Trivia: UK rail line with best case for closure

[47802]

Would you support any of the routes I listed?

It depends on how viable they are, certainly I doubt Skipton - Colne, York - Beverley, and Penrith - Keswick would meet my criteria.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Would you support any of the routes I listed?

I would for Beverley - York

 

[Gareth Marston]

Well it's true. There is usually a reason or other why individual lines and stations shouldn't close. The biggest one of all though, is that if you make it easy to close a lightly used route, it makes it easier to close less lightly used routes. Nobody really trusts Government not to go too far. It seems to me to be a good strategy to ensure that closures remain as politically toxic as possible.

Newhaven Marine is a case in point. It is basically closed. You can't buy a ticket there, so Southern doesn't have to even run it's replacement taxi service. With the status quo, Southern keeps it's handy reversing siding, the official closure process remains difficult and nothing untoward changes. The only people who lose out in this scenario are those with an agenda to make closure easier elsewhere.

Today's "lightly used rural line" will be followed up by tomorrow's London termini being converted to a busway as "their more efficient" the line in the sand was inadvertently drawn under Thatcher/ Major and there it remains. Thanks to Mr Portillo and Mr Adley.

 

[WestRiding]

Why is everyone basing Line Closures on Passenger Numbers. SOME of these routes are key for freight, even if they are not for passengers. Take the S&K between Moorthorpe via Baghill to Milford. If this line was shut, as has been suggested, all the freight would end up on the already busy West Riding to Hare Park competing with East Coast Trains, other freight, and succesfully busy stoppers between Donny/Sheff to Leeds. Maybe this should be about Station Closures, not Line Closures? Just because a line does not see many passenger trains/passengers, does not mean it is not vital to freight! But, then again, i work for the railway, so know that keeping a railway open is about a lot more than how many passengers use Pontefract Baghill, or Garsdale. FREIGHT. Nobody ever sees the bigger picture, bringing it back to if the S&K was shut, the problems then go right back to Masborough Junction (Rotherham), because then all the freight has to be regulated as far as at least Hemsworth Loop which is already busy. Moorthorpe Loop is too short to be practical. So freight would potentially need a clear run all the way from Rotherham to Hare Park, dodging highspeed trains, commuter trains and freight already pathed that way. Impossible. But hey, just because Baghill is quiet with passengers.

 

[Techniquest]

Don't tar us all with the same brush. Some of us are not looking at the UK rail network with tunnel vision, some of us look at the social implications (easier if it's a local route to be fair) and purposes other than just passenger trains where applicable.

Here's a thought, Marylebone was going to close once upon a time, to become a bus/coach station. Now look at it, it and the route through the Chilterns serves a very well used part of the network which we wouldn't be without these days. I therefore suggest that even a station closure needs to be incredibly carefully considered, let alone a route closure.

Drastic improvements in certain places make the world of difference. I still stand by my long-standing view that re-doubling Shelwick Junction (north of Hereford) to Ledbury would make a massive difference to performance levels, as well as open up opportunity for more services. Even just a passing loop would help a fair bit, although not by as much as re-doubling the relevant 11.5 or so miles of route. Mind you, a passing loop at Colwall would be good too, no long waits at Malvern Wells for a late running eastbound train.

Quite, further east we could easily have performance levels increase by having the crossovers between the single line sections from Henwick to Worcester Foregate Street moved, put them east of the platforms instead. Further east again, re-doubling the line west from Evesham to Worcester (I've forgotten the junction name ) would get rid of that stupidly annoying wait at Evesham for eastbound trains when you're heading west. We got rid of the wait at Evesham when the route was re-doubled to Ascott under Wychwood, now we just want to get the other bits done!

Having morning trains between Hereford and Worcester (and onwards to Birmingham) on Sundays have proved to be very popular and well worth the investment made. The only other thing we need now is throgh ticketing onto country buses at Hereford, and improved connections that are reliable.

70014 Iron Duke, I take issue with your suggestion that Llan'dod (locally used way of saying Llandrindod, before anyone asks) and Llandovery is not necessary. I highly recommend you thoroughly read my post on page 6 of this thread on the issue, I look forward to reading your reply! Llangraham (sorry if I've spelt that wrong!) is clearly local to the line and area, he knows what he's on about with the Central Wales/Heart of Wales line!

