Do branch lines contribute much financially to the greater network?

[A0]

Its nice to see some realism in many of the posts on here.

One of the issues that keeps coming up is the need for better integration between bus/coach and rail services. A number of TOCs have tried to do this eg Stagecoach when they ran south west trains and Chiltern. I see Chiltern monthly season tickets are valid on some local bus services in Aylesbury and High Wycombe. Anyone know how successful these have been in generating additional rail trips?

I suspect it's negligible - the people who are buying season tickets would probably be doing so in any case - what it is probably doing is persuading a few of those to use the bus rather than incur the parking charges - parking at Aylesbury is £ 125 a month or £ 372 a quarter, Wycombe is £ 142 a month or £ 426 a quarter. So if you live in Aylesbury or Wycombe and there's a bus close by that also runs past the station you may well consider using it if it's "free" as opposed to incurring those parking charges. If you live further out, then it's less likely to appeal.

 

[Falcon1200]

And whilst this would, no doubt also hit "the rich" it's worth pointing out that the top one per cent pay 30 per cent of all income tax revenues: a higher share than at any time in past twenty years. In other words, three in every ten pounds that the government receives in income tax is paid by just over 300,000 individuals.

And has it not been suggested, if not proven, that raising income tax beyond a certain level actually reduces the total tax take, because the richest (and therefore highest tax-payers) have the means and incentive to relocate ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And has it not been suggested, if not proven, that raising income tax beyond a certain level actually reduces the total tax take, because the richest (and therefore highest tax-payers) have the means and incentive to relocate ?

The UK has a lower* rate of taxation than most other European countries, so there's a fair way you could go before that happened.

* If you take into account mandatory health insurance payments, which are part of general taxation here.

 

[Starmill]

The detailed discussion of the tax system is well off topic but just to correct the common misunderstandings that have been committed again above, a) people are quoting tax rates in England and Wales while calling it the UK b) people need to take into account the combined effective rates of income tax and the relevant national insurance contributions - these combined rates are a total mess, jaggeding up and down. The link between your entitlements and your NICs is now so weak that it is more proper to consider it as general taxation.

I'll refrain from commenting properly on the tax system here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The detailed discussion of the tax system is well off topic but just to correct the common misunderstandings that have been committed again above, a) people are quoting tax rates in England and Wales while calling it the UK b) people need to take into account the combined effective rates of income tax and the relevant national insurance contributions - these combined rates are a total mess, jaggeding up and down.

I'll refrain from commenting properly on the tax system here.

Indeed. My point was that austerity, while it was the option chosen by the Government, is not necessarily the right approach. And "the railway must cut costs to the point of closing lines" (beyond the real basket cases like Stranraer) is definitely an austerity line. There is a lot to be saved without closing anything, and indeed closing rural single-track RETB lines with an infrequent service doesn't save much at all, particularly not if you're then going to tender a bus service to replace them.

 

[Starmill]

Indeed. My point was that austerity, while it was the option chosen by the Government, is not necessarily the right approach. And "the railway must cut costs to the point of closing lines" (beyond the real basket cases like Stranraer) is definitely an austerity line. There is a lot to be saved without closing anything, and indeed closing rural single-track RETB lines with an infrequent service doesn't save much at all, particularly not if you're then going to tender a bus service to replace them.

It's also worth noting that the control of costs through the standard methods used by large private businesses such as pensions reform, increasing cost utilisation, and contract harmonisation are simply never considered for the railway industry because of the fear of industrial action. Where contract changes have been attempted such as at Southern, there has actually been a significant increase in the general cost of providing the railway's staff as a result.

But these assumptions are simply never challenged from within the industry. Indeed it says a lot that we're actually discussing closing lines as easier in practical terms than some of the above measures - and they very possibly are.

 

[Meerkat]

Indeed. My point was that austerity, while it was the option chosen by the Government, is not necessarily the right approach. And "the railway must cut costs to the point of closing lines" (beyond the real basket cases like Stranraer) is definitely an austerity line. There is a lot to be saved without closing anything, and indeed closing rural single-track RETB lines with an infrequent service doesn't save much at all, particularly not if you're then going to tender a bus service to replace them.

