What routes will close as a result of potential nationalisation?

[Killingworth]

It's really not all about the intermediate stations though. There are plenty of passengers who use it between places beyond Long Preston and Carnforth.

Don't mess with the Bentham Line. Their local user groups pack a strong punch in community rail circles; http://friendsofbenthamstation.btck.co.uk/ and; https://www.communityraillancashire.co.uk/lines/bentham-line/

 

[yorksrob]

Surely there’s scope for interpretation of what plenty of passengers means. Each train may be well loaded, but the whole day’s service in each direction amounts to about one Thameslink train. I wouldn’t advocate closing Bentham as it has a few things going for it like no signal boxes, however routes with a handful of Sprinters a day are never going to compare well.

"Plenty of passengers" means well loaded trains. If you want to make a comparison, it would be better to compare it with a similar route, serving similar markets and how many passengers that gets, rather than a commuter route in the urban South East.

Also, if you look at a line like the Wharfedale line, it has two trains an hour that are four carriages long. That's about a fourteenth of the capacity of a route like Bedford - St Pancras with arounf six trains an hour, most twelve carriages (a couple 8-9). Just because the Wharfedale line only has a fourteenth of the passengers, that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't have "plenty of passengers".

In terms of the value of the line, it don't think it relies on a simple metric of how many people are crammed onto it each day.

The Bentham line makes it immeasurably easier for residents in a fairly remote part of the country to go about their business. But aside from that, it also makes it easier for people all over Yorkshire to travel around the North West of England and visa-versa. In this context, the fewer overall passengers than a Thameslink route is a good argument for having lower costs than the Thameslink line, but it is not a good argument for not having the service.

Don't mess with the Bentham Line. Their local user groups pack a strong punch in community rail circles; http://friendsofbenthamstation.btck.co.uk/ and; https://www.communityraillancashire.co.uk/lines/bentham-line/

Given that there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the route, even amongst railway circles, a strong community group is something that's good to have.

 

[Ianno87]

"Plenty of passengers" means well loaded trains. If you want to make a comparison, it would be better to compare it with a similar route, serving similar markets and how many passengers that gets, rather than a commuter route in the urban South East.

Also, if you look at a line like the Wharfedale line, it has two trains an hour that are four carriages long. That's about a fourteenth of the capacity of a route like Bedford - St Pancras with arounf six trains an hour, most twelve carriages (a couple 8-9). Just because the Wharfedale line only has a fourteenth of the passengers, that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't have "plenty of passengers".

In terms of the value of the line, it don't think it relies on a simple metric of how many people are crammed onto it each day.

The Bentham line makes it immeasurably easier for residents in a fairly remote part of the country to go about their business. But aside from that, it also makes it easier for people all over Yorkshire to travel around the North West of England and visa-versa. In this context, the fewer overall passengers than a Thameslink route is a good argument for having lower costs than the Thameslink line, but it is not a good argument for not having the service.



Given that there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the route, even amongst railway circles, a strong community group is something that's good to have.

It's probably up there with the likes of the Far North line etc, as low passenger numbers, but a socially necessary service with communities that would otherwise be disconnected from employment centres.

You'd never propose re-opening it if it hadn't survived Beeching, but it would be difficult to close now, especially with its relatively low running cost (and the yield per passenger must be relatively high too?)

 

[yorksrob]

It's probably up there with the likes of the Far North line etc, as low passenger numbers, but a socially necessary service with communities that would otherwise be disconnected from employment centres.

You'd never propose re-opening it if it hadn't survived Beeching, but it would be difficult to close now, especially with its relatively low running cost (and the yield per passenger must be relatively high too?)

I would suspect that it actually gets a lot more through traffic than the far North line.

 

[CBlue]

Don't mess with the Bentham Line. Their local user groups pack a strong punch in community rail circles; http://friendsofbenthamstation.btck.co.uk/ and; https://www.communityraillancashire.co.uk/lines/bentham-line/

<Cynical> I wonder how regular usage of the services among that group compares to their total membership? </cynical>



Still, at least that's a strong political point about how locals value having the service.

 

[YorksLad12]

It doesn't serve anywhere significant between Knottingley and Goole - the settlements it does stop at are a stone's throw from the M62 as it is, so rail is going to struggle to be competitive (without throwing significantly more resources at the route - and if you have that kind of spare units/staff then there are dozens of lines that are more deserving)

Caveating everything below with the point that I have no firm opinion either way:

I agree that there's nothing much between Knottingley and Goole - but what about a direct service, with the peak-time intermediate stops as now? That stretch suffers from not being in a PTE area (not even part of Leeds City Region) so there's no survey data to call upon to show if people would get out of their cars for reasonably local journeys instead of using the M62 (using the environmental argument). The line would stay open anyway for freight, so any savings would only be on the passenger side (and you'd have to spend to close/fence off the stations).

