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

[RT4038]

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.

Exactly this. Taking Rugby as an example, which had three 'branch' lines (Leamington, Leicester via Ullesthorpe, and Market Harborough) feeding plus various local trains serving intermediate stations on the main line, all now closed. Just how many people lived within walking distance of the intermediate stations on those lines, many of which (Marton, Birdingbury, Dunchurch, Lilbourne, Yelvertoft, Theddingworth) were a considerable distance from the places that they purported to serve? Anecdotally, aside from the huge workforce, now largely gone, to the engineering factories in Rugby, the trains were running pretty empty, and there was precious little interchange happening anyway.
Rugby has several large station car parks, all full pre-covid. I would guess that many of those cars would have come from the vicinity of those old stations, including Lutterworth on the former Great Central.

However, I would suggest that it is a bit of 'horses for courses' - what exactly would happen to the displaced passengers depends on the geography and the length of journey beyond the interchange. If the Windermere line shut, for instance, I would not expect much of a dent in the long distance interchange traffic (London passengers would go by connecting bus / taxi/ lift to and from Oxenholme. Kendal-Lancaster passengers would probably be lost to direct buses, or car.) I do not think anywhere near 75% of interchange revenue would be lost in this case. The draw of Windermere would not cause lots of railborne tourists to go somewhere else instead.
Not that I am advocating such a closure!

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.

Surely approximately the same amount of residential property is accessible to Leicester Station, on foot or cycle, as to a station in a small village/town? Living on the edge of Leicester is not really any different to living in the next small village/town that doesn't have a station?

The difference between Leicester and Haywards Heath is that Haywards Heath is a dormitory town - a detached suburb - where travel by train to work, shops, medical, education etc is needed by far more residents than Leicester, so the frequency of service reflects that. I expect a fair proportion of the good burghers of Leicester have little need for trains at all.

 

[6Gman]

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

I realise that. I looked art the results in the early 1960s, not as they are now.

Which were the marginals at the 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.

He wasn't; he was MP for Montgomery. But Brecon & Radnor, which covers most of the line, has been a Con/Lib Dem marginal in recent years at both Westminster and Assembly level.

However the issue is what the situation was in the early 1960s.

EDIT: There is no precise definition of what constitutes a marginal seat, but it's generally taken as one with a winning margin under 10%. The Labour majorities in Brecon & Radnor at the appropriate period were: 1959 14.6%, 1964 20.6%, 1966 21.0%. The seats further south (e.g. Llanelli) would have had bigger majorities. So, "the line was saved because it went through marginal constituencies" is often said but is there any evidence?

 

[Llanigraham]

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.

Lembit was the MP for Montgomeryshire, which is on the Cambrian, not the Heart of Wales, which runs through the Brecon & Radnor or Carmarthen constituencies mainly.

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

The figures are out there somewhere, as there have been a couple of FOIs on the subject. But I’m reasonably sure that the amount spent on the Conwy Valley Line over the last decade could easily have paid for the (re)opening of a line that would carry many, many more passengers. Abertillery for example.

Which leads to the debate about evolving travel needs - in a world of (very) constrained finance, what would the forum membership prefer: continuation of the existing railway, or a railway that costs the same (or possibly less) but serves more people, satisfies more social demand, and has more passengers?

 

[The Ham]

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.

You may find this odd (given what you were replying too), but I also agree with this too.

Yes, the world has moved on, with a significant increase in car use (wouldn't be surprised if there were several of those cars in those car parks which had only traveled up to a mile or two), however the other thing to consider (which is why such stations are so much busier than before), is that in the 1960's the population of the UK was between 52 million and 55 million, it's now 66 million (at least 20% more).

That may not sound a lot, however over the same timeframe the number of children has fallen, as an example the number of children aged 10 and under has fallen by about 15% (which given the population has increased makes the fall even more pronounced).

Add to that, the fact that more women work, and there's a lot more travel by a lot larger percentage of the population.

It's why, in part, those main stations are busier and it may have limited (clearly not none, however also not all of those who could have if the branch line still existed) reason as to those who could have used the branch lines in the past.