I don't think that expecting individual routes to justify themselves as a good use of public money is austerity - its what all public services should do, even if there is bucketloads of cash to spend.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's also worth noting that the control of costs through the standard methods used by large private businesses such as pensions reform, increasing cost utilisation, and contract harmonisation are simply never considered for the railway industry because of the fear of industrial action. Where contract changes have been attempted such as at Southern, there has actually been a significant increase in the general cost of providing the railway's staff as a result.

But these assumptions are simply never challenged from within the industry. Indeed it says a lot that we're actually discussing closing lines as easier in practical terms than some of the above measures - and they very possibly are.

And that was the Beeching issue. While some lines were utter basket cases, the choice was in most cases between "full service railway with staffed stations, signalboxes, multiple traincrew" and "nothing at all", disregarding that even then a more basic railway was feasible.

Personally I'd like to see a showdown with the Unions over this sort of thing, even if it meant no service for a considerable period of time (and now would be as good a time as any, with the need for travel substantially reduced). The railway must be allowed to modernise, and the Unions must concentrate on ensuring staff are treated fairly during them. I'm in many ways surprised a Tory Government hasn't considered legislating to limit their powers over things that really should not be within their remit, such as the contracts of future employees who are not yet a member of the Union.

Of course, ticket offices are a bit moot, as if you plan to close all of them, industrial action doesn't matter, it just results in them closing a bit earlier.

I don't think that expecting individual routes to justify themselves as a good use of public money is austerity - its what all public services should do, even if there is bucketloads of cash to spend.

Yes, though obviously austerity impacts the threshold, as "a good use of public money" is not an absolute concept.

 

[A0]

And has it not been suggested, if not proven, that raising income tax beyond a certain level actually reduces the total tax take, because the richest (and therefore highest tax-payers) have the means and incentive to relocate ?

Yes, the Laffer curve - basically the art of plucking a goose to get as many feathers as possible with the minimal hissing, pecking or the goose running away.

Laffer curve - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2022 ==

The UK has a lower* rate of taxation than most other European countries, so there's a fair way you could go before that happened.

* If you take into account mandatory health insurance payments, which are part of general taxation here.

But it doesn't *necessarily* follow that you can raise your tax rates to "European" levels without risking capital flight.

Personal taxes generally you can - because most people won't / can't practically move country, whereas when you're looking at corporate taxes it's a very different picture. So once again, the only way to increase tax revenue is by either raising the rates - which given you already have the top 1% paying 30% of the income tax revenues, suggests the more realistic approach is to broaden the tax base i.e. increase the number of people paying tax - which either means expanding the population (given unemployment is low - UK ~4%, Europe average 7%) or reducing personal allowances so more people are paying and people who are paying pay more.

 

[yorksrob]

They wont drive, as we have already said the train is for those who can't drive, as they will already be driving. Exactly how many cars does the Far North or Kyle line take off the roads? Those doing it for the train trip likely as not wont go that way at all. And a lot of those on the train will have driven to one end or the other to do the train ride.


Why not? They need a car because they are the middle of nowhere so traffic isnt really an issue.

That's a corruption of what I said, which was to say that "those who were inclined to drive would have already been doing so" prior to the construction of the Skye bridge. That's not too say that all car owners would automatically want to drive a long distance. Some might be happy to drive locally but prefer to take the train as far as possible to Skye.

 

[A0]

That's a corruption of what I said, which was to say that "those who were inclined to drive would have already been doing so" prior to the construction of the Skye bridge. That's not too say that all car owners would automatically want to drive a long distance. Some might be happy to drive locally but prefer to take the train as far as possible to Skye.

Ironically though the train is by far the *slowest* way to get to Skye.

Glasgow - Kyle of Lochalsh takes over 6 hours by train, yet the Scottish Citylink does it in a shade under 6 hours.

And if you're saying 'get as close as possible' by train then presumably hire a car for the remainder then you're almost certainly better off hiring at either Glasgow or Inverness than Kyle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Glasgow - Kyle of Lochalsh takes over 6 hours by train, yet the Scottish Citylink does it in a shade under 6 hours.

