Passenger service lines that deserve to close

[NorthernSpirit]

Speaking of the South Fylde Line, these's enough space at Lytham to bung down a loop as platform 2 is still there. The nearest station for Blackpool Airport is Squires Gate which is only a 1/4 mile from the Starr Gate tram terminus.

The Looe Valley Line could do with the loop from Liskard being reversed so that they can get rid of that daft set up at Coome.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Whitby's "defence", like Gunnislake I suppose, is that the roads servicing the settlements served are poor; in many places they are at best difficult and arguably almost impossible for use by buses. Now, if the formation were paved and used as a dedicated and exclusive busway - ideally operated by (or on behalf of) the Railway (eg as a specified franchise) and fully integrated with the suggested railway terminus at Nunthorpe for connection and ticketing, that might represent a more cost-effective means of servicing the places (and their schoolchildren).

 

[Lankyline]

How about the Bromley North branch and why is the West Highland line north of Hellensburgh and the Kyle line still open?

If I remember Barbara Castle saved this line under the provision of social depravation (can't remember the correct terminology) if the line was closed, even though it will never, or indeed has, turned a profit

 

[AndyW33]

Speaking of the South Fylde Line, these's enough space at Lytham to bung down a loop as platform 2 is still there. The nearest station for Blackpool Airport is Squires Gate which is only a 1/4 mile from the Starr Gate tram terminus.

Blackpool Airport's total passenger flight activity these days is between 2 and 3 flights a day to the Isle of Man, some of which have connections for Belfast. The demand for these is far from huge, given they are flown with 19 seater planes. (no, that's not a typo).
During TT week on the Isle of Man, flights can soar to as as many as 7 a day, still holding less people in total than one smallish Airbus or Boeing.
Even Durham Tees Valley has more daily passengers.

 

[yorksrob]

Whitby's "defence", like Gunnislake I suppose, is that the roads servicing the settlements served are poor; in many places they are at best difficult and arguably almost impossible for use by buses. Now, if the formation were paved and used as a dedicated and exclusive busway - ideally operated by (or on behalf of) the Railway (eg as a specified franchise) and fully integrated with the suggested railway terminus at Nunthorpe for connection and ticketing, that might represent a more cost-effective means of servicing the places (and their schoolchildren).

Whitby's defence is that it carries lots of passengers - particularly on weekends and bank holidays.

Its hard to see how the cost of replacing it with a busway could be justified.

 

[Harbornite]

I don't know the area but would the line to Gunnislake fall into this ?

Probably not.

 

[6Gman]

If I remember Barbara Castle saved this line under the provision of social depravation (can't remember the correct terminology) if the line was closed, even though it will never, or indeed has, turned a profit

Parts of Scotland may be deprived. I would hope they are not depraved!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Marlow branch for conversion to trams?

Lymington branch for conversion to a tram?

 

[bluenoxid]

Settle to Carlisle Railway line north of Appleby.

In all honesty, unless the railway line is defunct or light rail conversion, the next major closure I expect to be is the line through Dawlish because of storms

 

[krus_aragon]

Anything with a Parliamentary service arguably is not justified, if increasing that service to at least two-hourly (hourly in urban areas) is not justified.

An open question: where would you place the Conwy Valley (train per 3h) and Heart of Wales (train per 4h) lines in that case?

 

[MarkRedon]

Why are we having this inane conversation? The entire British railway system does not run at a profit, it is massively subsidised by central government. There is an implicit and never properly discussed social contract whereby it is accepted that the capital costs of improving the railway fall almost entirely to central government. The bits of the system that cover their direct costs are those primarily in the south-east where there are no reasonable alternatives and where it is possible to charge the more or less commercial fare for the provision of a service. The suburban services in most of the rest of the country do not cover their direct costs and certainly do not cover their overall costs. Perhaps the ECML and the WCML and the Great Western line turn a notional "profit". But they massively depend on the traffic which is fed to them from other lines.

I and many people on this forum hugely benefit from the fact that most of the system has been left open. First Beeching and then Serpell dreamt of cutting the system back to a profitable core. There isn't one. The economics of transport are close to those of a natural monopoly in which arguments from welfare economics (think Pareto) suggest that you subsidise the system for the benefit of us all.

