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

[47802]

As I said (if you'd bothered to read my post properly) the railway is not just a hobby for me, but also my prime means of getting around. By chopping away at the Regional Railway, you would cause a considerable impediment to me going about my day to day business.

As far as I'm concerned, people who advocate cutting railway routes that would be disastrous for the economies and wellbeing of the local communities that they serve, yet squeal about a marginal rise in petrol prices because it would cause them some personal inconvenience, don't deserve to be taken seriously.

People who bang on about subsidy, yet make no attempt to understand how those statistics are compiled, or the limitations therein, don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Well I'm sorry if you might be inconvenienced but the railway isn't there mainly just for your benefit neither is it there just for my benefit. As for your moaning about the subsidy well even if its wrong and say its a billion pounds too high its still a substancial subsidy which ever way you look at it, and tax payer might not want a bill just so you can travel anywhere you like by train.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Yes, but the total amount of misery might not be greater than the misery of the whole driving populace from an increase in fuel prices. It might be a hundredth as serious per person, but it effects a thousand times the people.

Sorry, but I didn't realise we'd become utilitarians all of a sudden.

More things matter than net welfare. Individuals and their communities are also important.

 

[yorksrob]

Well I'm sorry if you might be inconvenienced but the railway isn't there mainly just for your benefit neither is it there just for my benefit. As for your moaning about the subsidy well even if its wrong and say its a billion pounds too high its still a substancial subsidy which ever way you look atI it, and tax payer might not want a bill just so you can travel anywhere you like by train.

Oh, it does amuse me. You rail against "rail enthusiasts" and their supposedly irrelevant opinions, yet you yourself are nothing more than a dilettante hobbyist who lives by motor transport and only comes out to watch the "exciting" locomotives every now and again. Your points of reference are all about the price of petrol and that motor transport is the primary mode of getting around for everyone, supposedly.

I hold your so called "pro rail" stance in extremely low esteem, compared to those who aren't weekend hobbyists like yourself and who actually rely on the railway for their daily lives.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Oh, it does amuse me. You rail against "rail enthusiasts" and their supposedly irrelevant opinions, yet you yourself are nothing more than a dilettante hobbyist who lives by motor transport and only comes out to watch the "exciting" locomotives every now and again. Your points of reference are all about the price of petrol and that motor transport is the primary mode of getting around for everyone, supposedly.

I hold your so called "pro rail" stance in extremely low esteem, compared to those who aren't weekend hobbyists like yourself and who actually rely on the railway for their daily lives.

This. Some people might see railways as an expensive hobby, but if they start throwing around questions of lines having to make their own profit then I lose any time for them. The railways are extremely important for those of us that don't drive, which is an increasingly large proportion of young people. That's to say nothing about those people that can't drive for whatever reason.

The social benefits of railways are huge, and this is an undeniable fact. It's all very well to say that towns do fine without a railway, but it is quite obvious (and the statistics show) that towns with railways consistently do much better than those without. Towns that lost their service have often fallen into decline, whereas those that kept them simply haven't.

 

[47802]

Oh, it does amuse me. You rail against "rail enthusiasts" and their supposedly irrelevant opinions, yet you yourself are nothing more than a dilettante hobbyist who lives by motor transport and only comes out to watch the "exciting" locomotives every now and again. Your points of reference are all about the price of petrol and that motor transport is the primary mode of getting around for everyone, supposedly.

I hold your so called "pro rail" stance in extremely low esteem, compared to those who aren't weekend hobbyists like yourself and who actually rely on the railway for their daily lives.

Well actually I spent about 9 years of my adult life without a car, and as I don't live near a railway station, which the vast majority of people don't I had to use a bus for local journeys and train or coach for longer journeys and that worked perfectly well.

Yes I would love to travel to Leeds by train but whether the country should spend millions putting the line back is more questionable.

I think that one of the issues is that some area's without rail links is that they don't have as good bus/coach services as they should have because they are not supported in the same way and much more easily removed than a train service.

 

[deltic08]

Well actually I spent about 9 years of my adult life without a car, and as I don't live near a railway station, which the vast majority of people don't I had to use a bus for local journeys and train or coach for longer journeys and that worked perfectly well.

Yes I would love to travel to Leeds by train but whether the country should spend millions putting the line back is more questionable.

I think that one of the issues is that some area's without rail links is that they don't have as good bus/coach services as they should have because they are not supported in the same way and much more easily removed than a train service.

If I couldn't use my car or train, using the bus would be a very reluctant choice. I didn't use my bus pass once during 2014.

