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

[Trainman40083]

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?



Yes indeed. Stranraer is a lost cause.

Isn't the Far North line, quicker by road now? People that have a choice probably drive.

 

[quantinghome]

Isn't the Far North line, quicker by road now? People that have a choice probably drive.

Yes, in large part due to the bridge at Dornoch. Thurso-Inverness is a 2.5 hour drive vs a 4 hour train. The coach is a 3+ hour journey. Ember coaches have a £2 single fare...

 

[stevieinselby]

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?

As they will have to change at Inverness whether they are travelling by coach or by train, and both the X99 and E6 coaches stop right outside Inverness railway station, for people who prefer travelling by train it will still make sense to get to Inverness by train even if they have to change to a coach at that point. With the trains to Inverness being quicker than the coach from Edinburgh, Glasgow and especially from Aberdeen, there's less incentive for people to switch for the whole journey unless CityLink and Ember time the X99 and E6 to only connect with other coaches and not with trains, or offer much cheaper through fares.

 

[The exile]

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?

Or not travel at all, thus depriving the local economy of income. There is quite a body of people who will happily travel by train but will avoid bus and (particularly) coach travel like the plague. It may be irrational, but it's a fact.

 

[HighlandStorm]

Yes, in large part due to the bridge at Dornoch. Thurso-Inverness is a 2.5 hour drive vs a 4 hour train. The coach is a 3+ hour journey. Ember coaches have a £2 single fare...

Worth pointing out that while the coach services are much quicker than the train to Wick, because the coach goes to Wick first then on to Thurso, there is much less in it to Thurso between coach and train. If you ignore the night-time Ember, the daytime coaches are only 8 minutes faster than ScotRail's 10:41 from Inverness to Thurso. The coach services are also not as direct as driving the A9 in a car straight to Thurso.

 

[MadMac]

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

There was a station at Stranraer Town (closed in 1965) - it’s not really any more convenient for the centre of the town than Harbour currently is. Could battery technology support a same-platform shuttle from an electrified Girvan?

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting discusiion.

sorry if it’s been mentioned before, but closing the least busy 10% of the network does not mean losing 10% of the cost, far from it.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

Daresbury is not between Ellesmere Port and Helsby

I was of course referring to the 'planned' Merseyrail extension, perhaps then on to WBQ. We shall see.

 

[The Ham]

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

However, as a general rule of thumb, the NR costs are fixed and the extra infrastructure costs of running a train is generally covered by the track access of said train.

Therefore, whilst cutting a train from a busy line would be broadly cost neutral if the income broadly equals the TOC costs, of the train is busy enough to make more than a small profit then cutting it could actually cost the industry money and therefore increase the subsidies required from the government.

Arguably, the thing to do is to find sections of lines which are generally lightly used but could cater for a lot of people (for example they could run metro services or provide new station pairings between stations otherwise hard to get between).

One which could cover both is too run a service from Basingstoke to Farnborough Main (on the slows, where there's 3tph for passengers and intermittent freight, but unlikely to be as many as 3tph, so an extra 2tph on top of that is still an average headway of seven and a half minutes, so hardly stretching capacity) before using a new grade separated junction to connect to Frimley and then onto Ascot (increasing the line from 2tph to 4tph, so again hardly busy for a line with tracks in both directions).

That connects Basingstoke with more of the Aldershot Urban Area (Frimley and Camberley) which is currently hard to get to by train (yes there's buses, however by needing to change even for those who would see using a bus as acceptable it does their journey down) and increases the frequency between all stations and the Aldershot Urban Area (with a population of around 250,000 people it's on a par with Milton Keynes and Plymouth).

I've also previously suggested a similar setup for Manchester with a service between Clitheroe and Chester (with a new junction so the trains go direct from Salford Crescent to Eccles and missing out central Manchester). Whilst that would miss central Manchester, it would mean that for several stations they could see their frequency change from 1tph to 2tph and whilst the second service might involve a change, it's still going to be far more useful than the current service.

Also, by improving rail capacity it could even increase the economy of the area and therefore even if it doesn't change the cost of the railways it may reduce the percentage of the cost of the railways of the government budget:

Baseline
1,000 economic value of the UK
400 total government spending
6 government support to the railways

Make changes to the railways like suggested (focusing on covering TOC costs of new services without significant new infrastructure):
1,200 economic value of the UK
480 total government spend (increases proportional to the above)
6 government support to the railways.

