Do branch lines contribute much financially to the greater network?

[Meerkat]

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

Why? This is one of the 'givens' that I just don't understand.
If a particular rail service is seen as socially necessary it should be funded by society - ie direct and specific grant funding from the taxpayer. It shouldn't be funded by passengers on other services. That just makes all of rail look like a basket case and is price gouging the customers on the popular routes.
Rail fans obviously support cross subsidisation as it hides the grotesque subsidies some services get, and making public their cost would bring perfectly reasonable questions about what the taxpayer is paying for and whether there is a better way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why? This is one of the 'givens' that I just don't understand.
If a particular rail service is seen as socially necessary it should be funded by society - ie direct and specific grant funding from the taxpayer. It shouldn't be funded by passengers on other services. That just makes all of rail look like a basket case and is price gouging the customers on the popular routes.
Rail fans obviously support cross subsidisation as it hides the grotesque subsidies some services get, and making public their cost would bring perfectly reasonable questions about what the taxpayer is paying for and whether there is a better way.

I think this is a bit "yes and no". Having the ECML cross-subsidise the Conwy Valley perhaps doesn't make much sense. But it does make sense to cross-subsidise between journeys on the same or a similar route. It is nothing but a waste of money for the situation you get with buses to exist, where a commercial operation makes a huge profit on the daytime route, then the taxpayer has to pay again (plus profit) to tender the evening service, without the existence of which many people wouldn't use the daytime service. Cut the profit and use that to fund the evening service (its existence is often required for people to use the daytime service, even if they don't often actually use it*), or if you're not going to do that cut the profit and lower the fares.

* Let's say you work 9-5:30 in an office (how quaint) but occasionally have to do overtime at short notice. If the last bus is 1745, say, you'll likely drive instead. If however there is an 1815, 1845 and 1915 those act as insurance - which is why the "Anruf-Sammeltaxi" demand responsive concept works in Germany, as it allows the journey to be in the timetable but only run when people need it. You could take a taxi of course, but the cost is often prohibitive.

 

[paul1609]

I think there are very, very few people who, if given the choice between a long coach journey, or a long rail journey followed by a short bus journey, with the modes well-integrated, would choose the former.



Edit: it might be worth the saving to close the Kyle line, but it would be fantasy to suggest that all users would switch to a coach service, in practice most will switch to a car. It might even change the overall journey for some from rail to flight+hire car.

It's a fantasy to believe that the Kyle and other Highland lines fufil other than a negligible public transport benefit. I'd possibly exclude the Oban line and the far north line as far as Tain from that but the remainder were marginalised by road improvements and new Bridges from the 1970s on. In the specific case of Kyle it was a double whammy as as the roads improved the ferries moved to where the roads were so Kyle ceased to be the railhead for most of the outer hebredes.
Today the Citylink coach from the old slipway bus stop in Kyle gets to Central Glasgow in 5 1/4 hours including stops in Fort William and a fag break at Tyndrum a couple of services call at Glasgow Airport. Kyle to Glasgow or Edinburgh by train is circa 8 1/2 hours.
The reality is that these lines are primarily tourist attractions.

 

[Meerkat]

I think this is a bit "yes and no". Having the ECML cross-subsidise the Conwy Valley perhaps doesn't make much sense. But it does make sense to cross-subsidise between journeys on the same or a similar route. It is nothing but a waste of money for the situation you get with buses to exist, where a commercial operation makes a huge profit on the daytime route, then the taxpayer has to pay again (plus profit) to tender the evening service, without the existence of which many people wouldn't use the daytime service. Cut the profit and use that to fund the evening service (its existence is often required for people to use the daytime service, even if they don't often actually use it*), or if you're not going to do that cut the profit and lower the fares.

* Let's say you work 9-5:30 in an office (how quaint) but occasionally have to do overtime at short notice. If the last bus is 1745, say, you'll likely drive instead. If however there is an 1815, 1845 and 1915 those act as insurance - which is why the "Anruf-Sammeltaxi" demand responsive concept works in Germany, as it allows the journey to be in the timetable but only run when people need it. You could take a taxi of course, but the cost is often prohibitive.

Agreed. I was thinking in terms of franchising, where you have to run the frequency and first/last trains as spec, so cross subsidisation within a route is a given, and the government gains from the price gouging via the higher franchise receipts (unless their is open access competition).
If 'society' deems a service worthy of subsidy then 'sociey' should subsidise it, not other rail passengers, damaging the image of rail in the process.

