Do branch lines contribute much financially to the greater network?

[Bald Rick]

People will of course say "ah with the benefit of hindsight..." and they're right that helps a lot. What I don't really understand is why, with benefit of hindsight, some people still think further cuts to the network is a good idea.

Well, of course, whilst some of the route closures in the 50s and 60s were, with hindsight, a mistake, many weren’t. I am not advocating closures, but it is difficult to be certain that any future closures would be a bad idea, when properly considering alternatives.

 

[Meerkat]

Almost no-one today suggests that railways lines should be closed. Many people believe the railway should keep its costs down and that includes running loss-making services as economically as possible.

I would suggest some should be closed - Barton, Conway Valley just for starters.

Well, of course, whilst some of the route closures in the 50s and 60s were, with hindsight, a mistake, many weren’t.

Even the hindsight of 'they would be useful now' doesn't necessarily mean that throwing scarce funds at hopeless lines for decades would have made sense. At best safeguarding the routes maybe.

 

[daodao]

I would suggest some should be closed - Barton, Conway Valley just for starters.

Some possible closures in the Home Counties (as part of "levelling down") could include: Horsham-Dorking, Leatherhead-Effingham Junction, the Bromley North branch, Oxted-Uckfield, Marlow-Maidenhead, Greenford-West Ealing, Princes Risborough-Aylesbury, Watford Junction-St Albans.

IMO, these branch lines don't contribute much to the greater network.

 

[davetheguard]

Some possible closures in the Home Counties (as part of "levelling down") could include: Horsham-Dorking, Leatherhead-Effingham Junction, the Bromley North branch, Oxted-Uckfield, Marlow-Maidenhead, Greenford-West Ealing, Princes Risborough-Aylesbury, Watford Junction-St Albans.

IMO, these branch lines don't contribute much to the greater network.

With "friends" like these who needs enemies? How are you going to reduce emissions & congestion by closing electric railways. But then I shouldn't be surprised as you don't seem keen on the East Coast Main Line north of Newcastle either. Even one of the most important main lines in the country isn't safe it seems.

Was "levelling down" ever a thing? Or is that a new Conservative policy that hasn't been mentioned yet in public -make the prosporous parts of the nation poor as well- I don't think that will go down well in the so-called "Blue Wall"!

 

[daodao]

..... you don't seem keen on the East Coast Main Line north of Newcastle

I made no comment on the ECML north of Newcastle. It is a much busier route than previously and doesn't fall within the remit of this thread.

 

[MattRat]

Was "levelling down" ever a thing? Or is that a new Conservative policy that hasn't been mentioned yet in public -make the prosporous parts of the nation poor as well- I don't think that will go down well in the so-called "Blue Wall"!

It's in the experimental phase on the NHS. Once they know for certain no one is paying attention to it, it'll be rolled out to the entire country.

 

[cactustwirly]

Some possible closures in the Home Counties (as part of "levelling down") could include: Horsham-Dorking, Leatherhead-Effingham Junction, the Bromley North branch, Oxted-Uckfield, Marlow-Maidenhead, Greenford-West Ealing, Princes Risborough-Aylesbury, Watford Junction-St Albans.

IMO, these branch lines don't contribute much to the greater network.

Because branches with lots of commuting, and sustain at least an hourly service, are definitely comparable to a line in North Wales with only a handful of trains per day...

Lines like the Maidenhead to Marlow are actually quite busy, so much so that an extra train runs ECS to Maidenhead at peak times and is used to provide a half hourly service on the line. This wouldn't be happening of the line didn't cover it's operating cost.

 

[davetheguard]

I made no comment on the ECML north of Newcastle. It is a much busier route than previously and doesn't fall within the remit of this thread.

You're right, I apologize, I thought comments made by another poster were made by you.

 

[Starmill]

Well, of course, whilst some of the route closures in the 50s and 60s were, with hindsight, a mistake, many weren’t. I am not advocating closures, but it is difficult to be certain that any future closures would be a bad idea, when properly considering alternatives.

