Electioneering - Good or Bad for the Railways

[yoyothehobo]

We all know that when it is time for elections, MPs and candidates will crawl out of the woodwork suggesting railway route reopenings, new services, new stations, new technology (Bionic Duckweed anyone).

However, is this overall good or bad for the railways? The number of successes of proposals are in the single percent of single percentage amounts. Does this reflect on the railways well? Does it end up looking like nothing gets done on the railways or that we never listen to the wants of the public.

 

[Kite159]

Promises made before election don't always happen if that party gets into power. Either gets kicked into the long grass or goes out to a "committee" to work on it (which then gets kicked out into the long grass).

Happens for all parties.

 

[tbtc]

Interesting idea for a thread - topical, given the number of such "commitments" being discussed around the country (one of my local MPs is demanding new stations, coincidently as council elections are about to take place)

I know that there's the argument that "any argument in favour of increased rail spending has to be a good thing" - and I guess it's nice that railway investment is still seen as something positive that candidates should be seen to encourage - but the kind of improvements that get brought up during elections tend to be the worst kind of local projects (often ones that would go against regional/national plans for routes - e.g. demanding a station on a route that has no local services or scope for local services to stop there, so long distance passengers would be inconvenienced to accommodate it)

Look at the threads on here about election promises - places like Ballater and Haddington - not exactly high up the Network Rail priorities, but local people won't care about that, they just want improvements in their back yard.

Or, there are the kind of scheme that nobody wants to be seen to oppose because there are emotive arguments about it (e.g. a rural area like between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth) - so after every election we'll spend money on yet another feasibility study (that will come up with the answer that "this would be a large amount money to spend on a fairly empty big of countryside with insufficient passengers for more than a train every couple of hours") which gives members of the public that the railway is too expensive/ complicated/ cannot deliver things (which isn't the railway's fault, but the fault of politicians who want to promise things that they know cannot be delivered)

The problem is that, it's not the people of (e.g.) Ballatar paying tens of thousands of pounds each for the railway being built there - it's national taxpayers and rail fares - so you can ask for these expensive local projects because it's not you who has to fund it - there's no disincentive - so of course candidates are going to want to be seen to demand this local investment (and, if one party's candidate promises he'll fight for a local station then other candidates don't want to be seen as being outgunned...)

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Must be quite a few areas where it will always be cheaper to lay on chauffeur driven limousines for intending passengers rather than build/rebuild/operate a railway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Generally, it’s bad.

Most of what is campaigned for is, frankly, guff. And thus causes the rail industry a fair bit of effort to set the record straight / remind people of the realities of the railway. (My favourite example is the then MP for Canvey Island proposing closing the line beyond Southend, to release land for housing, the financial gain for which could then build a line into Canvey.)

Unfortunately, some of the guff gets through and money is then wasted on early stages of development before reality strikes home, and in a very few cases the things actually get built despite there being no case (generally these are new stations that end up with low numbers). This really really annoys the Treasury, who then put in extra layers of checks and balances that delays everything else and stops many deserving projects, including some less obvious but really good proposals.

However, some politicians know their stuff in this subject matter, and can be very helpful. A minority, though.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Most of what is campaigned for is, frankly, guff.

Well said @Bald Rick ! A serious reality check is undoubtedly required much of the time!

 

[Wynd]

No surprise to learn that the UK Treasury seek to delay, block and prevaricate. Tell us something we don't know.

It may have escaped some, but rail is more popular than ever. It is also more relevant due to the de-carbonisation of transport and uptake in active travel and development of green space. Its a good idea to develop further our rail infrastructure.

Local people want improved transport links in their local vicinity? Stop the presses! Where else would they want them? We already have an intercity rail network, so invariably development is going to be more localized.

One of the things I think about a lot is that I look at this subject through the prism of living here in Aberdeenshire whereas I suspect many others on here have no such luxury. Set against the context of the larger cities in the central belt or down south, these proposals will always get a rough ride, but that misses the point entirely. Aberdeen is a small city, the Shire is a large geographic area where not owning a car consigns you to a live of abject misery and limits your opportunities here. Further, the bus services are horrific.

I'm getting off topic.

If local candidates for elections wish to propose reopening because the constituents are telling them that's what they want and a growing body of evidence suggests it, then what is the problem?

If a feasibility study shows its unfeasible then the democratic and policy based system is working. Taxpayers and constituents are entitled to ask, their political representatives are obliged to seek and answer the request and the rail industry is functioning by answering the requests in detail.

Whats the concern? The system is largely functioning as it should.

Here we now have candidates across the political spectrum and constitutional divide proposing re-openings. To that I say, about bloody time, and I welcome their enthusiasm gleefully!

 

[Railwaysceptic]

If local candidates for elections wish to propose reopening because the constituents are telling them that's what they want and a growing body of evidence suggests it, then what is the problem?

The problem is paying for it; both the investment and the unending subsidy.

All taxpayers have their own view of what should be prioritised, and it's unlikely that most taxpayers will think vast expenditure on railway projects benefitting only a few should take precedence over more police officers, more schools, more healthcare etc. etc.