Do branch lines contribute much financially to the greater network?

[Bletchleyite]

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

It is possible to transport it, you know.

 

[MattRat]

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.

Out of curiosity, how much does a new hydrogen train cost compared to a regular diesel unit or a bi-mode train? That's the important comparison to determine true value for money,

 

[Starmill]

It is possible to transport it, you know.

Thanks for being patronising. Most anything is technically possible. Note that we're discussing value for money.

 

[MattRat]

Thanks for being patronising. Most anything is technically possible. Note that we're discussing value for money.

Probably costs similar to transporting diesel, although maybe less so as Scotland has the surplus to create hydrogen in-house rather than import from abroad.

 

[Starmill]

Out of curiosity, how much does a new hydrogen train cost compared to a regular diesel unit or a bi-mode train? That's the important comparison to determine true value for money,

Unfortunately it's not the whole story. It looks likely that running a hydrogen train is going to cost more than running a diesel train at current levels of diesel fuel price. Especially if you're transporting pressurised hydrogen around to and from the railway depot rather than being able to produce it on site. The trains will all need very long ranges, so that's a lot of hydrogen to carry around and an awful lot of electricity to produce it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jan 2022 ==

Probably costs similar to transporting diesel, although maybe less so as Scotland has the surplus to create hydrogen in-house rather than import from abroad.

A rather a lot more volume of hydrogen is going to be needed than diesel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately it's not the whole story. It looks likely that running a hydrogen train is going to cost more than running a diesel train at current levels of diesel fuel price. Especially if you're transporting pressurised hydrogen around to and from the railway depot rather than being able to produce it on site. The trains will all need very long ranges, so that's a lot of hydrogen to carry around and an awful lot of electricity to produce it.

The reason Scotland is pushing hydrogen is that they have industrial plants that produce it as a byproduct, I believe.

A rather a lot more volume of hydrogen is going to be needed than diesel.

Though it is a lot lighter.

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

That may well happen in a few places. What ratio of bus:rail passengers would lead to you agreeing that the rail service should be withdrawn?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jan 2022 ==

Though it is a lot lighter.

At atmospheric pressure yes, but at c500bar it does weigh a fair bit, plus of course you need pressurised tanks etc. And at 500bar hydrogen has 10% of the energy of diesel, litre for litre.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That may well happen in a few places. What ratio of bus:rail passengers would lead to you agreeing that the rail service should be withdrawn?

But it should be done for the right reason and in the right way.

Putting on a cheapest-possible 10 year old, rattling old Optare Solo with ripped seats that doesn't connect well with the trains on a frequency equivalent to the train is what typically would happen in the UK, and that is why I oppose any and all rail closures.

However, what should happen is a bus service that is:-
1. Planned to connect well with the train service
2. Waits for a delayed train (and vice versa) so far as operationally feasible
3. Is considered a train in terms of what is done if people are stranded
4. Is in the railway timetable, and only changes timetable alongside the railway
5. Is in the railway fares system, with paper, m-tickets and e-tickets valid, a railway TVM in Stranraer for buying through tickets to Glasgow, and everything done as if it was a train in fare terms
6. Accompanied by electrification to Girvan and a through service to Glasgow every hour on a clockface basis
7. Has a high quality interior (minimum Stagecoach Gold type spec) and quality external appearance with ScotRail branding
8. Considers any member of staff using a phrase similar to "not my problem mate, this is a bus, not a train" a serious disciplinary offence, with everything in place to ensure that staff aren't forced to say this
9. Operates at least two hourly including reasonably early morning and late evening
10. Has facilities for bicycle carriage

This would probably provide a better service than what is there now for less money, and is the sort of thing I've proposed to "fix" the Conwy Valley (in essence, bin the train*, convert the railway to a cycle path but with some of the money introduce a very high quality Snowdon Sherpa network with electric buses in the railway fare system - the latter is most important as if you can put "Llanberis" in a railway ticketing site you would get a lot more users than if you have to pay separately).

