwall to Kyle of Lochalsh line and West Highland Extension line (Fort William to Mallaig) run through empty countryside to tiny ports that no longer have significant roles. The principal ports for the Outer Hebrides are now Oban, Ullapool and Uig (on Skye). While Mallaig is still used for some services to Lochboisdale (South Uist), they could easily be concentrated on Oban, which is much nearer to the Central Belt.

Uig and Skye itself are now directly accessible by road following the opening of the Skye Bridge, with regular direct coach services to Glasgow (via Fort William) and Inverness.

These 2 lines no longer carry freight and are unlikely ever to do so again. They do not appear to have any potential strategic value and it is difficult to see any good case for their retention.

 

[The Ham]

Correct. And I think almost any professional economist will tell you that road pricing is, in economic terms, a very good idea (obviously, the politics are more difficult)

It's also the fact that to change for using the roads (more than the average 7.5p per mile in fuel duty or a flat rate from VED) would cost a lot of money to setup and run.

That's irrelevant. You're (correctly) pointing out that people apply value to their time. But the point is, in order to make economically efficient decisions people also need to take into account the external costs to everyone else: The pollution and increased energy use, for example. People will not take that into account if you don't charge them for it.

Indeed, but the increase in energy (at a national level) may actually be negative.

Any vehicle using a battery (rather than directly connected to the grid) is less effective. Add to that the fact that trains are more effective than road based transport and you'd likely see energy usage fall.

If more people choose to commute longer distances because you've made trains free, then you'll probably need to provide more trains to carry them. That's what will use the extra energy.

However, to get to the point where more trains are needed, there's a fairly good chance that people would have swapped away from other modes of travel and so the energy savings from that (especially if people switch from flying) would offset the extra energy used by the railways.

Anyway it's interesting that, having demonstrated that the cost of free public transport actually isn't that much, the affordability of doing it isn't something which is being used as an argument against it.

 

[InkyScrolls]

There is a focus in this thread on discussing redundancy of the Far North and Stranraer lines. However, they do provide rail services to corners of Scotland with at least a moderate population.

By contrast, the Dingwall to Kyle of Lochalsh line and West Highland Extension line (Fort William to Mallaig) lines run through empty countryside to tiny ports that no longer have significant roles. The principal ports for the Outer Hebrides are now Oban, Ullapool and Uig (on Skye). While Mallaig is still used for some services to Lochboisdale (South Uist), they could easily be concentrated on Oban, which is much nearer to the Central Belt.

Uig and Skye itself are now directly accessible by road following the opening of the Skye Bridge, with regular direct coach services to Glasgow (via Fort William) and Inverness.

These 2 lines no longer carry freight and are unlikely ever to do so again. They do not appear to have any potential strategic value and it is difficult to see any good case for their retention.

I think you're missing how busy the WHL gets; it's a draw for the local economy more than a mode of transport. The Road to Kyle less so.

 

[Indigo Soup]

The same applies on a lot of the rail network too.

Most trains that have toilets have two toilets, which makes all the difference. It's a matter of fact that I do know people who'll travel by train, but not by coach, for that reason.

While Mallaig is still used for some services to Lochboisdale (South Uist), they could easily be concentrated on Oban, which is much nearer to the Central Belt.

The Lochboisdale route was relatively recently moved to Mallaig, largely in response to the preferences of the islanders. The cruise up the Sound of Mull is scenic, but driving to Mallaig is far quicker.

And if you think you're going to get the islanders to leave their cars at Lochboisdale, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a focus in this thread on discussing redundancy of the Far North and Stranraer lines. However, they do provide rail services to corners of Scotland with at least a moderate population.

By contrast, the Dingwall to Kyle of Lochalsh line and West Highland Extension line (Fort William to Mallaig) lines run through empty countryside to tiny ports that no longer have significant roles. The principal ports for the Outer Hebrides are now Oban, Ullapool and Uig (on Skye). While Mallaig is still used for some services to Lochboisdale (South Uist), they could easily be concentrated on Oban, which is much nearer to the Central Belt.

Uig and Skye itself are now directly accessible by road following the opening of the Skye Bridge, with regular direct coach services to Glasgow (via Fort William) and Inverness.