The reality is that these lines are primarily tourist attractions.

The reality is they are subsidised because rail romantics can drum up enough public support to make closure too politically costly, even if the majority of people might vote for closure if given the brutal facts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Today the Citylink coach from the old slipway bus stop in Kyle gets to Central Glasgow in 5 1/4 hours including stops in Fort William and a fag break at Tyndrum a couple of services call at Glasgow Airport. Kyle to Glasgow or Edinburgh by train is circa 8 1/2 hours.

In reality, though, both of those are "travelling all day", and I suspect even many non-rail-enthusiasts would choose 8.5 hours on a train over 5.25 on a coach. Long distance coach travel is simply not very nice. I've used that route from FW before there was a Sunday morning train and it's certainly scenic, but it's still a long bus journey which is wearing, has poor toilet facilities etc.

(One thing I would consider as a reasonable replacement, that said, is a properly integrated bus to Fort William from Skye via Kyle, which would take about 2 hours at most, then a train the rest of the way - you can use the coach in that way but if you miss the connection it'll ruin your day)

This is very different from the Conwy Valley argument, where the journey is much shorter so the bus vs. train argument is not that clear-cut. Most locals there would probably choose an hourly bus over a three-hourly train, for example.

Places like Scotland are crying out for proper integration. The fact that NatEx had to divest their share in Citylink when they took on ScotRail was just nuts.

The reality is that these lines are primarily tourist attractions.

It would be interesting to quantify what that brings to the local economy, of course.

 

[Meerkat]

It would be interesting to quantify what that brings to the local economy, of course.

I doubt it brings much to the local economy at all. I stopped off at Kyle station whilst driving round Scotland and it really didnt look an inviting town to hang around.
However the locals dont pay the subsidy, all of Scotland does, and I assume these lines are seen as part of the Scottish tourist product. Look good in the brochures even if those looking dont end up actually using the train.

 

[Wynd]

Places like Scotland are crying out for proper integration. The fact that NatEx had to divest their share in Citylink when they took on ScotRail was just nuts.

Agreed, integration is fundamental here, but please elaborate, NatEx had to do what?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed, integration is fundamental here, but please elaborate, NatEx had to do what?

National Express used to own a share in Scottish Citylink, and had to sell it when they took the ScotRail franchise because owning both was seen as anticompetitive, which utterly misses the point. Outside of full regulation, cartels are generally beneficial to passengers in public transport. The much bigger competitor, the car (and taxi), cap what can effectively be charged for fares, so there isn't a true monopoly in single-operator towns so fares don't get cranked up to the extent you might think.

It's nothing like any other kind of business, and applying the same competition laws to it as supermarkets is madness.

 

[Falcon1200]

There are closures that would make sense (though only a few, maybe low single-figures, which is why the same ones - the Conwy Valley and Stranraer - keep coming up repeatedly, rather than any sensible* new ones being identified).

As both a railway enthusiast and retired railway employee I have an instinctive aversion to any suggestion of closing lines, and while I don't know enough about the Conwy Valley route, I have to agree that Girvan/Stranraer is an absolute basket case, given that its once-major traffic flow, ie to and from the ferries, now has to go part of the way by bus anyway (and plans to rebuild Dumfries/Stranraer, with a diversion to Cairnryan, are pie in the sky too). Not so sure about the Far North however, this line does at least have freight traffic, albeit minimal, with the chance of more in future. The Kyle line is a dubious case too, however politics will surely prevent any chance of closure, as it has in the past.

 

[Starmill]

Keeping diesels on would only be for a few routes that really couldn't operate with an alternative (assuming that this is the case - In only taking @Starmill 's word for it).

In the case of Girvan to Stranraer, battery units were considered to be outwith the envelope of technology for the transition, but hydrogen within it. It's just that a hydrogen conversion is going to result in long term operational cost that's higher than diesel. In contrast, some routes such as the Maryhill line would actually achieve a long term cost saving through battery conversion.

Life extension for class 153s and 156s beyond 2025-26 is thought to be highly impractical, the same goes for the High Speed Train sets and class 158 units beyond 2030. Class 170s should be able to soldier on beyond 2030 without difficulty, but these are finite in number.

 

[yorksrob]

Agreed. I was thinking in terms of franchising, where you have to run the frequency and first/last trains as spec, so cross subsidisation within a route is a given, and the government gains from the price gouging via the higher franchise receipts (unless their is open access competition).
If 'society' deems a service worthy of subsidy then 'sociey' should subsidise it, not other rail passengers, damaging the image of rail in the process.