 

[backontrack]

Don't tar us all with the same brush. Some of us are not looking at the UK rail network with tunnel vision, some of us look at the social implications (easier if it's a local route to be fair) and purposes other than just passenger trains where applicable.

Here's a thought, Marylebone was going to close once upon a time, to become a bus/coach station. Now look at it, it and the route through the Chilterns serves a very well used part of the network which we wouldn't be without these days. I therefore suggest that even a station closure needs to be incredibly carefully considered, let alone a route closure.

Drastic improvements in certain places make the world of difference. I still stand by my long-standing view that re-doubling Shelwick Junction (north of Hereford) to Ledbury would make a massive difference to performance levels, as well as open up opportunity for more services. Even just a passing loop would help a fair bit, although not by as much as re-doubling the relevant 11.5 or so miles of route. Mind you, a passing loop at Colwall would be good too, no long waits at Malvern Wells for a late running eastbound train.

Quite, further east we could easily have performance levels increase by having the crossovers between the single line sections from Henwick to Worcester Foregate Street moved, put them east of the platforms instead. Further east again, re-doubling the line west from Evesham to Worcester (I've forgotten the junction name ) would get rid of that stupidly annoying wait at Evesham for eastbound trains when you're heading west. We got rid of the wait at Evesham when the route was re-doubled to Ascott under Wychwood, now we just want to get the other bits done!

Having morning trains between Hereford and Worcester (and onwards to Birmingham) on Sundays have proved to be very popular and well worth the investment made. The only other thing we need now is throgh ticketing onto country buses at Hereford, and improved connections that are reliable.

70014 Iron Duke, I take issue with your suggestion that Llan'dod (locally used way of saying Llandrindod, before anyone asks) and Llandovery is not necessary. I highly recommend you thoroughly read my post on page 6 of this thread on the issue, I look forward to reading your reply! Llangraham (sorry if I've spelt that wrong!) is clearly local to the line and area, he knows what he's on about with the Central Wales/Heart of Wales line!

Tech, I highly agree with this post. I support the full retention of the HoWL, as well as redoubled track on many routes (Far North Line, Hereford Line). There were many lines which simply shouldn't have closed.

Personally, I think the line in the UK with the best business case of all is from Edinburgh to Perth via Halbeath and Kinross.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Personally, I think the line in the UK with the best business case of all is from Edinburgh to Perth via Halbeath and Kinross.

The best business case for what though, on what figures ?

You are aware that to reinstate the line, the M90 needs to be re-routed for a significant distance of its length, aren't you ?

 

[najaB]

You are aware that to reinstate the line, the M90 needs to be re-routed for a significant distance of its length, aren't you ?

True if you want to reinstate it following the original alignment. However, use an alignment 5m or so to the left and the costs come down significantly.

 

[backontrack]

The best business case for what though, on what figures ?

You are aware that to reinstate the line, the M90 needs to be re-routed for a significant distance of its length, aren't you ?

Actually, this isn't required. The trackbed only crossed the M90 once.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

True if you want to reinstate it following the original alignment. However, use an alignment 5m or so to the left and the costs come down significantly.

It was looked at a couple of years ago, and costed at £1.5bn then, taking inflation and various biases into account, it's a £2bn project now plus electrification.

A total dead duck of a project, as it doesn't speed up services elsewhere - Edinburgh to Dundee/Aberdeen stays just as fast as it isn't routed via Perth, Glasgow to Dundee/Aberdeen stays just as fast as it doesn't benefit from a route via Kinross. Journey time improvements on Edinburgh to Inverness would be gained, but as a percentage, it's relatively small compared with the HML upgrade package, so doesn't make any significant difference to the business case.

Why not simply increase linespeeds on the Ladybank to Hilton Junction route, with redoubling of the line. 55mph for most of its length, increasing that to 100mph where possible would speed up services. Electrification and faster accelerating stock further reduces journey times, so for relatively little cost, journey times to Perth can be speeded up without the £2bn cost of a new section of railway.

The other problem which came up during the study was paths out of Edinburgh over the Forth Bridge - by running services to Ladybank, it's possible to split services there with the front half to Dundee and the rear half to Perth, the same could possibly be done further south, but with more of an impact on services going elsewhere.