Whilst the total level of support to the railways hasn't changed its become a smaller percentage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've also previously suggested a similar setup for Manchester with a service between Clitheroe and Chester (with a new junction so the trains go direct from Salford Crescent to Eccles and missing out central Manchester). Whilst that would miss central Manchester, it would mean that for several stations they could see their frequency change from 1tph to 2tph and whilst the second service might involve a change, it's still going to be far more useful than the current service.

I'm not sure that would be very useful. If I was going to give Clitheroe another service and it can't be Manchester I'd run it to Preston, there is definitely demand for that. And if even that isn't possible you could terminate it at Bolton.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

And if even that isn't possible you could terminate it at Bolton.

I don't know if there is the capacity to fit more trains through the single line sections between Blackburn and Bolton
They already have 4tph and any delays affect the others.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't know if there is the capacity to fit more trains through the single line sections between Blackburn and Bolton
They already have 4tph and any delays affect the others.

Just to Blackburn then (or Preston as I originally suggested).

The proposal of running to Chester is just a bit useless to be honest. This service would get very low usage.

 

[HighlandStorm]

If you are looking for lines where a relatively small capital investment could unlock decent growth, then the southern end of the Far North Line is a potential candidate.

Building the seemingly forever talked about Lentran or Delmore Dynamic Loop that is supposedly shovel ready would split the long single track run from Inverness to Muir of Ord. This would allow a much more balanced and regular service in the Inner Moray Firth area that would be transformational for rail usage, vs the current situation where there can be 3 trains in one direction in under an hour, then nothing for hours due to the need to flight trains through to/from Muir of Ord.

You are not going to get to a 10% national uplift with such schemes, but they could deliver well above 10% increase in passengers!

 

[lowe1409]

Is there any easy upgrades that could be done also to help speed up the far north line? Surely some speed increases would help increase its share of passengers also?

 

[35B]

Is there any easy upgrades that could be done also to help speed up the far north line? Surely some speed increases would help increase its share of passengers also?

Not really. It's a long single track line through the back end of beyond, which is an important part of serving the small communities along the route. There have been some accelerations in the last 30-odd years, but the combination of sightlines and physics mean that there's limited scope without significant expense.

The biggest change that could be made would be to divert the railway via Dornoch. That was an option in the late 80s, when the Dornoch bridge was built, and decided against. It would however not be easy, and would also raise issues for the places no longer served - which means not just the settlements after which the stations are named, but also the areas that they serve.

Ultimately lines like that are provided for social value as well as economic (which was also true of the line when built, not just post-Beeching).

 

[TheGrew]

Nothing easy, but if the Dornoch Firth Bridge could have a track installed on it (with approaches on either side), you could bypass a significant amount of track!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ultimately lines like that are provided for social value as well as economic (which was also true of the line when built, not just post-Beeching).

I'm also not sure that people would choose coach over rail just because it's half an hour quicker in this sort of context. With the low frequency and remoteness of the places served, it's a context where (aside from the very southern end) going somewhere takes all day so it doesn't matter as much. Looking at the timetable more widely to ensure that the times of operation are convenient would probably achieve as much.

The Cambrian is probably similar in this regard (if not quite as remote).

It already has Inverness 158s which are quite comfortably laid out, so the rolling stock side is already fairly decent (unlike say the West Highland Line where the 156s are now quite tatty even though they have been refurbished).

 

[DS25]

I think more people would rather travel by train than coach even if the coach is quicker, also I'd say a train would bring more tourism unlike a bus or coach in my opinion

 

[NER1621]

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.

Point of information: the Stainmore line closure was pre-Beeching. (The closure of the rump Darlington to Middleton in Teesdale service *was* Beeching). In both cases greatly to be regretted - a true cross-country link that actually linked population centres and contributed to national and regional connectivity. Unlike the (now politically untouchable) Settle-Carlisle whose expensive to maintain central section was built solely to duplicate the WCML and serves no meaningful local population. (Braces for impact!)

EDIT: To be fair, I suspect that the loss of the Stainmore line helped the campaign to save the S&C, in the same way that the loss of Pennsylvania station in New York helped save Grand Central. I’d love to have both, but if we had to choose I’d have the first one in each case.