These 2 lines no longer carry freight and are unlikely ever to do so again. They do not appear to have any potential strategic value and it is difficult to see any good case for their retention.

Kyle is well used by tourists. In a sensible integrated network one would change to a bus/coach for Skye there rather than duplicating it.

The West Highland Extension probably costs very little to retain, though if there was a major collapse or similar it would be hard to justify doing the work to repair it.

 

[Mikey C]

Most trains that have toilets have two toilets, which makes all the difference. It's a matter of fact that I do know people who'll travel by train, but not by coach, for that reason.

Across London vast numbers of trains have no toilets at all. The Underground of course, plus also the Elizabeth Line, the Overground 378s and 710s, the DLR and (ignoring the soon to be replace 455s and to be upgraded 707s) some commuter stock like the 376s and 717s.

I know of people with conditions that mean when they need to go, they need to go now, who can't travel by coach. The risk of the one toilet provided being occupied or in an unusable condition is too high.

For some of the people advocating such things, that's an entirely acceptable conclusion. Those who choose to live in awkward places ought to be punished with high prices until they give up and move to the cities, leaving the countryside as a playground for the rich.

Not that they'd ever say such a thing of course.

A lot of people WILL move out of remote areas as they become older and more vulnerable. it's not just public transport, but also the more regular need for hospitals and GP services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For some of the people advocating such things, that's an entirely acceptable conclusion. Those who choose to live in awkward places ought to be punished with high prices until they give up and move to the cities, leaving the countryside as a playground for the rich.

I don't think you need to do that, but I do think it's reasonable to say that if you live in a very remote place without significant tourist demand you should expect to have to provide for your own transport by owning a car or paying for taxis. If you don't wish to do either it's sensible to move to somewhere less rural, or somewhere rural that gets decent public transport by virtue of being on the main route between two bigger places.

This is the exact sort of place where the car is the most sensible mode of transport. Running an ageing diesel bus into town a few times a day is more polluting and disproportionately expensive.

If of course you wish to go into a big city, parking that car on the fringes and taking public transport in is the right thing to do. And in a lot of places where well-run this is quite popular, e.g. the Oxford park and ride.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's also the fact that to change for using the roads (more than the average 7.5p per mile in fuel duty or a flat rate from VED) would cost a lot of money to setup and run.

I think you're trying to make excuses now It wouldn't cost that much compared to the revenue. To some approximation, all you'd need to do is allow charging authorities access to the information that I believe modern cars already record concerning where they are (and there would be beneficial side effects too: For example, you'd likely see a massive reduction in levels of crime that involve motor vehicles, because the police would immediately be able to tell which vehicles were involved in the crime).

However, to get to the point where more trains are needed, there's a fairly good chance that people would have swapped away from other modes of travel and so the energy savings from that (especially if people switch from flying) would offset the extra energy used by the railways.

One of the reasons so many people drive is that motorists aren't charged for the external costs of driving: Society, including all the non-motorists, pay indirectly for those - and that distorts economic decision-making and resource allocation in favour of cars. Your 'solution' to this distortion appears to be to add a further market distortion by having rail users also not charged for any of the external costs of running the railways. Have you considered that a better solution would be for all transport users (motorists and rail passengers) to be correctly charged for the resources they use? I imagine that if we did that, we'd see a major shift towards public transport (and walking/cycling) anyway. (Which - trying to get this thread back on topic - may well result in an increase of usage of rural rail routes, so we wouldn't be discussing closing them)

Anyway it's interesting that, having demonstrated that the cost of free public transport actually isn't that much, the affordability of doing it isn't something which is being used as an argument against it.

Err, no. Rail passenger revenue from fares is about £10 Bn/year. Bus passenger revenue adds £3 Bn/year. By comparison, entire DfT's entire spending is £44 Bn/year (https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/department-for-transport-overview-2023-24.pdf) so if you abolished rail fares, you'd have to increase the DfT's budget by nearly 25% just to stand still in transport provision. That is not affordable!

The only reason I haven't brought that up is that I chose to focus on the economic principles of why free public transport is an awful idea. And there's a limit to how much I want to write in my posts!

 

[zwk500]

Across London vast numbers of trains have no toilets at all. The Underground of course, plus also the Elizabeth Line, the Overground 378s and 710s, the DLR and (ignoring the soon to be replace 455s and to be upgraded 707s) some commuter stock like the 376s and 717s.

