What routes will close as a result of potential nationalisation?

[HST43257]

I'm not sure why the Cornish branches seem to keep coming up - they are probably economically about the best a branch line can get because they're full of tourists, at least in summer.

What money could be saved if the Cornish branches had a very limited service during the off-season? Could you, for example, have just 1tph on the Falmouth branch or 1 train shuttling between Looe and Newquay all day (perhaps with peak time extras in bot situations)?

 

[bramling]

I guess because the Newquay (particularly) branch has an infrequent service carrying few passengers and little relevance to the local transport market. Therefore is more likely 'at risk' than say the Cromer or Barnstaple branches.
No point in arguing the toss about individual lines - we'll all have an opinion as to why a favourite one shouldn't be touched, and it won't be our decision anyway!

Newquay is definitely the poor relation of all the Devon and Cornwall branches. Partly no doubt because of the long journey time, and partly because Par is not a massive traffic generator on its own, so these factors combine to make it fairly unattractive to locals.

Falmouth and St Ives have boomed over the years, to the point where both have seen infrastructure enhancements over the years (in the case of St Ives to the car park at St Erth rather than the railway itself). Looe will always get a certain day-trip traffic from the Plymouth area. Likewise Gunnislake is still relevant thanks to the awkward roads in the area.

Fowey could perhaps benefit from a park and ride scheme like St Ives. Likewise if the lorry haul road was ever no longer required a footpath / cycle path from the Par area wouldn’t go amiss.

So I can’t see much scope for trimming in Cornwall. Newquay would be too politically sensitive given it leads to one of Cornwall’s premier resorts (okay some may disagree that, but that’s the official line anyway!).

 

[yorksrob]

What money could be saved if the Cornish branches had a very limited service during the off-season? Could you, for example, have just 1tph on the Falmouth branch or 1 train shuttling between Looe and Newquay all day (perhaps with peak time extras in bot situations)?

St Ives and Looe just have one unit shuttling backward and forward anyway.

Falmouth is less tourist orientated and gets a lot of students, so I'm not sure whether it would be enough of a service to go to one an hour during the winter season.

 

[tbtc]

Not sure why Falmouth is being brought up on this thread - it's a good example of a line that has been invested in, seen a frequency increase to catch up with increasing passenger numbers.

It's short, simple, self-contained, it works without any grandiose long distance aspirations - each train only does around twenty miles each hour but I don't think you could squeeze it down to provide a half hourly service with just one unit (doing forty miles in an hour, given the intermediate stops etc - unless you ran half the journeys as non-stop), so it's probably just as well to leave it as it is.

Which routes are there in England that fit that description? I can't think of very many if any. Scotland and Wales are politically different and so I just can't see any closures there, even the obvious basket cases (Conwy Valley, Heart of Wales, Far North).

The lines that must be most under threat, other than maybe the middle of the Cumbrian Coast, are in Scotland and Wales

Oh, there's plenty of lines in this part of England that could lose passenger services without many people being affected - you could either just give up on irrelevancies like Goole - Knottingley or you could replace lines with irregular frequencies (Pontefract Baghill, Brigg, Skipton - Lancaster, Doncaster - Lincoln) with just one train a day/week.

A few rural stations could be cut back to just a peak time service, even if the line frequency isn't affected, to free up a unit and save a few quid. You could reduce Edale to just a weekend service and still retain 90% of the passengers.

I don't see any lines closing altogether but there are certainly a few stations or lines that I'd be worried about if I lived there.

 

[Llanigraham]

What money could be saved if the Cornish branches had a very limited service during the off-season? Could you, for example, have just 1tph on the Falmouth branch or 1 train shuttling between Looe and Newquay all day (perhaps with peak time extras in bot situations)?

From experience the Falmouth - Truro trains are very popular out of season, especially with students

 

[Bevan Price]

Don’t think it will happen. Too politically sensitive

But don't forget that we have a government run by Batty Boris - someone who is prepared to break an international treaty (that he agreed to). And then we have a DfT and treasury, neither of which has historically liked spending lots of money on railways.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

But don't forget that we have a government run by Batty Boris - someone who is prepared to break an international treaty (that he agreed to). And then we have a DfT and treasury, neither of which has historically liked spending lots of money on railways.

I understand but even he/they are surely not that daft.

 

[Meerkat]

But don't forget that we have a government run by Batty Boris - someone who is prepared to break an international treaty (that he agreed to). And then we have a DfT and treasury, neither of which has historically liked spending lots of money on railways.

Closing minor branch lines saves very little money for the huge political damage.
They would take it to the minister and he will tell them to find something bigger or something quieter.
The politicians would rather make service cuts that affect more people but don’t make the headlines.

