Why do many railway lines in this country run at a loss instead of being replaced by alternative modes?

[tbtc]

Railways aren’t just designed to be profitable. They are a socially necessary form of transportation

Railways were built to be profitable

That was the point - all these Victorian entrepreneurs spent money building all this infrastructure to make money back - not to meet social needs, not as a worthy job creation scheme - it was to generate filthy profit (enthusiasts lionise these nineteenth century blokes for the same things they hate modern private companies for trying to do!)

By the 1960s, as passenger numbers and freight volumes dropped in the face of private motorcars/ motorways/ lorries, the "social" justification was used to try to stop more closures of lightly used lines (although railways had been closed for many years before Beeching was on the scene - he only gave his name to something that was happening much earlier and continued to happen much later - e.g. the Woodhead line in the 1980s is sometimes blamed on him, despite him wanting to keep it open!)

There are always enthusiasts who come up with justifications for keeping lines open - if the "social" argument doesn't work then try the "green" one (and hope that people don't ask too many questions about why a lightly loaded DMU chugging along at a couple of miles to the gallon is "greener" than putting each passenger in a relatively modern car)... if that doesn't work out then you can always try the "regeneration" argument, or if you're really failing then you can always try "diversionary resilience" (though it is a bit of a weak straw to clutch at)

My personal take on it is that capacity is always finite - you have to look at how to use that to benefit the most people. For example, the new ECML timetable will see London - Newcastle increase to three trains per hour, but mean no direct service between places like Retford and Newark. Removing these local links seems negative, but has to be considered in terms of how many additional London - Newcastle journeys you might take off the M1/ A1

You've also got to appreciate that there are other forms of transport that could solve the problems - e.g. a heavy rail line costs a lot to build, heavy rail takes many years to set up (once it's got through all of the public enquiries), heavy rail has high operational costs, heavy rail requires a lot of staff... you could have an express coach service set up in a matter of weeks, but a lot of people seem only to be interested in solving the problem if they can use the big blunt instrument that they've already decided that they want to use

If you want "socially necessary" then we should really set up a site called Dial-A-Ride-Minibus-Forums instead - that's where the socially necessary demands are. But as a country we don't seem too bothered about people unable to reach their nearest town centre without a car - "socially necessary" only ever comes up when people are trying to justify much longer distance journeys

 

[mrd269697]

I agree with you about the local links - railways should be used to connect local places rather than just for long distance travellers. My local TOC has closely spaced stations and most travellers only go a few stops. This is how railways should be used and more rural stations should have a better service.

I base my view on the Conwy valley line. No way that line is profitable, especially the amount of times it shuts due to flooding but it is necessary for those who live on the route and would be disastrous if it were to shut.

 

[nw1]

The problem is that I am not sure Livverpool needs 2tph, and there are a lot of passengers from the NE to Manchester Airport, often with luggage, who prefer through services. As a destination beyond Manchester the Airport carries more passengers. Would a train every 45 mins fast from Manchester to Liverpool be a problem? So many people use phone apps to get the next train time now, so is the 'clockface' timetable as important. If keeping to a clockface then probably 3 to the Airport and one to Liverpool. Also although its my local line I could envisage Scarborough becoming a shuttle, connecting with the ex Hull service at Leeds. Both Malton and Seamer cannot handle anything more than 5 carriages, where as I would envisage 8 on Leeds Manchester, so the service would become every 20 mins between Leeds and Manchester. The recent rolling stock aquisitions are all 5 car, and I dont know how practical reforming would be, so probably pie in the sky, even although I think the resulting service would be more robust and cheaper to run (Fewer but longer trains, = less staff costs)

Re the Airport though, it is relatively unusual - in various European countries, not just the UK - IMX to have InterCity services serve the airport station, unless the airport happens to be on an IC line already (e.g. Paris CDG, Frankfurt, Gatwick - though that's regional rather than IC). A more common pattern is to have a dedicated high-frequency airport shuttle.

One argument could be that running through services to Manchester Airport from long-distance destinations puts constraints on the timetable that would not be there otherwise. The trains presumably have to make conflicting moves when reversing at Piccadilly, for one thing - aside from possibly impacting upon the provision of stopping services towards Leeds. Would it be so bad to have a dedicated every-10-minutes shuttle between Manchester Piccadilly and the Airport? After all, Heathrow has _no_ long distance train services, they don't try to have say Oxford to Paddington trains reverse at Paddington and then extend to Heathrow.