* Or consider keeping it north of Betws due to the tourist demand, which would allow a single unit two hourly clockface service, with a through electric bus to Blaenau and Bala in the opposite hour.

But it's the UK, so it won't happen. So I oppose closure.

 

[Starmill]

But it's the UK, so it won't happen. So I oppose closure

To be fair, neither this kind of standard of bus operation nor outright closure of railway routes is on the table.

What's actually happening is that in order to protect little used low frequency routes such as Girvan - Stranraer and Tain - Wick, money is instead being saved by slashing far more intensively used urban and regional services such as the cut from half hourly to hourly on Edinburgh - Tweedbank. But of course this is the speculative area so I'm not suggesting it's incorrect to discuss.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair, neither this kind of standard of bus operation nor outright closure of railway routes is on the table.

What's actually happening is that in order to protect little used low frequency routes such as Girvan - Stranraer and Tain - Wick, money is instead being saved by slashing far more intensively used urban and regional services such as the cut from half hourly to hourly on Edinburgh - Tweedbank. But of course this is the speculative area so I'm not suggesting it's incorrect to discuss.

The benefit of doing it that way, of course, is that it's reasonably easy to reinstate cut services, but not to reinstate a wholly removed piece of railway. Now, if the bus operation I suggest was in place, there'd hardly be call for that to Stranraer (even if the ferries returned), but many easier cuts have been deeply regretted so actual closures would have to be considered with the utmost of care, ensuring only to choose routes we will basically never want back. An example of a cut we won't want to reverse is Stratford to North Woolwich, which served no real purpose after the coming of the DLR.

 

[paul1609]

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.

If you took the pre- covid income costs of Oxted - Uckfield as the level at which closures would occur nationwide (Im not by the way) I'd suggest you'd be looking at closing circa 90 % of the Northern network, 80% of Cross Country, all of tfw, all of ScotRail except Edinburgh - Glasgow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you took the pre- covid income costs of Oxted - Uckfield as the level at which closures would occur nationwide (Im not by the way) I'd suggest you'd be looking at closing circa 90 % of the Northern network, 80% of Cross Country, all of tfw, all of ScotRail except Edinburgh - Glasgow.

This wouldn't be incongruous with the views posted before by @daodao, who essentially seems to favour a for-profit only railway based around the ideas mooted in the Serpell report, and everything else being by car. A very 1960s-70s idea.

I do get that some cuts may actually be positive if the bus replacement is truly up to scratch (the old favourite, the Conwy Valley, keeps coming up in that sort of discussion). However, the "full Serpell" level of cuts simply makes no sense unless you replaced them with something that looked very railway-like* and thus wouldn't save *that* much money - the traffic congestion it would cause would be disastrous.

* e.g. a dedicated (guided or no) busway, or Metrolink. These ideas are worth considering in some contexts, of course - St Ives seems to do well despite the naysayers and has a lovely country branch line feel to it as well as providing a cycling, walking and running corridor that a railway wouldn't, and Metrolink does not need operating subsidy provided the capital is fronted, and is hugely more popular than a mucky 1980s DMU once or twice an hour.

 

[daodao]

This wouldn't be incongruous with the views posted before by @daodao, who essentially seems to favour a for-profit only railway based around the ideas mooted in the Serpell report, and everything else being by car. A very 1960s-70s idea.

A slight misrepresentation. I don't favour the Serpell approach, but as the railway finances are is such a bad way post Covid, drastic cuts are likely to be required to satisfy the Treasury and enable a core network to survive. The Uckfield line was a rural branch 50 years ago, but clearly commuting using it has grown since then, although it remains a diesel "island" - however, how much commuting will continue post Covid?

 

[yorksrob]

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.

Even if a battery solution isn't on the near horizon, I think the route is one of those where you'd be justified in ten years time in saying "we've decarbonised the vast majority of the network, however Stranrear is part of the x% where this is not yet practical, therefore we're continuing with diesel for the time being". We shouldn't be basing decisions to destroy infrastructure on short term technological shortfalls.

