Trivia: lines which are open but really shouldn't be?

[DT611]

Northern Rail. All of it. It loses money like crazy.
Given more detailed accounting data than we have, it might be possible to tease out some bits of it which are worth retaining. But in its current "subsidy >40p per passenger mile" state, it would be cheaper to lay on taxis for all the passengers, never mind busses.

take into acount the costs for potential extra road infrastructure and higher maintenence of the roads and the amount of taxis needed then it would not be any bit cheeper at all. it would be more expensive actually. maybe improving the offering of the railway might encourage more people to use it. of course if there wasn't all the likes of leasing costs and charges for infrastructure, + whatever proffit the companies running it get, that could possibly bring down the subsidy.

Start considering the enormous value of the land it's occupying for tracks and stations, which could be profitably re-developed, and it looks even worse.

you could say that about much land along all the network. problem is, once you re-develop it and should the populations grow hugely, you don't have any mass transet to get them around that would avoid clogging up any road infrastructure

 

[Lankyline]

I see Beeching still being blamed for the closures, in case anyone forgot he wrote the report & both Tory & Labour govts actually sanctioned closures. And if you want to get political Labour promised to reverse closures as an election promise yet under Barbara Castle closed more railway mileage than Tories.

 

[47802]

I see Beeching still being blamed for the closures, in case anyone forgot he wrote the report & both Tory & Labour govts actually sanctioned closures. And if you want to get political Labour promised to reverse closures as an election promise yet under Barbara Castle closed more railway mileage than Tories.

Lets not forget that a significant number of lines were shut in the 1950's before Beeching, and while his final plan was too severe, some of it bearing in mind the time period of the early 1960's rather than today was correct.

 

[muddythefish]

I see Beeching still being blamed for the closures, in case anyone forgot he wrote the report & both Tory & Labour govts actually sanctioned closures. And if you want to get political Labour promised to reverse closures as an election promise yet under Barbara Castle closed more railway mileage than Tories.

The Beeching report was Tory ideology writ large - cut back a state enterprise and hand over its functions to the private sector. They had another go 20 years later and have been having another try over the past 5 years. FYI, more grammar schools went comprehensive under a Conservative govt than a Labour govt.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Considering that the fuel duty and fuel VAT receipts obtained by the government exceed all reasonable calculation of the cost of the maintenance of the road network, will the introduction of road pricing be accompanied by a reduction in fuel duties?

It's not just the cost of maintaining the road network. When you drive a car, you cause all sorts of other problems that someone else has to pay for.

1. Driving is unhealthy, which slightly increases pressure on the health service.
2. Driving sometimes causes accidents, injuries and deaths. Cost on the health service again, as well as destroying other people's lives.
3. Effect on climate change - aside from the social problems this causes, it will financially impact GDP of countries across the world.
4. Noise pollution, which effects everyone who lives or works along the routes you drive along.
5. Reduction in quality of life for others who use the same roads. Difficult to quantify financially but it's very obvious how a street filled with traffic is a much less pleasant place to be than one that's mostly got people in it. Children can no longer play outside, going shopping or being outside is less pleasant, etc.
6. Pollution: Other people have to breathe in all the stuff that comes out of your car's exhaust.
7. And of course, driving causes congestion, which slows journey times down for everyone else, which also results in a financial cost (as well as the obvious social one).

It's hard to put precise figures on all these, but I do recall a thread on railforums a year or so ago in which various people sourced estimates from various Government agencies and put them together - and it turned out what motorists pay in road tax and fuel duties is miles less than the likely cost of all these. In other words, if you drive, for all practical purposes, you are being given a subsidy to do so - because the taxes you pay do not remotely cover the damage you are doing to other people's lives.

And before anyone misunderstands me: I have nothing against the millions of people who drive because they have no choice, because it's the only way they can reasonably get to where they need to go. And to be fair you need to remember that railways and any form of public transport do cause many of the same problems, albeit to a much lesser extent for each journey. The point I want to make is simply that the level of fuel duty is not unreasonably large and in fact does not cover all the costs that motoring imposes on other people. And a consequence is that building new roads does have bad consequences and costs that are not taken into account by a purely financial assessment of cost of building/maintaining vs fuel duty income from vehicles. (Which isn't to say you should never build a new road - it says you need to be more careful about thinking about the costs and benefits of doing so).

 

[glbotu]

I'm surprised no-one's made the point that if you close the various loss-making branch lines, suddenly, the Intercity trunk routes start being loss-making too. This was one of the key failings of Beeching. If you force people to get in their cars, they'll just make the whole journey by car, which means less revenue for the Intercity services.