A 6 hour coach journey is grim. Only a bus enthusiast or someone on a tight budget would choose a 6 hour bus journey over an 8 hour train journey with a short bus ride at the end.

Close the railway and most will switch to car (hire if necessary). This might not be enough of a reason to leave it open given the low level of congestion and pollution there, but suggesting that people will choose 6 hour coach journeys if they aren't forced to do so by having no other viable option is utterly fanciful.

Same with the Far North. A bus might be quicker, but a long bus journey is just rubbish. This is one key reason I am of the view that integration is important - I personally would, were the Kyle Line closed, choose a train to Fort William (assuming that was retained) and then a (properly) connecting 1.5 hour bus journey over a through coach journey even if that resulted in a longer journey time, and I suspect I'm not the only one.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2022 ==

And if you're saying 'get as close as possible' by train then presumably hire a car for the remainder then you're almost certainly better off hiring at either Glasgow or Inverness than Kyle.

Yes, the choice is essentially between "fly to Glasgow or Inverness and car hire", "train and bus" and "drive all the way with an overnight stop" for most* people going from most of England to the Highlands.

But you can certainly have connecting buses from Kyle to Skye. And indeed there are some, albeit not frequent and no doubt with no effort put into aligning to train times:

Kyle of Lochalsh – Bus Times

bustimes.org

* Most responsible people. Some foolish people drive it in one go, often through the night, but I consider this grossly irresponsible and would never even entertain the idea myself.

 

[Meerkat]

A 6 hour coach journey is grim. Only a bus enthusiast or someone on a tight budget would choose a 6 hour bus journey over an 8 hour train journey with a short bus ride at the end.

Close the railway and most will switch to car (hire if necessary). This might not be enough of a reason to leave it open given the low level of congestion and pollution there, but suggesting that people will choose 6 hour coach journeys if they aren't forced to do so by having no other viable option is utterly fanciful.

Same with the Far North. A bus might be quicker, but a long bus journey is just rubbish. This is one key reason I am of the view that integration is important - I personally would, were the Kyle Line closed, choose a train to Fort William (assuming that was retained) and then a (properly) connecting 1.5 hour bus journey over a through coach journey even if that resulted in a longer journey time, and I suspect I'm not the only one.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2022 ==



Yes, the choice is essentially between "fly to Glasgow or Inverness and car hire", "train and bus" and "drive all the way with an overnight stop" for most* people going from most of England to the Highlands.

But you can certainly have connecting buses from Kyle to Skye. And indeed there are some, albeit not frequent and no doubt with no effort put into aligning to train times:

Kyle of Lochalsh – Bus Times

bustimes.org

* Most responsible people. Some foolish people drive it in one go, often through the night, but I consider this grossly irresponsible and would never even entertain the idea myself.

Yet thousands of people, including many using the trains, visit the area by spending such amounts of time on coaches.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet thousands of people, including many using the trains, visit the area by spending such amounts of time on coaches.

Some people (mostly older people) like coach tours. The reason they do is because you don't have to do anything, just get on and it's all done for you, and this offsets the unpleasantness of a long coach ride. Most people don't. Look at the demographics using service coaches - it is primarily people who have no other viable option, either because they don't drive or because they can't afford the train.

Clearly if the railway is awful (like it is in e.g. Albania) road will be more attractive, but the service to Kyle isn't awful. It is infrequent, but so is the coach.

It is utterly fanciful to think that most rail passengers would just switch to the coach for a journey of that length. Most would switch to driving.

Journey time is a factor, but once you get past about 5 hours what you have is basically an all-day journey. Whether you arrive at say 6pm or 8pm is rather less important. If journey time wasn't a factor, every passenger on the Kyle line would already be using the coach, as would those on the Far North. They aren't. Indeed, it's posted upthread that the coach service on the Far North is dying off as, umm, people aren't using it despite it being quicker than the train.

Edit: just two buses each way per day now: https://bustimes.org/services/x99-inverness-bus-station-scrabster-pier

 

[deltic]

Not sure why there is so much obsession with the Kyle line - my admittedly ten year old data suggests that two-thirds of revenue related to Kyle comes from trips to and from Inverness and intermediate stations. Only a third of revenue comes from off-branch destinations.