There are loads of closures that would be a good idea because they would permit scarce railway resources to be redeployed elsewhere, and they could be better served by buses.

Politically this sort of this is almost considered alongside legalising cannabis - scientifically, economically, practically an overwhelmingly beneficial thing but something which the main parties simply won't touch.

Internally at ScotRail for example there's frustration that there's a summer market on the Kyle line that's going untapped, while units and crews are sent instead to work on the Far North where practically no such development opportunity exists. Inverness - Tain by train and connections by bus Tain - Wick - Thurso would actually be quicker all year around of course, and combining the resources of the current train and bus operations would generate much better service for local people. I'm yet sure many would campaign against it.

A refusal to countenance any closures could therefore be said to be actively damaging the parts of the railway that are open and have potential to be much more than they are today, such as the Kyle line. This pattern is very similar across other areas of the country, I'm not picking on the Far North by itself.

 

[AndrewE]

I think lots of people are looking through the wrong end of the telescope, and the actual premise of the thread is wrong in principle.

We have a national railway network and much of its success is down to there being (effectively) a single timetable which the travelling public see as a provider of end-to-end journeys, regardless of what the different regional franchises happen to be called this month.

The network's success in attracting business from cars or coaches depends on public perception of reliability and value for money, amongst other things. This is critical for encouraging modal shift and reducing our carbon footprint, which is generally accepted as essential - regardless of what a few antediluvians still cling on to.

Branch lines might not seem to be "profitable" - but how many minor roads in rural areas are? Should we be abandoning them? If "levelling up" or supporting regional connectivity is to mean anything it has to deliver greater ease of movement all round the country, including giving people in remote areas a public transport service that they believe they can rely on. Greater London's (and the SE in general's) level of public transport provision would tempt lots of us provincials out of our cars!

To do this means providing the best service we can manage across the whole country, including in relatively remote areas, and politicians having the spine (aka leadership) to say that it will cost what it will cost, but as an advanced country with 21st century mobility expectations we can't afford to do without it.
A

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are loads of closures that would be a good idea because they would permit scarce railway resources to be redeployed elsewhere, and they could be better served by buses.

...

A refusal to countenance any closures could therefore be said to be actively damaging the parts of the railway that are open and have potential to be much more than they are today, such as the Kyle line. This pattern is very similar across other areas of the country, I'm not picking on the Far North by itself.

The fundamental problem here is the pathological inability to consider buses and trains as part of a single transport system with a single published timetable and a single fare set agnostic of mode, including connection protection.

Do that and buses become a far more viable alternative.

I am opposed to any and all rail closures until this issue is resolved, which knowing the UK will be never, sadly.

 

[AndrewE]

The fundamental problem here is the pathological inability to consider buses and trains as part of a single transport system with a single published timetable and a single fare set agnostic of mode, including connection protection.

Do that and buses become a far more viable alternative.

I am opposed to any and all rail closures until this issue is resolved, which knowing the UK will be never, sadly.

Absolutely agree.
A

 

[yorksrob]

Genuine question, do you have financial evidence that branch lines funnel passengers on to the submission enough numbers to cover their costs?

Does it matter that branch lines funnel enough passengers "to cover their operating costs" ?

Branch and secondary routes are important to the overall railway industry as they provide the coverage for it to be a viable means of traveling to a large number of potential destinations. That itself is part of the "sell" of the passenger railway.

To take an example, I'm not at all sure if the line from Manchester to Southport generates enough fare revenue, to cover it's own costs (even speaking as someone who has used it as part of a journey on the wider network). The point is that for those people who use it for a day out, it helps to create the perception that the railway is there to serve the range of destinations that a passenger may need. If you were to have a sparse railway network similar to that proposed as part of the infamous Serpell option, the railway would be irrelevant to the vast majority of the population. The network would be similar to the National Express coach network, and how many people use that ? Would it be able to garner enough political interest to ensure its survival ? I doubt it.

Pipe dreams about integrated transport removing the need for branch and secondary railway routes have no basis in reality. The state would need a degree of control over all public transport services unprecedented, even compared to the earliest days of the BTC to make it work, and there's no guarantee that passengers would consider non-rail connections as permanent enough to consider them part of a long rail journey.