Does that mean that we should reopen every branch line that previously existed, certainly not. Many closed for good reason. However if we do it should be considered that there's likely to be some uplift in the numbers using the mainline services.

 

[trebor79]

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.

This. I travel extensively by rail (I more or less refuse to drive long distances for work now, it's a waste of life), and that would be much more difficult if I had to drive to Norwich rather than Diss or Attleborough (I can bike to the latter)

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.

And rural areas. Also rejigging timetable could help. Often I find the connections work really well, with just 15 minutes or so wait in one direction, but then almost an hours wait coming home.

 

[The Ham]

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.

Effectively this highlights why we need to invest more in the railways to provide better metro services where they make sense (Southampton being a good example).

However, whilst some like you would make an effort to get to the longer distance services there would likely be others that wouldn't.

 

[3141]

Sorry if this point has already been made, but another factor which has developed since the 1960s is the increase in housing expansion in rural areas, which is some cases has transformed them into urban areas. Some closed lines and stations would therefore be able to justify re-opening because today there is a much larger population living near them who might use train services than there was 60 years ago. There are commuters from such places who previously didn't exist. Also, there is a great deal more leisure travel than there was then - and it is widely suggested that leisure travel will form a greater proportion of rail journeys post-Covid than before.

The case for re-openings will still be difficult, and will probably depend on the inclusion of social factors as well as straightforward estimates of operating costs and fare revenue. Successful re-openings won't necessarily demonstrate that the original closure decision was wrong, because the circumstances will be very different.

At the same time, we should remember that many people today have a choice between rail and car, and the car provides options and flexibility which public transport does not. The potential users of a restored rail facility won't all use it because they will want to make journeys that are possible with a car but are practical by train.

 

[thenorthern]

I realise that. I looked art the results in the early 1960s, not as they are now.

Which were the marginals at the time?

Shrewsbury even to this day is somewhat marginal, Ludlow at one point Labour were within 4000 votes of taking it which isn't a massive majority. Brecon and Radnorshire was marginal between Labour and the Conservatives as well as the Liberal somewhat then. Carmarthen was almost a 4 way tie between Labour, Conservative, Liberal and Plaid. Swansea West was Marginal.

 

[nw1]

You may find this odd (given what you were replying too), but I also agree with this too.

Yes, the world has moved on, with a significant increase in car use (wouldn't be surprised if there were several of those cars in those car parks which had only traveled up to a mile or two), however the other thing to consider (which is why such stations are so much busier than before), is that in the 1960's the population of the UK was between 52 million and 55 million, it's now 66 million (at least 20% more).

That may not sound a lot, however over the same timeframe the number of children has fallen, as an example the number of children aged 10 and under has fallen by about 15% (which given the population has increased makes the fall even more pronounced).

Add to that, the fact that more women work, and there's a lot more travel by a lot larger percentage of the population.

It's why, in part, those main stations are busier and it may have limited (clearly not none, however also not all of those who could have if the branch line still existed) reason as to those who could have used the branch lines in the past.

Does that mean that we should reopen every branch line that previously existed, certainly not. Many closed for good reason. However if we do it should be considered that there's likely to be some uplift in the numbers using the mainline services.

The big mistake, I think, was not putting a ban on development on many closed lines. If they had been a bit more open to changed needs in the future and prevented closed lines being developed on, then re-opening could have been a lot easier.

I think with Beeching closures there was a clear distinction between those which, reluctantly, I can see why they closed (much as I would have loved Midhurst station for example to still exist in the 1980s, the problem was that none of the three lines faced London) and those for which closure was, quite frankly, inexplicable: Winchester to Alton? Much of the housing in Alresford predates 1973. Swanage? Think how Purbeck wouldn't be so jammed up with cars if that branch had been kept open and electrified. The southern part of the Somerset and Dorset? Would have allowed links west from Bournemouth and given Wimborne and Blandford, sizable towns, a train service. Even the Guildford-Horsham as far as Cranleigh would probably have been viable, and also easy to run had it been electrified (a Cranleigh portion could have been detached off Portsmouth stoppers).