In the pre-PRM days I'd have suggested a year-long trial with a single 153 all-stops shuttle to see if there was demand. If there wasn't I'd support removal of passenger services - but it's that lack of meaningful data that's my problem with this one. Passenger figures at the intermediate stations have fluctuated but that might be down to line closures (such as now) or people changing jobs, moving away, etc. Nobody really knows.

It does, however, pass through two Conservative constituencies...

 

[Bletchleyite]

What work does it need to fix it? Is it even more of a basket case than the Conwy Valley which has been basically rebuilt from scratch about 5 times over the last 10 years in places, including a station?

 

[Iskra]

What work does it need to fix it? Is it even more of a basket case than the Conwy Valley which has been basically rebuilt from scratch about 5 times over the last 10 years in places, including a station?

I don't know, but the flooding damage was extensive and I recall they basically said they weren't going to fix it. Think it was mentioned in Branchline News. So it is, for all intents and purposes, closed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't know, but the flooding damage was extensive and I recall they basically said they weren't going to fix it. Think it was mentioned in Branchline News. So it is, for all intents and purposes, closed.

Is a RRB in place? If not, does that surely not mean they have to go through formal closure proceedings?

 

[Iskra]

Is a RRB in place? If not, does that surely not mean they have to go through formal closure proceedings?

Hmm, interestingly. This suggests it's back open:

Realtime Trains - 2F25 1758 Leeds to Goole

Realtime Trains provides live realtime running information for the Great British railway network using open data.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

But do the lack of reports after Knottingley mean it didn't and something else has set the axle counters off at Goole?

And NRE lets you book a journey to Snaith. So maybe it is back open and it has slipped under the radar?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Northern's current PDF timetable (in effect from Monday) says it's open.

 

[Iskra]

Northern's current PDF timetable (in effect from Monday) says it's open.

Okay that's good. Must have re-opened with an understandable lack of fanfare!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Okay that's good. Must have re-opened with an understandable lack of fanfare!

Yeah, it'd be like having a ceremony for Denton. Welcome back to your...somewhat lacking train service!

 

[YorksLad12]

If they don't tell people about it no-one will use it and they can withdraw services on the grounds of no demand.

He writes, cynically... and sadly.

 

[Eyersey468]

I don’t think it will happen as it’s too politically sensitive.

However the obvious starting point would be those routes who see only a handful of services per day, especially longer routes or those which are expensive to maintain. Central Wales, Conwy Valley, Whitby, Stranraer, Wigan to Kirkby are some obvious ones, especially as most of these carry no other traffic.

Once you strip out the Welsh and Scottish ones where it’s even more politically sensitive, it doesn’t leave much.

The reason the line to Whitby was reprieved in the 1960s was because it goes through a marginal constituency (yes I know the official reason was the difficulty in providing a replacement bus)

 

[backontrack]

I would suspect that it actually gets a lot more through traffic than the far North line.

The Far North Line now pretty much has passenger traffic to Thurso under its control. The X99 has come under fire for unpopular vehicles; it's also changed its routing and slimmed down the timetable. Passenger usage on the FNL had been slipping of late due to well-chronicled reliability and crewing concerns, but these have now been - for the most part - rectified. As a result, usage is steadily climbing again. Wick itself is the exception, as the coach route is significantly better for the town; but Thurso is still better accessed by rail.

The FNL has a strong usergroup behind it (the FoFNL was the main driving force behind the implementation of the Invernet commuter service), new stations, infrastructure improvements in the works, and now exists in a social environment where railways are increasingly valued due to their environmental side. It is in a far more stable situation than most of the aforementioned lines, and probably also more than the Kyle Line. Things look bright. After the Lentran redoubling (which is now in its opening stages), the key will be better integration at either end of the service; looking into solutions for the Thurso-Scrabster gap (a shuttle bus to meet peak ferry sailings during summer months?) and campaigning for redoubling and loops south of Inverness. As well as that, a loop at Kinbrace ought to be an aspiration. There is a need to look at the railway line holistically and to examine the different markets it serves for the entirety of its route; this should also guide the decisions made around FNL developments. (For example: tourism potential? Greater marketing? Look at the North Coast 500...)