That may well happen in a few places. What ratio of bus:rail passengers would lead to you agreeing that the rail service should be withdrawn?

I'd have to be satisfied that the vast majority of prospective train passengers would actively choose the bus over the train.

To be fair, neither this kind of standard of bus operation nor outright closure of railway routes is on the table.

What's actually happening is that in order to protect little used low frequency routes such as Girvan - Stranraer and Tain - Wick, money is instead being saved by slashing far more intensively used urban and regional services such as the cut from half hourly to hourly on Edinburgh - Tweedbank. But of course this is the speculative area so I'm not suggesting it's incorrect to discuss.

The current funding crisis for the railway has been caused by a reduction in longer distance commuting. I'd therefore far rather see reductions in those commuter services (whilst maintaining a usable baseline regular, all-day service) to mirror the reduction in usage on those services, than cuts to regional services that are already scarce and less likely to be affected by variations in commuting.

A slight misrepresentation. I don't favour the Serpell approach, but as the railway finances are is such a bad way post Covid, drastic cuts are likely to be required to satisfy the Treasury and enable a core network to survive. The Uckfield line was a rural branch 50 years ago, but clearly commuting using it has grown since then, although it remains a diesel "island" - however, how much will continue post Covid?

We still have a remarkably similar size network to the one we had thirty years ago, which cost a lot less in public subsidy to run. We should be looking at what has caused that subsidy to increase and cut that, rather than cutting the size of the network. As an example, we have train companies paying leasing costs on rolling stock that amounts to several times the cost of stock itself over its lifetime. This is an artificial cost introduced by John Major's privatisation, and this should be removed before instead of cutting routes.

 

[Starmill]

Even if a battery solution isn't on the near horizon, I think the route is one of those where you'd be justified in ten years time in saying "we've decarbonised the vast majority of the network, however Stranrear is part of the x% where this is not yet practical, therefore we're continuing with diesel for the time being". We shouldn't be basing decisions to destroy infrastructure on short term technological shortfalls.

That may well be your view but unfortunately it isn't the view of Scottish Ministers and Transport Scotland, who are working to complete decarbonisation. Class 170s will be able to continue through to 2035 however.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jan 2022 ==

We should be looking at what has caused that subsidy to increase and cut that, rather than cutting the size of the network.

The difficulty is that a large part of this is above inflation (according to CPI(H)) pay awards.

Given that inflation-only pay offers have resulted in threats to strike I'm unsure how you're planning to sell cash terms pay reductions.

You can't really compare 1990 working practices and costs to 2020 (or 2022) ones. It's another world.

 

[yorksrob]

That may well be your view but unfortunately it isn't the view of Scottish Ministers and Transport Scotland, who are working to complete decarbonisation. Class 170s will be able to continue through to 2035 however.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jan 2022 ==


The difficulty is that a large part of this is above inflation (according to CPI(H)) pay awards.

Given that inflation-only pay offers have resulted in threats to strike I'm unsure how you're planning to sell cash terms pay reductions.

You can't really compare 1990 working practices and costs to 2020 (or 2022) ones. It's another world.

With regard to Stranrear, yes the 170's may well be the interim solution. I would be surprised if some sort of affordable zero-carbon solution for the route hasn't presented itself by then.

In terms of staffing costs, I do wonder whether that is a bit of a red herring, given that fares have also been rising above inflation for a lot of the period as well. There are generally also mopre passengers who will be paying increased fares at the same time.

 

[paul1609]

A slight misrepresentation. I don't favour the Serpell approach, but as the railway finances are is such a bad way post Covid, drastic cuts are likely to be required to satisfy the Treasury and enable a core network to survive. The Uckfield line was a rural branch 50 years ago, but clearly commuting using it has grown since then, although it remains a diesel "island" - however, how much commuting will continue post Covid?

