Close 10% of rail lines and lose only 1% of passengers, reinvest savings to generate 10% more passengers…

[Llandudno]

Bit of a messy title and not one I advocate doing but….

Would it be possible to close 10% of GB passenger lines and only lose 1% of the overall passengers carried across the country?

Which lines could be closed that wouldn’t dent overall patronage that much would result in significant savings?

Inverness - Wick/Thurso
Inverness - Kyle
Ayr - Stranraer
Craven Arms - Llanelli
Llandudno Junction - Blaenau Ffestiniog
Dovey Junction - Pwllheli
Retford - Barnetby
Ellesmere Port - Helsby
Norwich - Yarmouth via Berney Arms
Ryde - Shanklin
Burnley - Colne
Headbolt Lane - Wigan
Carnforth - Giggleswick
Avonmouth - Severn Beach
Middlesbrough - Whitby
Liskeard - Looe
Boston - Skegness
All lines west of Carmarthen
Stockport - Stalybridge

Probably need a few more to get to 10%

Then what you would you spend the 10% saving on try and get 10% more passengers across the country, new/reopening lines, improved signalling and double/four tracking to run more frequent services.


Remember folks, hypothetical - I don’t want this to happen….!

 

[The Planner]

Is this just removing the passenger service, or full closure? As the latter won't work with freight.

 

[Oxfordblues]

Dingwall-Georgemas would have to remain open for the Dounreay flasks.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Inverness - Wick/Thurso
Stockport - Stalybridge

Has freight services (nuclear for Thurso, and quite a lot for via Denton)

Headbolt Lane - Wigan

Destined for conversion to Merseyrail (long term), not closure

Boston - Skegness

That line gets insanely busy in the summer doesn't it?

 

[DS25]

Dovey Jct-> Pwllheli gets busy in the summer months for tourism to Aberdyfi, Tywyn, Barmouth and Porthmadog and is usually full and standing considering its usually only 2 car

 

[Llanigraham]

Perhaps the OP would like to explain what he would replace these services with, considering that some of them appear to be quite well used?

 

[Iskra]

Could WCRC moves be accomodated on other busier routes if you withdraw the Bentham Line?

 

[JGurney]

Which lines could be closed that wouldn’t dent overall patronage that much would result in significant savings?

Inverness - Wick/Thurso
Inverness - Kyle
Ayr - Stranraer

Politically difficult, unless done by the Scottish govt. or you don't mind stirring up a lot of Scottish Nationalist sentiment, plus the nuclear freight issue.

Craven Arms - Llanelli
Llandudno Junction - Blaenau Ffestiniog
Dovey Junction - Pwllheli

All lines west of Carmarthen

Politically difficult, unless done by the Welsh govt.

Retford - Barnetby
Ellesmere Port - Helsby
Burnley - Colne
Headbolt Lane - Wigan
Boston - Skegness
Stockport - Stalybridge

All areas where there is a political imperative to avoid generating more support for Reform UK.

Middlesbrough - Whitby

Busy with tourist traffic April - Sept (e.g. the mid-morning train to Whitby was heavy-laden yesterday) and essential for getting Eskdale children to school unless the line was replaced by a valley-bottom road (the roads linking the villages along Eskdale all climb up the valley sides and get blocked in harsh winters).

Norwich - Yarmouth via Berney Arms
Ryde - Shanklin
Carnforth - Giggleswick
Liskeard - Looe

Summer tourist trade, plus political difficulties around very occasional users with strong feelings for the lines

Avonmouth - Severn Beach

Freight use?

 

[Llandudno]

Remember, I am not advocating closing any, it’s a speculative thread, so political pressures/opinions are irrelevant, perhaps freight requirements could be ignored too…?

A handful of two car full and standing trains when the sun comes out is hardly an economic case to keep some lines open…?