(And now to mute this thread, because the usual sorts who've never used the line will come out and argue for its closure again. And my blood pressure can't take that on a Thursday morning.)

I do agree that end-to-end (or at least Aire-to-Lancs) travel probably does exceed that of the FNL. More pressingly, it's probably where the main flows are. The likes of Giggleswick/Clapham/Wennington aren't going to tell you a massive amount about the service as a whole, though of course these statistics do have their uses.

If push ever comes to shove, I think we'd see the Brigg Line, the Knottingley-Goole Line, and the Conwy Valley Line go first (the latter with an asterisk owing to its devolved position).

The Cumbrian Coast Line wouldn't go, not even part of it. There's enough Allerdale-Barrow flow to sustain the service, extremely saturated footfall at Millom, and a popular railway attraction at Ravenglass. Far more than most regional lines can lay claim to. (Plus the A595 literally passes through a farm.) But a few intermediate stations probably would close. Lancaster-Skipton is more difficult to call; on balance, I think it falls on the right side to stay open, but it's one that is harder to justify in the face of governmental scepticism (and any period of railway closure in the UK would have its own 'conditions' and political environment behind it). The political significance of Looe closing would not be lost on some (though I actually think Castle is wrongly lauded here; her decision to retain the line was based on her personal attachment to it, yet she was perfectly happy to shut down the Edinburgh-Perth mainline), but yes, I think it's another that would maybe go. Whitby I think there'd be a bit of uproar about.

 

[Llandudno]

It was originally the "Little North Western" wasn't it?

But some ideas - "North Lancashire and Yorkshire Dales Line", "South Dales Line", "Three Peaks Line" (I know it isn't quite, but it sounds good)...I'm sure a marketeer could come up with something better. High Bentham is a nice enough place, but it just doesn't *sound* nice. Even "Wennington Line" sounds a bit better.

Therein lies the problem, the marketing of many of our rural lines is truly awful, when you think of the operational costs of some of these routes, what is a few extra thousand £’s to promote them properly.

Some lines are included on rover and ranger tickets, but do many non regular rail users know these tickets exist?

Does Northern or TfW have a marketing department, or are they quite happy to keeping collecting the subsidy?

 

[backontrack]

Therein lies the problem, the marketing of many of our rural lines is truly awful, when you think of the operational costs of some of these routes, what is a few extra thousand £’s to promote them properly.

Some lines are included on rover and ranger tickets, but do many non regular rail users know these tickets exist?

Does Northern or TfW have a marketing department, or are they quite happy to keeping collecting the subsidy?

There's nothing about the Bentham Line at Leeds station.

 

[yorksrob]

The Far North Line now pretty much has passenger traffic to Thurso under its control. The X99 has come under fire for unpopular vehicles; it's also changed its routing and slimmed down the timetable. Passenger usage on the FNL had been slipping of late due to well-chronicled reliability and crewing concerns, but these have now been - for the most part - rectified. As a result, usage is steadily climbing again. Wick itself is the exception, as the coach route is significantly better for the town; but Thurso is still better accessed by rail.

The FNL has a strong usergroup behind it (the FoFNL was the main driving force behind the implementation of the Invernet commuter service), new stations, infrastructure improvements in the works, and now exists in a social environment where railways are increasingly valued due to their environmental side. It is in a far more stable situation than most of the aforementioned lines, and probably also more than the Kyle Line. Things look bright. After the Lentran redoubling (which is now in its opening stages), the key will be better integration at either end of the service; looking into solutions for the Thurso-Scrabster gap (a shuttle bus to meet peak ferry sailings during summer months?) and campaigning for redoubling and loops south of Inverness. As well as that, a loop at Kinbrace ought to be an aspiration. There is a need to look at the railway line holistically and to examine the different markets it serves for the entirety of its route; this should also guide the decisions made around FNL developments. (For example: tourism potential? Greater marketing? Look at the North Coast 500...)

(And now to mute this thread, because the usual sorts who've never used the line will come out and argue for its closure again. And my blood pressure can't take that on a Thursday morning.)

I do agree that end-to-end (or at least Aire-to-Lancs) travel probably does exceed that of the FNL. More pressingly, it's probably where the main flows are. The likes of Giggleswick/Clapham/Wennington aren't going to tell you a massive amount about the service as a whole, though of course these statistics do have their uses.

If push ever comes to shove, I think we'd see the Brigg Line, the Knottingley-Goole Line, and the Conwy Valley Line go first (the latter with an asterisk owing to its devolved position).