I would agree about destinations such as Scarborough perhaps being better served by a separate train from Leeds or York if platform lengths are a problem here. (Or could they just lock the doors on one unit or divide somewhere?) One Newcastle, one Hull and one somewhere else would make sense, and at the other end, one running to Liverpool with the second Manchester-Liverpool in the hour maybe originating somewhere else like Sheffield? Not sure.

 

[swt_passenger]

I have no intention of reading the entire thread. But is it suggesting rural stations are useless? Railways aren’t just designed to be profitable. They are a socially necessary form of transportation. We need more stations, more lines, not less.

The thread was started by a member who, (based on his accumulated threads so far), seems to want a service something like the Hong Kong Metro in Bournemouth. I think it’s drifted since…

 

[Bald Rick]

I am going to assume that 25% - 30% (seems like a reasonable number based on people watching, but if anyone has any better data feel free to share) of 'main line' journeys originate or start on a branch line or are to or from stations only served by local services so involve a change at a hub station.

As I said in my earlier post where I misinterpreted what you were saying, it depends what you mean by branch line or local services. Using my local example - I would regard the St Albans Abbey Line as a branch line. But I wouldn’t count trains calling at St Albans City as a ‘local service’, even though it is not served by long distance trains. If we are to say that branch lines / local services are those that have relatively light usage, then 25% is way, way too high (by a factor of at least 10)

If 75% of the 25%-30% is lost this equates to a loss of revenue to the main line of 20%.

Not quite, as some of that revenue is attached to the branch line / local service.

For a given level of service that 20% will need to be covered, either reduce the service, subsidise the service or put fares up.

Ah, but if the ‘branch line / local service’ has been stopped, then that is where your cost saving is. Some of those savings can be substantial. Even a simple, short branch line with an hourly service will cost a minimum of a couple of million a year to run, and that doesn’t include any infrastructure costs.

 

[Ianno87]

One argument could be that running through services to Manchester Airport from long-distance destinations puts constraints on the timetable that would not be there otherwise. The trains presumably have to make conflicting moves when reversing at Piccadilly, for one thing - aside from possibly impacting upon the provision of stopping services towards Leeds.

The Ordsall Chord means they no longer have to (except for the Cleethorpes service, currently not operating to the Airport).

Manchester Airport is basically just a glorified set of turnback sidings for the Castlefield corridor.

 

[tbtc]

I base my view on the Conwy valley line. No way that line is profitable, especially the amount of times it shuts due to flooding but it is necessary for those who live on the route and would be disastrous if it were to shut.

You're contradicting yourself though - the people who live on the route clearly do manage to cope without the line for large periods because it tends to regularly be shut for large periods

Re the Airport though, it is relatively unusual - in various European countries, not just the UK - IMX to have InterCity services serve the airport station, unless the airport happens to be on an IC line already (e.g. Paris CDG, Frankfurt, Gatwick - though that's regional rather than IC). A more common pattern is to have a dedicated high-frequency airport shuttle.

One argument could be that running through services to Manchester Airport from long-distance destinations puts constraints on the timetable that would not be there otherwise. The trains presumably have to make conflicting moves when reversing at Piccadilly, for one thing - aside from possibly impacting upon the provision of stopping services towards Leeds. Would it be so bad to have a dedicated every-10-minutes shuttle between Manchester Piccadilly and the Airport? After all, Heathrow has _no_ long distance train services, they don't try to have say Oxford to Paddington trains reverse at Paddington and then extend to Heathrow

Agreed

And I'd guess that Oxford - Heathrow would have more demand than Middlesbrough/ Cleethorpes/ Barrow/ Newcastle - Manchester Airport

But we were stuck with nine trains per hour on the Airport branch (yet gaps of up to seventeen minutes for Airport - Piccadilly journeys, because the nine trains per hour were so bunched), an average load of thirtysomething at the Airport - of which presumably a large number were only going as far as central Manchester) meaning services elsewhere cannot be retimed because everything was stuck to it's fixed path on the Airport branch.

Other routes struggle for reliability because of the conflicting movements that these Airport services require, plus a delay on one line becomes a delay on other lines since the need for the Airport branch to have all these direct services means that a problem in Llandudno means disruption on the Airport branch which has knock on effects over Stockport viaduct, the single track chord at Dore, the flat crossing at Motherwell, the congested eastern throat to Leeds station etc

Tail. Wagging. Dog.