Look at the rate of return generated globally by airlines – in a good year, half a percent or 1%; in a bad year a loss. Then look at the implicit state subsidy: massive cross-subsidy from defence-oriented spending. The aviation system viewed as a system certainly does not generate a proper return on capital employed. Nor do the railways in Britain; I suggest that we all get over it and be glad that government (a.k.a. us!) still pays a large part of the billas an entirely justifiable cross-subsidy.

We are now discovering 60 years after Beeching the enormous and usually insurmountable costs of reopening a closed line. Once closed, a line will almost never be reopened – even when there is a very strong case for reopening. Look at how long it has taken to get even the glimmer of a hope that Oxford to Cambridge will be fully reopened. Had that line remained open, I doubt anybody today would be calling for its closure.

There may be some inanities, some basket cases, which suggest the possibility of closure – perhaps Newhaven Marine is one of them. But for the rest, let us seek ways to minimise the costs and increase the usage and get the best possible social return on a large social investment. I am utterly delighted that the lines to (for example) the far north have survived as long as they have. Let us have no talk of closure; only talk about how to reduce the costs and how to increase the revenues and how to increase the overall social benefit. And we need to be identifying routes that are crying out for further investment or alternatives or both: think HS2, TransNorth, BML2.

End of sermon!

 

[deltic]

The financial performance of the railways has changed dramatically in recent years with it coming closer to covering its day to day operating costs as a whole. In an ideal world with a ring fenced budget it would make more sense to take out some of the heavily loss making lines/stations and use the money to open new stations where they are most needed. This would be a far better use of tax payers money and generate more traffic on the railway. The least used 100 stations on the network are used by less than 100k passengers a year in total - the money saved by closing them could pay for one new station a year that could possibly attract 250k people. An oversimplification I know but it is dangerous to want the railways frozen in time - they need to continuously adapt.

 

[yorksrob]

Why are we having this inane conversation? The entire British railway system does not run at a profit, it is massively subsidised by central government. There is an implicit and never properly discussed social contract whereby it is accepted that the capital costs of improving the railway fall almost entirely to central government. The bits of the system that cover their direct costs are those primarily in the south-east where there are no reasonable alternatives and where it is possible to charge the more or less commercial fare for the provision of a service. The suburban services in most of the rest of the country do not cover their direct costs and certainly do not cover their overall costs. Perhaps the ECML and the WCML and the Great Western line turn a notional "profit". But they massively depend on the traffic which is fed to them from other lines.

I and many people on this forum hugely benefit from the fact that most of the system has been left open. First Beeching and then Serpell dreamt of cutting the system back to a profitable core. There isn't one. The economics of transport are close to those of a natural monopoly in which arguments from welfare economics (think Pareto) suggest that you subsidise the system for the benefit of us all.

Look at the rate of return generated globally by airlines – in a good year, half a percent or 1%; in a bad year a loss. Then look at the implicit state subsidy: massive cross-subsidy from defence-oriented spending. The aviation system viewed as a system certainly does not generate a proper return on capital employed. Nor do the railways in Britain; I suggest that we all get over it and be glad that government (a.k.a. us!) still pays a large part of the billas an entirely justifiable cross-subsidy.

We are now discovering 60 years after Beeching the enormous and usually insurmountable costs of reopening a closed line. Once closed, a line will almost never be reopened – even when there is a very strong case for reopening. Look at how long it has taken to get even the glimmer of a hope that Oxford to Cambridge will be fully reopened. Had that line remained open, I doubt anybody today would be calling for its closure.

There may be some inanities, some basket cases, which suggest the possibility of closure – perhaps Newhaven Marine is one of them. But for the rest, let us seek ways to minimise the costs and increase the usage and get the best possible social return on a large social investment. I am utterly delighted that the lines to (for example) the far north have survived as long as they have. Let us have no talk of closure; only talk about how to reduce the costs and how to increase the revenues and how to increase the overall social benefit. And we need to be identifying routes that are crying out for further investment or alternatives or both: think HS2, TransNorth, BML2.

End of sermon!

An extremely sensible and well put sermon, if I may say.