The Cumbrian Coast Line wouldn't go, not even part of it. There's enough Allerdale-Barrow flow to sustain the service, extremely saturated footfall at Millom, and a popular railway attraction at Ravenglass. Far more than most regional lines can lay claim to. (Plus the A595 literally passes through a farm.) But a few intermediate stations probably would close. Lancaster-Skipton is more difficult to call; on balance, I think it falls on the right side to stay open, but it's one that is harder to justify in the face of governmental scepticism (and any period of railway closure in the UK would have its own 'conditions' and political environment behind it). The political significance of Looe closing would not be lost on some (though I actually think Castle is wrongly lauded here; her decision to retain the line was based on her personal attachment to it, yet she was perfectly happy to shut down the Edinburgh-Perth mainline), but yes, I think it's another that would maybe go. Whitby I think there'd be a bit of uproar about.

Glad to hear that the Far North line is holding it's own again.

I'm certainly not a proponent of it's closure.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2020 ==

Therein lies the problem, the marketing of many of our rural lines is truly awful, when you think of the operational costs of some of these routes, what is a few extra thousand £’s to promote them properly.

Some lines are included on rover and ranger tickets, but do many non regular rail users know these tickets exist?

Does Northern or TfW have a marketing department, or are they quite happy to keeping collecting the subsidy?

There's nothing about the Bentham Line at Leeds station.

True, there is a large publicity board for the Settle and Carlisle line at the end of the Northern bay platforms at Leeds with maps, descriptions of the locations etc. I can't remember whether it includes the Little North Western - that route does tend to get overshadowed a bit, despite being charming in its own right.

 

[30907]

Coming belatedly to this thread: the Newquay branch has been mentioned a few times. It's worth pointing out that for many years now the line has been operated (SX) by a unit in marginal time working down from Plymouth after the morning peak, so there is little saving to be had there.
There is regular freight east of Goonbarrow Jn which helps cover the line's costs.

 

[quantinghome]

Another belated contribution. What is actually gained by closing lightly used parts of the network? It will save a small amount of money, but the remote, lightly used, parts of the network are only a very minor part of the overall subsidy devoted to rail. It won't change the fundamental economic fact that (with the odd exception) passenger railways the world over do not make a commercial return and require government support. Closing branch lines today would be falling into the same trap as Beeching - the mistaken idea that there is some profitable core of the railway which would thrive without subsidy, if only we could cut off the dead wood.

 

[Mikey C]

Another belated contribution. What is actually gained by closing lightly used parts of the network? It will save a small amount of money, but the remote, lightly used, parts of the network are only a very minor part of the overall subsidy devoted to rail. It won't change the fundamental economic fact that (with the odd exception) passenger railways the world over do not make a commercial return and require government support. Closing branch lines today would be falling into the same trap as Beeching - the mistaken idea that there is some profitable core of the railway which would thrive without subsidy, if only we could cut off the dead wood.

But Beeching wasn't completely wrong though. Many branch lines WERE uneconomic, even allowing for the additional passengers feeding the mainline services, as the number were so small that the incremental revenue to the railway was nowhere enough to cover the costs of that branch line. Especially as many of the closed branch lines were designed for freight, and thus didn't serve passengers very well.

France kept open many of these obscure branch lines, but spent no money on them so many are now suspended due to their poor state...

Back to the original question, I can't see any obvious candidates for route closures now, but I wouldn't like to predict the future. Maybe in 30 years times, driverless pods will take us from major railway stations to our destinations, making a once an hour branch line completely uncompetitive

 

[Meerkat]

the same trap as Beeching - the mistaken idea that there is some profitable core of the railway which would thrive without subsidy, if only we could cut off the dead wood.

To be pedantic that isn’t mistaken is it? If you closed most of the system, got subsidised trains out of the way of the profitable ones, and had free rein to only run what could make money, you could have a (very small!) profitable core. I’m not advocating it but reckon it’s possible (I also like the splitting of services so we can have a few profitable franchises to show how good rail is rather than just being a subsidy drain....)

 

[Bletchleyite]

But Beeching wasn't completely wrong though. Many branch lines WERE uneconomic, even allowing for the additional passengers feeding the mainline services, as the number were so small that the incremental revenue to the railway was nowhere enough to cover the costs of that branch line. Especially as many of the closed branch lines were designed for freight, and thus didn't serve passengers very well

True, though cost saving options weren't really considered, e.g. closing ticket offices or even rural DOO.