 

[yorksrob]

Skipton - Lancaster

Skipton - Lancaster is very busy at times.

Even with a reduced service and a change at Skipton, there were plenty of people using it on Saturday.

 

[DB]

I doubt if any will close, although as many have suggested there could be service reductions.

I'm surprised that anyone is even suggesting the Cumbrian coast- that is strategically important for nuclear trains, and being a loop means that trains will probably be able to get to and from Sellafield even if the line is blocked somewhere.

 

[HSTEd]

I think Northern Powerhouse Rail is now unlikely to happen. It can't be funded via borrowing against fares income as HS2 is meant to be, as it will never be profitable.

It could be made "profitable" - in terms of a net reduction of subsidy, if coupled with suitable rationalisation of the parallel routes.

 

[yorksrob]

It could be made "profitable" - in terms of a net reduction of subsidy, if coupled with suitable rationalisation of the parallel routes.

IMO, they'd be better off just electrifying the existing routes.

 

[HSTEd]

IMO, they'd be better off just electrifying the existing routes.

The problem is the existing routes are still fundamentally victorian railways.
They are not particularly suitable for economic operation in the modern era.

 

[mmh]

IMO, they'd be better off just electrifying the existing routes.

Nothing will be electrified in at least the next five years. There will still be diesel trains when I, and most if not all people on this forum are no longer here. Electrification is, and always has been, a distraction.

 

[geoffk]

Personally I dont see a single line closure. It makes a mockery of the long term plans to cut the counties carbon footprint.
Costs will instead be cut back by reducing frequencies on certain services, eg does London to bristol really need 4 tph. This is where money can be saved.

Except of course that railways have very high fixed costs and reducing service frequencies will not make very much of a dent in that, except perhaps in the London area if peak hour track capacity can be reduced. Close Cannon Street and Fenchurch Street? (a bit radical but but you know what I mean).

 

[yorksrob]

The problem is the existing routes are still fundamentally victorian railways.
They are not particularly suitable for economic operation in the modern era.

Fundamentally if you've got the way and the two tracks, the technology is the same.

Nothing will be electrified in at least the next five years. There will still be diesel trains when I, and most if not all people on this forum are no longer here. Electrification is, and always has been, a distraction.

A distraction from what, out of interest ?

 

[RT4038]

Except of course that railways have very high fixed costs and reducing service frequencies will not make very much of a dent in that, except perhaps in the London area if peak hour track capacity can be reduced. Close Cannon Street and Fenchurch Street? (a bit radical but but you know what I mean).

So all the service frequency improvements over the last 30 years have cost nothing to implement and operate? This is just not credible. Frequency reductions will reduce train crew costs. It will reduce rolling stock costs. It will reduce infrastructure maintenance costs. It will reduce overall staffing costs too. Maybe not in the same percentage as the passenger/revenue reduction, but costs will be saved.

 

[Bald Rick]

What money could be saved if the Cornish branches had a very limited service during the off-season?

Very little, unless the resource goes permanently as well, in which case you can’t run a service in the ’on season’

So all the service frequency improvements over the last 30 years have cost nothing to implement and operate? This is just not credible. Frequency reductions will reduce train crew costs. It will reduce rolling stock costs. It will reduce infrastructure maintenance costs. It will reduce overall staffing costs too. Maybe not in the same percentage as the passenger/revenue reduction, but costs will be saved.

But the costs only reduce if the resources are permanently removed. That means fewer traincrew, trains off lease, etc. Infrastructure maintenance is even more tricky, as most lightly used routes are actually relatively cheap to maintain, and can’t be made any cheaper in the short to medium term short of closure.

Even when the network was only running half a service in April / May, I’d be surprised if costs reduced by more than 5-10%.


In terms of route closures; in my opinion this will only happen if there is a major infrastructure failure on a very lightly used route, that would cost scores of millions to put right.

 

[HSTEd]

Fundamentally if you've got the way and the two tracks, the technology is the same.

There are obvious problems, like tunnels that destroy electrification systems, landslip prone permanent way, tiny loading gauges, bridges that are constantly in need of repair etc etc etc
And the alignments were designed for steam engines are not really optimum for a railway operated by relatively high performance multiple units.

 

[yorksrob]

There are obvious problems, like tunnels that destroy electrification systems, landslip prone permanent way, tiny loading gauges, bridges that are constantly in need of repair etc etc etc
And the alignments were designed for steam engines are not really optimum for a railway operated by relatively high performance multiple units.

Not many tunnels tend to destroy electrification systems though. The Severn one obviously, but that's rare. All of the other issues you mention could be said about all the main lines in the country.

 

[Ianno87]

Not many tunnels tend to destroy electrification systems though. The Severn one obviously, but that's rare. All of the other issues you mention could be said about all the main lines in the country.