My wife had tickets for a show in Leeds Friday night. Train was not a choice as she would have travelled during the evening peak from Harrogate to Leeds and the new evening peak surcharge introduced by the DfT and Northern. 95 minutes on a bus from Ripon to Leeds and almost the same time for the return was not attractive even though free so she resorted to car and a £7 parking charge for three hours in Leeds. Cheaper and more convenient then train. This should not be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well I'm sorry if you might be inconvenienced but the railway isn't there mainly just for your benefit neither is it there just for my benefit. As for your moaning about the subsidy well even if its wrong and say its a billion pounds too high its still a substancial subsidy which ever way you look at it, and tax payer might not want a bill just so you can travel anywhere you like by train.

Had BR continued to operate, annual subsidy would be about £2billion to-day.
As it is, subsidy to the privatised railway is £4billion with much of this annual payment being lost to the rail industry and this country. Taking railways back into public ownership would save at least £1.5billion annually and reduce fares by a third. It belongs to us and should be run for the benefit of us and not profit making TOCs and ROSCOs.

Eversholt has just been sold for £10billion. The new owner (a foreigner) will expect to get that back and guess who will pay for it? The fare payer in higher fares and the tax payer in higher taxes or less investment in the railways. More money will be lost to this country. It is an utter disgrace and all the fault of Tory dogma.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The railways are extremely important for those of us that don't drive, which is an increasingly large proportion of young people. That's to say nothing about those people that can't drive for whatever reason.

I'm curious. Are you suggesting that more young people are choosing not to learn to drive, or that they are able to drive but don't have regular access to a car? I have four grown up children, three of whom are in their late teens / early 20's and have spent their entire lives living in this country. I don't know of any of their friends who have not passed their driving test. However many of them don't have regular access to a car for financial reasons.

 

[transmanche]

Are you suggesting that more young people are choosing not to learn to drive, or that they are able to drive but don't have regular access to a car?

The percentage of 17-20-year-olds with a provisional licence has fallen dramatically in recent years.

The percentage of 17-20-year-olds with a provisional licence has fallen from 43% to 36% in recent years – with little more than 30% of girls in the age group now learning to drive. In the 1995-97 peak years more than half of males aged 17-20 were on the road.

According to the most recent National Travel Survey, young people are mainly put off by the prohibitive cost of lessons, followed by soaring insurance premiums and the cost of purchasing a car and keeping it on the road.

Source

 

[RichmondCommu]

The percentage of 17-20-year-olds with a provisional licence has fallen dramatically in recent years.

Source

Fair enough. I have to say I'm surprised by the percentage drop, even though I agree that the cost of insurance is ludicrous. However the cost of purchasing a car is often irrelevant until you are in actual paid employment. Lessons are not cheap but our little blighters benefited from free additional 'tuition'. It seems that this is a case of can't afford lessons rather than not wanting to drive full stop.

 

[HSTEd]

Sorry, but I didn't realise we'd become utilitarians all of a sudden.

More things matter than net welfare. Individuals and their communities are also important.

The utilitarian principle is used quite often in public life - simply beacause no-one has managed to come up with a better system yet. For example see NICE.
There is only a limited amount of money available for social spending - so we have to work out ways to acheive the greatest possible positive effect with that money.
Maintaining/installing a rail link to a community of fifteen thousand people when there to be at least two railway stations within ten miles (in the case of Ripon) like does not rate that highly.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Fair enough. I have to say I'm surprised by the percentage drop, even though I agree that the cost of insurance is ludicrous. However the cost of purchasing a car is often irrelevant until you are in actual paid employment. Lessons are not cheap but our little blighters benefited from free additional 'tuition'. It seems that this is a case of can't afford lessons rather than not wanting to drive full stop.

Although I don't have any links to back this up, I seem to recall reading a few articles that suggested that the availability of smartphones and social networking has contributed to driving becoming less popular amongst young people - because they can be doing things like messaging friends on public transport, but obviously not while driving.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that one of the issues is that some area's without rail links is that they don't have as good bus/coach services as they should have because they are not supported in the same way and much more easily removed than a train service.

You've just illustrated perfectly why it is so important that we don't start chopping off bits of our railway network.

 

[47802]

You've just illustrated perfectly why it is so important that we don't start chopping off bits of our railway network.