This was one of the main reasons some of the big franchises were "lumped together", like Greater Western, Greater Anglia etc. This allows a vaguely accurate representation of how much a sector of the railways is doing (ie: -£X Million on Local Service +£X Million on Intercity = +/- £X Million for network). Do you think East Coast and West Coast would make as much money without a large feeder network from Northern, London Midland, East Midlands etc?

 

[Greenback]

I'm surprised no-one's made the point that if you close the various loss-making branch lines, suddenly, the Intercity trunk routes start being loss-making too. This was one of the key failings of Beeching. If you force people to get in their cars, they'll just make the whole journey by car, which means less revenue for the Intercity services.

I think this has been mentioned earlier in the thread.

This was one of the main reasons some of the big franchises were "lumped together", like Greater Western, Greater Anglia etc. This allows a vaguely accurate representation of how much a sector of the railways is doing (ie: -£X Million on Local Service +£X Million on Intercity = +/- £X Million for network). Do you think East Coast and West Coast would make as much money without a large feeder network from Northern, London Midland, East Midlands etc?

You're right. This is why closures should not be considered in isolation, and social factors must also be considered. If we were to run absolutely everything in this country purely on the grounds of profitability, I think we'd be much worse off,

 

[duffield]

I'm surprised no-one's made the point that if you close the various loss-making branch lines, suddenly, the Intercity trunk routes start being loss-making too. This was one of the key failings of Beeching. If you force people to get in their cars, they'll just make the whole journey by car, which means less revenue for the Intercity services.

Yes, this is very important. You can actually construct simulations of a theoretical railway where the entire rail network is (barely) profitable, and in an attempt to improve profitability just a few of the most loss making lines are closed, and as a result some of the lines they feed become unprofitable so you close them, and so on eventually resulting in the closure of the entire network as unprofitable, even though it was originally making a small profit as a whole!

 

[Old Yard Dog]

Whitby is a horrible place to get to & from by public transport from the south of the country. Trains are infrequent and connections at Middlesbrough are often poor and unreliable.

The X93 bus from Scarborough only runs hourly and is often packed while the 840 from Leeds and York only runs three times a day.

And last time I visited, even the last NYMR train to Pickering arrived after the last bus to York had left.

Whitby deserves better.

 

[47802]

I'm surprised no-one's made the point that if you close the various loss-making branch lines, suddenly, the Intercity trunk routes start being loss-making too. This was one of the key failings of Beeching. If you force people to get in their cars, they'll just make the whole journey by car, which means less revenue for the Intercity services.

This was one of the main reasons some of the big franchises were "lumped together", like Greater Western, Greater Anglia etc. This allows a vaguely accurate representation of how much a sector of the railways is doing (ie: -£X Million on Local Service +£X Million on Intercity = +/- £X Million for network). Do you think East Coast and West Coast would make as much money without a large feeder network from Northern, London Midland, East Midlands etc?

I think that's a debatable point, I think there were a lot of branches which were shut which still allowed the majority of traffic to be maintained obviously you may reach a point as the routes become more major when that changes.

The other point is even at its height the railways didn't serve absolutely everywhere that people needed to go, hence why we need roads and why to some degree railways are an optional extra, obviously with the level of congestion in our major cites they are not an optional extra in our major cities, but that and links between major towns and cities is what the railway is good at and should be concentrated on, not some branch to the land that time forgot.

 

[Bantamzen]

Northern Rail. All of it. It loses money like crazy.

Given more detailed accounting data than we have, it might be possible to tease out some bits of it which are worth retaining. But in its current "subsidy >40p per passenger mile" state, it would be cheaper to lay on taxis for all the passengers, never mind busses.

Start considering the enormous value of the land it's occupying for tracks and stations, which could be profitably re-developed, and it looks even worse.

Well in that case, judging by what's being said over on the new Northern subsidy thread, you'd better shut down most of Scotland's & Wales' networks too. You might still get enough traffic to keep one of the two main lines open, but with very limited connections for most of the region it's likely that whatever was left would see severely reduced traffic, and could itself end up going to the wall.

Actually wasn't this more or less what Beeching was after all those years ago? Of course it completely ignores the economic impact on millions of people suddenly deprived of a major transport network, as well as impacting on the road network with all those millions of people disposed from rail turning to it. Mind you taxi firms wouldn't mind too much, with the loss of the rail network they could easily charge more than ever to ferry people about. Yeah, what a great idea! Where do we sign up?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the rail network should be part of the country’s infrastructure and been seen as an element in making the country more efficient. This means that the benefits of the network may not be directly measured in just profits, but on the impact the network has on developing and sustaining economies right across the country, large and small. Just because a section of the network isn't rammed so heavily passengers can only get into trains sideways doesn’t mean that it is not viable. It may just mean that the benefits are felt away from the railways. Tell me, do many countries have a transport network that makes the kind of profits seemingly demanded by some on here?