 

[daodao]

Politically this sort of this is almost considered alongside legalising cannabis - scientifically, economically, practically an overwhelmingly beneficial thing but something which the main parties simply won't touch.

Internally at ScotRail for example there's frustration that there's a summer market on the Kyle line that's going untapped, while units and crews are sent instead to work on the Far North where practically no such development opportunity exists. Inverness - Tain by train and connections by bus Tain - Wick - Thurso would actually be quicker all year around of course, and combining the resources of the current train and bus operations would generate much better service for local people. I'm yet sure many would campaign against it.

OT, but cannabis is a dangerous drug and it would be foolish to legalise it - I agree with Peter Hitchens.

Since the opening of the Skye bridge (with a through bus service from Inverness to Portree via Drumnadrochit) and the diversion of the Stornoway ferry service to Ullapool, the Kyle line serves little useful purpose, unlike the Far North line, where the parallel bus service has withered, particularly through Helmsdale. It is the Kyle branch line not the Far North line which may be appropriate to be considered for closure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

OT, but cannabis is a dangerous drug and it would be foolish to legalise it - I agree with Peter Hitchens.

Since the opening of the Skye bridge (with a through bus service from Inverness to Portree via Drumnadrochit) and the diversion of the Stornoway ferry service to Ullapool, the Kyle line serves little useful purpose, unlike the Far North line, where the parallel bus service has withered. It is the Kyle branch line not the Far North line which may be appropriate to be considered for closure.

Umm, tourists? Have you ever been on any of the lines you like to propose closure of?

A sensible country would of course not have a competing bus, but a connecting one.

 

[yorksrob]

Cannabis can be a dangerous drug depending on the strength and the nature of its production. That's as much of an argument for legalising and regulating it's production and sale as it is for prohibition.

I see far more compelling justification for legalising cannabis than for closing passenger railways.

 

[daodao]

Umm, tourists? Have you ever been on any of the lines you like to propose closure of?

Tourists are not a justification per se for retention of a subsidised railway line.

As it happens, I have travelled on the Kyle line as far as Achnasheen, when staying at the then railway-owned Kyle of Lochalsh hotel in 1972; at that time there was no Skye bridge and the train connected with the Stornoway ferry.

 

[yorksrob]

Tourists are not a justification for retention of a subsidised railway line.

Why not ? If the tourist industry is important enough to a local area, it might be that retaining the route to facilitate tourism is the prime reason to keeping it open.

I would expect that the very busy St Ives branch is retained primarily to facilitate tourism and very important it is too.

 

[tbtc]

Almost no-one today suggests that railways lines should be closed. Many people believe the railway should keep its costs down and that includes running loss-making services as economically as possible.

It's becoming almost impossible to discuss any kind of "rationalisation" because people have this hysterical over-reaction along the lines of "SO YOU WANT TO CLOSE ALL LINES", rather than any rational approach

People like to say re Beeching that "a third of line the lines should have been closed, a third should have survived and a third should never have been built in the first place", which is a glib way of suggesting that Beeching made a significant number of mistakes, but the kind of people who trot this out never seem to be able to accept a single closure today, even the stations/lines that continued to have paltry numbers even after the rising tide of a generation of nationwide increases

Even the hindsight of 'they would be useful now' doesn't necessarily mean that throwing scarce funds at hopeless lines for decades would have made sense. At best safeguarding the routes maybe.

"Useful" is always a cop out answer on these threads, along the lines of "a cash strapped BR could have spent some of their budget on maintaining various corridors just in case they might one day have passenger numbers that might be comparable to a lightly loaded minibus"

With "friends" like these who needs enemies? How are you going to reduce emissions & congestion by closing electric railways

There is a threshold of passengers at which any train is comparable to the passengers all going by car/taxi - even electric trains

(though clearly most of the dodgy routes are entirely diesel)

There are loads of closures that would be a good idea because they would permit scarce railway resources to be redeployed elsewhere, and they could be better served by buses.

