Do branch lines contribute much financially to the greater network?

[Starmill]

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

The Kyle line has a stronger financial case than the Far North does. That was the point.

 

[cactustwirly]

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?

A new loop would cost a lot of money, but it would never be justified.

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

The Kyle line has a stronger financial case than the Far North does. That was the point.

They both have fairly weak financial cases.
They are only retained because of the political will to keep them open.

A handful of trains a day serving a sparsely populated area isn't really useful to anyone.
Especially when some fairly large towns like Cirencester or Tavistock are without a service entirely

 

[yorksrob]

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 ==


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 ==


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.

Anyone can say something that makes someone else angry, that doesn't necessarily make it true.

 

[Starmill]

Anyone can say something that makes someone else angry, that doesn't necessarily make it true.

Indeed not but luckily my post contained a thorough explanation of the logic which is what makes it true.

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

They both have fairly weak financial cases.

They both have exceptionally weak financial cases. It's just that the Kyle line could reduce its subsidy down from current £high twenties / passenger journey to around £20 through tourism growth. The possibility isn't there on the Far North. For comparison the Glasgow Electrics are something like £1.50 per trip, SR Intercity services are close to £0 and the E&G -£2.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed not but luckily my post contained a thorough explanation of the logic which is what makes it true.

But your logic is that the railways aren't special, so should be rationalised accordingly, whereas they are because there is no other method of transport that can fulfill their role as a nationwide passenger transport network.

 

[Starmill]

whereas they are because there is no other method of transport that can fulfill their role as a nationwide passenger transport network.

I think that we'll have to agree to disagree that that's the case.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that we'll have to agree to disagree on that that's the case.

We probably will !

 

[Glenn1969]

We probably will !

I think I'm with you on this one (I think public transport should be regarded as a necessity for a lot of us that don't drive and regarded as a not for profit public service for this reason. The bits that make a profit should in this case subsidise those that don't and the whole network should get the investment required to take it from 1922 infrastructure to 2022

 

[yorksrob]

I think I'm with you on this one (I think public transport should be regarded as a necessisity for a lot of us that don't drive and regarded as a not for profit public service for this reason. The bits that make a profit should in this case subsidise those that don't and the whole network should get the investment required to take it from 1922 infrastructure to 2022

Yes, I agree. Cross-subsidisation is a vital aspect of funding the railway network which goes back to pre-nationalisation times.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think I'm with you on this one (I think public transport should be regarded as a necessity for a lot of us that don't drive and regarded as a not for profit public service for this reason. The bits that make a profit should in this case subsidise those that don't and the whole network should get the investment required to take it from 1922 infrastructure to 2022

I also agree, but the key here is public transport network. Which doesn’t necessarily mean it must be rail.

Elsewhere on the pages, over the years, there have been a small number of examples of rail services that if they were replaced by buses, properly integrated into the fares and timetable systems, would provide a quicker service, much more cheaply, more reliably, with better connectivity (serving village centres where people live / want to get to rather than a halt half a mile outside),at lower environmental costs. Literally no downside at all, except for the occasional correspondent who gets travel sick on buses but not trains.

 

[Starmill]

I think I'm with you on this one (I think public transport should be regarded as a necessity for a lot of us that don't drive and regarded as a not for profit public service for this reason. The bits that make a profit should in this case subsidise those that don't and the whole network should get the investment required to take it from 1922 infrastructure to 2022

I really don't think anyone here is disagreeing with that in principle!

The question however is how it's achieved. Railways aren't always the best answer.

 

[yorksrob]

I also agree, but the key here is public transport network. Which doesn’t necessarily mean it must be rail.

Elsewhere on the pages, over the years, there have been a small number of examples of rail services that if they were replaced by buses, properly integrated into the fares and timetable systems, would provide a quicker service, much more cheaply, more reliably, with better connectivity (serving village centres where people live / want to get to rather than a halt half a mile outside),at lower environmental costs. Literally no downside at all, except for the occasional correspondent who gets travel sick on buses but not trains.