 

[Harpers Tate]

The thing that may be relevant, that isn't evaluated in such a consideration, is the extent to which the presence of such routes affects traffic elsewhere; the extent to which people on many of these routes might be swayed more towards car use thereby affecting traffic on other existing lines. That was considered to be one of the failings (in some, but by no means all, places) of "Beeching" 's calculations. Unless and until that effect can be evaluated, and proven to be negligible, can a valid decision be made.

 

[The Planner]

Remember, I am not advocating closing any, it’s a speculative thread, so political pressures/opinions are irrelevant, perhaps freight requirements could be ignored too…?

A handful of two car full and standing trains when the sun comes out is hardly an economic case to keep some lines open…?

Then it makes no sense if you are randomly ignoring significant elements.

 

[stevieinselby]

First up, as others have said, any lines that are needed for freight will offer far less in terms of savings from withdrawing the passenger services, as you aren't able to save much if any on the maintenance and running costs of the infrastructure, so I would probably rule out closing any lines needed for freight.

The only ones I would consider closing are those where buses/coaches – either existing services or potential new services – can serve all significant settlements currently served by the railway and can achieve similar journey times. That would pretty much limit it to Looe, Kyle, Stranraer and the Far North. Maybe Conwy Valley as well. Minus any where the line is needed for freight, as I said. And in those cases, I would set minimum service standards in law with the same protection against closure as railways (in fact, I would make it stricter, to avoid the risk of the service being reduced to one journey a week at 3am on a Tuesday in one direction only). I would also consider mandating that such routes be run by vehicles that can carry cycles, as that is one of the factors that can make buses into an objective downgrade from trains.

Yes, you might well end up with higher ridership and better value to the public purse if you closed more lines and redirected that money into other parts of the network – although I suspect in a lot of cases, the money wouldn't go as far as you think, because on a lot of lines you are looking at a hefty capital spend to provide more infrastructure capacity, rather than just reallocating a few spare 156s to strengthen a couple of lines elsewhere, if you want to get any meaningful growth in patronage. So there's the risk of not meeting the goal of replacing the passengers you've lost with new passengers on the retained network – but there's also the huge political risk and damage to the public perception of the railways from closing little used lines, which tend to have an outsized importance in the national psyche compared to their actual utility. And sending the message that it's OK for the government to close down rural railways would be damaging, not just to the popularity of that particular government, but to the agenda of driving modal shift and encouraging people to use trains more – and could easily become the thin end of the wedge for accelerating other closures.

 

[Llandudno]

Remember this is a purely a passenger railway ‘commercial’ ( much like what National Express or Flixbus would do) speculative suggestion, its not intended to take into account putting pressure on alternative modes of transport or leaving communities without alternative public transport options…

 

[Falcon1200]

Then what you would you spend the 10% saving on try and get 10% more passengers across the country, new/reopening lines, improved signalling and double/four tracking to run more frequent services.

That rather assumes that the Government (of whatever colour) would reinvest the money saved in the railway! Rather than say thanks a lot and spend it elsewhere (which is what I believe would happen).

 

[Llandudno]

That rather assumes that the Government (of whatever colour) would reinvest the money saved in the railway! Rather than say thanks a lot and spend it elsewhere (which is what I believe would happen).

I am sure they would but that is not the subject of the thread…

 

[Falcon1200]

I am sure they would but that is not the subject of the thread…

So what is? In the discussion in this thread the destination of any money saved is surely relevant!

 

[A S Leib]

I'm less sure that you'd increase passenger numbers on the remaining network any faster than without closures if passengers on the next-quietest lines are constantly at fear of their own line closing, unless the perception's of a use it or lose it situation and people being able to switch to rail more.

 

[quantinghome]

You wouldn't save much. The cost of operating and maintaining a mile of underused branch line is significantly less than the cost of a mile of busy main line. So closing 10% of the network length would yield far less than 10% savings. It's really a trivial cost.

 

[Mgameing123]

Perhaps the Abbey Line?