I generally have a high opinion of many decisions made in the 1965-75 period, which seemed to be politically progressive in the main (though it was before my time as a politically-aware person - I am speaking retrospectively), and there were certainly many very creditable modernisation programmes on the railways at that time, but the attitude towards railway closures was not so good.

 

[BrianW]

The big mistake, I think, was not putting a ban on development on many closed lines. If they had been a bit more open to changed needs in the future and prevented closed lines being developed on, then re-opening could have been a lot easier.

I think with Beeching closures there was a clear distinction between those which, reluctantly, I can see why they closed (much as I would have loved Midhurst station for example to still exist in the 1980s, the problem was that none of the three lines faced London) and those for which closure was, quite frankly, inexplicable: Winchester to Alton? Much of the housing in Alresford predates 1973. Swanage? Think how Purbeck wouldn't be so jammed up with cars if that branch had been kept open and electrified. The southern part of the Somerset and Dorset? Would have allowed links west from Bournemouth and given Wimborne and Blandford, sizable towns, a train service. Even the Guildford-Horsham as far as Cranleigh would probably have been viable, and also easy to run had it been electrified (a Cranleigh portion could have been detached off Portsmouth stoppers).

I generally have a high opinion of many decisions made in the 1965-75 period, which seemed to be politically progressive in the main (though it was before my time as a politically-aware person - I am speaking retrospectively), and there were certainly many very creditable modernisation programmes on the railways at that time, but the attitude towards railway closures was not so good.

I found this article on 'the life and times of Ernest Marples' interesting.

People : The life and times of Ernest Marples - AROnline

Ian Nicholls tells the story of the man who opened our motorways and had a soft spot for Minis with a twist. Apart from Prime Ministers, most politicians

www.aronline.co.uk

Minister 'influences' contracts. Everything changes; nothing changes.
A lot of trackbeds have become great 'railway walks', preventing 'Beeching-reversals'.
I'll be provocative- Beeching and Marples were right, though not in everything, and some things have changed in 6o years.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

The big mistake, I think, was not putting a ban on development on many closed lines. If they had been a bit more open to changed needs in the future and prevented closed lines being developed on, then re-opening could have been a lot easier.

Yes. Ironically the States got this right with the concept of "railbanking". I've written occasionally about that before:

Railbanking, as practised in the US, is not about "all of the land just in case". That would indeed be ludicrous. Instead, you take an assessment based on future potential for bringing back into use, the value as a trail, the value that would be realised by selling the land, and the cost saving from passing the maintenance burden onto a third party. Fairly standard cost-benefit analysis.

Generally you would expect this to result in a result favouring banking for trackbeds that would otherwise become low-value agricultural land. In cities, the result might go the other way, because land values are higher. Tinsley Yard would very likely still be sold, because the income from a sale is significantly greater than the potential for reopening, and there's little plausible rail-trail use. But Oxford-Witney, for example, might have been retained after its 1970 closure because the land value is low and there's the potential for rail-trail use.

 

[Dai Corner]

I found this article on 'the life and times of Ernest Marples' interesting.

People : The life and times of Ernest Marples - AROnline

Ian Nicholls tells the story of the man who opened our motorways and had a soft spot for Minis with a twist. Apart from Prime Ministers, most politicians

www.aronline.co.uk

Minister 'influences' contracts. Everything changes; nothing changes.
A lot of trackbeds have become great 'railway walks', preventing 'Beeching-reversals'.
I'll be provocative- Beeching and Marples were right, though not in everything, and some things have changed in 6o years.

It could be argued that 'railway walks' facilitate reopenings by preserving the right of way and keeping it in public ownership.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

If the UK had a proper transport policy the obvious answer would be to close it and spend the money on a proper high quality integrated bus network for the whole of Snowdonia, and probably get a few quid over to build some new public bogs or something.

The UK however seems utterly incapable of doing this anywhere, even London. It's frustrating in the extreme.

 

[PR1Berske]

If the UK had a proper transport policy the obvious answer would be to close it and spend the money on a proper high quality integrated bus network for the whole of Snowdonia, and probably get a few quid over to build some new public bogs or something.