 

[quantinghome]

Point of information: the Stainmore line closure was pre-Beeching. (The closure of the rump Darlington to Middleton in Teesdale service *was* Beeching). In both cases greatly to be regretted - a true cross-country link that actually linked population centres and contributed to national and regional connectivity. Unlike the (now politically untouchable) Settle-Carlisle whose expensive to maintain central section was built solely to duplicate the WCML and serves no meaningful local population. (Braces for impact!)

Yeah, I was using Beeching cuts as shorthand for all rail line closures. Forgive the journalistic shorthand.

On the face of it, the Stainmore route looks like it should sustain a rail connection, using the rule of thumb that a route with a dual carriageway probably has the demand for it. However, it was overwhelmingly a mineral route to carry coal from west Cumbria to Teesside. It never developed much in the way of passenger traffic when it was open and when the coal stopped there was little left to keep it going. While there are large population centres at the eastern end, there are not so many at the western - you'd hit the WCML then go a fair way north or south to connect up to a large population centre. A direct service south into Lancashire would be the obvious option for a longer distance passenger route, but there doesn't appear to have ever been a regular service. The towns on the route itself - Barnard Castle, Middleton, Brough, are of similar size to Settle, Kirkby Stephen and Appleby, so has about the same prospects as the S&C for local traffic.

 

[35B]

Yeah, I was using Beeching cuts as shorthand for all rail line closures. Forgive the journalistic shorthand.

On the face of it, the Stainmore route looks like it should sustain a rail connection, using the rule of thumb that a route with a dual carriageway probably has the demand for it. However, it was overwhelmingly a mineral route to carry coal from west Cumbria to Teesside. It never developed much in the way of passenger traffic when it was open and when the coal stopped there was little left to keep it going. While there are large population centres at the eastern end, there are not so many at the western - you'd hit the WCML then go a fair way north or south to connect up to a large population centre. A direct service south into Lancashire would be the obvious option for a longer distance passenger route, but there doesn't appear to have ever been a regular service. The towns on the route itself - Barnard Castle, Middleton, Brough, are of similar size to Settle, Kirkby Stephen and Appleby, so has about the same prospects as the S&C for local traffic.

Whenever I take the A66, I wonder why it was that the road developed but the railway faltered. I then realise that the road isn't primarily about local traffic, but is a highly engineered through route (well, in places!) that allows vehicles to get rapidly from A1 corridor to M6 corridor. The railway was, as you say, very different and also subject to major restrictions due to both the gradients and the viaducts - I think it was in LNER days that Belah was restricted to one train only, and it was never able to take modern heavier locos (hence the Std 2s in the Snowdrift film). The passenger service may have contributed to regional connectivity (I've seen varying views), but it never formed part of a national through route in the way that the S&C did.

In other words, Stainmore was like the S&C, but without providing effective connectivity. As a thought experiment, consider the coal traffic from Hunterston to the Aire Valley, and consider whether Stainmore could have accommodated it without fundamental rebuilding (as distinct from the relaying that the S&C had).

Edit. Rereading, the cost benefit case for closing Stainmore is a good example of the trade-offs that need to be considered when looking at the OP's idea. Will the savings be significant in comparison to the lost custom? The S&C has the advantage of the high profile closure campaign 40 years ago, which means it's firmly anchored in peoples' minds as a great journey. That means it's not just politically safe, but also economically viable in a way that most high cost deep rural lines cannot be.

 

[lachlan]

Not really. It's a long single track line through the back end of beyond, which is an important part of serving the small communities along the route. There have been some accelerations in the last 30-odd years, but the combination of sightlines and physics mean that there's limited scope without significant expense.

The biggest change that could be made would be to divert the railway via Dornoch. That was an option in the late 80s, when the Dornoch bridge was built, and decided against. It would however not be easy, and would also raise issues for the places no longer served - which means not just the settlements after which the stations are named, but also the areas that they serve.

Ultimately lines like that are provided for social value as well as economic (which was also true of the line when built, not just post-Beeching).

A few points come to mind:

• A curve at Georgemas to eliminate one of two reversals required to serve Thurso in each direction.
• A station at Halkirk and associated parking and cycle/pedestrian access
• Additional passing places to improve reliability and possibly allow an increase in service in the future

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Apr 2026 ==

I'm also not sure that people would choose coach over rail just because it's half an hour quicker in this sort of context. With the low frequency and remoteness of the places served, it's a context where (aside from the very southern end) going somewhere takes all day so it doesn't matter as much. Looking at the timetable more widely to ensure that the times of operation are convenient would probably achieve as much.