I disagree that comes down to the way our public transport is structured and funded, why maintain an expensive rail service in some cases if a properly funded and gurenteed bus service was more effective on lighter used lines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Had BR continued to operate, annual subsidy would be about £2billion to-day.
As it is, subsidy to the privatised railway is £4billion with much of this annual payment being lost to the rail industry and this country. Taking railways back into public ownership would save at least £1.5billion annually and reduce fares by a third. It belongs to us and should be run for the benefit of us and not profit making TOCs and ROSCOs.

Eversholt has just been sold for £10billion. The new owner (a foreigner) will expect to get that back and guess who will pay for it? The fare payer in higher fares and the tax payer in higher taxes or less investment in the railways. More money will be lost to this country. It is an utter disgrace and all the fault of Tory dogma.

Do have proof to say that the annual subsidy would only 2 billion today under BR, or perhaps while profits might go to the TOC's etc it might be balanced somewhat by the TOC's being more efficient and better at generating revenue and fund various capital investments..

I will agree that BR probably wasn't as inefficient as the Tories made out although its difficult to judge not having been involved internally with BR, although I was involved with 2 other organisations shortly before they were privatised and both of those struck me as being very inefficient.

British Rail from personal experience as a commuter from 87 to 91 and 92 to 93 in 2 different locations was terrible for punctuality and reliability.

 

[yorksrob]

I disagree that comes down to the way our public transport is structured and funded, why maintain an expensive rail service in some cases if a properly funded and gurenteed bus service was more effective on lighter used lines.

Back in the real world, even a guaranteed bus service (if such a thing existed) isn't going to be an adequate replacement for the railway. Slower, more cramped, more ponderous. There's not a town in the country that would trade its railway service for a bus. People don't even like replacement bus services when the line's being maintained, so a permanent bustitution isn't going to attract visitors and business to anywhere.

Do have proof to say that the annual subsidy would only 2 billion a day under BR, or perhaps while profits might go to the TOC's etc it might be balanced somewhat by the TOC's being more efficient and better at generating revenue and fund various capital investments..

It comes down to where the costs go. How much of what is spent on track access and rolling stock leasing costs for the Whitby branch for example, actually goes towards maintaining the service on the Whitby branch.

 

[Bantamzen]

Back in the real world, even a guaranteed bus service (if such a thing existed) isn't going to be an adequate replacement for the railway. Slower, more cramped, more ponderous. There's not a town in the country that would trade its railway service for a bus. People don't even like replacement bus services when the line's being maintained, so a permanent bustitution isn't going to attract visitors and business to anywhere.

Indeed, and it would take some serious doing just to get operators to run a guaranteed service. Many of the bigger bus companies are concentrating their efforts in running their high frequency, high occupancy service in favour of other less well utilised services. Around where I live, in the last decade or so First have gradually pulled their Bradford-Ilkley/Otley/Harrogate/Leeds services which all ran through my area, as well as local services through the village. Once there were at least 4-5 buses an hour along the main rain near to me, now there's one with a another very infrequent Otley service. A local company runs this, along with other local services but the fact is that without the train running through Baildon we would be all but cut off.

This would have led to even more traffic, joining the already heavy traffic loads going through the village on towards Shipley/Guiseley. And all this because First didn't think they were making enough money on the now defunct routes. So this idea that you could simply let bus companies pick up the slack from any lines closures, because there is no guarantee.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm curious. Are you suggesting that more young people are choosing not to learn to drive, or that they are able to drive but don't have regular access to a car? I have four grown up children, three of whom are in their late teens / early 20's and have spent their entire lives living in this country. I don't know of any of their friends who have not passed their driving test. However many of them don't have regular access to a car for financial reasons.

A lot of it is to do with not having regular access to a car, you're right, but often that's through a lack of will rather than anything else. If there was no train where I lived, I'd probably have started driving more regularly years ago and saved up for a cheap banger. As it stands, I've got better things to spend my money on if all a car is to me is a nice optional extra.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The utilitarian principle is used quite often in public life - simply beacause no-one has managed to come up with a better system yet. For example see NICE.
There is only a limited amount of money available for social spending - so we have to work out ways to acheive the greatest possible positive effect with that money.
Maintaining/installing a rail link to a community of fifteen thousand people when there to be at least two railway stations within ten miles (in the case of Ripon) like does not rate that highly.

It's often used, yes, but it's not the only way the government does (or should) consider public finances.

 

[47802]

Back in the real world, even a guaranteed bus service (if such a thing existed) isn't going to be an adequate replacement for the railway. Slower, more cramped, more ponderous. There's not a town in the country that would trade its railway service for a bus. People don't even like replacement bus services when the line's being maintained, so a permanent bustitution isn't going to attract visitors and business to anywhere.