The UK however seems utterly incapable of doing this anywhere, even London. It's frustrating in the extreme.

People don't like the phrase "London gets what London wants" but it's so accurate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People don't like the phrase "London gets what London wants" but it's so accurate.

London does not have fully integrated public transport either. Specifically, bus fares are separate from rail fares. It is nuts.

 

[Bald Rick]

People don't like the phrase "London gets what London wants" but it's so accurate.

Except it isn’t.

 

[norbitonflyer]

London does not have fully integrated public transport either. Specifically, bus fares are separate from rail fares. It is nuts.

Separate fare scales for rail services depending (roughly) which side of the river you are.
OysterScales.png (1532×1062) (oyster-rail.org.uk)
With a third (even higher) rate if you wish to travel from south of the river to a destination on the Underground.

 

[quantinghome]

London does not have fully integrated public transport either. Specifically, bus fares are separate from rail fares. It is nuts.

Exceedingly small potatoes compared to what the rest of the country has to put up with. London is a public transport paradise in comparison.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exceedingly small potatoes compared to what the rest of the country has to put up with. London is a public transport paradise in comparison.

I don't disagree, but it's just to illustrate the point that nowhere in the UK is integrated public transport done properly. Until it is I completely oppose replacing any railway, however quiet it is, with buses, because the replacement won't work properly.

Wales deliberately decided not to do it with Traws and the mind boggles as to why.

 

[BrianW]

I don't disagree, but it's just to illustrate the point that nowhere in the UK is integrated public transport done properly. Until it is I completely oppose replacing any railway, however quiet it is, with buses, because the replacement won't work properly.

Wales deliberately decided not to do it with Traws and the mind boggles as to why.

Integration is hard to do. It's not possible to link everywhere to everywhere (which is where the car scores). If a train (or bus) is intended to link with something (let alone everything) at both ends, let alone at places along the way, everything falls apart when there is any delay. I vaguely recall an attempt at connectivity at Birmingham New Street- the Heart of the country- with WCML electrification. Of course these are not good reasons for not trying, but if you don't attempt you won't 'fail', won't be criticised publicly, won't put your job, mortgage, family 'on the line'. We are to blame.

 

[Ianno87]

People don't like the phrase "London gets what London wants" but it's so accurate.

If you completely ignore things London wants but is not getting such as Crossrail 2, then yes that is a totally accurate statement.

 

[quantinghome]

If you completely ignore things London wants but is not getting such as Crossrail 2, then yes that is a totally accurate statement.

"London gets most of what London wants" would be more accurate. Again, very different to the rest of the country.

 

[Ianno87]

"London gets most of what London wants" would be more accurate. Again, very different to the rest of the country.

Can you justify "most"? As in percentage value of aspired schemes in London versus what actually happens?

 

[quantinghome]

Can you justify "most"? As in percentage value of aspired schemes in London versus what actually happens?

Challenge accepted!

Things that have happened (late 90s onwards):
Jubilee Line Extension
DLR extensions and upgrades
HS1
Crossrail
KXSP station upgrade
Victoria station upgrade
Bond Street station upgrade
Bank station upgrade
Heathrow T5 extension
Northern line Battersea extension
East London line
London Overground
New LU rolling stock
Signalling upgrades
Step-free access
Emirates airline (debatable whether any Londoners actually wanted it...)
New London bus
Bike scheme
Cycle network
Oyster

Things that haven't
Crossrail 2 (although wasn't planned to happen by now)
Croydon tramlink extension
Cross-river tram
West London tram
DLR dagenham extensions (replaced by Overground extension to barking riverside).

I may have left a few things out, but I'd definitely say "most" is justified.

EDIT: Oh, and Thameslink, forgot about that. Which says something about the sheer number of transport projects in London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Integration is hard to do. It's not possible to link everywhere to everywhere (which is where the car scores). If a train (or bus) is intended to link with something (let alone everything) at both ends, let alone at places along the way, everything falls apart when there is any delay. I vaguely recall an attempt at connectivity at Birmingham New Street- the Heart of the country- with WCML electrification. Of course these are not good reasons for not trying, but if you don't attempt you won't 'fail', won't be criticised publicly, won't put your job, mortgage, family 'on the line'. We are to blame.