I agree with your first point regarding the need to subsidize quieter services on the same line, however your antagonism towards cross-subsidisation between routes makes no sense.

If we take the example of the GW main line network subsidising the Falmouth branch for example, it makes perfect sense as many people will use the wider main line system to access the branch and visa-versa, therefore it makes sense for the mainline to subsidize the branch as it contributes to the main line services utilisation and viability.

There's also the philosophical point that someone who is already a regular rail passenger is more likely to use the branch line than someone who rarely uses it, so it makes sense that passengers should shoulder more of the burden proportionally (although that's not an argument for wider society not to subsidize local routes).

 

[Starmill]

I'm arguing against the idea that we can lop off the lightly used parts of the network and voila! the network's funding problems are solved. It's not where the main problem is.

Unfortunately with the way the government works in this country a percentage saving is what needs finding. It is impractical to reduce staff salaries even if they could in time be replaced with 10% cheaper workers. It is impossible to reduce your energy costs or leasing costs without some capital expenditure on the assets - capex that the government won't pay up right now. As a result, looking at the lightly used parts of the network is the only way to make cuts which don't damage future prospects.

The cuts that are coming in Scotland do not achieve that. They are cuts which will damage the railway reputationally and commercially, because lopping frequency on urban and interurban routes is a bad look. And that is being done in order to protect resources to spend on lines like Tain - Wick and Girvan - Stranraer.

It's a simple choice between making the cuts in a commercially and economically driven way and making them in the easiest way. As ever, we are choosing the latter. We will pay the price long term.

 

[simonw]

I agree with your first point regarding the need to subsidize quieter services on the same line, however your antagonism towards cross-subsidisation between routes makes no sense.

If we take the example of the GW main line network subsidising the Falmouth branch for example, it makes perfect sense as many people will use the wider main line system to access the branch and visa-versa, therefore it makes sense for the mainline to subsidize the branch as it contributes to the main line services utilisation and viability.

There's also the philosophical point that someone who is already a regular rail passenger is more likely to use the branch line than someone who rarely uses it, so it makes sense that passengers should shoulder more of the burden proportionally (although that's not an argument for wider society not to subsidize local routes).

Many people? How many is many and by how much are they effectively increasing the mainline profitability ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the case of Girvan to Stranraer, battery units were considered to be outwith the envelope of technology for the transition, but hydrogen within it. It's just that a hydrogen conversion is going to result in long term operational cost that's higher than diesel. In contrast, some routes such as the Maryhill line would actually achieve a long term cost saving through battery conversion.

Life extension for class 153s and 156s beyond 2025-26 is thought to be highly impractical, the same goes for the High Speed Train sets and class 158 units beyond 2030. Class 170s should be able to soldier on beyond 2030 without difficulty, but these are finite in number.

If you want DMUs e.g. to operate with biofuels, Classes 195, 196 and 197 are likely the longest-living of them all, and hopefully many of these will have been displaced, certainly from Northern and WMT, by electrification and Metrolink conversion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2022 ==

It's a simple choice between making the cuts in a commercially and economically driven way and making them in the easiest way. As ever, we are choosing the latter. We will pay the price long term.

Quite the opposite. The advantage of the cuts as they are being made is that they are very easily reversible, and in due course very likely will be reversed. It is (possibly except Girvan-Stranraer, which has experienced a recent* material change of circumstances, not dissimilar to if the Heysham ferries stopped and the nuclear site closed) a folly to go round permanently closing things without knowing for certain how the future of the transport market will pan out - it needs to be given 5-10 years for that to become clear post COVID. Crikey, it takes about 5 years for a new bus service to establish itself.

* I don't class the Skye Bridge as recent.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I don't class the Skye Bridge as recent.

Indeed. Opened October 1995, tolls across the bridge stopped being charged in late December 2004.

 

[Meerkat]

If we take the example of the GW main line network subsidising the Falmouth branch for example, it makes perfect sense as many people will use the wider main line system to access the branch and visa-versa, therefore it makes sense for the mainline to subsidize the branch as it contributes to the main line services utilisation and viability.

Not really - why should Paddington-Reading customers subsidise students on the Falmouth Line?

There's also the philosophical point that someone who is already a regular rail passenger is more likely to use the branch line than someone who rarely uses it

Thats extreme marginal!