 

[Meerkat]

Some people (mostly older people) like coach tours. The reason they do is because you don't have to do anything, just get on and it's all done for you, and this offsets the unpleasantness of a long coach ride. Most people don't. Look at the demographics using service coaches - it is primarily people who have no other viable option, either because they don't drive or because they can't afford the train.

Clearly if the railway is awful (like it is in e.g. Albania) road will be more attractive, but the service to Kyle isn't awful. It is infrequent, but so is the coach.

It is utterly fanciful to think that most rail passengers would just switch to the coach for a journey of that length. Most would switch to driving.

For the Kyle and Far North how many actual journeys are there, ie not including tourists going up and back? How many of those could drive? I dont reckon its many and then you are in the territory of gaining very little, even in pollution terms, unless you can prove the tourists wouldn't come at all otherwise and spend more than the subsidy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For the Kyle and Far North how many actual journeys are there, ie not including tourists going up and back? How many of those could drive? I dont reckon its many and then you are in the territory of gaining very little, even in pollution terms, unless you can prove the tourists wouldn't come at all otherwise and spend more than the subsidy.

Skye is quite popular with hillwalkers, expeditioners and wild campers, so it might be more than you think.

 

[Meerkat]

Skye is quite popular with hillwalkers, expeditioners and wild campers, so it might be more than you think.

They will likely take a car, or be the type that are happy on coaches. And if the data is still the same that two thirds of the revenue is from no further than Inverness it cant be that many.

 

[yorksrob]

Tourists are important

But, if your argument is about how important they are to the local economy then the subsidy per passenger needs to be seen in the context of how much they spend

For example, there's a difference between subsidising people to go somewhere that they might be spending a lot of money and subsidising people to climb a hill/ sit on a beach (which is a lovely day out, sure, but not going to contribute a great deal to the local economy)

So if we are talking about coastal Scottish resources, a train to somewhere like St Andrews may bring in a lot of money from the kind of high spending tourists and the large sums that come with the hotels/ golf - whereas there's not a great deal of money to spent at Kyle of Lochalsh, it's a nice day trip from Inverness but how much money do most tourists spend there? There's a Co-op but you'd have to spend a lot there for the supermarket profits to be equivalent to the subsidy (e.g. you might have to spend hundreds of pounds in the Co-op to generate the same profit for them as £20 worth of subsidy costs the taxpayer - I know the sandwiches are expensive, but even still...)

If we are just spending that twenty quid to subsidise a journey so that someone can climb a hill then there's to much in the way of economic benefit



Agreed - there are a lot of difficult discussions that will need to be had in an era of shrinking budgets, but a generation of rising tides has meant a number of people are in denial about the need to ever have any awkward conversations

Maybe privatisation has insulated them from these kind of problems, they've forgotten that BR closed stations pretty much every year and closed or at least threatened to close lines too - rather than occasionally taking the pragmatic decisions about where best to spend finite budgets (and that a pound spent on subsidy each year is a pound that could be invested each year)



If you want to believe that commuters and business passengers are going to go back to pre-Covid levels then, great, but I think that it's exposed some underling problems and that even if passenger numbers bounce back to 2019 levels the cost of Covid (and Brexit etc) means that the Government can't afford to keep propping things up even if the railway didn't need a penny more in subsidy in 2023 than it did in 2019

That's a fairly restrictive way of evaluating the benefits of tourism. Buy that argument, it would be worth running a luxury tourist service to a casino hub as those tourists spend a lot of money, whereas we should cut a link from an inner-city area to the local beauty spot as the tourists walk up a hill and bring their own sandwiches.

In reality, the gambling hub serves people who are largely already healthy and brings with it various social ills, whereas the local beauty spot provides healthy outdoor recreation to lower income city dwellers, so ought to be prioritised for transport.

 

[A0]

Some people (mostly older people) like coach tours. The reason they do is because you don't have to do anything, just get on and it's all done for you, and this offsets the unpleasantness of a long coach ride. Most people don't. Look at the demographics using service coaches - it is primarily people who have no other viable option, either because they don't drive or because they can't afford the train.