If this is such a panacea, why hasn't it happened yet ? There are plenty of candidates where it could have been tried. Tavistock, Rippon etc.

Bustitution is only ever trotted out by people who want to reduce costs on the railway, not by anyone who believes it will provide a genuinely better service.

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

The question however is how it's achieved. Railways aren't always the best answer.

But they are where there is a railway already built.

 

[yorkie]

But they are where there is a railway already built.

I think @Starmill's point is probably that the most important thing is the benefit to society as a whole; while we all want that to be a traditional railway line for nostalgic reasons, there are occasions when something else may be more appropriate; what that is will no doubt vary depending on the specific circumstances. And that's a valid point in my opinion. (I am sure @Starmill can correct me if I've misunderstood or elaborate accordingly)

 

[Bald Rick]

If this is such a panacea, why hasn't it happened yet ?

1) because as others have said upthread, for reasons none of us quite understand, the Government doesn’t want to*, although...

2) it has. Hunstanton for example.

* I sense this policy may change though.

 

[Starmill]

If this is such a panacea, why hasn't it happened yet ? There are plenty of candidates where it could have been tried. Tavistock, Rippon etc.

Because of a view that 'only a train is good enough'. And as such no special resources for quality rail-bus are made available in this country (with some rare and laudable exceptions, e.g. St Andrews).

 

[Bald Rick]

Bustitution is only ever trotted out by people who want to reduce costs on the railway, not by anyone who believes it will provide a genuinely better service.

But sometimes, occasionally, a bus can provide a better service. (And more cheaply, less environmental issues, etc)

But they are where there is a railway already built.

As above, not necessarily.

 

[yorksrob]

I think @Starmill's point is probably that the most important thing is the benefit to society as a whole; while we all want that to be a traditional railway line for nostalgic reasons, there are occasions when something else may be more appropriate; what that is will no doubt vary depending on the specific circumstances. And that's a valid point in my opinion. (I am sure @Starmill can correct me if I've misunderstood or elaborate accordingly)

I'm sure it is a valid opinion, but it simply isn't a practical one. Some short suburban routes may have been improved by metro operation, but once you get to converting longer distance rural rail into a bus service, we're into cloud cuckoo land.

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

Because of a view that 'only a train is good enough'. And as such no special resources for quality rail-bus are made available in this country (with some rare and laudable exceptions, e.g. St Andrews).

Because a train does provide a longer term, more reliable option

But sometimes, occasionally, a bus can provide a better service. (And more cheaply, less environmental issues, etc)




As above, not necessarily.

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Starmill]

I think @Starmill's point is probably that the most important thing is the benefit to society as a whole; while we all want that to be a traditional railway line for nostalgic reasons, there are occasions when something else may be more appropriate; what that is will no doubt vary depending on the specific circumstances. And that's a valid point in my opinion. (I am sure @Starmill can correct me if I've misunderstood or elaborate accordingly)

Indeed. A bus for Girvan - Stranraer connecting with every train would actually be much better than keeping the rail service because a) all of the buses could serve the ferry terminals and b) the frequency could be much better, up to 1tph. These two things are just not practical for rail.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. A bus for Girvan - Stranraer connecting with every train would actually be much better than keeping the rail service because a) all of the buses could serve the ferry terminals and b) the frequency could be much better, up to 1tph. These two things are just not practical for rail.

Run the bus alongside the train for a while and see how many choose to change to it at Girvan. If the bus really is the better option, the train will empty out.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Run the bus alongside the train for a while and see how many choose to change to it at Girvan. If the bus really is the better option, the train will empty out.

The last time I caught the train to Stranraer (for a local bus back to the ferry at Cairnryan) I was the only person on the train after Girvan.

 

[daodao]

They both have exceptionally weak financial cases. It's just that the Kyle line could reduce its subsidy down from current £high twenties / passenger journey to around £20 through tourism growth. The possibility isn't there on the Far North. For comparison the Glasgow Electrics are something like £1.50 per trip, SR Intercity services are close to £0 and the E&G -£2.