Manchester Airport is basically just a glorified set of turnback sidings for the Castlefield corridor.

I get that argument, but it does effectively take an hour to do the Piccadilly - Airport - Piccadilly round trip, so tying up a number of units to do this (rather than using a siding at Longsight)

 

[MarlowDonkey]

The thread was started by a member who, (based on his accumulated threads so far), seems to want a service something like the Hong Kong Metro in Bournemouth.

It was split from a thread complaining that doors didn't open automatically on British and European trains. When it was pointed out that this meant doors weren't opened for no usage at lightly used stations, he suggested closing them, the stations that is.

 

[BrianW]

That's an argument worth considering in light of changed travel patterns. It might be that one out of four services would be more use as a semi-fast taking in some of these places.

In a way, The British Rail InterCity network has always been a bit of a compromise, taking in market towns as well as major cities (and that has been one of its strengths to my mind).

Railways were built to be profitable

That was the point - all these Victorian entrepreneurs spent money building all this infrastructure to make money back - not to meet social needs, not as a worthy job creation scheme - it was to generate filthy profit (enthusiasts lionise these nineteenth century blokes for the same things they hate modern private companies for trying to do!)

By the 1960s, as passenger numbers and freight volumes dropped in the face of private motorcars/ motorways/ lorries, the "social" justification was used to try to stop more closures of lightly used lines (although railways had been closed for many years before Beeching was on the scene - he only gave his name to something that was happening much earlier and continued to happen much later - e.g. the Woodhead line in the 1980s is sometimes blamed on him, despite him wanting to keep it open!)

There are always enthusiasts who come up with justifications for keeping lines open - if the "social" argument doesn't work then try the "green" one (and hope that people don't ask too many questions about why a lightly loaded DMU chugging along at a couple of miles to the gallon is "greener" than putting each passenger in a relatively modern car)... if that doesn't work out then you can always try the "regeneration" argument, or if you're really failing then you can always try "diversionary resilience" (though it is a bit of a weak straw to clutch at)

My personal take on it is that capacity is always finite - you have to look at how to use that to benefit the most people. For example, the new ECML timetable will see London - Newcastle increase to three trains per hour, but mean no direct service between places like Retford and Newark. Removing these local links seems negative, but has to be considered in terms of how many additional London - Newcastle journeys you might take off the M1/ A1

You've also got to appreciate that there are other forms of transport that could solve the problems - e.g. a heavy rail line costs a lot to build, heavy rail takes many years to set up (once it's got through all of the public enquiries), heavy rail has high operational costs, heavy rail requires a lot of staff... you could have an express coach service set up in a matter of weeks, but a lot of people seem only to be interested in solving the problem if they can use the big blunt instrument that they've already decided that they want to use

If you want "socially necessary" then we should really set up a site called Dial-A-Ride-Minibus-Forums instead - that's where the socially necessary demands are. But as a country we don't seem too bothered about people unable to reach their nearest town centre without a car - "socially necessary" only ever comes up when people are trying to justify much longer distance journeys

These and others eg nickw1 make astute and pertinent observations, ie I agree with them!
Only 'observation' I add at this point is regarding difficulty of connectivity of 1tph services, eg XC
Can't have everything; need to prioritise. Love this Forum and this thread, with its various twists and turns.

 

[6Gman]

As others have mentioned politics plays a big role in it, I know the Heart of Wales line passed through many marginal constituencies which meant neither the Conservatives nor Labour wanted to close it despite it being listed for closure by the Beeching Report.

Don't disagree with the general point, but did the Heart of Wales line actually pass through "many marginal constituencies"?

I did look at the figures a while ago and couldn't find many.

Several unhappy compromises. Relatively large towns like Tuxford, which would probably still have a station were it not to have the misfortune to be on the East Coast Main Line and calls there would delay long distance services. Wantage (Road) is another example. Some, like Ashchurch, have reopened.

Conversely, where there remains a stopping service on a main line, for example the Trent Valley route, or the ECML in Northumberland, or Pewsey, the service is irregular and infrequent as it has to fit between with the long distance services. Look at the very limited service the new station at Reston will get.