But much, much less so for new build routes like NPR will be. Look at the low level of infrastructure failures on HS1, for example. It's designed to be maintainable.

 

[mmh]

But much, much less so for new build routes like NPR will be. Look at the low level of infrastructure failures on HS1, for example. It's designed to be maintainable.

That's a remarkable level of spin, you should work for the railway.

 

[HSTEd]

All of the other issues you mention could be said about all the main lines in the country.

And preferably we would be removing our need for those lines too.... but someone has to go first.

 

[Clansman]

Assuming long term nationalisation happens soon, the government/DfT will want to make the most out of good routes and they would probably want to open new ones as well. However, they also will probably want to get rid of highly unprofitable services. Does anyone have any thoughts on which lines these could be?

I am pretty sure that the public are more concerned about connectivity over profitability when it comes to the very existence of rail connections. If not in the past, then now. The current climate we live under has never been safer for the most rural and unprofitable rail routes. Your most staunch right wing politicians in this country wouldn't see the closure of unprofitable rail routes as a hill worth dying on in relation to public policy.

Come to think of it, what proportion of routes in the UK are actually profitable? Minus the cross-absorbtion of profits, in Scotland you're lucky if there's two or three. Imagine trying to sell rail closures up here - career suicide of the finest order.

 

[HST43257]

In Scotland you're lucky if there's two or three. Imagine trying to sell rail closures up here - career suicide of the finest order.

Ayr (or maybe Girvan) to Stranraer? Ever since it lost the important Irish connection it sounds like it’s gone downhill from there from what I’ve heard.

 

[Clansman]

Ayr (or maybe Girvan) to Stranraer? Ever since it lost the important Irish connection it sounds like it’s gone downhill from there from what I’ve heard.

Depends how you define "down hill". The result will always be that it's in the public interest that the line remains open. A rail line's demand going downhill is usually a sign that more investment is needed in that railway - not that the public wants the railway closed.

From Girvan onwards, it's a vital rail links to small, rural communities, now predominantly used by the residents of those small, rural communities. There is nothing closure worthy about this in the current political climate. Profit in public services, especially in Scotland, comes last to maintaining current rail connectivity (when putting weighing up the two in a boxing ring).

I will politely decline to discuss the utter ludicrousy of closing Ayr.

 

[gingerheid]

Can't see there being any line closures. Thinning of long distance services and of peak services in major conurbations maybe.

 

[Killingworth]

A few rural stations could be cut back to just a peak time service, even if the line frequency isn't affected, to free up a unit and save a few quid. You could reduce Edale to just a weekend service and still retain 90% of the passengers.

Not post 2020 you wouldn't. Edale is quite well used nowadays, even mid-week and in winter. Post COVID lockdown hoardes flocked to the Peak District, but were told to avoid the railway for leisure, yet the litter bins on the station were full! Walkers are now coming back and returning to trains. Yes, it's quieter during the week, but younger pensioners arrive every day, as do students and all year round holiday takers.

Strines, on the same route, may be a different story, but few trains stop there anyway. It wouldn't save much to cut stops at either.

I can see reductions in rolling stock before major cuts in services. Elimination of excess old or uneconomic stock to save on maintenance and running costs. 12 coach trains to be 8 or 10. 6 coach to go back to 3.

Cut out my lightly loaded early morning service and I'll go by car and not return on the busier return train. Likewise if a lightly used returning late train is cut I'll not go outwards on a busier afternoon train. I've often got the penultimate train home, but the knowledge there was a later one as back up was a factor in using that train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What money could be saved if the Cornish branches had a very limited service during the off-season? Could you, for example, have just 1tph on the Falmouth branch or 1 train shuttling between Looe and Newquay all day (perhaps with peak time extras in bot situations)?

Probably not that much - railway staff aren't easy to do seasonally because of the level of training and knowledge required.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Sep 2020 ==

A few rural stations could be cut back to just a peak time service, even if the line frequency isn't affected, to free up a unit and save a few quid. You could reduce Edale to just a weekend service and still retain 90% of the passengers.

Interesting point. You could probably do that for all the Hope Valley stations other than Chinley, Hathersage and Dore, which I guess you could skip-stop on the expresses, because they're basically in the middle of nowhere. I think you'd want a Friday evening service too, because of weekend tripper traffic.

 

[yorksrob]

But the costs only reduce if the resources are permanently removed. That means fewer traincrew, trains off lease, etc. Infrastructure maintenance is even more tricky, as most lightly used routes are actually relatively cheap to maintain, and can’t be made any cheaper in the short to medium term short of closure.

Another 1980's style bonfire of the rolling stock fleets perhaps.