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

[WibbleWobble]

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.

Bus is hourly, whereas train is every 30 minutes.

 

[The exile]

Bus is hourly, whereas train is every 30 minutes.

I suspect this is a classic example where if the branch didn’t exist, a large number of the longer journeys that involve the branch wouldn’t be made by train at all, thus resulting in a loss of traffic on the main line as well.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

Ellesmere Port - Helsby

Supposedly going to be an extension of Merseyrail also including a new station at Daresbury. We shall see.

 

[lachlan]

Going back to the OPs question, its very difficylt to answer without knowing:

• What the least used 10% of the network actually is in practice
• How much money closing 10% of the network would save
• How much that money would then buy
• And whether those changes would have any possibility of growing passenger numbers by 10%

Appreciate its all speculative, but I don't know where to start

 

[The exile]

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

Craven Arms - Llanelli
All lines west of Carmarthen

Which I guarantee in a climate that permitted this would very quickly become all lines west of Swansea.

 

[stevieinselby]

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.

A good number of the infrequent routes are on corridors where there is no good bus service and where there couldn't be a good bus service because the roads are inadequate. Esk Valley and Tamar Valley are good examples of this, where there are no main roads serving those communities and so buses would go on slow, meandering journeys that would take much longer than the train.

 

[The exile]

A good number of the infrequent routes are on corridors where there is no good bus service and where there couldn't be a good bus service because the roads are inadequate. Esk Valley and Tamar Valley are good examples of this, where there are no main roads serving those communities and so buses would go on slow, meandering journeys that would take much longer than the train.

And, to be honest, the attitude that “less than hourly” isn’t worth having is a very metropolitan/ suburban viewpoint. The further you go from the metropolis, the more people are used to adjusting their pattern of life to what is there rather than their latest whim. Yes, of course they’d appreciate a 10-minute frequency service just as much as someone in outer London does, but know that life can be lived without it. It might not be conducive to daily commuting to work ever-changing shifts, but for the weekly trip into town it’ll do. Never going to be a money-spinner for the operator but keeps communities alive.

 

[Llandudno]

Supposedly going to be an extension of Merseyrail also including a new station at Daresbury. We shall see.

Daresbury is not between Ellesmere Port and Helsby

 

[quantinghome]

Whatever the arguments for or against keeping sparse services running on rural line, the overall premise of the original question is faulty.

You won't save anywhere near 10% of costs by closing the least used 10% of the network. These lines have low maintenance and renewal costs per track-km compared to the busy lines in built up areas (as shown in this ORR report). It's helpful to note that the Beeching cuts fell hardest on rural lines that had particularly high maintenance costs - the ones with massive structures such as Belah viaduct on the South Durham and Lancs line. So the remaining rural lines have relatively few big structures to maintain.

Likewise the cost of passenger train operation is low, with a small number of short trains which are long-depreciated and a minimal number of diagrams. All together I doubt you would save more than 1% of the total costs of operating the network. Total running costs were £26bn in 2024-25, £4bn of which were financing and other expenditure. So you're looking at perhaps saving a little over £200m per year. For comparison, spending on infrastructure enhancements and rolling stock in 2024-25 was around £10bn.

So we're looking at maybe a 2% uplift in enhancements from culling 10% of the network. That's basically a rounding error.

 

[35B]

Whatever the arguments for or against keeping sparse services running on rural line, the overall premise of the original question is faulty.

You won't save anywhere near 10% of costs by closing the least used 10% of the network. These lines have low maintenance and renewal costs per track-km compared to the busy lines in built up areas (as shown in this ORR report). It's helpful to note that the Beeching cuts fell hardest on rural lines that had particularly high maintenance costs - the ones with massive structures such as Belah viaduct on the South Durham and Lancs line. So the remaining rural lines have relatively few big structures to maintain.

Likewise the cost of passenger train operation is low, with a small number of short trains which are long-depreciated and a minimal number of diagrams. All together I doubt you would save more than 1% of the total costs of operating the network. Total running costs were £26bn in 2024-25, £4bn of which were financing and other expenditure. So you're looking at perhaps saving a little over £200m per year. For comparison, spending on infrastructure enhancements and rolling stock in 2024-25 was around £10bn.

So we're looking at maybe a 2% uplift in enhancements from culling 10% of the network. That's basically a rounding error.