 

[A0]

I think there are very, very few people who, if given the choice between a long coach journey, or a long rail journey followed by a short bus journey, with the modes well-integrated, would choose the former.

The reason people don't like changing trains in the UK is that integration is poor even between TOCs. If you go to London you'll see loads of people making connectional journeys on the Tube quite happily because the effort of doing so is low.

Edit: it might be worth the saving to close the Kyle line, but it would be fantasy to suggest that all users would switch to a coach service, in practice most will switch to a car. It might even change the overall journey for some from rail to flight+hire car.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2022 ==



It was a general point that you and @A0wen are generally quite anti-rail (or perhaps rather very right wing on how it should be funded). I should maybe have worded it better, as it was @A0wen who proposed it in this case.

Thanks for exposing your prejudices (and also demonstrating you didn't read the thread properly).

I didn't propose or advocate its closure either - what I did do was point out that using it as an example for certain things was flawed because Beeching's basic comment that the ECML between Newcastle & Edinburgh doesn't really serve anywhere significant was and is still correct because Berwick is the only 'notable' place on the line and the claim that Newcastle wouldn't have had a link to Edinburgh had the ECML closed wasn't necessarily true either.

 

[RT4038]

It was a general point that you and @A0wen are generally quite anti-rail (or perhaps rather very right wing on how it should be funded). I should maybe have worded it better, as it was @A0wen who proposed it in this case.

I think it was Dr. Beeching who proposed it first, in the context of (a) his brief of making the railway profitable and (b) much fewer passengers making the Edinburgh - Newcastle/ North East journeys than do today. In the circumstances of his time and brief, it probably was a sensible proposal. Probably not so today!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2022 ==

There are closures that would make sense (though only a few, maybe low single-figures, which is why the same ones - the Conwy Valley and Stranraer - keep coming up repeatedly, rather than any sensible* new ones being identified).

I believe it is only right that, in the context of various new/previously closed lines being opened, the ones that make the worst losses are sensibly reviewed. These lines are mostly where their raison d'etre has disappeared (Stranraer, Barton on Humber, Kyle of Lochalsh), or are hopelessly outmaneouvred by roads (Conwy Valley, Far North). There are possibly a few others (Newquay, Gunnislake, Felixstowe, Whitby?) . Yes it is only single numbers and is well compensated by openings elsewhere in more promising territory. Note - I only say reviewed, but sensibly without misty eyed rail enthusiasm.

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


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

It is high time that this happens, and possibly this financial crisis now will be the catalyst. The mechanism for the rail industry to protect and fund this will be an interesting debate in itself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is high time that this happens, and possibly this financial crisis now will be the catalyst. The mechanism for the rail industry to protect and fund this will be an interesting debate in itself.

I reckon the first part of the UK to get anywhere near that is Wales with Trawscymru, made possible (ironically) by very few bus services being commercially viable in more rural parts of Wales, thus creating a situation of de-facto full regulation as near enough everything is tendered. The question is - have they got the guts to go the whole way with it?

 

[Starmill]

Quite the opposite. The advantage of the cuts as they are being made is that they are very easily reversible, and in due course very likely will be reversed.

But that's not really true is it. You would just mothball Girvan - Stranraer and you'd probably leave Tain - Wick open for freight. You wouldn't sell any land. Nor would you need to to bring the financial benefits.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that's not really true is it. You would just mothball Girvan - Stranraer and you'd probably leave Tain - Wick open for freight. You wouldn't sell any land. Nor would you need to to bring the financial benefits.

So you're only talking about saving the cost of a driver and guard or two? You would save less by doing it to these two lines as you'd need to tender a rail replacement bus service, whereas if you lop diagrams out of services but don't stop the service entirely that's a straight saving.

The main savings from closing branch lines is ending maintenance and the capital gain from selling the land. You don't realise much at all unless you close permanently.

 

[Greybeard33]

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 type of integrated postbus-like service could also provide a stepping stone towards reopening of disused rail lines, or opening of new branches/extensions. A high quality bus service with integrated fares and timetabling would stimulate demand on the route, which might strengthen the business case for investment in a replacement rail line.

 

[Wynd]

This type of integrated postbus-like service could also provide a stepping stone towards reopening of disused rail lines, or opening of new branches/extensions. A high quality bus service with integrated fares and timetabling would stimulate demand on the route, which might strengthen the business case for investment in a replacement rail line.

Quite, this proposal is water tight and would massively encourage uptake of public transport.