 

[MarkRedon]

The financial performance of the railways has changed dramatically in recent years with it coming closer to covering its day to day operating costs as a whole. In an ideal world with a ring fenced budget it would make more sense to take out some of the heavily loss making lines/stations and use the money to open new stations where they are most needed. This would be a far better use of tax payers money and generate more traffic on the railway. The least used 100 stations on the network are used by less than 100k passengers a year in total - the money saved by closing them could pay for one new station a year that could possibly attract 250k people. An oversimplification I know but it is dangerous to want the railways frozen in time - they need to continuously adapt.

I do understand that the takings at the fare box have now reached the point where they are close to covering operating costs, and that is a considerable turnabout and a real achievement. I certainly do not want the railway system to be set in aspic. There are stations which are over-served – to the detriment of other users whose journeys are slowed and to the detriment of the community as a whole because the railway does not provide a sufficiently attractive offering to current non-users. There is probably a small number whose retention is not justifiable. But it is a small number.

As to closing complete routes, I think there are now very few candidates. And what we must not do is close routes in ways in which they can no longer be reopened. It looks, sadly, as though the Brigg line no longer has any meaningful traffic. But it did a year ago and it might do in two years time. It might cost almost as much to guard unused assets from metal thieves as to provide the current parliamentary passenger service.

I would be utterly opposed to closing the Settle and Carlisle north of Appleby; the present landslip notwithstanding, it is not that part of the route which normally generates heavy costs. I would be open to persuasion that there is perhaps a case for running semi-fast services most of the day and providing only a morning and evening service to certain of the lesser used stations. That would be just about good enough for the walkers who provide a lot of the traffic at the lesser-used stations. But my preference would be to retain the existing service pattern and to experiment with a couple of additional much faster services - much of the slower freight traffic has now vanished and there should be less constraints on capacity.

The railway network is not somehow magically exactly the right size. As I hinted at in my original post and elsewhere, I think there is an excellent case for significant investment in certain new routes. Such investments can only be amortised over periods of decades. But you can see that I agree that I do not want the railways frozen in time. Every viable system must indeed continuously adapt.

 

[Parallel]

An open question: where would you place the Conwy Valley (train per 3h) and Heart of Wales (train per 4h) lines in that case?

It's not uncommon to see every seat taken and a few people standing at either end of the HOWL line. I think they need to run more shuttles either end and the passengers will come. Extra shuttles between Shrewsbury and Knighton or Llandrindod, Swansea and Llandeilo or Llandovery would solve this. They also both need later trains. I'd retain the 4 through trains a day but provide extras giving passengers a more frequent service that would be more usuable. When I last used the line, a couple were heading out to Swansea for the evening, and upon checking the phone, they realised their last train back was at around 18:20, 15 minutes after they got in...

I've never used the Conwy Valley line.

 

[yorksrob]

The financial performance of the railways has changed dramatically in recent years with it coming closer to covering its day to day operating costs as a whole. In an ideal world with a ring fenced budget it would make more sense to take out some of the heavily loss making lines/stations and use the money to open new stations where they are most needed. This would be a far better use of tax payers money and generate more traffic on the railway. The least used 100 stations on the network are used by less than 100k passengers a year in total - the money saved by closing them could pay for one new station a year that could possibly attract 250k people. An oversimplification I know but it is dangerous to want the railways frozen in time - they need to continuously adapt.

Realistically though, you wouldn't save very much by closing any station. I see your point about some station openings, but we should be concentrating on getting down the cost of these openings rather than closing things. The cost of station openings is massively inflated since West Yorkshire PTE was opening them in the 1980's. Does every station really need state of the art masonry platforms, miles of expensive railings and a golf course sized car park ?

We've experimented a lot over the past sixty years trying to find an "optimum" sized railway network. The process has done untold damage to the nation's infrastructure precisely because there was no way of knowing which routes might still be needed in future. Against that background, a network in aspic is preferable to the mistakes of history.

 

[urbophile]

I travelled on the Conwy Valley line this week (from Llanrwst to Blaenau Ffestiniog). A two car DMU was maybe half full, late morning and early evening on a Monday out of peak tourist season. Betws-y-Coed is a very popular tourist centre which provided even then a fair number of passengers; bearing in mind the constricted roads in these parts, the more people can be enticed away from cars and coach trips the better. Blaenau is a very poor town (check out the house prices!) but it would become even poorer without a connection to the national rail network.