Clearly if the railway is awful (like it is in e.g. Albania) road will be more attractive, but the service to Kyle isn't awful. It is infrequent, but so is the coach.

It is utterly fanciful to think that most rail passengers would just switch to the coach for a journey of that length. Most would switch to driving.

Journey time is a factor, but once you get past about 5 hours what you have is basically an all-day journey. Whether you arrive at say 6pm or 8pm is rather less important. If journey time wasn't a factor, every passenger on the Kyle line would already be using the coach, as would those on the Far North. They aren't. Indeed, it's posted upthread that the coach service on the Far North is dying off as, umm, people aren't using it despite it being quicker than the train.

Edit: just two buses each way per day now: https://bustimes.org/services/x99-inverness-bus-station-scrabster-pier

And yet Citylink despatch 5 coaches a day from Kyle of Lochalsh compared to 3 trains per day. https://www.citylink.co.uk/timetables.php - hardly the sign that the coach is dying on its feet.

Basically this is your antipathy to coaches - whereas in the context of public spending it's not the job of the government to pay for a train service just because that's your preference on how to travel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2022 ==

They will likely take a car, or be the type that are happy on coaches. And if the data is still the same that two thirds of the revenue is from no further than Inverness it cant be that many.

This - 100%

 

[yorksrob]

So what?

If there is a provision that's sufficient. No reason the state should provide further provision just to satisfy a few whims. Sorry - that's how public services work, they ensure there is a basic level of service there, not multiple choices with different flavours to suit your personal predelictions.

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



Except an idea like that railcard would need to increase rail usage by at least 1/3rd to offset the loss of revenue.

I.e. you'd need 3 people to travel with those railcards to gain the same revenue (excluding the cost of the railcard) - all that would happen is regular travellers would buy such a railcard and reduce their spend and even if they travelled more, would probably still end up spending less and the marginal number of new customers you'd attract would probably not cover the gap you've created.

It would be interesting to know how many 2 Together railcards are in use - which was introduced in 2014, costs £30 and offers 1/3rd off for 2 people travelling, and whether there is any evidence that lead to any attributable increase in revenue.

Well, we public transport users can be very vocal and like it or not, taking away a rail link will have political consequences.

As much as motorists like to imagine they're the be all and end all, or preferences do matter, just as motorists whims to be able to travel miles of new highway matter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And yet Citylink despatch 5 coaches a day from Kyle of Lochalsh compared to 3 trains per day. https://www.citylink.co.uk/timetables.php - hardly the sign that the coach is dying on its feet.

Basically this is your antipathy to coaches - whereas in the context of public spending it's not the job of the government to pay for a train service just because that's your preference on how to travel.

No, it's an antipathy to coaches that is shared by the vast majority of the UK population. Because, quite simply, 6 hours on a coach is grim. Some accept it for the low price, or for stress-free holidays, but most would just reach for the car keys. We might accept that that is OK in this context, but you simply aren't going to get people to switch easily.

As I've said what I would consider is a properly integrated connecting coach journey via Fort William, if it was decided to close Kyle (there isn't a lot in between). That would be an hour and a half which is tolerable.

By the way, 5 50 seat coaches is 250 seats, or just 3 coaches of Class 156.

 

[yorksrob]

They wont drive, as we have already said the train is for those who can't drive, as they will already be driving. Exactly how many cars does the Far North or Kyle line take off the roads? Those doing it for the train trip likely as not wont go that way at all. And a lot of those on the train will have driven to one end or the other to do the train ride.


Why not? They need a car because they are the middle of nowhere so traffic isnt really an issue.

And as has already been pointed out, there are plenty of reasons why motorists may choose public transport for a leisure journey, so the trains are not solely there for "people who don't drive".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2022 ==

And yet Citylink despatch 5 coaches a day from Kyle of Lochalsh compared to 3 trains per day. https://www.citylink.co.uk/timetables.php - hardly the sign that the coach is dying on its feet.

Basically this is your antipathy to coaches - whereas in the context of public spending it's not the job of the government to pay for a train service just because that's your preference on how to travel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2022 ==



This - 100%

And yet were supposed to take it that the trains an hour means that the railway is dying on its feet.