 

[backontrack]

Let's look at it another way. If you had to close a railway line in the UK, which would you get rid of? (Excluding Newhaven Marine, obviously).

Station I'd close - Teesside Airport
Line I'd close - Bromley North line

 

[ainsworth74]

Station I'd close - Tees-side Airport

Where? Oh you mean Teesside Airport!

 

[backontrack]

Same difference.

 

[bennunn]

Worle to Burnham old line (not via Weston Super Mare).

 

[backontrack]

Worle to Burnham old line (not via Weston Super Mare).

That would limit capacity and wouldn't free up any units for other services. But I like your thinking - attempting not to make any passengers lose their services.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Worle to Burnham old line (not via Weston Super Mare).

You'd need to redouble the Weston loop then...

 

[backontrack]

Let's save some time - if you want a purely financial railway it will look something like this:

Hold on, is that the Uckfield Line there? Is that only as far as Crowborough, like Beeching suggested, or is it the whole branch?

Wow, that's surprising. Even Serpell wanted to keep the Uckfield Line!

 

[WestRiding]

Let's look at it another way. If you had to close a railway line in the UK, which would you get rid of? (Excluding Newhaven Marine, obviously).

Station I'd close - Teesside Airport
Line I'd close - Bromley North line

Station i'd close - Ravensthorpe
Line i'd close - Immingham Light Railway at the Grimsby end, not been used for years.

 

[najaB]

Wow, that's surprising. Even Serpell wanted to keep the Uckfield Line!

Bear in mind, that's the Plan B map which retained some unprofitable lines where the impact of closure would have resulted in unpalatable side effects such as excessive traffic congestion.

 

[Llanigraham]

Why is everyone basing Line Closures on Passenger Numbers. SOME of these routes are key for freight, even if they are not for passengers. Take the S&K between Moorthorpe via Baghill to Milford. If this line was shut, as has been suggested, all the freight would end up on the already busy West Riding to Hare Park competing with East Coast Trains, other freight, and succesfully busy stoppers between Donny/Sheff to Leeds. Maybe this should be about Station Closures, not Line Closures? Just because a line does not see many passenger trains/passengers, does not mean it is not vital to freight! But, then again, i work for the railway, so know that keeping a railway open is about a lot more than how many passengers use Pontefract Baghill, or Garsdale. FREIGHT. Nobody ever sees the bigger picture, bringing it back to if the S&K was shut, the problems then go right back to Masborough Junction (Rotherham), because then all the freight has to be regulated as far as at least Hemsworth Loop which is already busy. Moorthorpe Loop is too short to be practical. So freight would potentially need a clear run all the way from Rotherham to Hare Park, dodging highspeed trains, commuter trains and freight already pathed that way. Impossible. But hey, just because Baghill is quiet with passengers.

Some of us aren't!!
Some of us are looking at the bigger picture and seeing the social and economic reasons for keeping lines OPEN.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

70014 Iron Duke, I take issue with your suggestion that Llan'dod (locally used way of saying Llandrindod, before anyone asks) and Llandovery is not necessary. I highly recommend you thoroughly read my post on page 6 of this thread on the issue, I look forward to reading your reply! Llangraham (sorry if I've spelt that wrong!) is clearly local to the line and area, he knows what he's on about with the Central Wales/Heart of Wales line!

Thank you.

 

[zaax]

The saxmundham to Leiston line. The driver has to get out to change the points to enter the branch line, then at every gate, and at the end the driver and conductor have to get a taxi back home, unless they stay over night.

 

[Gathursty]

I can't think of anywhere that is surplus to requirements although I'm not a big fan of St Helens so for lack of major unnecessary work, I'll cover my eyes inbetween Garswood and Thatto Heath and Newton-le-Willows and Lea Green.

 

[Grimsby town]

A lot of people suggesting the Barton Line for closure which probably doesn't make a huge amount of sense. The line could be quite easily run without signalling and would be probably never need to be electrified as a battery EMU would probably be sufficient.

The line also surves rural communties with poor road connections. Goxhill and New Holland generate 20,000 pasangers each.