 

[Lankyline]

The financial performance of the railways has changed dramatically in recent years with it coming closer to covering its day to day operating costs as a whole. In an ideal world with a ring fenced budget it would make more sense to take out some of the heavily loss making lines/stations and use the money to open new stations where they are most needed. This would be a far better use of tax payers money and generate more traffic on the railway. The least used 100 stations on the network are used by less than 100k passengers a year in total - the money saved by closing them could pay for one new station a year that could possibly attract 250k people. An oversimplification I know but it is dangerous to want the railways frozen in time - they need to continuously adapt.

I started this thread to see that if we don't view the railways through rose tinted specs or hark back to the days of steam drifting along an idyllic rural line in summer we can still actually countenance the concept of closing a line or a station

Deltic's post is a view that should be considered, the last point being, imo, particularly relevant, adapt and I would add to that evolve. Yes we know that the railways are heavily subsidised but we also we have a far better understanding and analysis of costs, social mobility, passenger demographics etc than was ever available in Beeching's day, but taking Deltic's post one stage further, why not evaluate existing lines and stations, most of which have been laid down decades ago and see if they actually serve the communities of both today and tomorrow, a major failing of both Beeching and Castle,
As a consequence of this it maybe some stations need to be closed, or would a partial closure of a line on its original route and realign it to better serve a community be a better option?

I don't know what the answer is but I don't believe the thread is inane its is simply to generate a discussion on a subject that in todays world rarely gets talked about rationally

 

[yorksrob]

I started this thread to see that if we don't view the railways through rose tinted specs or hark back to the days of steam drifting along an idyllic rural line in summer we can still actually countenance the concept of closing a line or a station

Deltic's post is a view that should be considered, the last point being, imo, particularly relevant, adapt and I would add to that evolve. Yes we know that the railways are heavily subsidised but we also we have a far better understanding and analysis of costs, social mobility, passenger demographics etc than was ever available in Beeching's day, but taking Deltic's post one stage further, why not evaluate existing lines and stations, most of which have been laid down decades ago and see if they actually serve the communities of both today and tomorrow, a major failing of both Beeching and Castle,
As a consequence of this it maybe some stations need to be closed, or would a partial closure of a line on its original route and realign it to better serve a community be a better option?

I don't know what the answer is but I don't believe the thread is inane its is simply to generate a discussion on a subject that in todays world rarely gets talked about rationally

No, but you miss the point.

It doesn't matter how much better our statistical analysis is compared to Beeching's time, we still don't have the ability to predict the future and what lines will be useful which are less so now.

Also, you fail to explain why it is better to have a "dynamic" network (in terms of allowing bits to close), when history has demonstrated this to be a bad thing, as opposed to a stable network, which history over the past 30 years, has shown us to be a benevolent thing.

 

[Bevan Price]

I believe Blackpool council are still clinging onto the notion of conversion of the line as far as Lytham to tram, why not move the Colne service to North station and then run a connection from the proposed tram link to North with South station say somewhere near to the old Central site and run it down that large expanse of wasted ground called a car park.

Tram speed 11mph !! only just faster than a horse and carriage

It sounds as if the mentality of Blackpool council has not improved since the 1960s - it was their suggestion to close Blackpool Central so they could get hold of some former railway land. So, passengers now get decanted at South - a good mile from the town centre. It would improve usage if the line was extended back to a new, smaller station near the site of Blackpool Central - apart from the car park, there is little (other than £££) to prevent this.

 

[Lankyline]

No, but you miss the point.

It doesn't matter how much better our statistical analysis is compared to Beeching's time, we still don't have the ability to predict the future and what lines will be useful which are less so now.

Also, you fail to explain why it is better to have a "dynamic" network (in terms of allowing bits to close), when history has demonstrated this to be a bad thing, as opposed to a stable network, which history over the past 30 years, has shown us to be a benevolent thing.

Got to disagree, our model forecasting to predict future trends both in population, business, local and national economics, which also local authority transport strategies use as part of their "future" planning, so the ability to predict the future (on a relatively short term basis 10yrs) is viable.

Is the history your referring to the short sighted view of the Beeching report, Castle, BR of the 70's where cost ruled in a spectacular case of political short sightedness and little credit was ever given to the future.

Yes I agree that in the last 30 years our railways have benefitted from huge investment, lines and stations have reopened, passenger numbers are up etc etc but it still does not mean that every station and line still serves the purpose that it was originally designed for, the vast majority, yes, but every single one ?