50 years ago it was a rural branch, today the combined population of Crowborough, Uckfield and Edenbridge is circa 50k. I'd say that probably exceeds that of settlements served by Skipton to Carlisle, Settle to Carnforth, Whitehaven to Barrow and Nunthorpe to Grosmont combined.

 

[Starmill]

There are generally also mopre passengers who will be paying increased fares at the same time.

There were, in 2019 perhaps.

I'm afraid fares levels don't really make much of a difference to how much it costs to run the service.

 

[yorksrob]

There were, in 2019 perhaps.

I'm afraid fares levels don't really make much of a difference to how much it costs to run the service.

Prior to Omicron, rail usage had returned to 70% of 2019. This is still higher than pre-privatisation, and there's nothing to suggest that this won't be achieved longer term once covid settles down.

It might be that we need to move to a smaller workforce over time. Either way, I don't see why we would consider route cuts when we're still paying for the cost of rolling stock several times over.

 

[paul1609]

With regard to Stranrear, yes the 170's may well be the interim solution. I would be surprised if some sort of affordable zero-carbon solution for the route hasn't presented itself by then.

In terms of staffing costs, I do wonder whether that is a bit of a red herring, given that fares have also been rising above inflation for a lot of the period as well. There are generally also mopre passengers who will be paying increased fares at the same time.

If your truly looking at a low carbon public transport on lines with half a dozen trains a day the carbon emissions of the infrastructure, maintenance and signalling etc probably considerably outweigh the emissions of the trains themselves. The low carbon solution of Stranraer, Mallaig, Kyle and Thurso is to convert the lines to cycle paths and run integrated battery road coaches from railheads instead.

 

[tbtc]

the "full Serpell" level of cuts simply makes no sense unless you replaced them with something that looked very railway-like* and thus wouldn't save *that* much money - the traffic congestion it would cause would be disastrous

...but nobody seems to be arguing or "the full Serpell"

It's just that any time someone suggests closing a lightly used branch line that serves little purpose (e.g. Stranraer now the ferry terminal has left, Kyle of Lochalsh now the bridge has been built to Skye) we tend to see a fairly hysterical reaction where people jump to this over-emotive invoking of Beeching/ Serpell

If we have a branch line where the rail subsidy costs significantly more than the total operating costs of a modern bus (i.e. we could put on a bus service for free and it'd still cost taxpayers less money than subsidising trains - heck, in some cases we could give each bus passenger a fiver and still be saving money!) then I'm relaxed about at least looking at this - but it's impossible to talk about any rationalisation without this "full Serpell" stuff

We still have a remarkably similar size network to the one we had thirty years ago, which cost a lot less in public subsidy to run. We should be looking at what has caused that subsidy to increase and cut that, rather than cutting the size of the network. As an example, we have train companies paying leasing costs on rolling stock that amounts to several times the cost of stock itself over its lifetime. This is an artificial cost introduced by John Major's privatisation, and this should be removed before instead of cutting routes.

I'd suggest that the main things that have caused costs to go up by more than inflation would be:

1. Improved safety standards (not just a rail issue, look at how much a mile of new motorway costs nowadays)
2. Higher construction costs (not just a rail issue, look at how much a mile of new motorway costs nowadays)
3. Staffing costs (not just the hourly pay but also pensions etc)

Which of those do you plan to cut first?