But that's not the premise of the question. It asks whether, if 10% of lines were shut, would the loss of demand be offset by reduced costs to allow reinvestment to boost demand elsewhere on the network.

I think the flaw in the premise is the assumption that the savings would be transferable and allow for investment. If we accept that it would be possible, then the question is where you get the greatest return on that investment, and whether that (sub 10%) cost saving would support large scale investment that would drive demand.

My suspicion is that this may be possible, but that the whole impact would be undermined by reinforcing a narrative of decline - even genuine basket case lines like Girvan - Stranraer or Gainsborough - Brigg would generate huge noise if threatened with closure (as did happen 35 years ago in north Lincs).

 

[The exile]

But that's not the premise of the question. It asks whether, if 10% of lines were shut, would the loss of demand be offset by reduced costs to allow reinvestment to boost demand elsewhere on the network.

I think the flaw in the premise is the assumption that the savings would be transferable and allow for investment. If we accept that it would be possible, then the question is where you get the greatest return on that investment, and whether that (sub 10%) cost saving would support large scale investment that would drive demand.

Ironically it may well be on some of these little-used lines (by no means all of them)where you’d get the biggest bang for your buck in terms of investment. The chances are that there wouldn’t much change from the entire money saved after you’d built single new station on a 4 track mainline.

 

[quantinghome]

But that's not the premise of the question. It asks whether, if 10% of lines were shut, would the loss of demand be offset by reduced costs to allow reinvestment to boost demand elsewhere on the network.

I think the flaw in the premise is the assumption that the savings would be transferable and allow for investment. If we accept that it would be possible, then the question is where you get the greatest return on that investment, and whether that (sub 10%) cost saving would support large scale investment that would drive demand.

My suspicion is that this may be possible, but that the whole impact would be undermined by reinforcing a narrative of decline - even genuine basket case lines like Girvan - Stranraer or Gainsborough - Brigg would generate huge noise if threatened with closure (as did happen 35 years ago in north Lincs).

The title of the thread is:

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

I think you are considering the first half to the statement; I am considering the second half. Conservatively ignoring any revenue loss, the conclusion is that there are very limited savings to reinvest, certainly not at a level to generate a 10% increase in passengers over the whole network.

 

[The exile]

The title of the thread is:

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

I think you are considering the first half to the statement; I am considering the second half. Conservatively ignoring any revenue loss, the conclusion is that there are very limited savings to reinvest, certainly not at a level to generate a 10% increase in passengers over the whole network.

Indeed - the easiest places to gain 10% more passengers are probably the Brigg Line and Stockport - Stalybridge. Probably need no infrastructure investment either (just more trains).

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Indeed - the easiest places to gain 10% more passengers are probably the Brigg Line and Stockport - Stalybridge. Probably need no infrastructure investment either (just more trains).

The train for the Stockport - Stalybridge comes off the depot, does a return trip, then goes back.
So you wouldn't even need more trains, just more staff

 

[adc82140]

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.

Same applies on the Isle of Wight. If you've ever sat on a bus all the way from Ryde to Shanklin, you'll appreciate why the railway is still there, even with its awkward timetable. Some sort of light rail may be appropriate, but certainly closure would be deeply unpopular.

 

[lowe1409]

Indeed - the easiest places to gain 10% more passengers are probably the Brigg Line and Stockport - Stalybridge. Probably need no infrastructure investment either (just more trains).

Don't know about brigg line but Stockport and guide bridge certainly would as I believe one of the biggest problems with reinstating am hourly passenger service is the large amount of freight using the single line. Denton could also do with being better located if you truly want to attract passenger growth to the line.

 

[35B]

Ironically it may well be on some of these little-used lines (by no means all of them)where you’d get the biggest bang for your buck in terms of investment. The chances are that there wouldn’t much change from the entire money saved after you’d built single new station on a 4 track mainline.

Very likely. Which highlights the cost of driving up demand materially across the network, rather than just cramming in more inner suburban commuters.

The title of the thread is:

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

I think you are considering the first half to the statement; I am considering the second half. Conservatively ignoring any revenue loss, the conclusion is that there are very limited savings to reinvest, certainly not at a level to generate a 10% increase in passengers over the whole network.

I'm considering both; the two would have to balance each other for the hypothesis to work. I suspect that you could close 10% of mileage and barely touch demand, but agree that the resultant savings would barely touch the sides of necessary investment. The biggest savings would be in staff, but you don't need many staff to run the Far North line - but running an hourly service elsewhere might easily require as many roles.