That depends on what you mean by integration. If you mean tight connection times and everything waiting for everything, then yes, you do get a slightly odd effect - for instance when I was regularly riding around Deutsche Bahn in the late 90s on the cheapo Wochenendticket one noticeable effect was that the entire network of regional trains would end up a few minutes late by the end of some days because the connections had been held and the effect had cascaded down. But you don't have to do it in that way - a good start would be to at least make the timetables match up and promote them as a single service. Even linked-up fares are less important now because payment by contactless is quick and easy.

But fundamentally to do it well requires a single guiding mind and consolidator of fares income - that is, the ability to associate a long, expensive journey with a connecting local shuttle bus to the station without which the whole journey might have been by car.

So to use an example, if there was a well-connected integrated public transport service from the North Wales Coast to much of Snowdonia (which because of the road layout would only require 3 bus routes), and it was well-publicised and easy to use (which while there are some bus routes they're very much for locals), you might get some day trippers from Liverpool and Manchester doing their day trip to Snowdonia by rail - so what's associated to the bus existing isn't just say £4 return from Bangor but rather the whole thing which would otherwise be done by car.

 

[The exile]

Exactly this. Taking Rugby as an example, which had three 'branch' lines (Leamington, Leicester via Ullesthorpe, and Market Harborough) feeding plus various local trains serving intermediate stations on the main line, all now closed. Just how many people lived within walking distance of the intermediate stations on those lines, many of which (Marton, Birdingbury, Dunchurch, Lilbourne, Yelvertoft, Theddingworth) were a considerable distance from the places that they purported to serve? Anecdotally, aside from the huge workforce, now largely gone, to the engineering factories in Rugby, the trains were running pretty empty, and there was precious little interchange happening anyway.
Rugby has several large station car parks, all full pre-covid. I would guess that many of those cars would have come from the vicinity of those old stations, including Lutterworth on the former Great Central.

However, I would suggest that it is a bit of 'horses for courses' - what exactly would happen to the displaced passengers depends on the geography and the length of journey beyond the interchange. If the Windermere line shut, for instance, I would not expect much of a dent in the long distance interchange traffic (London passengers would go by connecting bus / taxi/ lift to and from Oxenholme. Kendal-Lancaster passengers would probably be lost to direct buses, or car.) I do not think anywhere near 75% of interchange revenue would be lost in this case. The draw of Windermere would not cause lots of railborne tourists to go somewhere else instead.
Not that I am advocating such a closure!


Surely approximately the same amount of residential property is accessible to Leicester Station, on foot or cycle, as to a station in a small village/town? Living on the edge of Leicester is not really any different to living in the next small village/town that doesn't have a station?

The difference between Leicester and Haywards Heath is that Haywards Heath is a dormitory town - a detached suburb - where travel by train to work, shops, medical, education etc is needed by far more residents than Leicester, so the frequency of service reflects that. I expect a fair proportion of the good burghers of Leicester have little need for trains at all.

Although the effect probably pales into insignificance compared with the "dormitory town vs self-sufficient city" effect and is probably less marked now, there will have been a period in most large cities when, if you had drawn the "10 minutes' walking distance" circle centered around the main station it would have contained no significant residential population. Even now, despite inner city regeneration, it is probably true that many medium sized and small town stations have a larger "immediate catchment" than the "Major Stations" - but this has little effect because the "Main Station" will tend to be the "destination" (or interchange) and the smaller one the "origin" - for local journeys at least

 

[PR1Berske]

"London gets most of what London wants" would be more accurate. Again, very different to the rest of the country.

"The North never gets what London does" is accurate for sure.

 

[hkstudent]

"The North never gets what London does" is accurate for sure.

If the North manages to get a similar population density as in London, then they will get it, I think...

 

[quantinghome]

If the North manages to get a similar population density as in London, then they will get it, I think...

Of course London will always have a very much larger public transport system than other UK cities. But it's only fair that transport spend is roughly even per capita throughout the country. At the moment, it isn't at all.