Indeed, anyone using the train has already made an effort to plan their day around the limited timetable and has discounted the (often faster) coaches. In my limited experience the trains are busy.

 

[35B]

A few points come to mind:

• A curve at Georgemas to eliminate one of two reversals required to serve Thurso in each direction.
• A station at Halkirk and associated parking and cycle/pedestrian access
• Additional passing places to improve reliability and possibly allow an increase in service in the future

I'd agree on Halkirk - the original station closure 60+ years ago always seemed odd. I'm less sure about the other two suggestions - does the reversal add that much time, and is the service genuinely impacted by lack of passing places?

 

[NER1621]

(as distinct from the relaying that the S&C had).

I think the the repairs to Batty Moss viaduct, and the constant landslip remediations are a bit more than just “relaying” if you’re looking at the costs of keeping the S&C.

Responding to another post - Appleby and Kirkby Stephen were both population centres served by the Stainmore route as well as the S&C, and Settle and the stations south of Settle were already served by the railway before the creation of the Midland’s magnificent folly. The S&C added nothing to regional and local connectivity, which is the issue I’m concerned with, not more ways to get Londoners to Scotland. Ribblehead station serves one pub, Dent station serves a holiday cottage, Garsdale serves no purpose since the closure of the link to the Wensleydale line. The use of the stations by hikers is better than nothing, but is a post-hoc rationalisation for their existence. And, frankly, 99% of hikers drive there. In terms of opening up opportunities for local and regional connectivity giving access to jobs, education and, yes, tourism for the greatest number of people across the north Pennines/Lakes, the Stainmore line beats the S&C hands down.

In Appleby the stations were adjacent, and in KS the Stainmore station is much better situated for the town which looks east and west for its connectivity, not north and south. Speaking to people in KS, they regard the S&C station as an irrelevance

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Apr 2026 ==

it never formed part of a national through route in the way that the S&C did.

An unnecessary duplicate national through route which if it had never been built no-one would be arguing for its existence now. The money spent on keeping the S&C open could have easily addressed the viaduct issues on the Stainmore line, (and/or resolving the railway’s self-inflicted operating issues over the Ingleton viaduct!) but unfortunately the chronology doesn’t work for the comparison: we can’t turn back the clock.

 

[Trainman40083]

Nothing easy, but if the Dornoch Firth Bridge could have a track installed on it (with approaches on either side), you could bypass a significant amount of track!

If I recall correctly, when the Dornoch bridge was planned, it did include a rail bridge. But at the time, they seemed more interested in cutting back the network.

 

[35B]

I think the the repairs to Batty Moss viaduct, and the constant landslip remediations are a bit more than just “relaying” if you’re looking at the costs of keeping the S&C.

Responding to another post - Appleby and Kirkby Stephen were both population centres served by the Stainmore route as well as the S&C, and Settle and the stations south of Settle were already served by the railway before the creation of the Midland’s magnificent folly. The S&C added nothing to regional and local connectivity, which is the issue I’m concerned with, not more ways to get Londoners to Scotland. Ribblehead station serves one pub, Dent station serves a holiday cottage, Garsdale serves no purpose since the closure of the link to the Wensleydale line.

In Appleby the stations were adjacent, and in KS the Stainmore station is much better situated for the town which looks east and west for its connectivity, not north and south. Speaking to people in KS, they regard the S&C station as an irrelevance

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Apr 2026 ==


An unnecessary duplicate national through route which if it had never been built no-one would be arguing for its existence now. The money spent on keeping the S&C open could have easily addressed the viaduct issues on the Stainmore line, (and/or resolving the railway’s self-inflicted operating issues over the Ingleton viaduct!) but unfortunately the chronology doesn’t work for the comparison.

Objectively, you may be right, and I agree that the S&C is well described as a "magnificent folly"! But the reality is, chronology notwithstanding, that as a through route, the S&C was significantly better engineered than Stainmore, and did provide national connectivity in a way that Stainmore never did. That has to be part of the balance, and the coal traffic of the late 90s and noughties showed a value S&C to the network that Stainmore couldn't have replicated - a fundamental limitation of the metal viaducts (see also Crumlin and Meldon).