 

[yorksrob]

Got to disagree, our model forecasting to predict future trends both in population, business, local and national economics, which also local authority transport strategies use as part of their "future" planning, so the ability to predict the future (on a relatively short term basis 10yrs) is viable.

Is the history your referring to the short sighted view of the Beeching report, Castle, BR of the 70's where cost ruled in a spectacular case of political short sightedness and little credit was ever given to the future.

Yes I agree that in the last 30 years our railways have benefitted from huge investment, lines and stations have reopened, passenger numbers are up etc etc but it still does not mean that every station and line still serves the purpose that it was originally designed for, the vast majority, yes, but every single one ?

I still disagree. Prediction is still more of an art than a science. There is too much we can't know.Economists can't even agree on what might or might not happen after next months referendum, so other than taking a stab at broad views of overall population growth etc, I don't believe that we can predict what will happen in thirty years time for individual routes and stations. Beechings folly was that even where a plan for a new town or a housing development existed, these were deliberately ignored, but that's different from trying to predict things that haven't happened yet.

In terms of whether every station still serves the purpose it was built for, I would say that pretty much none of them do. For a start, the vast majority were built primarily as freight collection and distribution centres first and foremost, with passengers taking a secondary role which has obviously changed, yet the majority have found other uses to a greater or lesser extent. The remainder can be kept in "worm storage" with a parliamentary service, which seems a low risk compromise to me.

It's also not just about the short sighted Beeching ideology and the massive increase in investment in the past couple of decades, although those obviously have some bearing on the issue. The benevolent period that I mentioned includes the majority of the 1980's and early 1990's when investment wasn't anywhere near as great as today. It's generally recognised that after the publication of the Serpell report the Government made it clear to BR that it didn't want to pursue a nother wholesale closure programme, yet in the period after this its also generally recognised that BR was as efficient, if not more so than at any other time in its history.

I believe that society by setting out a marker and making it clear in terms of policy that the network we had at the time was by and large the network we wanted, gave the organisation the discipline to pursue efficiency improvements across the whole network in other ways, rather than forever having the fall back option of being able to slash a couple of rural routes to save a few bob in the short term. This is completely separate from the overall level of investment.

In short, I stand by my assertion that the phrase "it's dangerous to want the railway frozen in aspic" in terms of route and station provision has little evidence to support it from history. Quite the opposite in face. I also stand by my assertion that historically we have gained far more benefit from having a stable network than forever attempting to tinker with it in the name of dynamism.

 

[Senex]

Realistically though, you wouldn't save very much by closing any station. I see your point about some station openings, but we should be concentrating on getting down the cost of these openings rather than closing things. The cost of station openings is massively inflated since West Yorkshire PTE was opening them in the 1980's. Does every station really need state of the art masonry platforms, miles of expensive railings and a golf course sized car park?

It seems a pity that every new station does have to be gold-plated, which means that the cost is hideously high and the difficulty of justifying the opening is very great indeed. Don't we need something much more like the original Halts, which could be opened very cheaply? If they then fail to generate the expected traffic, there's no great loss if they are closed again. If they do well, money can then be put into better facilities.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

...Luckily the line to Bere Alston (Gunnislake) was retained.
If it had been closed, St Budeaux Victoria road Stn and track to junction would have been built on. The cutting where the Ply - Pz line goes over the line would have been filled in (save an expensive bridge replacement in the 70's) track built on to Tamar bridge, bridges across the Tavy removed etc. This would have made reopening the Okehampton to Plymouth line mega expensive.

 

[yorksrob]

It seems a pity that every new station does have to be gold-plated, which means that the cost is hideously high and the difficulty of justifying the opening is very great indeed. Don't we need something much more like the original Halts, which could be opened very cheaply? If they then fail to generate the expected traffic, there's no great loss if they are closed again. If they do well, money can then be put into better facilities.

Exactly. Something along the lines of Exmouth Junctions concrete 'harps and slabs' which can still be seen around the Southern region would be useful in this respect.

 

[Kettledrum]

This thread is a potentially dangerous can of worms to start to open - to invite suggestions of closure on the basis of usage statistics.