The line is a strange case but shutting it completely is not the answer. As with most lines mentioned on this thread there should be efforts to rationalise, increase efficiency and develop revenue streams. For example basing units at Cleethorpes would be a good start. Using tram trains or similar lighter weight vehicles and increasing the fequemcy is another way to cut cost and boost revsnue.

 

[Techniquest]

I do wonder if trains to/from Barton on Humber would be better going to Doncaster instead of Cleethorpes, purely as a way of attracting more passengers. Have a stopping service from Barnetby to Cleethorpes as well as the TPX and it could work well.

 

[WestRiding]

A lot of people suggesting the Barton Line for closure which probably doesn't make a huge amount of sense. The line could be quite easily run without signalling and would be probably never need to be electrified as a battery EMU would probably be sufficient.

The line also surves rural communties with poor road connections. Goxhill and New Holland generate 20,000 pasangers each.

The line is a strange case but shutting it completely is not the answer. As with most lines mentioned on this thread there should be efforts to rationalise, increase efficiency and develop revenue streams. For example basing units at Cleethorpes would be a good start. Using tram trains or similar lighter weight vehicles and increasing the fequemcy is another way to cut cost and boost revsnue.

The signalling will soon be done from York ROC so wont be so much of a worry regards signal box staffing cost

 

[ainsworth74]

The signalling will soon be done from York ROC so wont be so much of a worry regards signal box staffing cost

Well, soon, might be being a bit generous when it comes to the rate of commissioning of York ROC...

 

[DarloRich]

Apologies if this has been done before, but which rail line in the UK do people think has the best case for closure?

Personally, I would guess that the Fishguard branch, the Heysham branch and the Stranraer branch have the best cases for closure - they won't close because of the sheer effort and money involved, but they're the most likely to, I guess.

none or they would already have been shut. They would need a completely telling case to outweigh the costs involved in actually closing a passenger line and its stations.

 

[70014IronDuke]

...
70014 Iron Duke, I take issue with your suggestion that Llan'dod (locally used way of saying Llandrindod, before anyone asks) and Llandovery is not necessary. I highly recommend you thoroughly read my post on page 6 of this thread on the issue, I look forward to reading your reply! Llangraham (sorry if I've spelt that wrong!) is clearly local to the line and area, he knows what he's on about with the Central Wales/Heart of Wales line!

You "take issue" ? Of course, this is a discussion forum.

Apologies for delay. I did try to reply about 10 days ago, but the system swallowed my answer. not had time/energy since. so i'll try again now. I'll answer your points backwards in time.

"Llangraham (sorry if I've spelt that wrong!) is clearly local to the line and area, he knows what he's on about with the Central Wales/Heart of Wales line!"

Except, if you read his posts, he says "every time I've used it" - it doesn't sound that often, does it?

ie he does not say: I use the line every week/month or some such, right? sounds more like 3-4 times a year max. Which is, possibly, part of the problem. ie even those that live in the area only use the HoWL as a last ditch solution for transport, probably because it's so slow and inconvenient.

EDIT (continuing answers)

I'm going to weigh in here purely from the comments on the Heart of Wales line.

tbtc does not know the line whatsoever, this is obvious from the comments he made on it. Same for 70014 Iron Duke. I might not use it too often, due to connecting buses being stripped out, but even the central section is well used in my experience even in winter.
Buses would not provide an acceptable alternative, that much is a promise. It's also worth noting it's not like the roads are that great in many places along that route, ertainly they're not fast ones! Adding more traffic to these areas is simply a nonsense idea, the area especially through the Llanwrtyd area can get pretty busy in the summer. I haven't been on the roads around there for ages so if it's got better in the last few years then my bad.

My point is that section is well used for sure.

You mean that the four trains each way per day are “well used”. Or at least in your experience/opinion.

I would argue, however, that a 90-mile long railway with 4 - 5 trains each way per day (and the section we are discussing only has 4) is hardly “well used” - even if the trains were full - which clearly many are not.

But let's look at the figures. Between Llandod and Llandovery there are seven stations on the 27.5 mile stretch.

Only two stations – Llanwrtyd and Builth Rd top 8,000 pax per year. (and as you say, the latter is special).