It comes down to where the costs go. How much of what is spent on track access and rolling stock leasing costs for the Whitby branch for example, actually goes towards maintaining the service on the Whitby branch.

So basically your saying that restructuring the way we run bus services in this country is not realistic, but at the same time you want a complete restructure of how we run the railways, slight double standards there I think.

I think there is some argument for looking at the present structure of the railways but I'm not sure that a return to some form of British Rail is the right answer, don't we already have that to a degree with Network Rail is that a good example?, yes we can deliver electrification but don't ask when or mention the budget!

As for buses not been as popular well I will agree with you for journeys beyond about an hour, but for journeys up to about an hour using modern buses and a fairly frequent service can be quite popular with many people, there have been certainly times when I have opted for bus over train for shorter journeys, because its been both cheaper and more frequent.

 

[transmanche]

The percentage of 17-20-year-olds with a provisional licence has fallen dramatically in recent years.

Source

Although I don't have any links to back this up, I seem to recall reading a few articles that suggested that the availability of smartphones and social networking has contributed to driving becoming less popular amongst young people - because they can be doing things like messaging friends on public transport, but obviously not while driving.

The article I linked to makes a similar point, but also doesn't have any source to verify.

 

[scarby]

Back in the real world, even a guaranteed bus service (if such a thing existed) isn't going to be an adequate replacement for the railway. Slower, more cramped, more ponderous. There's not a town in the country that would trade its railway service for a bus. People don't even like replacement bus services when the line's being maintained, so a permanent bustitution isn't going to attract visitors and business to anywhere.

Well said.

As Whitby is mentioned quite a lot here a good case in point is the dreadful bus journey between Scarborough and Whitby, which at times quite literally resembles a rollercoaster on a road that is for a large part very unpleasant to travel on.

The appalling decision to axe the Scarborough-Whitby line means provision is now the Scarborough-Whitby bus (often full to standing in summer and passengers have even been left behind), another bus service between Scarborough and Cloughton and yes, yet another bus between Scarborough and Ravenscar.

Utter madness!

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Well said.

As Whitby is mentioned quite a lot here a good case in point is the dreadful bus journey between Scarborough and Whitby, which at times quite literally resembles a rollercoaster on a road that is for a large part very unpleasant to travel on.

The appalling decision to axe the Scarborough-Whitby line means provision is now the Scarborough-Whitby bus (often full to standing in summer and passengers have even been left behind), another bus service between Scarborough and Cloughton and yes, yet another bus between Scarborough and Ravenscar.
Utter madness!

I've been on the bus from Scarborough to Middlesbrough to get to Robin Hoods's Bay and Whitby and it was full with standing at Scarborough rail station. On the way back from Robin Hood's Bay I had to wait ages for the next one. I certainly would have used a train if there was one.
But on a visit to Pickering last year I found out the owners of the railway had plans for a North Yorkshire Coast Railway but could only afford one line so they picked the N. York Moors line instead.
The Scarborough to Whitby line would be busier than the Middlesbrough one is because it could have better services.

 

[yorksrob]

So basically your saying that restructuring the way we run bus services in this country is not realistic, but at the same time you want a complete restructure of how we run the railways, slight double standards there I think.

I think there is some argument for looking at the present structure of the railways but I'm not sure that a return to some form of British Rail is the right answer, don't we already have that to a degree with Network Rail is that a good example?, yes we can deliver electrification but don't ask when or mention the budget!

As for buses not been as popular well I will agree with you for journeys beyond about an hour, but for journeys up to about an hour using modern buses and a fairly frequent service can be quite popular with many people, there have been certainly times when I have opted for bus over train for shorter journeys, because its been both cheaper and more frequent.

Sure, you can restructure bus services (London has a different system for running them for example) but they're still buses, and as you mention, they're only really suitable for journeys under an hour (which counts out Whitby, Bentham and the Settle - Carlisle, in case you hadn't noticed). Infact, the Whitby line survived specifically because it wasn't suitable for the school bus, so you've destroyed your own argument.

As for the railway, the key thing is that the system shouldn't artificially increase the running costs of the Regional Railway. Network Rail isn't like BR precisely because it relies on track access charges and I'm not convinced these don't inflate the cost of running stripped down regional routes. Ditto with rolling stock.

As I mentioned earlier on, perhaps a body like Rail North or the PTE's should own the trains. That way the North can invest in them without fear of them being carted off somewhere else.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well said.