Indeed - the easiest places to gain 10% more passengers are probably the Brigg Line and Stockport - Stalybridge. Probably need no infrastructure investment either (just more trains).

I don't know about Stockport-Stalybridge, but the Brigg line requires signallers as well as crews. The example also demonstrates the danger of percentages - I'd regard any less than an initial increase of several hundred percent as a dismal failure, yet even getting to a full 2 car unit on the line (in my dreams!) would barely register as demand on the network as a whole.

 

[The exile]

Don't know about brigg line

To be honest neither do I but maths dictates that if you want to raise something by 10% it’s easier if you start with something small. As Brigg alone is off a reasonable size and the line is a through one it is not unreasonable to assume that the introduction of an hourly service would see the line’s ridership grow by at least 10% pretty quickly. The improvements wouldn’t wash their face of course but would still be a lot cheaper than (say) boosting the Cross-City line’s ridership by 10%

 

[35B]

To be honest neither do I but maths dictates that if you want to raise something by 10% it’s easier if you start with something small. As Brigg alone is off a reasonable size and the line is a through one it is not unreasonable to assume that the introduction of an hourly service would see the line’s ridership grow by at least 10% pretty quickly. The improvements wouldn’t wash their face of course but would still be a lot cheaper than (say) boosting the Cross-City line’s ridership by 10%

Which takes us back to the question of network effects, and the intent of the OP to increase overall usage by 10%.

Talking of which, I don't see usage defined in the question - so am not clear whether it's about the number of people travelling, or something more sophisticated like passenger KM - choices that make a big difference to the overall position

 

[The exile]

Which takes us back to the question of network effects, and the intent of the OP to increase overall usage by 10%.

Talking of which, I don't see usage defined in the question - so am not clear whether it's about the number of people travelling, or something more sophisticated like passenger KM - choices that make a big difference to the overall position

Passenger km is very inward-looking - what is really needed is net benefit both economically and in terms of well-being (happiness index or what have you). 100 people travelling 1km is the same passenger km as 1 travelling 100, but it makes a heck of a difference to the person trying to turn right out of their drive whether 100 fewer cars drive past or 1!

 

[stevieinselby]

Indeed - the easiest places to gain 10% more passengers are probably the Brigg Line and Stockport - Stalybridge. Probably need no infrastructure investment either (just more trains).

Depends what you're getting 10% of.
The intention must be to increase the total network ridership by 10%. You could increase ridership on the Brigg Line by 10% by taking Auntie Flo for a day out at the seaside, that means nothing. The scope for making any meaningful difference to total ridership figures by concentrating on lines running through rural areas where nobody wants to travel is nil. You could run a train every 5 minutes on the Tamar Valley and any increase in ridership would be a rounding error – investment in the long distance mainlines or key suburban networks is what is needed to drive real growth, but in most cases you're looking at serious money to get anywhere.

 

[The exile]

Depends what you're getting 10% of.
The intention must be to increase the total network ridership by 10%. You could increase ridership on the Brigg Line by 10% by taking Auntie Flo for a day out at the seaside, that means nothing. The scope for making any meaningful difference to total ridership figures by concentrating on lines running through rural areas where nobody wants to travel is nil. You could run a train every 5 minutes on the Tamar Valley and any increase in ridership would be a rounding error – investment in the long distance mainlines or key suburban networks is what is needed to drive real growth, but in most cases you're looking at serious money to get anywhere.

The money saved by any theoretical closure programme would therefore be an almost pointless drop in the ocean.
Also, and apologies if this has already been mentioned, but that 1% of total passengers you are intending to lose probably includes an over-proportional quantity of those who have no viable alternative.

 

[Trainman40083]

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

And if I recall, some of the distances by road are significantly more than rail, where the railway goes over estuaries.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Depends what you're getting 10% of.
The intention must be to increase the total network ridership by 10%. You could increase ridership on the Brigg Line by 10% by taking Auntie Flo for a day out at the seaside, that means nothing. The scope for making any meaningful difference to total ridership figures by concentrating on lines running through rural areas where nobody wants to travel is nil. You could run a train every 5 minutes on the Tamar Valley and any increase in ridership would be a rounding error – investment in the long distance mainlines or key suburban networks is what is needed to drive real growth, but in most cases you're looking at serious money to get anywhere.