And yes, the service to Worcester and Hereford is relatively slow - the IEPs run at barely half the speeds they are capable of on the Cotswold line, and dwell times at intermediate stations are longer than they would be with trains with layouts designed for more frequent stops (such as 165s)

Don't most of the Trent Valley stations have pretty much a clockface hourly service?

I agree with you about the local links - railways should be used to connect local places rather than just for long distance travellers. My local TOC has closely spaced stations and most travellers only go a few stops. This is how railways should be used and more rural stations should have a better service.

I base my view on the Conwy valley line. No way that line is profitable, especially the amount of times it shuts due to flooding but it is necessary for those who live on the route and would be disastrous if it were to shut.

As 6Gman on here I clearly have an interest in the Conwy Valley line but I'm not sure that the comment highlighted is true.

Who on the route could not use a bus alternative? In what sense would closure be "disastrous"?

The last time I used the line there were fewer than ten people on the train.

Amlwch, Denbigh, Ruthin, Bethesda, Llanberis all lost their rail services; they all survived.

 

[swt_passenger]

It was split from a thread complaining that doors didn't open automatically on British and European trains. When it was pointed out that this meant doors weren't opened for no usage at lightly used stations, he suggested closing them, the stations that is.

Another good summary

 

[yorksrob]

These and others eg nickw1 make astute and pertinent observations, ie I agree with them!
Only 'observation' I add at this point is regarding difficulty of connectivity of 1tph services, eg XC
Can't have everything; need to prioritise. Love this Forum and this thread, with its various twists and turns.

Thanks for the quote.

In terms of 1tph connections, they can be a bit of a pain, particularly somewhere like Leeds. At least West Yorkshire PTE has a policy of eventually making most of its stations 2tph, which would help, however obviously these have to fit with the main line services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't most of the Trent Valley stations have pretty much a clockface hourly service?

Yes. Only one that doesn't is Polesworth. It did take 4-tracking to deliver that, though, in 2-track days it was irregular.

As 6Gman on here I clearly have an interest in the Conwy Valley line but I'm not sure that the comment highlighted is true.

Who on the route could not use a bus alternative? In what sense would closure be "disastrous"?

I love the route, but because of the high quality main road it would be easy to replace with a bus - and the timings are near-identical, too. Given the lack of pleasant cycling facilities down there one could even argue that it'd have more benefit converted to a cycleway with an hourly bus service on the main road.

 

[mrd269697]

I say disastrous as someone with a love for the railways - as we all are here, no?

disastrous because it would be the first closure of its kind for a number of years.

would the communities survive? Yeah sure. But I believe communities tend to fair better when connected by rail. Having lost so many branch lines and rural stations over the years, why should we shut any more?

There are no plans to close these lines from governments so why are enthusiasts suggesting such? I realise this is just a discussion thread and we are all entitled to our opinions but it just struck me as odd.

same with the heart of Wales line - though supposedly the idea is this line will have a two hourly service eventually. Which would see a dramatic upturn in usage.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There are no plans to close these lines from governments so why are enthusiasts suggesting such? I realise this is just a discussion thread and we are all entitled to our opinions but it just struck me as odd.

Presumably (and I say this as someone who's made no such suggestions myself and feel somewhat neutral on the matter) because the huge cost of maintaining the Conwy Valley line in particular - given the unusually high level of maintenance that line has required in order to continue a relatively infrequent and lightly used service - is money that, had it been spent elsewhere on the network, could easily have benefitted massively more people/provided far more additional trains/removed far more cars from the roads/etc. than will have happened by spending it on the Conwy Valley line.

 

[yorksrob]

Presumably (and I say this as someone who's made no such suggestions myself and feel somewhat neutral on the matter) because the huge cost of maintaining the Conwy Valley line in particular - given the unusually high level of maintenance that line has required in order to continue a relatively infrequent and lightly used service - is money that, had it been spent elsewhere on the network, could easily have benefitted massively more people/provided far more additional trains/removed far more cars from the roads/etc. than will have happened by spending it on the Conwy Valley line.

Would these new trains have actually materialised ? Of course not, so better to support the line that exists.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Would these new trains have actually materialised ? Of course not, so better to support the line that exists.