 

[yorksrob]

The other point is even at its height the railways didn't serve absolutely everywhere that people needed to go, hence why we need roads and why to some degree railways are an optional extra, obviously with the level of congestion in our major cites they are not an optional extra in our major cities, but that and links between major towns and cities is what the railway is good at and should be concentrated on, not some branch to the land that time forgot.

Railways are not an optional extra to those without motor transport. They are the primary mode for middle and longer distance journeys.

Whitby is not the land that time forgot. Neither are Appleby or Bentham.

 

[47802]

Railways are not an optional extra to those without motor transport. They are the primary mode for middle and longer distance journeys.

Whitby is not the land that time forgot. Neither are Appleby or Bentham.

The fact is there are many towns the size of Appleby/Bentham or bigger which don't have a railway line and manage perfectly well without. The nearest town to where I live doesn't have a railway station and it has 6 times the population of Appleby, and for the 50 years I have lived there I have managed perfectly well with bus and car, and if the Railway fantasists suggested reopening the line I would tell them to **** off and stop **** public money down the drain

 

[po8crg]

There are about 34 million licensed drivers in the UK (FOI request, 2013). That leaves the other 30 million without. Obviously there are about 15 million children (under 18: there are about 70,000 17 year olds with a licence at any given time, per same FOI), but that means that there are a lot of adults with no driving licence.

Add on to that those with a licence but no car (like me) and there are lots of people who regularly use the train. Car travel is expensive when you have to hire the car first!

 

[Greenback]

There are also undoubtedly people with licences who cannot, or who choose not to drive, either for particular journeys or in general.

 

[47802]

Yes there such things as buses! which for many people are a lot closer to their home than a railway station. It seems to me that buses can be more cost effective and flexible in some cases, but buses are not guaranteed and much more easily removed compared to Train services.

 

[DT611]

Yes there such things as buses! which for many people are a lot closer to their home than a railway station.

yet, clearly such busses don't meet and never will meet the needs of train users. its either train or car. history proves that.

It seems to me that buses can be more cost effective and flexible in some cases

not for those who use the train they aren't.

but buses are not guaranteed and much more easily removed compared to Train services.

they get withdrawn because they don't meet peoples needs so aren't used. the train is more likely to meet the needs of people who have access to it over a bus. if not then its car.

 

[Greenback]

Yes there such things as buses! which for many people are a lot closer to their home than a railway station. It seems to me that buses can be more cost effective and flexible in some cases, but buses are not guaranteed and much more easily removed compared to Train services.

They also tend not to be used as much, particularly by leisure travellers, meaning that they become less cost effective. As happened after Beeching, when most of the replacement buses were withdrawn, leaving people without their own transport completely isolated.

It really isn't a question of rail or bus or car, and you do have a point that some routes may be better served by buses, but I'd like to see strong evidence that that is the case before trains are withdrawn from any route or station.

The evidence also needs to be more than profit based, as explained earlier in this thread.

 

[Lankyline]

Lets not forget that a significant number of lines were shut in the 1950's before Beeching, and while his final plan was too severe, some of it bearing in mind the time period of the early 1960's rather than today was correct.

Agreed, some of it was necessary and whilst Castle did more damage than Marples & co she did introduce the case for keeping lines open on a social need basis, not just economics.

There will always be a case to keep certain lines open regardless of cost, for diversions, freight use, social need etc etc

 

[TheKnightWho]

To be fair its all academic anyway as none of the main political parties have got any bottle to contemplate any significant closures at present, the one thing I would say about reopening of lines, is that I'm not against a one off cost to fund the building of the line but beyond that once opened any new line should be able to cover its running costs, we should not be increasing the subsidy burden.

I do laugh when people claim that politicians "don't have the bottle" to do something they like.

Perhaps they've got a lot more info on hand, and there are other benefits to these kinds of things than what you get in fare money? But no, actually realising these things are complex and multifaceted is more difficult than moaning and being provocative and arrogant to fuel your own ego.

 

[Oswyntail]

..... not some branch to the land that time forgot.

We must not forget that such branches are bi-directional. I live on the Ilkley branch, that was a strong candidate for closure at one stage. But traffic does not just go to Ilkley, it also goes to Leeds, one of those "major cities" that apparently need railways. Close the branches to the lands that time forgot and you would just clog up your major town roads with traffic from those lands.

 

[Bantamzen]

We must not forget that such branches are bi-directional. I live on the Ilkley branch, that was a strong candidate for closure at one stage. But traffic does not just go to Ilkley, it also goes to Leeds, one of those "major cities" that apparently need railways. Close the branches to the lands that time forgot and you would just clog up your major town roads with traffic from those lands.