I doubt closing 10% of rail lines would generate anywhere near enough savings to build HS2 phase 2, which is probably one of few projects that could actually boost national ridership by 10%.

 

[stevieinselby]

And if I recall, some of the distances by road are significantly more than rail, where the railway goes over estuaries.

It's only really Barmouth where that's an issue, and TBH it isn't much of an issue at all.
If you wanted to close the railway (and to be clear, I don't!), you could run one bus from Pwllheli to Machynlleth calling at all stations/communities along the route from Pwllheli to Barmouth and then running via Dolgellau – which would likely be slightly slower than the current rail service but not hugely so – and then another bus from Dolgellau to Machynlleth via Fairbourne and Twywn. Yes, for any passengers on the southern loop travelling to Barmouth or points north, it would be slower as they would have to change at Dolgellau or Machynlleth, but for other passengers the journey time would be similar, and with the benefit of improved services to Dolgellau. But given how popular the current train is, you would need an absolute minimum of an hourly service in the winter and a half-hourly service in the summer to provide capacity, in addition to any existing buses on those corridors.

 

[CW2]

If I can open my packet of crayons, how about electrifying from Ayr to Girvan, and closing Girvan to Stranraer?

An hourly Girvan - Glasgow electric service would be of more benefit to the local population than irregular services to intermediate shacks to Stranraer.

(Puts crayons back in packet).

 

[Trainman40083]

If I can open my packet of crayons, how about electrifying from Ayr to Girvan, and closing Girvan to Stranraer?

An hourly Girvan - Glasgow electric service would be of more benefit to the local population than irregular services to intermediate shacks to Stranraer.

(Puts crayons back in packet).

I presume the current Stranraer station is still the harbour one, that used to serve the ferry. Of course the ferry moved to Cainryan. Was there ever a station in Stranraer town? If not, maybe it would be better

 

[Uncle Buck]

I think I’ve been pretty comprehensively schooled on this one!

A good number of the infrequent routes are on corridors where there is no good bus service and where there couldn't be a good bus service because the roads are inadequate. Esk Valley and Tamar Valley are good examples of this, where there are no main roads serving those communities and so buses would go on slow, meandering journeys that would take much longer than the train.

So in that case the railway should be kept open.

And, to be honest, the attitude that “less than hourly” isn’t worth having is a very metropolitan/ suburban viewpoint. The further you go from the metropolis, the more people are used to adjusting their pattern of life to what is there rather than their latest whim. Yes, of course they’d appreciate a 10-minute frequency service just as much as someone in outer London does, but know that life can be lived without it. It might not be conducive to daily commuting to work ever-changing shifts, but for the weekly trip into town it’ll do. Never going to be a money-spinner for the operator but keeps communities alive.

This is a very good point which I, a city-dweller, simply hadn’t considered in those terms.

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).

Isn’t the more likely scenario the inverse of this: that the ever-skinter government cuts railway subsidy, and that closing one of these lines will cause less harm than taking a train per day off the Brighton Main Line?

If I can open my packet of crayons, how about electrifying from Ayr to Girvan, and closing Girvan to Stranraer?

An hourly Girvan - Glasgow electric service would be of more benefit to the local population than irregular services to intermediate shacks to Stranraer.

(Puts crayons back in packet).

A good proposal. This line must surely qualify as the biggest “basket case” of them all.

 

[lowe1409]

Isn’t the more likely scenario the inverse of this: that the ever-skinter government cuts railway subsidy, and that closing one of these lines will cause less harm than taking a train per day off the Brighton Main Line?

If you just want to cut an odd service here and there on already highly served routes, that'll do a lot less harm than leaving rural communities stranded. Especially if you cut an odd off peak/early morning/late evening service

 

[Falcon1200]

And if I recall, some of the distances by road are significantly more than rail, where the railway goes over estuaries.

Whereas the opposite applies to the Far North Line, yet it is still open! Questions; How many Far North passengers connect at Inverness to and from services on the Perth and Aberdeen routes, and should the Far North line close, would those people still change between coach and train or just travel the whole way by coach?

An hourly Girvan - Glasgow electric service would be of more benefit to the local population than irregular services to intermediate shacks to Stranraer.

Yes indeed. Stranraer is a lost cause.