As Whitby is mentioned quite a lot here a good case in point is the dreadful bus journey between Scarborough and Whitby, which at times quite literally resembles a rollercoaster on a road that is for a large part very unpleasant to travel on.

The appalling decision to axe the Scarborough-Whitby line means provision is now the Scarborough-Whitby bus (often full to standing in summer and passengers have even been left behind), another bus service between Scarborough and Cloughton and yes, yet another bus between Scarborough and Ravenscar.

Utter madness!

I found myself using this bus route last year. My preference is usually for the train, but on this occasion, the timetable didn't allow it so I bussed it from Scarborough. It was very striking how unsuited the terrain was to the bus service. Lots of tight corners, steep hills and narrow streets. What was more, it seemed quite a long journey. I think this should have formed a case for retaining a basic railway service.

I had similar thoughts hurtling round corners on the bus from Bodmin Road to Padstow this year as well.

 

[DT611]

why maintain an expensive rail service in some cases if a properly funded and gurenteed bus service was more effective on lighter used lines.

because the bus service will never be a viable replacement to the passengers who once used the train. history shows apart from a few exceptions that once a railway goes, the users go to the car which in turn means huge costs to make roads fit to take the extra traffic.

perhaps while profits might go to the TOC's etc it might be balanced somewhat by the TOC's being more efficient and better at generating revenue and fund various capital investments..

TOCS funding capital investments seems to be few and far between at least to me. and again to me it seems to be the DOT or whoever makes the schedules that are making things efficient

 

[47802]

Sure, you can restructure bus services (London has a different system for running them for example) but they're still buses, and as you mention, they're only really suitable for journeys under an hour (which counts out Whitby, Bentham and the Settle - Carlisle, in case you hadn't noticed). Infact, the Whitby line survived specifically because it wasn't suitable for the school bus, so you've destroyed your own argument.


.

I disagree while a replacement Bus/Coach might be regarded a less good option if the economics justified it then perhaps it should happen. For the Bentham route I would envisage a replacement bus between Settle and Lancaster, which could serve Clapham village rather than the miles away station and also a few villages on the route not currently served by the rail service.

Longer distance passengers from West Yorkshire would use the Copy Pit route (which at the time the S&C was posted for closure the reinstated service was still in its infancy) instead with possibly a couple of current Blackpool service being routed to Morecambe instead of Blackpool.

Also I have never really advocated closing both the S&C and the Bentham route, a case of one or the other, and I suspect the economics of the S&C are much better but then again we really need to see some figures on a line by line basis rather than guessing.

I agree Whitby is a more difficult one, and in some ways its a double edged sword, as you say it was retained for the reasons you mentioned but if you were going to maintain a service to Whitby it doesn't strike as been the best route to maintain a service to Whitby.

 

[glbotu]

I'm curious. Are you suggesting that more young people are choosing not to learn to drive, or that they are able to drive but don't have regular access to a car? I have four grown up children, three of whom are in their late teens / early 20's and have spent their entire lives living in this country. I don't know of any of their friends who have not passed their driving test. However many of them don't have regular access to a car for financial reasons.

It depends a lot on where you're from and where you live, although as someone close to the age group discussed, it's amazing how much less a car is considered a status symbol or right of passage. I only learnt to drive because I had to (work was not near any public transport and inaccessible by foot or cycle). Now that can commute by train, I do. While all of my friends from the country learnt to drive young (17-20) and often have access to a car, mostly borne of necessity, almost none from cities do (especially London), as they just tend to hop on a train, bus etc.

Personally, I had intended never to learn to drive or own a car, but circumstances changed that.

Speaking to people from the previous generation (like my mum) was often strange as they simply assumed that due to my ownership of a car I now drove everywhere (which was far from the case, most of my non-work related journeys were still public transport).

 

[deltic08]

Do have proof to say that the annual subsidy would only 2 billion today under BR, or perhaps while profits might go to the TOC's etc it might be balanced somewhat by the TOC's being more efficient and better at generating revenue and fund various capital investments.

Do you have proof to say my statement is incorrect?

Campaign for Better Transport.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The most recent data I can find on driving tests is that there were 257,000 less tests in 2011 than 2010 down to 1.6 million.

By looking at Peak Car it can be seen there has been a reduction in car miles since 2007 and is flatlining since 2010. May go up again with halving of oil prices.

 

[Blamethrower]

I would say any spurs from the mainline that are clearly politically motivated:

- Marlow/Bourne End
- St Albans Abbey
- Windsor

As far as I can tell, none of these have a direct connection into London, it takes more than an hour and the trains are generally poor.