The roads down the Wharfe valley towards Leeds are already clogged, and that's with a 2tph service (and 2 X84s p/h for those brave enough to brave the long slog through traffic). Losing the train service would simply add to the already horribly congested roads, especially at the pinch points around Otley, Menston & Guiseley. Plus if you lost the Aire Valley services that traffic joining towards Leeds would make for double fun....

 

[6Gman]

yet, clearly such busses don't meet and never will meet the needs of train users. its either train or car. history proves that.



not for those who use the train they aren't.



they get withdrawn because they don't meet peoples needs so aren't used. the train is more likely to meet the needs of people who have access to it over a bus. if not then its car.

The evidence from the Conwy Valley is that sometimes at least people prefer the bus. The unsubsidised, frequent bus seems to have taken a lot of custom from the heavily-subsidised, infrequent train.

 

[47802]

I do laugh when people claim that politicians "don't have the bottle" to do something they like.

Perhaps they've got a lot more info on hand, and there are other benefits to these kinds of things than what you get in fare money? But no, actually realising these things are complex and multifaceted is more difficult than moaning and being provocative and arrogant to fuel your own ego.

Or perhaps after the intense S&C campaign they were effectively scared off hence the parliamentary and token services that there are. If you think I'm being provocative to fuel my own ego then so be it, I'm simply saying there is a different point of view to the status quo that all the current network should be maintained regardless of cost.

 

[yorksrob]

The fact is there are many towns the size of Appleby/Bentham or bigger which don't have a railway line and manage perfectly well without. The nearest town to where I live doesn't have a railway station and it has 6 times the population of Appleby, and for the 50 years I have lived there I have managed perfectly well with bus and car

The reality for me is that unless it is a short hop on a bus from where I am, I am unlikely to go there. Buses are fine for short hops, but not middle or longer distance journeys.

Appleby is on an important inter-regional route. It serves local and wider communities well, so expect a lot of resistance if you try to close it.

, and if the Railway fantasists suggested reopening the line I would tell them to **** off and stop **** public money down the drain

Perhaps you need to go for a drive in your little car to calm down

 

[47802]

We must not forget that such branches are bi-directional. I live on the Ilkley branch, that was a strong candidate for closure at one stage. But traffic does not just go to Ilkley, it also goes to Leeds, one of those "major cities" that apparently need railways. Close the branches to the lands that time forgot and you would just clog up your major town roads with traffic from those lands.

As was Bradford Foster Square at one point, and given the level of commuter traffic and other traffic on the Aire Valley routes yes it would have been a mistake to close them although at the time of proposed closure the traffic would have been much less. But the question this is how much you cater for that as you get beyond Skipton for instance and the traffic becomes less.

 

[DT611]

The evidence from the Conwy Valley is that sometimes at least people prefer the bus. The unsubsidised, frequent bus seems to have taken a lot of custom from the heavily-subsidised, infrequent train.

i would suspect that area is in a minority

 

[TheKnightWho]

Or perhaps after the intense S&C campaign they were effectively scared off hence the parliamentary and token services that there are. If you think I'm being provocative to fuel my own ego then so be it, I'm simply saying there is a different point of view to the status quo that all the current network should be maintained regardless of cost.

Do you really think insulting and belittling forum members, and then spouting opinions that are demonstrably wrong is a "different point of view to the status quo"?

By all means, state your opinion. We'll just state ours right back, insults and all.

 

[Altnabreac]

I'd say this:

-More passing loops, particularly between Inverness and Beauly, Dingwall and Tain & Helmsdale and Georgemas.

-A new station at Evanton, and another at Halkirk.

-Possible closures at Georgemas, Scotscalder, Kildonan, Culrain, Invershin and, I'm afraid, the beloved Altnabreac.

-A Tain-Dornoch-Golspie branch to cut times to Thurso, and Inverness-Lairg local services. This would have to mean the closure of Rogart.

-A new junction after Halkirk station to reach Thurso without reversing, and a new chord there too so there would be no need to reverse at Halkirk to get to Wick.

Now we'll not have anyone proposing to close Altnabreac thank you! Flow country tourism potential needs enhancing but we'll not see it closing without a fight!

The others make sense but you'd have to keep one of Culrain/Invershin. Kinbrace also an option but as you say it does have some limited utility as well.

Dornoch is so expensive it's not realistic to even suggest it at present. If all the other work was done, journey times cut and numbers increased then maybe it could be on the cards in 20 years time...

 

[47802]

Do you really think insulting and belittling forum members, and then spouting opinions that are demonstrably wrong is a "different point of view to the status quo"?

By all means, state your opinion. We'll just state ours right back, insults and all.

So your saying that you can only have one opinion on here, and if its not in line with the majority on this forum its demonstrably wrong, Interesting, well it gives you a handy hate figure if nothing else