There was a loss of local connectivity from the closure of Stainmore, but I'm far from convinced that it was especially material - or that retention of the railway would have delivered that connectivity. That has to do with the area, the nature of demand - and the modal change that took place in the 1950s - 1980s. Too many accounts exist of demand spiking when DMUs arrived, but then falling back rapidly, for me to believe that the initial peak was anything sustainable.

Again, and going back to the premise of this thread rather than the "what ifs" of railway history, the question that then arises is about what money will be saved versus revenue lost, and how that might then be used to generate new demand. Closing the Stainmores of this world balances the books in a way that closing others does not - and, given its tourist traffic, I include the S&C in that analysis.

 

[Tetragon213]

I distinctly remember the Heart of Wales was once destined for closure; saved only by virtue of it passing through something on the order of 6 marginal constituency towns that the government owned, when their majority was only about 4 seats!

I would be horrified if it closed down as it has some truly stunning scenery, but if (god forbid) we get another corrupt Mr Marples around, I don't think the Heart of Wales will be long for this world. Same goes for the Settle-Carlisle.

A really obvious closure would be the Stockport-Stalybridge, but I don't think that would be a terrible loss.

 

[amahy]

In my opinion, closing rail lines for money doesn’t make sense. But certain cuts could be made, that would be a lot less disruptive to people. One way, could be to demolish and sell off some railway land at stations that are obviously way overcapacity for their service levels. Scarborough, Stirling, and Helensburgh Central all come to mind.

I get that having flexibility is a good thing, but there are other stations that clearly don’t have enough platforms. So perhaps money from sold off railway land at overcapacity stations could be put into expanding existing stations with not enough capacity, such as Manchester Victoria?

 

[35B]

I distinctly remember the Heart of Wales was once destined for closure; saved only by virtue of it passing through something on the order of 6 marginal constituency towns that the government owned, when their majority was only about 4 seats!

I would be horrified if it closed down as it has some truly stunning scenery, but if (god forbid) we get another corrupt Mr Marples around, I don't think the Heart of Wales will be long for this world. Same goes for the Settle-Carlisle.

A really obvious closure would be the Stockport-Stalybridge, but I don't think that would be a terrible loss.

Marples' corruption had nothing to do with the HoW closure - it was (and is) a complete economic basket case, but has been politically protected despite being of very limited use due to the extremely limited service. It also costs relatively little to run, thanks to the pretty extreme cost savings implemented by BR and Network Rail's reluctance to spend money on it.

Closing it would therefore make limited difference in terms of the OP's proposed equation. Liabilities would remain for many structures, while demolition would cost money in the short term. The amount freed would not drive investment elsewhere, or make much difference to the ability to attract demand to the network.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Apr 2026 ==

In my opinion, closing rail lines for money doesn’t make sense. But certain cuts could be made, that would be a lot less disruptive to people. One way, could be to demolish and sell off some railway land at stations that are obviously way overcapacity for their service levels. Scarborough, Stirling, and Helensburgh Central all come to mind.

I get that having flexibility is a good thing, but there are other stations that clearly don’t have enough platforms. So perhaps money from sold off railway land at overcapacity stations could be put into expanding existing stations with not enough capacity, such as Manchester Victoria?

Manchester Victoria demonstrates the risks of that approach - the current congested site results from rebuilding and sale of "surplus" land 30-odd years ago.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Manchester Victoria demonstrates the risks of that approach - the current congested site results from rebuilding and sale of "surplus" land 30-odd years ago.

I think it largely has been done where it could sensibly be done. One thing I find quite noticeable in rural Scotland (having been on the West Highland last weekend) is that stuff like disused goods yards and the likes remain, simply because the value of the land in such places is small so it isn't worth bothering about it. Anywhere it's higher there's likely already a block of flats on it or if it's a railhead a bigger car park.

Talking of car parks, one option there is to reduce the footprint but go multi storey, or to allow something to be built on the condition that the car park is retained under it. A rather extreme version of that is the very odd looking Hull Premier Inn*, which is basically a large multistorey car park (albeit with only a couple of floors in use due to low demand) with a Premier Inn plonked on top!

* https://www.google.com/maps/@53.742...try=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDQwNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==