In London the journey times, frequencies, and opportunities to interrupt your journey are not really comparable to a long, windy, slow rural line.

 

[stevieinselby]

While I know the likes of Charlie Hulme (still an excellent website he has!) are vehement anti-road campaigners, nothing prevents non-drivers from using buses.

I suspect the main things will be lower convenience and lower comfort. If those aspects are addressed then there's no problem.

[buses to Whitby] I wonder how much that might change if the buses were in the journey planner and rail fares system?

It's bizarre. I'm sure the lack of integration – in terms of journey planning, fares and connections – plays a big part.

As well as people making onward connections by train, people travelling with bikes or large luggage, and people who can't go an hour without needing the loo, I have now thought of another tangible reason for people using the train to travel from Middlesbrough to Whitby (and from past experience of using those trains, it's a big factor for a lot of passengers), and that's that it is legal to drink alcohol on a train but not on a bus

Questioning whether rural places deserve public transport is risky, because when you admit that loss making, lightly used services might not make sense, you come close to admitting to yourself that in the 21st century, subsidised rural communities in very isolated locations might not make sense either. This is a bit of an existential question.

We already make that judgement call for thousands upon thousands of small communities up and down the country, it's nothing new. There are any number of hamlets and villages that have no public transport at all beyond school buses, let alone any kind of usable public transport that would enable people to rely on it and live there without a car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As well as people making onward connections by train, people travelling with bikes or large luggage, and people who can't go an hour without needing the loo, I have now thought of another tangible reason for people using the train to travel from Middlesbrough to Whitby (and from past experience of using those trains, it's a big factor for a lot of passengers), and that's that it is legal to drink alcohol on a train but not on a bus

This isn't true but is a common misconception. In the UK, drinking alcohol in road vehicles is not illegal unless you're the driver, and even then it's technically no more illegal than a can of Coke unless you're over the limit as a result. I seem to recall that in the US (or at least in some states) having open alcohol containers in a road vehicle is illegal, which might be where this misconception comes from.

However, it is the policy of just about every single bus/coach operator that alcohol not be consumed, and TfL has it as a Byelaw. So your point does stand in a way.

 

[stevieinselby]

This isn't true but is a common misconception. In the UK, drinking alcohol in road vehicles is not illegal unless you're the driver, and even then it's technically no more illegal than a can of Coke unless you're over the limit as a result. I seem to recall that in the US (or at least in some states) having open alcohol containers in a road vehicle is illegal, which might be where this misconception comes from.

However, it is the policy of just about every single bus/coach operator that alcohol not be consumed, and TfL has it as a Byelaw. So your point does stand in a way.

OK, I should have phrased it as "allowed" rather than "legal".

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I suspect the main things will be lower convenience and lower comfort. If those aspects are addressed then there's no problem.

Realistically, while you might be able to make buses more comfortable than they currently are, I doubt you'd ever be able to make buses as comfortable as a modern train can be: You're always going to hit the issue that buses drive on bumpy roads, and make sudden turns or brake much faster than trains will. And the smaller size of a bus means its engine - with all the attendant noise and vibrations - has to be much closer to where the passengers are.

As well as people making onward connections by train, people travelling with bikes or large luggage, and people who can't go an hour without needing the loo, I have now thought of another tangible reason for people using the train to travel from Middlesbrough to Whitby (and from past experience of using those trains, it's a big factor for a lot of passengers), and that's that it is legal to drink alcohol on a train but not on a bus

And - to the extent that's true (noting @Bletchleyite's clarification), maybe it's time trains followed buses there. People drinking alcohol can really ruin journeys for those who don't drink/aren't drinking. Aside from the anti-social behaviour that often accompanies alcohol consumption, a lot of alcohol (especially beers etc.) smells absolutely awful to a non-drinker. And that smell can really travel in a rail carriage. Really not something that should be there if you want people to feel welcome and comfortable on trains.

 

[stevieinselby]

Realistically, while you might be able to make buses more comfortable than they currently are, I doubt you'd ever be able to make buses as comfortable as a modern train can be: You're always going to hit the issue that buses drive on bumpy roads, and make sudden turns or brake much faster than trains will. And the smaller size of a bus means its engine - with all the attendant noise and vibrations - has to be much closer to where the passengers are.