 

[Llanigraham]

Remember, I am not advocating closing any, it’s a speculative thread, so political pressures/opinions are irrelevant, perhaps freight requirements could be ignored too…?

But your speculation needs reasoning and mitigation, and you provide neither.

A handful of two car full and standing trains when the sun comes out is hardly an economic case to keep some lines open…?

So cite the economic reasoning or have you ignored it?

 

[Uncle Buck]

Both the question and some of the responses are slightly oddly phrased, with respect. It may be better to consider what would happen in the event that subsidy of the railway was reduced. In that scenario, it would certainly be better to close some or all of these lines to retain service levels on the busier parts of the network.

Personally I would question what the point is of a railway that has fewer than one train per hour. Anything less than that is too sporadic to form a remotely useful form of transport IMV especially if a reasonable bus alternative exists. There may of course be the odd exception, or there may be lines currently with an irregular service that could have that service increased.

I would certainly exclude these lines from electrification, although there may be a case for installing battery chargers on some of the more contained lines like Conwy Valley.

 

[Grecian 1998]

It's worth remembering that what are quietly used lines isn't set in stone. In the 1990s Exeter - Barnstaple was a 2 hourly service largely run by class 150s or 153s, so would largely fall foul of these criteria. It's now an hourly service, mainly using 3 coach class 158s. Most services arriving at Exeter in the morning or leaving Exeter in the evening are full 6 days a week all year round. The vast majority of passengers travel the whole route. Meanwhile the A377 road between Exeter and Barnstaple is a winding single carriageway road and usually has one of the highest accident rates in the Westcountry. I doubt many people barring rabid free marketeers would regard closing the Tarka Line now as a benefit to society - but that argument could have sounded a lot more plausible in 1991.

An even better example would be Birmingham - Redditch, which had a derisory service by modern standards from the mid-1960s until the early 1980s of around 5 trains a day (granted there were more suburban services than that which didn't take the branch line). The number of modern users of Redditch are around 900,000. Would anyone consider that closing the Redditch line in the 1970s would have been a good thing?

As has been said above, the main parties have been panicking about Reform in recent times. Closing the Yarmouth and Skegness routes - seaside towns which aren't exactly thriving in the way they used to, and clearly aren't happy with their lot - would be a 'courageous' decision to use the Yes Minister euphemism. That's not to say the railways are the lifeblood of the town or that the majority of locals have much interest in using their lines - but the optics would be electoral gold for Reform in asserting that Westminster / Whitehall doesn't care about the peripheries.

 

[Mgameing123]

Both the question and some of the responses are slightly oddly phrased, with respect. It may be better to consider what would happen in the event that subsidy of the railway was reduced. In that scenario, it would certainly be better to close some or all of these lines to retain service levels on the busier parts of the network.

Personally I would question what the point is of a railway that has fewer than one train per hour. Anything less than that is too sporadic to form a remotely useful form of transport IMV especially if a reasonable bus alternative exists. There may of course be the odd exception, or there may be lines currently with an irregular service that could have that service increased.

I would certainly exclude these lines from electrification, although there may be a case for installing battery chargers on some of the more contained lines like Conwy Valley.

I guess if they’re like the Far North Line and run more like long distance trains for long distance travel and not necessarily for commuting then it could make sense.

 

[yorksrob]

The thing that may be relevant, that isn't evaluated in such a consideration, is the extent to which the presence of such routes affects traffic elsewhere; the extent to which people on many of these routes might be swayed more towards car use thereby affecting traffic on other existing lines. That was considered to be one of the failings (in some, but by no means all, places) of "Beeching" 's calculations. Unless and until that effect can be evaluated, and proven to be negligible, can a valid decision be made.

I think that there's an element of truth to this. I expect that the feeling of decline engendered by the ever shrinking railway in the 60's and early 70's, led to a spiral that put people off using it.

In fact, whilst other factors were undoubtedly involved, it seems like no coincidence that passenger numbers only really started to recover in the early 1980's when mass closures were behind us.