 

[MattRat]

So since a lot of people were mentioning Scotland, I decided to do some digging, and all it's left me is confused. A map I was able to find seems to show old lines that used to connect Kyle with Inverness another way, as well as to Fort William, and also Fort William to Inverness. It could also just be showing roads though. However, if there are these old lines, they'd make a lot more sense than the current setup, and maybe be more profitable than currently.

My point being that maybe it isn't branch lines themselves, just particularly ones being 'mismanaged'.

 

[davetheguard]

A map I was able to find seems to show old lines that used to connect Kyle with Inverness another way, as well as to Fort William, and also Fort William to Inverness. It could also just be showing roads though.

It must be roads. There was never an alternative rail route from Kyle to Inverness or anything between Kyle & Fort William.

There was a railway part of the way through the Great Glen from Fort William towards Inverness, but it never got beyond Fort Augustus, mainly due to railway politics & battles over territory between the North British Railway (in Fort William) and Highland Railway (in Inverness).

 

[MattRat]

It must be roads. There was never an alternative rail route from Kyle to Inverness or anything between Kyle & Fort William.

There was a railway part of the way through the Great Glen from Fort William towards Inverness, but it never got beyond Fort Augustus, mainly due to railway politics & battles over territory between the North British Railway (in Fort William) and Highland Railway (in Inverness).

Well, the roads seem to make more sense than the rails, so no wonder the lines are struggling. If the rails were more direct and connected more areas together, I doubt line closer would be thought of.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This type of integrated postbus-like service could also provide a stepping stone towards reopening of disused rail lines, or opening of new branches/extensions. A high quality bus service with integrated fares and timetabling would stimulate demand on the route, which might strengthen the business case for investment in a replacement rail line.

There are even places where a bus of almost that quality does exist, for instance the X4/5 from Penrith to Keswick or the X5 from Oxford to Bedford via Buckingham and MK, and the simple expedient of adding them into the railway timetable and ticketing system might increase use a fair bit.

Back to Scotland it's such a pity that Citylink is a separate organisation that (half-heartedly) competes with rail when you consider the potentially significant benefits were it one system. In a rural setting with infrequent services it seems a no-brainer to connect things up.

(The early 2000s RailLinks project sort of did this, but failed in that they weren't a proper part of the ticketing system, so through tickets were often hard to get - also the use of journey planners wasn't as prevalent then)

 

[Starmill]

So you're only talking about saving the cost of a driver and guard or two?

The cost of providing the driver, conductor and catering, signalling staff at Barrhill, station staff at Stranraer and Wick, and fuel and maintenance miles on the trains is what is at stake.

Those make up for a majority of the relevant costs however. The cost of lease isn't an issue because class 156s can be withdrawn and scrapped at their current lease end dates.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2022 ==

The main savings from closing branch lines is ending maintenance and the capital gain from selling the land.

I am afraid that isn't quite true. Also, the land at places like Barrhill and Stranraer harbour is worth next to nothing. I would be quite surprised if it could be sold, despite there being a very strong case to do so.

 

[daodao]

The cost of providing the driver, conductor and catering, signalling staff at Barrhill, station staff at Stranraer and Wick, and fuel and maintenance miles on the trains is what is at stake.

Those make up for a majority of the relevant costs however. The cost of lease isn't an issue because class 156s can be withdrawn and scrapped at their current lease end dates.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2022 ==


I am afraid that isn't quite true. Also, the land at places like Barrhill and Stranraer harbour is worth next to nothing. I would be quite surprised if it could be sold, despite there being a very strong case to do so.

If lines are to be closed in Scotland, the West Highland extension and the Kyle line should be top of the list, as the populations served are trivial, even compared to the Stranraer and Far North lines. The rail and bus journey times from Inverness to Thurso are comparable; I really don't understand why you are so keen to close this line. In the case of Stranraer, the option of building a platform close to Stranraer town centre to replace that on the pier really should be tried before closing the line.

 

[Starmill]

If lines are to be closed in Scotland, the West Highland extension and the Kyle line should be top of the list, as the populations served are trivial, even compared to the Stranraer and Far North lines.

As much as that's your view, this thread is about the financial contribution of secondary lines. And the subsidy required per trip for the Far North and Stranraer lines is higher than the West Highland and Kyle lines. That makes a lot of sense once you're aware of the tourism picture. They also have significant scope for future growth - scope that definitely doesn't exist in Stranraer.