I'd treat most of the increases as being the true cost of running a railway properly, rather than some of the corners that were cut in BR days - you might not like the true cost of running a railway but we have to deal with the requirements of modern legislation - any "nationalised" railway would have to ensure that things were done properly

As I've pointed out before, BR were able to control their costs better by randomly putting fares up and cutting services/ stations/ lines because they had free will - whereas the modern railway has to maintain a level of service on various rural lines that was set in stone in about 1996 and there's no scope to trim things back

(meanwhile any GBR/ successor would still have to have some accounting in place to allocate the costs of assets to operations, the leasing costs are a bit of a red herring, especially as the costs can cover various things that the ROSCO pays for that would otherwise have to be done by other parties, e.g. a lot of modern contracts see a depot set up for the units)

 

[MattRat]

* e.g. a dedicated (guided or no) busway, or Metrolink. These ideas are worth considering in some contexts, of course - St Ives seems to do well despite the naysayers and has a lovely country branch line feel to it as well as providing a cycling, walking and running corridor that a railway wouldn't, and Metrolink does not need operating subsidy provided the capital is fronted, and is hugely more popular than a mucky 1980s DMU once or twice an hour.

Well, we don't know what would run, it could be a 1990s DMU, or even something newer like a 230.

And even if it was from the 80s, it can still be fine. I rode on a 156 for 4 hours between Glasgow and Fort William twice (there and back) and apart from a lack of screens to glue yourself to (dangerously if driving instead) there's nothing horrible about it. Look out the window, enjoy the view, become human again.

Will the 170s improve the service, absolutely, but I don't think it'll be as big of a leap as people think it will, as the 156s aren't as terrible as people think.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, we don't know what would run, it could be a 1990s DMU, or even something newer like a 230.

And even if it was from the 80s, it can still be fine. I rode on a 156 for 4 hours between Glasgow and Fort William twice (there and back) and apart from a lack of screens to glue yourself to (dangerously if driving instead) there's nothing horrible about it. Look out the window, enjoy the view, become human again.

Will the 170s improve the service, absolutely, but I don't think it'll be as big of a leap as people think it will, as the 156s aren't as terrible as people think.

I wasn't intending to turn this into a debate on whether people happen to like 156s or not (my ears don't), and 230s converted to end door as per the Marston Vale units aren't really an awful lot different in feel, having similar MetCam heritage - but rather that only an enthusiast would prefer a high-floor, old style DMU (or even a Class 195) once or twice an hour over five (in some cases ten) modern level-boarding electric trams per hour, which is the choice that Metrolink vs. heavy rail brings around Manchester. And the former costs operating subsidy, while the latter doesn't. What's not to like?

 

[quantinghome]

Aren't lightly used rural routes a bit of a red-herring when it comes to the cost of running the railway? Sure, their costs are high as a proportion of the fare income they generate, but are they actually much of a real burden for the rail network as a whole? Surely the big problem we're facing is the reduction in traffic on the more heavily-used routes which cost a lot to run? If so, there's no real scope for cost saving through infrastructure. And presumably the railway is tied into long term lease contracts for rolling stock. The way out, surely, is to have a major push to grow passenger numbers, rather than the austerity "cut cut cut" mindset so beloved by the Treasury and certain factions of the Tory party.

 

[Falcon1200]

as the railway finances are is such a bad way post Covid, drastic cuts are likely to be required to satisfy the Treasury and enable a core network to survive.

But will any political party be prepared to sanction drastic cuts ? I seriously doubt they will. Not even in the darkest days of the 1980s were substantial cuts to the railway network made. And if, as in Scotland, the elected Government is prepared to subsidise rail, even when incurring huge cost such as for the Stranraer line and Caledonian Sleeper operation, that is their prerogative.

 

[simonw]

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.

They could be, but the question I asked is why evidence there that branch lines are economic when you add in the traffic they bring to main lines. Still waiting on an answer.

 

[MattRat]

I wasn't intending to turn this into a debate on whether people happen to like 156s or not (my ears don't), and 230s converted to end door as per the Marston Vale units aren't really an awful lot different in feel, having similar MetCam heritage - but rather that only an enthusiast would prefer a high-floor, old style DMU (or even a Class 195) once or twice an hour over five (in some cases ten) modern level-boarding electric trams per hour, which is the choice that Metrolink vs. heavy rail brings around Manchester. And the former costs operating subsidy, while the latter doesn't. What's not to like?