If you compare a modern high-spec double-decker (such as Transdev use on Coastliner or The 36, or East Yorkshire use on the Eastrider), I would say they are more comfortable than quite a few trains ... not every line will have modern trains! And I would take one of those buses over a 150 or 155 any day of the week, and probably over a 156. Better legroom, more comfortable seats, further removed from the engine, no draft coming from the open doors at every stop, all seats facing forwards.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And - to the extent that's true (noting @Bletchleyite's clarification), maybe it's time trains followed buses there. People drinking alcohol can really ruin journeys for those who don't drink/aren't drinking. Aside from the anti-social behaviour that often accompanies alcohol consumption, a lot of alcohol (especially beers etc.) smells absolutely awful to a non-drinker. And that smell can really travel in a rail carriage. Really not something that should be there if you want people to feel welcome and comfortable on trains.

Aside from specific problem trains I can't see that happening as standard. ScotRail, which did introduce a ban, is removing it as of a date in June.

 

[yorksrob]

It's bizarre. I'm sure the lack of integration – in terms of journey planning, fares and connections – plays a big part.

As well as people making onward connections by train, people travelling with bikes or large luggage, and people who can't go an hour without needing the loo, I have now thought of another tangible reason for people using the train to travel from Middlesbrough to Whitby (and from past experience of using those trains, it's a big factor for a lot of passengers), and that's that it is legal to drink alcohol on a train but not on a bus

Out of interest, what was your motivation for taking the delightful Whitby line over the bus

 

[stevieinselby]

Out of interest, what was your motivation for taking the delightful Whitby line over the bus

On one occasion, I was taking my bike so that I could ride the cinder track from Whitby to Scarborough – I wouldn't have used the train for an end-to-end journey otherwise – and on the other times I was travelling to/from an intermediate station to go walking on the moors

 

[yorksrob]

On one occasion, I was taking my bike so that I could ride the cinder track from Whitby to Scarborough – I wouldn't have used the train for an end-to-end journey otherwise – and on the other times I was travelling to/from an intermediate station to go walking on the moors

A very useful transport asset, you will agree in that case !

I must admit, a half-decent interval service would make the route a lot more useful for exploring the surrounding countryside.

 

[lachlan]

If you compare a modern high-spec double-decker (such as Transdev use on Coastliner or The 36, or East Yorkshire use on the Eastrider), I would say they are more comfortable than quite a few trains ... not every line will have modern trains! And I would take one of those buses over a 150 or 155 any day of the week, and probably over a 156. Better legroom, more comfortable seats, further removed from the engine, no draft coming from the open doors at every stop, all seats facing forwards.

The interior specification of a coach vs a train is a moot point as you get good and bad examples of both. Both trains and coaches can be swapped out or refurbished to improve comfort after all.

However on a train if someone is being annoying or smelly or something like that I can move away or to the next carriage. There's just not as much room to move around in on a coach, and the toilet is always going to be cramped.

Not sure Eastrider coaches are a good standard for quality- I remember my bus feeling cramped and roasting hot as bus constantly stopped and the air conditioning cut out every time we did as the engine turned off!

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

We already make that judgement call for thousands upon thousands of small communities up and down the country, it's nothing new. There are any number of hamlets and villages that have no public transport at all beyond school buses, let alone any kind of usable public transport that would enable people to rely on it and live there without a car.

It’s not really the same judgement. There are vanishingly few places in the UK as geographically isolated as the far north of Scotland. Other than offshore islands, I’m not sure anywhere else is that isolated.

 

[DJ_K666]

I do think that in the forthcoming railways bill the government should give its self power to override all the old railway acts so stations can be closed. There shouldn't be any true parliamentary services. The stations that appear on annual least used stations with less than a passenger a week and those are probably enthusiasts should just be shut.
On the other hand we should be opening more stations in towns that don't have them.

I definitely think if you're going to go down that route then there should also be an easier reopening mechanism too.
If a line has to shut, fair enough. Leave the act of Parliament that allowed it to be built in place, leave the boarded up station buildings (if any) standing. If traffic or development that would benefit reappears then pull off the boards and clear the track. Get drivers route trained and trains running again.
This is the attitude that ought to have prevailed in the 60s. Sure, have your Beeching plan, have your freedom the car offers. Great! But never make it irreversible or excessively difficult.