I wonder which mainlines/diversion routes could've stayed if Beeching didn't suck up to his political elite in order for them to get home easily in the evening?

 

[alexl92]

Owning costs is a major reason why less young people have a car, if not the main reason. When insurance premiums are starting at many thousands of pounds, once you've added in the purchase price (even if just £500), tax (now not-transferrable so is immediately an extra expense) and thats before you've considered M.O.Ts, maintenence, tyres and fuel.

Having had my licence for a year, for me to buy and make legal a £500 1.2 hatchback right now would cost £1500+, without the last 4 things I mentioned above. As a student I don't have that money to put in up front. If I did I'd have bought a car a year ago.

 

[DT611]

I disagree while a replacement Bus/Coach might be regarded a less good option if the economics justified it then perhaps it should happen.

no, it shouldn't. no point in having a bus replacement for the sake of a bus replacement. especially when most likely it won't be used.

For the Bentham route I would envisage a replacement bus between Settle and Lancaster, which could serve Clapham village rather than the miles away station and also a few villages on the route not currently served by the rail service.

who would use it. would be better to jump in the car and drive rather then even more winding through place after place on a bus.

Longer distance passengers from West Yorkshire would use the Copy Pit route (which at the time the S&C was posted for closure the reinstated service was still in its infancy) instead with possibly a couple of current Blackpool service being routed to Morecambe instead of Blackpool.

and then again they may not. they may just take the car and go all the way.

 

[Busaholic]

I would say any spurs from the mainline that are clearly politically motivated:

- Marlow/Bourne End
- St Albans Abbey
- Windsor

As far as I can tell, none of these have a direct connection into London, it takes more than an hour and the trains are generally poor.

I wonder which mainlines/diversion routes could've stayed if Beeching didn't suck up to his political elite in order for them to get home easily in the evening?

The Marlow branch sees about 900,000 passenger journeys annually so 'political motivation' for keeping the line open seems wide of the mark.

 

[yorksrob]

I disagree while a replacement Bus/Coach might be regarded a less good option if the economics justified it then perhaps it should happen. For the Bentham route I would envisage a replacement bus between Settle and Lancaster, which could serve Clapham village rather than the miles away station and also a few villages on the route not currently served by the rail service.

Longer distance passengers from West Yorkshire would use the Copy Pit route (which at the time the S&C was posted for closure the reinstated service was still in its infancy) instead with possibly a couple of current Blackpool service being routed to Morecambe instead of Blackpool.

Also I have never really advocated closing both the S&C and the Bentham route, a case of one or the other, and I suspect the economics of the S&C are much better but then again we really need to see some figures on a line by line basis rather than guessing.

There's not really any justification for closing the Bentham route. It's more or less run in conjunction with the Settle Carlisle and doesn't have any signalling or staffing of it's own to speak of. It's about as frugal a route as you can expect to find, yet finds itself of good use to the North.

I dispute the idea that a bus connection would be an adequate replacement, particularly for those travelling further afield. Long bus plus longish train journey isn't going to be as acceptable to local residents as even a longish train journey.

Also, as a regular traveler on both the Bentham and Settle - Carlisle routes, I note that there are a fair number of people who travel from Shipley, Bingley and Skipton to the North and West. Forcing them to double back via Copy Pit isn't going to be an acceptable alternative. This plus the fact that the Bentham and Copy Pit lines complement eachother when one or the other are closed (This was particularly noticable during the closure of Holme tunnel).

If bus/coach is a less good option, then it must be resisted, full stop. Even a lesser used line such as Bentham roughly follows the routes of the A66, A683 and A687. We wouldn't close these willy nilly, so there's no excuse for closing the railway service. And just because you made a lifestyle choice to live in a town without a railway station, doesn't have any effect on those of us who depend on the railway for day to day travel.

If it was my choice, I'd like to see the service amended in the morning to make it more useful to locals commuting into Leeds and Lancaster from the hinterland.

I agree Whitby is a more difficult one, and in some ways its a double edged sword, as you say it was retained for the reasons you mentioned but if you were going to maintain a service to Whitby it doesn't strike as been the best route to maintain a service to Whitby.

I'm sorry, but the fact that there was once another route (which somebody closed in error, lest we forget), has absolutely no bearing on the value of the existing route today. There are many people who use the line to travel from Middlesborough and further North for whom the route is ideal, this on top of the purpose for which it was saved.