Apologies, I got a little confused and didn't realise you essentially said two different things. Metrolink is of course fine, as a railway is still a railway whether it operates trams or trains. I had thought you were referring to St Ives and a bus being easier to get there than a train, which is particularly confusing if you consider the appalling state of Cornish roads.

 

[yorksrob]

...but nobody seems to be arguing or "the full Serpell"

It's just that any time someone suggests closing a lightly used branch line that serves little purpose (e.g. Stranraer now the ferry terminal has left, Kyle of Lochalsh now the bridge has been built to Skye) we tend to see a fairly hysterical reaction where people jump to this over-emotive invoking of Beeching/ Serpell

If we have a branch line where the rail subsidy costs significantly more than the total operating costs of a modern bus (i.e. we could put on a bus service for free and it'd still cost taxpayers less money than subsidising trains - heck, in some cases we could give each bus passenger a fiver and still be saving money!) then I'm relaxed about at least looking at this - but it's impossible to talk about any rationalisation without this "full Serpell" stuff



I'd suggest that the main things that have caused costs to go up by more than inflation would be:

1. Improved safety standards (not just a rail issue, look at how much a mile of new motorway costs nowadays)
2. Higher construction costs (not just a rail issue, look at how much a mile of new motorway costs nowadays)
3. Staffing costs (not just the hourly pay but also pensions etc)

Which of those do you plan to cut first?

I'd treat most of the increases as being the true cost of running a railway properly, rather than some of the corners that were cut in BR days - you might not like the true cost of running a railway but we have to deal with the requirements of modern legislation - any "nationalised" railway would have to ensure that things were done properly

As I've pointed out before, BR were able to control their costs better by randomly putting fares up and cutting services/ stations/ lines because they had free will - whereas the modern railway has to maintain a level of service on various rural lines that was set in stone in about 1996 and there's no scope to trim things back

(meanwhile any GBR/ successor would still have to have some accounting in place to allocate the costs of assets to operations, the leasing costs are a bit of a red herring, especially as the costs can cover various things that the ROSCO pays for that would otherwise have to be done by other parties, e.g. a lot of modern contracts see a depot set up for the units)

Firstly, I don't follow your logic as to how the construction of the Skye bridge renders the Kyle of Lochalsh line as serving "little purpose". Surely one needs to actually get to the bridge in order to use it, and the train delivers people to it just as it did the ferry.

In terms of the things that have increased costs, closing lines will primarily affect day to day running costs. Improved safety standards and higher construction costs are likely to be more relevant to new investment and construction, than keeping an existing secondary route in a steady state of repair. If you want to reduce costs associated with health and safety and construction, the sensible thing would be to delay/postpone new construction/enhancements. We don't want to stop electrification due to the climate emergency, so the sensible option would be to delay or scale down the sorts of projects that would enhance the commuter network, which are likely to be less urgent due to covid related changes to working patterns.

Staffing costs, you have a point, but secondary and branch lines aren't exactly overrun with large numbers of staff.

In terms of train leasing costs, the model of ROSCO's doing maintenance etc seems to be relatively new. What do we have to show for the cost of paying for legacy stock over and over again ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apologies, I got a little confused and didn't realise you essentially said two different things. Metrolink is of course fine, as a railway is still a railway whether it operates trams or trains. I had thought you were referring to St Ives and a bus being easier to get there than a train, which is particularly confusing if you consider the appalling state of Cornish roads.

Ah, I can see why you are misunderstanding, I am referring to St Ives (Cambridgeshire) and its Busway.

 

[yorksrob]

They could be, but the question I asked is why evidence there that branch lines are economic when you add in the traffic they bring to main lines. Still waiting on an answer.

Someone would have to tot up all of the revenue from tickets to and from stations on a given route and apportion it between the route and the rest of the network somehow. For something like the S&C, which is a secondary route but not a branch, you would need to apportion through revenue to it as well.

I'm not sure that the railway's data systems are sophisticated enough.