Llanwrtyd, at 9,000 pax per year, is the busiest in the section. But 9000 per year equals just 25 per day, or 12.5 on and 12.5 off. On average, that means just three passengers boarding or alighting per train. (ignoring the fact that there are only four trains on Sundays – that would boost this figure slightly.)

And this is the busiest station.

It's worth pointing out that closing that bit would mean no rail route all the way to Builth Road for the Royal Welsh Show. Yes I know that's only once a year for a few days, but it does bring in a large amount of people to the line.

So you see this as a plus. Hmmm. If BR could close branch lines to seaside resorts which had peak traffic for 3 months in the summers on economic grounds, then highlighting the Royal Welsh Show, which lasts 3? 4? 5 ? days (sorry, I don't know) is hardly a strong argument for keeping a line open.

Worse, it means that the average daily passenger usage excluding the show traffic must be all the poorer.

Builth Rd had 8,340 pax in the last year we have figures for. So what does the show bring? At the very least - from your very own words - 3,000, possibly up to 4,000? I'm sure these could easily be taken by bus (ok, there would be some log jam around Builth, but I suspect little more than there is anyway - I'm sure the vast majority of visitors come by road in any case.)

that leaves Builth Rd with, say, 5,000 'ordinary' pax journeys per year - about 14 a day (seven on, seven off). For eight trains a day, this is hardly crush loading stuff, is it?

In total, the seven stations on the 27.5 mile stretch generated 25,350 pax journeys in 2013-2014. That comes out to 35 passengers on and 35 off per day for this stretch.

Do you really think if these people were put onto the roads in the area (via bus, or car) anyone would notice? Even in rural Wales, this has to be statistically insignificant.

Did I seriously see a suggestion that people from Llandod going to Swansea would be better off going via Craven Arms then down via Cardiff? Outrageous comment of the week! For one, that would take quite some time, and for two the fares to do that would be quite significantly higher than via Llandovery, so no-one would make the journey!

fares much higher, for sure. funnything - previously, when I typed Llandrindrod - Swansea into ATW website, I'm certain it gave me trains via both routes, but now it does not seem to do that.

Of course it would be further. Of course there are some through passengers from Llandod to Neath and Swansea (and v v) - I jolly well hope there are.

The question is - how many? And at what cost?

And, secondarily, who are they? Are they locals, who really need the service, without which they would genuinely endure hardship - or are they leisure travellers/tourists for whom the route is very nice, yes - but if it wasn't there, they would simply not go or use the bus or car? In other words, people who could not exactly claim hardship if the line closed.

The title of this thread is: UK rail line with best case for closure. I admit I was playing Devil's advocate a bit when I first posted. I don't want to see the HoWL closed anywhere. And under the present political climate it is most unlikely.

But when looking at the paltry figures for this central section - I have to say, if that climate were to be tested, and the hard economics looked at closely - looking at the long-term savings on the P Way, fencing, bridges etc - then then I fear closure of this central section could very easily be back on the agenda.

 

[yorksrob]

ie he does not say: I use the line every week/month or some such, right? sounds more like 3-4 times a year max. Which is, possibly, part of the problem. ie even those that live in the area only use the HoWL as a last ditch solution for transport, probably because it's so slow and inconvenient.

I don't think I buy that argument at all.

Reminds me of arguments that sometimes arise in which some commuters argue that they should only subsidise "their" line because they only travel on one route.

The railway is a transport system, and many of us use the system to get to a wide variety of places. In that respect, it would be impossible to use every route that I travel regularly, several times a week. It doesn't mean that those other routes that I only use three or four times a year aren't an important part of the overall transport system, or that they are slow or inconvenient. it just means that i only need to go to those places three or four times a year.

 

[backontrack]

You "take issue" ? Of course, this is a discussion forum.

"Llangraham (sorry if I've spelt that wrong!) is clearly local to the line and area, he knows what he's on about with the Central Wales/Heart of Wales line!"

Except, if you read his posts, he says "every time I've used it" - it doesn't sound that often, does it?

ie he does not say: I use the line every week/month or some such, right? sounds more like 3-4 times a year max. Which is, possibly, part of the problem. ie even those that live in the area only use the HoWL as a last ditch solution for transport, probably because it's so slow and inconvenient.

So? At the end of the day the line is well used.

As with yorksrob, I don't agree with with what you're saying. How often do you use the line?