 

[A0]

Well, we public transport users can be very vocal and like it or not, taking away a rail link will have political consequences.

As much as motorists like to imagine they're the be all and end all, or preferences do matter, just as motorists whims to be able to travel miles of new highway matter.

The difference is fewer than 10% of journeys are made by rail - that's a small minority. Motorists, whether you like it or not, represent a much larger number and are a net contributor to the treasury, which rail passengers aren't.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2022 ==

No, it's an antipathy to coaches that is shared by the vast majority of the UK population. Because, quite simply, 6 hours on a coach is grim. Some accept it for the low price, or for stress-free holidays, but most would just reach for the car keys. We might accept that that is OK in this context, but you simply aren't going to get people to switch easily.

As I've said what I would consider is a properly integrated connecting coach journey via Fort William, if it was decided to close Kyle (there isn't a lot in between). That would be an hour and a half which is tolerable.

By the way, 5 50 seat coaches is 250 seats, or just 3 coaches of Class 156.

OK - but if the choice is 6 hours on a coach, 6 - 8 hours on a train or 4 hours in a car (Google Maps, Glasgow Airport > Kyle of Lochalsh) most would take the car regardless. So the train still isn't proving attractive.

And Glasgow - Fort William is 4 hours currently by train - so no real journey time saving to Skye.

 

[RT4038]

No, it's an antipathy to coaches that is shared by the vast majority of the UK population. Because, quite simply, 6 hours on a coach is grim. Some accept it for the low price, or for stress-free holidays, but most would just reach for the car keys. We might accept that that is OK in this context, but you simply aren't going to get people to switch easily.

To be fair, much of that antipathy is because coaches are considerably slower than the paralleling trains. In countries where trains are generally slower than coaches (or the same time but more expensive), then the antipathy is towards trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair, much of that antipathy is because coaches are considerably slower than the paralleling trains. In countries where trains are generally slower than coaches (or the same time but more expensive), then the antipathy is towards trains.

Though in countries where coaches are a premium choice (like Spain), you generally get higher quality coaches, such as 2+1 seated with extra legroom and refreshments, you don't get those anywhere in the UK, they are even rare to hire.

I've done a Megabus from Inverness to Glasgow to see what it was like, it was beyond grim.

 

[Wynd]

A bus is not a viable alternative or comparable replacement for a train in the minds of the public. The sooner we all accept this, the sooner we can implement attractive alternatives to the car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A bus is not a viable alternative or comparable replacement for a train in the minds of the public. The sooner we all accept this, the sooner we can implement attractive alternatives to the car.

It can be in some cases. For example, it's difficult to say that the St Ives Busway isn't better than a Class 170 (at best) once an hour.

But a long-distance coach is near enough never a good replacement for a train.

 

[Meerkat]

A bus is not a viable alternative or comparable replacement for a train in the minds of the public. The sooner we all accept this, the sooner we can implement attractive alternatives to the car.

How do buses do when they compete with trains - in fact weren't many suburban stations closed because the passengers preferred buses?

But a long-distance coach is near enough never a good replacement for a train.

I would say the views would be better on the coach, and it would go on to Skye without mucking around waiting for a bus in the rather gloomy Kyle of Lochalsh. Could also stop at the massively popular famous film star castle on an island on the way to Kyle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would say the views would be better on the coach, and it would go on to Skye without mucking around waiting for a bus in the rather gloomy Kyle of Lochalsh. Could also stop at the massively popular famous film star castle on an island on the way to Kyle.

I think with a journey of that length a stop is a virtue!

But in all seriousness that's bad integration. The bus should be there immediately outside the station exit ready for the rail passengers to change onto.

I've done that coach from FW by the way (because there was no Sunday morning train, so it was impossible to reach the South East by train on a Sunday without an overnight stop otherwise), and I can confirm that other than the quite stunning section through bleakness quite near FW it is quite a boring journey compared to the train. The Conwy Valley is similar - north of Betws the main road is just a bit boring, the only stunning bit is the Crimea Pass.