Too often the term 'Closure' in the 60s and 70s meant 'Total Irreversible Destruction' instead of just stopping running of trains and leaving things in place, like in France. I think sending in bulldozers was the biggest mistake back in the day, as once the formation is destroyed it is lost unless unnecessarily huge sums of money can be invested.

The interior specification of a coach vs a train is a moot point as you get good and bad examples of both. Both trains and coaches can be swapped out or refurbished to improve comfort after all.

However on a train if someone is being annoying or smelly or something like that I can move away or to the next carriage. There's just not as much room to move around in on a coach, and the toilet is always going to be cramped.

Not sure Eastrider coaches are a good standard for quality- I remember my bus feeling cramped and roasting hot as bus constantly stopped and the air conditioning cut out every time we did as the engine turned off!

Personally, as a bus driver the thought of getting on one for a longer distance when I'm not being paid to do so fills me with a kind of 'Must I do this?' feeling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I definitely think if you're going to go down that route then there should also be an easier reopening mechanism too.
If a line has to shut, fair enough. Leave the act of Parliament that allowed it to be built in place, leave the boarded up station buildings (if any) standing. If traffic or development thatceould benefit reappears then pull off the boards and clear the track. Get drivers route trained and trains running again.
This is the attitude that ought to have prevailed in the 60s. Sure, have your Beeching plan, have your freedom the car offers. Great! But never make it irreversible or excessively difficult.

It is rather notable that getting the first phase of East West Rail going has been a lot easier and quicker by virtue of that approach having been followed - even though the formation has been near enough totally renewed, it still being a railway, albeit one in poor condition, has made things a whole lot easier.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I don't think you need to do that, but I do think it's reasonable to say that if you live in a very remote place without significant tourist demand you should expect to have to provide for your own transport by owning a car or paying for taxis. If you don't wish to do either it's sensible to move to somewhere less rural, or somewhere rural that gets decent public transport by virtue of being on the main route between two bigger places.

This is the exact sort of place where the car is the most sensible mode of transport. Running an ageing diesel bus into town a few times a day is more polluting and disproportionately expensive.

Socially, this isn’t a particularly good policy for remote areas. You can’t have a community if the only option for those who can’t drive (usually the old and the young) is to leave or rely on others.

 

[DJ_K666]

It is rather notable that getting the first phase of East West Rail going has been a lot easier and quicker by virtue of that approach having been followed - even though the formation has been near enough totally renewed, it still being a railway, albeit one in poor condition, has made things a whole lot easier.

Absolutely. And hopefully it won't be all that long to wait now. I'm looking forward to having a ride out on it.

Plus it's a Crossways line, rather than making Going To London the priority.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Socially, this isn’t a particularly good policy for remote areas. You can’t have a community if the only option for those who can’t drive (usually the old and the young) is to leave or rely on others.

Helping each other is the basis of a community, surely? That is the only viable way to maintain remote communities. If you want urban public services, move to a city.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

Helping each other is the basis of a community, surely? That is the only viable way to maintain remote communities. If you want urban public services, move to a city.

I don’t think expecting a couple of busses a day in each direction to let pensioners get to the next village to shop or visit the bank is expecting “urban public services”….

 

[Bald Rick]

It is rather notable that getting the first phase of East West Rail going has been a lot easier and quicker by virtue of that approach having been followed - even though the formation has been near enough totally renewed, it still being a railway, albeit one in poor condition, has made things a whole lot easier.

It hasn’t made it that much easier, though. In terms of activity required (in development, planning and engineering terms), it has been broadly the same as the Borders line, to pick one examlple. And has cost more in real terms on a per km basis. Although much of the extra cost is down to geography and local economics.

 

[BrianW]

Helping each other is the basis of a community, surely? That is the only viable way to maintain remote communities. If you want urban public services, move to a city.

Settlements come and go, grow, decline and disappear. Roads brought change; railways similarly.
'Community'- the very concept changes- Thatcher 'no such thing as society'? Fishing commmunities, oil rigs ...
Urbanisation, working from home, ...? Canute demonstrated the futility of trying to hold back the tide- och AI?