Politically this sort of this is almost considered alongside legalising cannabis - scientifically, economically, practically an overwhelmingly beneficial thing but something which the main parties simply won't touch

Agreed - we're stuck with various deadwood lines which are sucking the budgets - policy is "emotional" rather than "rational" - frustrating

The network would be similar to the National Express coach network, and how many people use that ?

I thought you'd like the National Express coach network - lots of quirky one-a-day services providing direct links between far flung places rather than a simple coherent "hub and spoke" arrangement

 

[yorksrob]

It's becoming almost impossible to discuss any kind of "rationalisation" because people have this hysterical over-reaction along the lines of "SO YOU WANT TO CLOSE ALL LINES", rather than any rational approach

People like to say re Beeching that "a third of line the lines should have been closed, a third should have survived and a third should never have been built in the first place", which is a glib way of suggesting that Beeching made a significant number of mistakes, but the kind of people who trot this out never seem to be able to accept a single closure today, even the stations/lines that continued to have paltry numbers even after the rising tide of a generation of nationwide increases



"Useful" is always a cop out answer on these threads, along the lines of "a cash strapped BR could have spent some of their budget on maintaining various corridors just in case they might one day have passenger numbers that might be comparable to a lightly loaded minibus"



There is a threshold of passengers at which any train is comparable to the passengers all going by car/taxi - even electric trains

(though clearly most of the dodgy routes are entirely diesel)



Agreed - we're stuck with various deadwood lines which are sucking the budgets - policy is "emotional" rather than "rational" - frustrating




I thought you'd like the National Express coach network - lots of quirky one-a-day services providing direct links between far flung places rather than a simple coherent "hub and spoke" arrangement

Don't get me wrong, I do actually like, and see the value of the National Express coach network. It serves its market well.

However, I don't believe that anyone could describe it as a truly nationwide public transport system, and I doubt it has much political clout.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't get me wrong, I do actually like, and see the value of the National Express coach network. It serves its market well.

However, I don't believe that anyone could describe it as a truly nationwide public transport system, and I doubt it has much political clout.

It is also far more economic to serve "long thin" routes using a coach (approx 60 seats, one fairly cheap member of staff) than an InterCity type train (at least a few hundred seats, 2 or 3 quite expensive members of staff). Nonetheless NatEx have done some pruning of these routes of late.

 

[yorksrob]

It is also far more economic to serve "long thin" routes using a coach (approx 60 seats, one fairly cheap member of staff) than an InterCity type train (at least a few hundred seats, 2 or 3 quite expensive members of staff). Nonetheless NatEx have done some pruning of these routes of late.

Yet there's a need for long thin routes beyond what a purely commercial network can provide. The national rail network has the coverage and bulk to serve so many different markets that nothing else in terms of public transport can.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet there's a need for long thin routes beyond what a purely commercial network can provide. The national rail network has the coverage and bulk to serve so many different markets that nothing else in terms of public transport can.

Of course this could be done very effectively by having buses that connect properly to trains in the same fare system and with connection protection. I still think, for instance, that the mere expedient of putting Ambleside in the railway fare/timetable system with the existing bus service would considerably increase the number of people going there by train and bus.

(A half job was done years ago with RailLinks, but the ticketing was not done right)

But the UK prefers these highly complementary modes to compete. It is madness.

 

[backontrack]

Internally at ScotRail for example there's frustration that there's a summer market on the Kyle line that's going untapped, while units and crews are sent instead to work on the Far North where practically no such development opportunity exists. Inverness - Tain by train and connections by bus Tain - Wick - Thurso would actually be quicker all year around of course, and combining the resources of the current train and bus operations would generate much better service for local people. I'm yet sure many would campaign against it.

A refusal to countenance any closures could therefore be said to be actively damaging the parts of the railway that are open and have potential to be much more than they are today, such as the Kyle line. This pattern is very similar across other areas of the country, I'm not picking on the Far North by itself.