 

[Johnnie2Sheds]

Taking the 10% for 1% idea sounds great. Until it's repeated every few decades until there is nothing left. Some say that is still the plan.

 

[yorksrob]

Both the question and some of the responses are slightly oddly phrased, with respect. It may be better to consider what would happen in the event that subsidy of the railway was reduced. In that scenario, it would certainly be better to close some or all of these lines to retain service levels on the busier parts of the network.

Personally I would question what the point is of a railway that has fewer than one train per hour. Anything less than that is too sporadic to form a remotely useful form of transport IMV especially if a reasonable bus alternative exists. There may of course be the odd exception, or there may be lines currently with an irregular service that could have that service increased.

I would certainly exclude these lines from electrification, although there may be a case for installing battery chargers on some of the more contained lines like Conwy Valley.

The Bentham line has a train every couple of hours. Try catching the bus for that journey - I have and its clear why there's a train service. The railway is much quicker.

 

[The exile]

I know that this is only speculation, but anything that starts out with target figures is fundamentally flawed. If a line is a)haemorrhaging money AND b) serves no social purpose locally AND c) neither of those is going to change in the foreseeable future - even with reasonable investment to give a usable service, then closure may be a sensible option. Not “10%” or any other figure plucked out of the air.

 

[aliceh]

Arguably (and I also don't want this to happen) the Brockenhurst to Lymington line could come into that category. There's no freight services to worry about, and the service is just a shuttle back and forth. The bus already runs at the same frequency and is a longer journey, but not hugely so (extra 10 minutes) and could be slightly changed to serve the ferry terminal.

Of course, it would be politically extremely unpopular. But every time the line is closed after a lorry hits the bridge on Sway Road, it's what happens anyway.

 

[The exile]

Arguably (and I also don't want this to happen) the Brockenhurst to Lymington line could come into that category. There's no freight services to worry about, and the service is just a shuttle back and forth. The bus already runs at the same frequency and is a longer journey, but not hugely so (extra 10 minutes) and could be slightly changed to serve the ferry terminal

Over that distance, 10 minutes is proportionally huge.

 

[Bantamzen]

Both the question and some of the responses are slightly oddly phrased, with respect. It may be better to consider what would happen in the event that subsidy of the railway was reduced. In that scenario, it would certainly be better to close some or all of these lines to retain service levels on the busier parts of the network.

Personally I would question what the point is of a railway that has fewer than one train per hour. Anything less than that is too sporadic to form a remotely useful form of transport IMV especially if a reasonable bus alternative exists. There may of course be the odd exception, or there may be lines currently with an irregular service that could have that service increased.

I would certainly exclude these lines from electrification, although there may be a case for installing battery chargers on some of the more contained lines like Conwy Valley.

As others have said, this method just risks mission creep. You start with lines with less than 1tph, then lines with 1pth, and so on until you are only left with relatively high frequency routes, which will be mainly in suburban areas with large swathes of the country wit no rail services at all. And you can't always assume, as Dr Beeching did, that buses will just take over where you close lines because out in the sticks there are many places cut off from the rail network that don't have a meaningful bus service.

Railways should not be judged purely on how many run an hour, or even how many punters use them at any given time. The railways should be about giving populations greater social mobility & access to wider job markets, as well as being a means to try to encourage more people out of their cars, especially commuters and tourists where tourism exists. Yes this will always mean some level of subsidies, something I know people tend to panic about, but that doesn't always mean a bad thing so long as the net effect of said subsidies has a positive impact on the economies involved. Think of them the a similar way to foreign aid, it's not just handing over money for no gain, these often foster better international relationships leading to trade deals and cooperation than can be mutually beneficial. So the same can be true of quieter lines and services, they may receive government subsidies but could deliver a positive economic advantage to the areas server. This is what GBR should be all about, finding ways to optimise & promote routes & try to encourage more people onto them.