Obviously that's impossible to say since it depends on the hypothetical question of precisely *how* the money would have been spent, if not spent on the Conwy Valley line. However - presumably in this hypothetical scenario, you've released one unit (the one that was running on Conwy Valley) which is therefore available for use elsewhere - and I don't think there's a shortage of routes where that unit would be likely to do more miles/carry more passengers. And my guess (someone who knows the figures would have to confirm) is that the amount that's been spent on the line over the last couple of years would have easily paid for another train to added to some existing train order.

I do btw also see the point that if a line is open, there's some advantage in keeping it open so that it can be developed in the future without having the huge expense of a re-opening process. The balance between that and the issue that Conwy Valley looks like a pretty poor use of money is the reason why I'm sitting on the fence on this issue.

 

[6Gman]

I say disastrous as someone with a love for the railways - as we all are here, no?

disastrous because it would be the first closure of its kind for a number of years.

would the communities survive? Yeah sure. But I believe communities tend to fair better when connected by rail. Having lost so many branch lines and rural stations over the years, why should we shut any more?

There are no plans to close these lines from governments so why are enthusiasts suggesting such? I realise this is just a discussion thread and we are all entitled to our opinions but it just struck me as odd.

same with the heart of Wales line - though supposedly the idea is this line will have a two hourly service eventually. Which would see a dramatic upturn in usage.

So, no real logical reasons.

Just sentiment and a "railways mustn't close" attitude?

Yes, I like railways (I "love" my wife; don't extend that to inanimate concepts such as "the railways"). First closure in "a number of years" - so what? Would Llanrwst, Betws and Blaenau fare better if the railway remained? Probably, but to a degree that would justify the cost?

Why should we shut any more (branch lines) ? Because, if it means the funding can be better used elsewhere and an adequate replacement is in place or will be provided then why not?

I'm not suggesting closure. I was challenging the suggestion that the Conwy Valley line was essential to locals. It's not.*


* Historical note. When the Beeching Report was published and there were concerns the line might close a public meeting was held in Llanrwst. My father, we lived in Deganwy at the time, went to the meeting by train and returned by train. At the meeting speakers from across the area got up and said what a vital service it was and that closure would be awful. My father walked back to the station and was the only passenger for that service! If that was the case in the early 1960s it would be more so today.

I base my view on the Conwy valley line. No way that line is profitable, especially the amount of times it shuts due to flooding but it is necessary for those who live on the route and would be disastrous if it were to shut.

This is the post to which I was responding. In my view "necessary" and "disastrous" are overstating the case.

 

[The Ham]

A good question to which there are good answers. First, large expenditure on local roads by the local authority is often financed by a grant from Central Government. Second, local authorities have their own revenue stream from motorists in the form of parking charges and fines. I have to pay to park outside my house. Third, if a house has its own garage, the council tax on that property will be higher. Fourth, in London we have what is fraudulently called a congestion charge.

Incidentally, many local authorities, particularly in London, spend very little on roads for the benefit of motorists. They spend a lot on cycle lanes and low traffic schemes but neglect fundamentals such as road surfaces and drains.

As I've highlighted before there's a fair amount spent by or for developers in highway improvements. Including routes through new developments to act a relief roads.

 

[30907]

I've often wondered why the departure boards at Peterborough show buses to Kings Lynn and East Dereham. I assume these were bus services introduced when the M&GNJR network was closed. How have these bus links survived for so long as part of the "railway" timetable?

I am not sure your assumption is correct. Certainly they haven't appeared in the timetable for that long - I would hazard a guess at 1980ish - I certainly recall Corby-Peterborough being in the GBTT in 1982 when I used it!

 

[The Ham]

The number of people travelling from your local station to Paris, by train, each year is....... you and ? Anyone else in your village would drive or hire a taxi or get a lift to a local airport and go by plane. If your local service wasn't there, you would do the same to Hull or York Station, because you a rail enthusiast.

Most villages in the UK do not have rail service, so is spending millions a year subsidising your local rail service good value for money, compared to a small amount of through long distance tickets that may be at risk ?

Whilst most villages don't have a rail service, there are many which do.

The point, that something like 15% of the total population lives in a rural area (outside a settlement or a settlement with a population of up to 10,000), probably a lot of them can walk (2km) to a rail station as could those within a reasonable cycling distance (5km). The numbers with no access to a rail station as a percentage of the overall population is likely to be sub 10%.

Now whilst there's some truly rural services, a significant number of rural stations (those serving settlements of sub 10,000) would be served by trains calling at a number of urban stations.