Oh, we're not doing this again, are we? There's a lot of nuance in this particular case that gets ignored: the afterburn of a period of systematic unreliability circa 2014-17 caused by excessive single-line stretches and then-continuous crewing issues at Wick; the fact that the train actually beats the bus to Thurso at present yet the existence of a transport alternative is used a stick to beat the line with rather than an indication of untapped passenger flows; the tourist potential of the route for both scenery (it rivals Kyle) and for being the northernmost railway, taking you close to John o' Groats and paralleling the North Coast 500 - it's basically an Instagram post, so why aren't we putting it out there on social media? - and the existence at Thurso of a ferry link that adds to the line's patronage (pre-covid, it wasn't uncommon for the early southbound to be full up out of Thurso). It also has more freight potential than Kyle - timber extraction for instance - and does actually serve greater population north of Tain than Kyle does after branching away at Dingwall. These are objective truths, rather an appeal to sentiment - but they're being expressed with feeling, and that isn't allowed. It's in our national psyche, the old tendency to equate emotiveness to irrationality. If you're passionate, it undermines your argument, a marker of excessive sensitivity in discourse. Only the stiffest of upper lips will do. Which is odd, because I think that, perversely, the real reason why the Far North Line tends to cop a lot of flak on here is caused less by its imperfections, but is due more to what it represents to the would-be rationalisers. And the clue is in the name.

I maintain that you will get value out of some modest improvements. A loop at Lentran would be massive for reliability, support BOTH the lines and allow an increased frequency on the Inverness-Tain section while also allowing certain stops to be disentangled from the longer-distance services - plus there's the impending introduction of the button request stop system, indicating that ScotRail do actually see some future in the line as yet. If we're talking rail-bus integration, then how about a seasonal connection between Thurso and the ferry at Scrabster?

 

[MattRat]

There are loads of closures that would be a good idea because they would permit scarce railway resources to be redeployed elsewhere, and they could be better served by buses.

Politically this sort of this is almost considered alongside legalising cannabis - scientifically, economically, practically an overwhelmingly beneficial thing but something which the main parties simply won't touch.

Internally at ScotRail for example there's frustration that there's a summer market on the Kyle line that's going untapped, while units and crews are sent instead to work on the Far North where practically no such development opportunity exists. Inverness - Tain by train and connections by bus Tain - Wick - Thurso would actually be quicker all year around of course, and combining the resources of the current train and bus operations would generate much better service for local people. I'm yet sure many would campaign against it.

A refusal to countenance any closures could therefore be said to be actively damaging the parts of the railway that are open and have potential to be much more than they are today, such as the Kyle line. This pattern is very similar across other areas of the country, I'm not picking on the Far North by itself.

It's really rather depressing when an associte staff member and veteran of the site is advocating against rail. You were supposed to defeat the road lobby, not join them! On a more serious note, I wonder who will champion for rail, if not us, by which I mean this forum.

 

[simonw]

Does it matter that branch lines funnel enough passengers "to cover their operating costs" ?

Branch and secondary routes are important to the overall railway industry as they provide the coverage for it to be a viable means of traveling to a large number of potential destinations. That itself is part of the "sell" of the passenger railway.

To take an example, I'm not at all sure if the line from Manchester to Southport generates enough fare revenue, to cover it's own costs (even speaking as someone who has used it as part of a journey on the wider network). The point is that for those people who use it for a day out, it helps to create the perception that the railway is there to serve the range of destinations that a passenger may need. If you were to have a sparse railway network similar to that proposed as part of the infamous Serpell option, the railway would be irrelevant to the vast majority of the population. The network would be similar to the National Express coach network, and how many people use that ? Would it be able to garner enough political interest to ensure its survival ? I doubt it.

Pipe dreams about integrated transport removing the need for branch and secondary railway routes have no basis in reality. The state would need a degree of control over all public transport services unprecedented, even compared to the earliest days of the BTC to make it work, and there's no guarantee that passengers would consider non-rail connections as permanent enough to consider them part of a long rail journey.

The railway network is irrelevant to the majority of the population.

A significant percentage of the population has not been on a train in decades and Most will not get a train from one-year to the next.