 

[Killingworth]

Another belated contribution. What is actually gained by closing lightly used parts of the network? It will save a small amount of money, but the remote, lightly used, parts of the network are only a very minor part of the overall subsidy devoted to rail. It won't change the fundamental economic fact that (with the odd exception) passenger railways the world over do not make a commercial return and require government support. Closing branch lines today would be falling into the same trap as Beeching - the mistaken idea that there is some profitable core of the railway which would thrive without subsidy, if only we could cut off the dead wood.

As recent events have only too tragically proved Network Rail has an immense amount of infrastructure to maintain even before any sleepers or rails can be laid and maintained. Musing about that I thought immediately of two long tunnels within 5 miles of where I'm sat, but forgot a third smaller one! Major work is currently under way to reline one of the longest tunnel's air shafts (it's 700 feet deep) and improve drainage within the tunnel. That's taking over 6 months and costing over £1m.

Within half a mile of my local station there are 8 bridges - 2 road overbridges, 5 bridges over a river and a long culvert. Passengers will notice the road bridges but not know the others are there. That culvert is currently receiving attention requiring coffer dams at each end and pumping water through a large pipe to ensure work can proceed manually as there's no room to get machinery through. A work site has been created on protected green space and will have to be restored.

Then there are three junctions within a mile of each other to be maintained in all weathers, with signals as well - and they fail far too often.

That's before any trains can run. Making a commercial case based on the likes of the £2 I've just paid for a ticket to my next station is impossible. That's the smallest drop in the ocean of finance that's necessary. If railways are to justify such large amounts of public funding more paying passengers are needed to pay more in fares - a lot of them, going longer distances and more often.

A bit of a problem for us today, so the bits that are expensive to maintain will have to be reconsidered for closure. Use them or lose them.

While staying at Clapham (North Yorkshire where there used to be another Clapham Junction) last November I looked at using the Bentham line. Clapham village is a mile from the station, one that struggled to achieve 7,000 passengers a year. No trains suited a jouney to anywhere we wanted to go, but we looked in at Bentham (26,000 passengers) which is how I know there's a very active Community Rail group at work. The Pacer we saw picked up 2 passengers adding to the 5 already aboard - it wasn't hard to count them. 10/10 for the station facilties and obvious enthusiasm of the group. A gang of 6 Network Rail men were doing something, but not clear what. Is the line justifiably economic? That's very hard to say.

 

[quantinghome]

To be pedantic that isn’t mistaken is it? If you closed most of the system, got subsidised trains out of the way of the profitable ones, and had free rein to only run what could make money, you could have a (very small!) profitable core. I’m not advocating it but reckon it’s possible (I also like the splitting of services so we can have a few profitable franchises to show how good rail is rather than just being a subsidy drain....)

You could do. And it was contemplated, and the result was the Serpell report, which concluded that if there was a profitable core, it was very small, and not very profitable. Beeching's mistake was accepting at the beginning of the rationalization process that there was a decently sized profitable passenger railway which could pay its own way. There wasn't and there still isn't.

 

[Meerkat]

You could do. And it was contemplated, and the result was the Serpell report, which concluded that if there was a profitable core, it was very small, and not very profitable. Beeching's mistake was accepting at the beginning of the rationalization process that there was a decently sized profitable passenger railway which could pay its own way. There wasn't and there still isn't.

Are you saying that if he had realised this alleged mistake he wouldn’t have closed all those lines?!
Most of them made Conwy look a winner!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2020 ==

Is it true that one big reason closing rural lines doesn’t save much money is that you don’t just shut down and walk away - the infrastructure (excluding track) still has a significant maintenance cost or has to be demolished/removed?

 

[quantinghome]

As recent events have only too tragically proved Network Rail has an immense amount of infrastructure to maintain even before any sleepers or rails can be laid and maintained. Musing about that I thought immediately of two long tunnels within 5 miles of where I'm sat, but forgot a third smaller one! Major work is currently under way to reline one of the longest tunnel's air shafts (it's 700 feet deep) and improve drainage within the tunnel. That's taking over 6 months and costing over £1m.

Within half a mile of my local station there are 8 bridges - 2 road overbridges, 5 bridges over a river and a long culvert. Passengers will notice the road bridges but not know the others are there. That culvert is currently receiving attention requiring coffer dams at each end and pumping water through a large pipe to ensure work can proceed manually as there's no room to get machinery through. A work site has been created on protected green space and will have to be restored.

Then there are three junctions within a mile of each other to be maintained in all weathers, with signals as well - and they fail far too often.