 

[tbtc]

There are no plans to close these lines from governments so why are enthusiasts suggesting such?

There are no Government plans to do lots of things that we have speculative threads for, yet we are free to discuss them

In the case of the Conwy Valley line, it's a great litmus test for people. It regularly closes (pretty much every year in the past decade?), requiring millions of pounds to patch up the leaky tunnels/ flood prevention in several places... people regularly seem to cope without this vital social link for weeks/months at a time... it doesn't serve anywhere particularly significant, it doesn't provide any links that a bus along the A470 could do (you could make an argument that the Heart Of Wales/ West Highland provide links that roads don't)...

It's hard to be accurate re journeys (given how often the line is closed!) but you've generally got passenger numbers of under 100,000 a year, so under 150 departing passengers a day, spread over half a dozen services a day, so that's loads that a minibus could cope with (maybe you'd need a double decker during the summer school holidays but that means that the loadings are even lower during the rest of the year)

(worth seeing those sub-100,000 journeys in the context of the million plus pounds per year on rebuilding it - before you consider the cost of the drivers/ guards etc)

Some people would look at that and decide that there are much better places to spend finite resources (e.g. if you want to keep the focus in that neck of the woods then you could have a regular Llandudno - Bangor shuttle, providing a lot more connections at the Junction)

Some people would look at that and decide that we should just keep throwing money at the line, because we can't possibly close any line, because if we ever closed any line then the entire network would crumble (and the hourly Avanti service from Chester to London would be significantly quieter if we took away the Blaneau passengers)... even though BR regularly used to close lines without significant repercussions

I like railways, we all do, but I'm not so fervent that I think that heavy rail is the answer to everything and that we must keep every station/ service/ line - other people have a bit of a hoarder mentality and can't accept anything being closed

 

[BrianW]

As I've highlighted before there's a fair amount spent by or for developers in highway improvements. Including routes through new developments to act a relief roads.

Almost right- I think you'll find that the buyers of houses that the developers build are paying, and so thereby are all property owners as these 'Section 106' and Community Infrastructure Levy 'contributions' are contributing to inflating house prices everywhere. The S106 payment from a developer of much needed 'affordable' housing near me has paid for a pedestrian light-controlled road crossing so distnat that residents will most likely never use it. In another place I know the purchasers of 29 homes paid enough for a new Community Centre (one already existed) of around 200 sq m, that's several thousand pounds on the price of each unaffordable house that neither your son or daughter or grandchild or mine unless they can inherit one.

 

[thenorthern]

Don't disagree with the general point, but did the Heart of Wales line actually pass through "many marginal constituencies"?

Much more at the time than now. Marginal constituencies change over time.

 

[The Ham]

Almost right- I think you'll find that the buyers of houses that the developers build are paying, and so thereby are all property owners as these 'Section 106' and Community Infrastructure Levy 'contributions' are contributing to inflating house prices everywhere. The S106 payment from a developer of much needed 'affordable' housing near me has paid for a pedestrian light-controlled road crossing so distnat that residents will most likely never use it. In another place I know the purchasers of 29 homes paid enough for a new Community Centre (one already existed) of around 200 sq m, that's several thousand pounds on the price of each unaffordable house that neither your son or daughter or grandchild or mine unless they can inherit one.

Whilst it is an extra cost, that doesn't really quiet the value of houses, if it did then the cost of an existing house would be much cheaper than a new build.

200sq m would likely have cost the developer (at most) £13,000 for each of those 29 houses. However those houses would have still sold for the same money without that cost (and probably others).

Our house has doubled in price in the 11 years that we've lived in it and that's nothing to do with developer contributions as they certainly haven't increased by anywhere near enough to justify anything like that level of increase and certainly they existed in 2000 and house prices have mostly gone one way since then.

The problem is that high horse prices actually makes most of us poorer, as it increases inflation on everything that we want to buy so that the staff who make/sell out to us need to pay their housing costs, so prices increase.

In fact, if all houses fell by 75% in value (so to below what we paid and leaving us in negative equity) we'd be happy to sell it at a loss and move to a larger house, as rather than there being a £100,000+ cost to gain an extra bedroom it would be £25,000. Although we'd have "lost" £90,000 we'd have paid more in rent in the last 11 years than we'd have paid in mortgage costs.

That's an extreme example, and it would cause all sorts of unintended consequence of it were to happen, however it illustrates that house prices increases aren't always good.