 

[yorksrob]

The railway network is irrelevant to the majority of the population.

A significant percentage of the population has not been on a train in decades and Most will not get a train from one-year to the next.

This is untrue. In the course of events, most people will use the train occasionally. It might only be for particular longer journeys, but the majority do use rail at some stage.

 

[simonw]

This is untrue. In the course of events, most people will use the train occasionally. It might only be for particular longer journeys, but the majority do use rail at some stage.

Stats show a majority make two or fewer journeys per year

YouGov UK: Data Analytics & Market Research Services

Explore YouGov's market research and data analytics services for valuable insights. Make informed business decisions with our consumer analysis & intelligence.

yougov.co.uk

Will have been even n higher in the past two years.

 

[Starmill]

It's really rather depressing when an associte staff member and veteran of the site is advocating against rail. You were supposed to defeat the road lobby, not join them! On a more serious note, I wonder who will champion for rail, if not us, by which I mean this forum.

This is precisely the attitude which has got the railway industry into the large mess it is in today, as I described in my post.

If you really believe in something, you need to be prepared to accept its weaknesses in order to improve it. You cannot merely go around telling everyone else how great the thing that you believe in is, and you certainly cannot do what you've done above, which is to try to lump people who are prepared to point out where there are failures in order to improve the whole into the true opposition of people who aren't happy for public transport to have any resources.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2022 ==

Oh, we're not doing this again, are we? There's a lot of nuance in this particular case that gets ignored: the afterburn of a period of systematic unreliability circa 2014-17 caused by excessive single-line stretches and then-continuous crewing issues at Wick; the fact that the train actually beats the bus to Thurso at present yet the existence of a transport alternative is used a stick to beat the line with rather than an indication of untapped passenger flows; the tourist potential of the route for both scenery (it rivals Kyle) and for being the northernmost railway, taking you close to John o' Groats and paralleling the North Coast 500 - it's basically an Instagram post, so why aren't we putting it out there on social media? - and the existence at Thurso of a ferry link that adds to the line's patronage (pre-covid, it wasn't uncommon for the early southbound to be full up out of Thurso). It also has more freight potential than Kyle - timber extraction for instance - and does actually serve greater population north of Tain than Kyle does after branching away at Dingwall. And you will get value out of some modest improvements. A loop at Lentran would support both the lines and allow an increased frequency on the Inverness-Tain section while also allowing certain stops to be disentangled from the longer-distance services - plus there's the impending introduction of the button request stop system, indicating that ScotRail do actually see some future in the line as yet. If we're talking rail-bus integration, then how about a seasonal connection between Thurso and the ferry at Scrabster?

Your dedication to the cause would impress anyone. But if you'll allow me to suggest that you're making emotional arguments which rather prove my point: there aren't the economic or practical arguments for the existence of a railway between Tain and Wick, certainly not one that goes via Lairg.

The fact that my post has suddenly generated such angry reaction shows how true my core point is. People think that the railway is 'different' and deserves resources just because, and that there's no need to carefully prioritise them where they'll do the most good. Imagine if everyone took that approach?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2022 ==

I am opposed to any and all rail closures until this issue is resolved, which knowing the UK will be never, sadly.

Sadly so. If the bus industry had parity with the level of resources the railway industry is granted, we could have one of the best bus services in Europe.

 

[yorksrob]

Stats show a majority make two or fewer journeys per year

YouGov UK: Data Analytics & Market Research Services

Explore YouGov's market research and data analytics services for valuable insights. Make informed business decisions with our consumer analysis & intelligence.

yougov.co.uk

Will have been even n higher in the past two years.

Those two or fewer journeys could be important long distance journeys though.

Doris from Salisbury might hardly ever use the train, but she does once a year to visit her sister in Carlisle. Just because that's an infrequent journey, doesn't mean that is unimportant to Doris.

It's also stated that four in ten Brits (which is a minority but the way) haven't set for on the train in the last twelve months. How much more land and resource does the road network take up ! The fact that sixty percent of the population use the relatively small rail network illustrates how efficient it is.