That's before any trains can run. Making a commercial case based on the likes of the £2 I've just paid for a ticket to my next station is impossible. That's the smallest drop in the ocean of finance that's necessary. If railways are to justify such large amounts of public funding more paying passengers are needed to pay more in fares - a lot of them, going longer distances and more often.

A bit of a problem for us today, so the bits that are expensive to maintain will have to be reconsidered for closure. Use them or lose them.

While staying at Clapham (North Yorkshire where there used to be another Clapham Junction) last November I looked at using the Bentham line. Clapham village is a mile from the station, one that struggled to achieve 7,000 passengers a year. No trains suited a jouney to anywhere we wanted to go, but we looked in at Bentham (26,000 passengers) which is how I know there's a very active Community Rail group at work. The Pacer we saw picked up 2 passengers adding to the 5 already aboard - it wasn't hard to count them. 10/10 for the station facilties and obvious enthusiasm of the group. A gang of 6 Network Rail men were doing something, but not clear what. Is the line justifiably economic? That's very hard to say.

View attachment 83881

I must be one of the few passengers to have used the Bentham line for regular business trips. Is it 'economic' (i.e. profitable) to keep it open? Of course not! Would closing it significantly reduce the overall government subsidy given to rail? Again, of course not! Why, well for the very reason you've given. Because the rest of the network is incredibly expensive to run and consumes far more subsidy than the branch lines.

Here's the question: Why do we expect railways to be profitable but not other modes of transport? No one expects roads to be profitable, buses are subsidized, airlines are often economic basket cases and have received massive historical subsidy through benefitting from military R&D and infrastructure.

 

[yorksrob]

Are you saying that if he had realised this alleged mistake he wouldn’t have closed all those lines?!
Most of them made Conwy look a winner!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2020 ==

Is it true that one big reason closing rural lines doesn’t save much money is that you don’t just shut down and walk away - the infrastructure (excluding track) still has a significant maintenance cost or has to be demolished/removed?

There were plenty listed which probably would have done much better than Conwy.

York - Hull, Malton - Whitby, Tonbridge - Brighton, Brighton - Horsham to name but a few. And that's not counting the ones that weren't closed anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2020 ==

As recent events have only too tragically proved Network Rail has an immense amount of infrastructure to maintain even before any sleepers or rails can be laid and maintained. Musing about that I thought immediately of two long tunnels within 5 miles of where I'm sat, but forgot a third smaller one! Major work is currently under way to reline one of the longest tunnel's air shafts (it's 700 feet deep) and improve drainage within the tunnel. That's taking over 6 months and costing over £1m.

Within half a mile of my local station there are 8 bridges - 2 road overbridges, 5 bridges over a river and a long culvert. Passengers will notice the road bridges but not know the others are there. That culvert is currently receiving attention requiring coffer dams at each end and pumping water through a large pipe to ensure work can proceed manually as there's no room to get machinery through. A work site has been created on protected green space and will have to be restored.

Then there are three junctions within a mile of each other to be maintained in all weathers, with signals as well - and they fail far too often.

That's before any trains can run. Making a commercial case based on the likes of the £2 I've just paid for a ticket to my next station is impossible. That's the smallest drop in the ocean of finance that's necessary. If railways are to justify such large amounts of public funding more paying passengers are needed to pay more in fares - a lot of them, going longer distances and more often.

A bit of a problem for us today, so the bits that are expensive to maintain will have to be reconsidered for closure. Use them or lose them.

While staying at Clapham (North Yorkshire where there used to be another Clapham Junction) last November I looked at using the Bentham line. Clapham village is a mile from the station, one that struggled to achieve 7,000 passengers a year. No trains suited a jouney to anywhere we wanted to go, but we looked in at Bentham (26,000 passengers) which is how I know there's a very active Community Rail group at work. The Pacer we saw picked up 2 passengers adding to the 5 already aboard - it wasn't hard to count them. 10/10 for the station facilties and obvious enthusiasm of the group. A gang of 6 Network Rail men were doing something, but not clear what. Is the line justifiably economic? That's very hard to say.

View attachment 83881

There are far more bridges and infrastructure that needs to be maintained on the minor road network, yet this is accepted without question. Why should our railways be any different.

 

[Meerkat]

There were plenty listed which probably would have done much better than Conwy.

York - Hull, Malton - Whitby, Tonbridge - Brighton, Brighton - Horsham to name but a few. And that's not counting the ones that weren't closed anyway.

Even if they would have done better eventually, after about 50 years of haemorrhaging money, that is a tiny number of the vast closures.