Relative subsidy costs should be assessed per passenger mile travelled, not per passenger. I accept that all the lines NW of Inverness have very weak financial cases. However, the population served by the Far North line, while relatively small (about 35,000) is far in excess of that served by the Kyle line, which only serves hamlets, so the social effects of closing it would be much greater.

 

[yorksrob]

The last time I caught the train to Stranraer (for a local bus back to the ferry at Cairnryan) I was the only person on the train after Girvan.

There's an argument that the service should be better timed and marketed for local residents at Stranraer.

 

[MattRat]

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.

Well, luckily I can make up for those people

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.

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?

I never said it wasn't a flawed system, just that it could be improved. Rail can be, in the right hands, the benchmark for mass transit. With the populated world that we live in, why shouldn't we be getting as many people as possible onto trains? Imagine if everyone on the particular route you mentioned did use the train instead of the bus, for example. It wouldn't look like a bad line then, would it?

 

[Starmill]

There's an argument that the service should be better timed and marketed for local residents at Stranraer.

It was improved in 2015. Unfortunately the increased service only generated a very small increase in usage, so the value for money the line provides got worse, not better.

It's especially pressing because Girvan - Stranraer is unsuitable for battery rail decarbonisation, meaning a more difficult and expensive solution will be needed. However it would be suitable for electric bus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed not but luckily my post contained a thorough explanation of the logic which is what makes it true.

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


They both have exceptionally weak financial cases. It's just that the Kyle line could reduce its subsidy down from current £high twenties / passenger journey to around £20 through tourism growth. The possibility isn't there on the Far North. For comparison the Glasgow Electrics are something like £1.50 per trip, SR Intercity services are close to £0 and the E&G -£2.

Passenger mile is a better measure, to be honest. And that shows regional networks very poorly. Merseyrail I believe second highest after Island Line.

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

It was improved in 2015. Unfortunately the increased service only generated a very small increase in usage, so the value for money the line provides got worse, not better.

It's especially pressing because Girvan - Stranraer is unsuitable for battery rail decarbonisation, meaning a more difficult and expensive solution will be needed. However it would be suitable for electric bus.

How can it be unsuitable for battery rail but suitable for battery bus?

 

[Starmill]

How can it be unsuitable for battery rail but suitable for battery bus?

Because a bus can be made lighter and can get up hills. The technology is also more mature.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because a bus can be made lighter

Though vastly more rolling resistance. It is easier to push a railway coach than a medium sized bus.

and can get up hills

Fewer of those on a railway.

The technology is also more mature.

I would question that. Adding battery tech to an EMU for low speed running with weight almost no object is loads easier. Crikey, there were lead acid BEMUs 60 years ago.

Add those nice 25kV wires for a good chunk of the journey to charge, too.

 

[Starmill]

Fewer of those on a railway.

Not between Girvan and Stranraer.

I would question that. Adding battery tech to an EMU for low speed running with weight almost no object is loads easier. Crikey, there were lead acid BEMUs 60 years ago.

There's no rail product on the market that could get a round trip between Girvan and Stranraer in, and no realistic prospect of one by 2025 when the class 156s are to be withdrawn. So you may question it all you like but Transport Scotland can only procure what the market can physically provide. A hydrogen solution will just about be workable - but at enormous expense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apparently the 1960s BR battery EMU did Aberdeen to Ballater, which is 40 miles and rather hilly. Hills don't matter that much, anyway, as you can use regen to recharge the battery on the way down.

But ScotRail are going to need hydrogen for the Far North/Kyle/West Highland anyway, so it is not an expensive one off, it's a couple more units on an existing planned order.

 

[Starmill]

Apparently the 1960s BR battery EMU did Aberdeen to Ballater, which is 40 miles and rather hilly. Hills don't matter that much, anyway, as you can use regen to recharge the battery on the way down.

But ScotRail are going to need hydrogen for the Far North/Kyle/West Highland anyway, so it is not an expensive one off, it's a couple more units on an existing planned order.

Bad enough to have to find hydrogen plants near Fort William and Inverness without having to have one near Ayr too.