The old adage that there's lies, damn lies and statistics rings true. Just look at how the passenger surveys under-pinning the Beeching report were allegedly carried out. Even with todays technology, it's all to easy to make a case for closing based on the abuse of statistics - whereas it's much more difficult to do this to get a line re-opened.

I've lost count of the time people have said:

"No passengers use the line/station" - sometimes that's because only one train per day stops there, at an incredibly inconvenient time of day, and it's not advertised.

On the other hand, just look how some re-opened lines have had passenger figures well in excess of the initial forecasts (the Borders Line for example).

Maybe some lines will never be used again, but for most lines there are questions really need to be asked about why some of the usage figures are so low, and what has been done to try to increase them first.

 

[swissrailpassion]

People fought very hard and long for reopenings. The statistics used for BCR calculations woefully underestimate usage and thus make it very difficult to present a positive case. Alloa, Bathgate, Mansfield and now the Borders demonstrate that demand forecasting is a pretty poor tool which is used for political ends in Whitehall.
That the majority of reopenings are in Scotland indicates there is something rotten in England as it doesn't have the political mechanism to bring change and respond to local demands. Northern devolved powers may Help to bring change and meet needs better than Whitehall.
On another tack, the cost of new stations seems astronomical. Haxby in the York suburbs is a straightforward reopening (when land issues are sorted) and the cost of this is put beyond £5 million. This is for two simple platforms. When compared with the cost of house building the station is very expensive; £5 million would build 8 or 9 luxury 6 bed houses. Somebody somewhere is being ripped off.

 

[tom1649]

I find it depressing when rail enthusiasts advocate closing railways/stations. It doesn't seem that long since this discussion last took place either.

 

[Lankyline]

I still disagree. Prediction is still more of an art than a science. There is too much we can't know.Economists can't even agree on what might or might not happen after next months referendum, so other than taking a stab at broad views of overall population growth etc, I don't believe that we can predict what will happen in thirty years time for individual routes and stations. Beechings folly was that even where a plan for a new town or a housing development existed, these were deliberately ignored, but that's different from trying to predict things that haven't happened yet.

Looks like we might have to agree to disagree, 30 years is not a practical timescale to forecast even for planning major infrastructure projects, but I do agree that a major flaw in the Beeching report was to ignore new town / expansion.
I know statistics can be twisted, political influence for good or bad is always a factor and these days enviromental impact is a major consideration, but railways have to evolve as the needs of the economy, population, climate and industry change, i'm not advocating closure for closure's sake but merely looking at the possibility of realignment and/or relocation of track/stations to meet those changes.
I would also throw into this discussion that closing the route through Dawlish could be a possibility in the future as we have all seen the devastating impact of the weather on this section of line, personally I hope not, but could we actually think it may never happen?

 

[L&Y Robert]

I find it depressing when rail enthusiasts advocate closing railways/stations. It doesn't seem that long since this discussion last took place either.

I take the liberty of re-posting mine of January 2015 in a very similar thread:

When I was a student (post-grad. Urban & Rural Planning) in the 60s we had a Canadian in the year-group. Transport planning was part of our remit, but the studies, as far as they went, were almost entirely road oriented – cars per household, origin and destination surveys, highway capacity, road and junction design, parking provision – that sort of thing. But I and my Canadian colleague, and one or two others in the group were well aware of the growing unease in academic quarters about the unbridled growth of road traffic, and we, and others besides us, foresaw the problems of congestion we now experience. So we suggested, as part of the course project work, that a part of transport planning should require the protection of existing transport assets for the future, whether they were wanted just then or not. My Canadian friend talked about the rail closures he had seen in Canada, surprised that ''closure" in the UK also meant dismantlement and ultimate destruction of the asset.
"Why do you go to so much trouble to rip them up?" he asked me. " I dunno" I answered, then "So what do you do in Canada?"
"Leave 'em be - let 'em rust" he answered.
But we were only students, and the motor vehicles on roads was the way forward as far as officialdom was concerned. I remember Mrs. Thatcher, in some speech or other, proclaiming “The railway is old 19th century technology. Roads and road transport are 20th century technology” – or something like that.
But how grateful we would be today if the “Let ‘em rust” policy had appertained here in the 60s! I think of the Bedford-Cambridge problem, for example.
If, ultimately, after all your deliberations you decide you must 'close' these lines, so be it. But for goodness sake don't destroy them as well! Who knows what the future holds?