 

[Trainer2]

Financially speaking the railway is a rip off in every sense compared to road vehicles but there is a portion of the population that is unable to drive or catch lifts and rail is a nicer experience than a coach or mini bus.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Indeed, when we had the Beeching cuts there was a fall in long distance passengers as if you had to drive to get to the station you'd often drive the whole way.

It's why the argument to reopen the Beeching lines instead of HS2 is flawed as in doing so it would make the case for HS2 greater as the long distance services would get busier.

The world has moved on a bit since the 1960s. Just on the WCML Rugby, Stafford, Crewe, Warrington, Wigan and Preston have had large station car parks built in the last 10 years, and those are the ones I can name off the top of my head. That wouldn't have been the case if InterCity lines were dependent on branch lines for a significant part of their revenue and goes against the if they drive part of the way they'll drive the whole way argument.

 

[nw1]

Much more at the time than now. Marginal constituencies change over time.

That's the thing. From what I gather it appears to be dyed-in-the-wool Conservative right now - but I do seem to remember the Lib Dems had quite a strong presence in the area up to really quite recently (2015). Lembit Opik was an MP for somewhere on the Heart of Wales, if I remember right.

 

[johncrossley]

Whilst most villages don't have a rail service, there are many which do.

The point, that something like 15% of the total population lives in a rural area (outside a settlement or a settlement with a population of up to 10,000), probably a lot of them can walk (2km) to a rail station as could those within a reasonable cycling distance (5km). The numbers with no access to a rail station as a percentage of the overall population is likely to be sub 10%.

Now whilst there's some truly rural services, a significant number of rural stations (those serving settlements of sub 10,000) would be served by trains calling at a number of urban stations.

Stations in small villages/towns have a significant advantage over those in bigger cities. You can easily walk or cycle to the station without needing a bus or car. In a medium sized city like Leicester accessing the station for most involves a fair bit of travelling whether that is by bus or car. There is a possibility of traffic congestion and potentially expensive parking when getting to the station. If you live at the edge of Leicester near the M1 then there's little incentive to use the train. There are plenty of smallish towns in the SE with frequent services run by long trains. Far more people have heard of Leicester than Haywards Heath, but the latter has arguably a more useable train service for its residents.

 

[nw1]

Stations in small villages/towns have a significant advantage over those in bigger cities. You can easily walk or cycle to the station without needing a bus or car. In a medium sized city like Leicester accessing the station for most involves a fair bit of travelling whether that is by bus or car. There is a possibility of traffic congestion and potentially expensive parking when getting to the station. If you live at the edge of Leicester near the M1 then there's little incentive to use the train. There are plenty of smallish towns in the SE with frequent services run by long trains. Far more people have heard of Leicester than Haywards Heath, but the latter has arguably a more useable train service for its residents.

One other factor with 'local city' stations (you could call the metro perhaps, but that's probably pushing the definition) is that - in my view - they need a frequent service to be truly valuable.

I used to live near St Denys station in Southampton. The problem with St Denys is that it effectively only had one train an hour on all three lines - hourly towards Eastleigh, hourly towards Portsmouth and two trains within a minute of each other towards Central.

I found that for many journeys this led to poor connection times and frequently I walked to either Central or Parkway - if I had a bus season ticket I would have used the bus. For these sorts of city stations to be valuable, IMO, they need at least a 30-min even interval frequency.

Hence - contentiously - I would again argue for some reduction of certain longer distance services if necessary to fit in a 'Solent Metro' type pattern. For example, perhaps only one Southern an hour, and routed via Hove to Gatwick limited stop, 1990s style (to efficiently serve both Brighton and Gatwick) and only one XC an hour (but double rather than single Voyager in all cases). Then, have two tph Eastleigh to Southampton stopping (one of which could be the existing Salisbury, the other could be extra stops on the Waterloo semi-fast), and two tph Portsmouth to Southampton semi-fast (the existing stopper plus a new service calling at the larger stations - St Denys, Woolston, Netley, Swanwick, perhaps Bitterne and Sholing too as they are urban). I know there was a plan to do the latter, not sure if it's abandoned now, and the former did actually run for a time in the 1990s.

I am not sure that there is a need to run very frequent long-distance services for improved connections; IMO the key to improved connections is to improve the frequency of the locals in urban or semi-urban areas.