But these areas are NOT cut off, they are only not reachable
by train. As some 90% of all domestic journeys are
not made by train the number of people inconvenienced is quite small. Most people would never realise that the railway is impassable - and if they did, it wouldn't affect them.
Reopening, or rebuilding, the Lewes-Uckfield link is one of the most studied and analysed rail reopening projects of recent times as can be seen from the list of reports from 2008 on the
East Sussex council’s website.
If I remember rightly the headline cost, in 2008, was I think about £140m for the base case of single track and about £200m with double track and intermediate stations. Obviously with 10 years’ inflation these numbers would be higher now, using the BoE deflator I would guess around £175 million or £250 million respectively.
These are not bank-breaking figures, the problem is that the studies showed very little benefit so it is very doubtful it would even cover its operating costs. So the capital costs don't really come into it, the BCR comes out as poor value for money however the project has been analysed and whatever assumptions about possible benefits have been looked at.
I have no difficulty in accepting that some train services should be subsidised as long as the amount per journey, or per passenger-mile, remains reasonable, but to spend a lot of money to
increase the costs of train operation seems perverse.
Without re-reading the reports in detail, I don’t think the rolling stock costs were included so you would have to add a few million pounds for a couple of trains. I know trains are leased but that is just hiding the capital cost and spreading them over the operating costs.
For some value of 'damage'.
The difference between your point of view and mine is that you tend to see everything from the point of view of 'the railway' and its immediate customers. I try to see the railway as part of the whole and endeavour to understand that it does not exist in a bubble, sealed off from the rest of the country. The railway offers enormous benefits - but these are most apparent when it can offer fast transits on dense corridors as railways are a high cost technology. These costs need dense traffic flows, both passenger and freight, to ensure that the individual fare is acceptable without the wider taxpayer having to fork out to cover the difference between income and expenditure.
For the first time since 1952 the passenger railway now covers all its costs of operation, maintenance and renewal. The Network Grant payable to Network Rail essentially covers the costs of enhancements (electrification, new flyovers and stations, etc.) and the payment of the interest on NR's debt. In this sense it is similar to the grants made by the DfT for road construction.
To make the argument for further re-openings more convincing, the next stage is for the railway to reduce the costs of operation, maintenance and renewal. This does not have to be a huge amount each year, a couple of per cent would do, but it has to be consistent and continuous. If the railway can show that it can be trusted with its finances so the Treasury can plan ahead with more confidence, then money for capital expenditure could be made available more easily.