Conwy Valley Line - Time to say good bye?

[Llandudno]

Is it time that Welsh/UK taxpayers were saved £millions per year by closing the Conwy Valley Line?

What is the point of continually throwing good money after bad in subsidy for such an appalling service?

It seems as though the service is cancelled more often than it runs..

Regular cancellations/complete cessation of service due to:
Flooding or likelihood of flooding
Too windy, trees might obstruct the track
Too hot (last week)
No one to open the crossing gates at Tal-y-Cafn (this week)
More trains than usual needing repair (today)
Shortage of train crew
Animals on the line
Blaenau tunnel issues
Points failure at Llanrwst
Regular Sunday engineering work

No doubt in January 2027 no trains for a month due to North Wales mainline closure

Just close the damn thing and run an hourly electric bus from Llandudno - Porthmadog every hour 0600-2300 it would save £millions and carry far more passengers!

 

[Oxfordblues]

How often is the Crimea Pass blocked by snow in the winter? That was one reason the line survived as the schoolchildren of Dolwyddelan couldn't be reliably bustituted.

 

[Farigiraf]

Just close the damn thing and run an hourly electric bus from Llandudno - Porthmadog every hour 0600-2300

How would you ensure that it isn't cut down or withdrawn over time? Degrading a bus route is far less politically unpopular than doing the same on a rail line, particularly given that TFW is Welsh gov owned.
The permanence of railways shields them from a lot of typical meddling - if you closed the Conwy Valley line, you'd still have to do something with the tracks, stations etc, so you certainly wouldn't save much money.

it would save £millions

In maintenance work perhaps, but chances are you'd lose a similar amount in other places, such as through increased car usage and less sustainable tourism. You underestimate the amount of people who will never take a frequent electric bus but may take a less frequent DMU. The Swiss bus-rail integration mindset isn't a thing in the UK - most people (rightfully) feel lucky when a rural bus turns up at all.
For example, a lot of travellers would switch from taking Avanti to LLJ and changing, to either driving the whole way, or taking a tourist coach, or taking a taxi from LLJ to their final destination in Snowdonia.

carry far more passengers!

On a per-vehicle basis, no. I'm not doubting that an hourly bus along the corridor wouldn't be useful but it's slower and less comfortable than a train. Furthermore, concessionary passes are valid on the railway line already so you wouldn't get many more seniors going out and about.

The line certainly isn't perfect - it should be hourly till Betws and 2-hourly to Blaenau at a minimum, but a bus wouldn't suddenly fix that problem without many negative side-effects. Upgrading the railway pays off far more in the long-term than trying to replace it with buses. That's not to say that there isn't plenty you could do to on the bus side of things - the Sherpa bus network works excellently and it should be developed further.

See the rise of Ember in Scotland - yes, things have gotten objectively better from a fares, comfort and frequency perspective, but at the same time the Highland Mainline and other nearby railways aren't achieving their full potential and abstracting rail passengers won't help their case.

 

[yoyothehobo]

I dont think we will see a line be actively closed. Though it wouldnt at all surprise me to see one close as a result of a major repair being needed

 

[yorksrob]

The list of issues sound like a variety of things that can crop up on any line. Certainly no justification to close it.

 

[yoyothehobo]

The list of issues sound like a variety of things that can crop up on any line. Certainly no justification to close it.

Certainly we shouldnt be pre emptively closing lines, but i dont think we should keep railways open at any cost in the event of needing major financial intervention for repairs. Certainly from a societal benefits point of view.

 

[Gareth1990]

How would you ensure that it isn't cut down or withdrawn over time? Degrading a bus route is far less politically unpopular than doing the same on a rail line, particularly given that TFW is Welsh gov owned.
The permanence of railways shields them from a lot of typical meddling - if you closed the Conwy Valley line, you'd still have to do something with the tracks, stations etc, so you certainly wouldn't save much money.

In maintenance work perhaps, but chances are you'd lose a similar amount in other places, such as through increased car usage and less sustainable tourism. You underestimate the amount of people who will never take a frequent electric bus but may take a less frequent DMU. The Swiss bus-rail integration mindset isn't a thing in the UK - most people (rightfully) feel lucky when a rural bus turns up at all.
For example, a lot of travellers would switch from taking Avanti to LLJ and changing, to either driving the whole way, or taking a tourist coach, or taking a taxi from LLJ to their final destination in Snowdonia.

On a per-vehicle basis, no. I'm not doubting that an hourly bus along the corridor wouldn't be useful but it's slower and less comfortable than a train. Furthermore, concessionary passes are valid on the railway line already so you wouldn't get many more seniors going out and about.

The line certainly isn't perfect - it should be hourly till Betws and 2-hourly to Blaenau at a minimum, but a bus wouldn't suddenly fix that problem without many negative side-effects. Upgrading the railway pays off far more in the long-term than trying to replace it with buses. That's not to say that there isn't plenty you could do to on the bus side of things - the Sherpa bus network works excellently and it should be developed further.

See the rise of Ember in Scotland - yes, things have gotten objectively better from a fares, comfort and frequency perspective, but at the same time the Highland Mainline and other nearby railways aren't achieving their full potential and abstracting rail passengers won't help their case.

What’s really needed is an act of parliament giving the same amount of protection to key bus routes as the railways, make it so onerous to run down the service the cost of doing so is more than just running the route

 

[YorkshireBear]

What’s really needed is an act of parliament giving the same amount of protection to key bus routes as the railways, make it so onerous to run down the service the cost of doing so is more than just running the route

Or just a key transport route, i.e. if you cant provide the rail service due to 8 miles washing out and it being uneconomical, you have to provide alternatives.

 

[Llandudno]

How often is the Crimea Pass blocked by snow in the winter? That was one reason the line survived as the schoolchildren of Dolwyddelan couldn't be reliably bustituted.

I suspect that the rail line is closed more frequently than the Crimea Pass these days.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2026 ==

How would you ensure that it isn't cut down or withdrawn over time? Degrading a bus route is far less politically unpopular than doing the same on a rail line, particularly given that TFW is Welsh gov owned.
The permanence of railways shields them from a lot of typical meddling - if you closed the Conwy Valley line, you'd still have to do something with the tracks, stations etc, so you certainly wouldn't save much money.

In maintenance work perhaps, but chances are you'd lose a similar amount in other places, such as through increased car usage and less sustainable tourism. You underestimate the amount of people who will never take a frequent electric bus but may take a less frequent DMU. The Swiss bus-rail integration mindset isn't a thing in the UK - most people (rightfully) feel lucky when a rural bus turns up at all.
For example, a lot of travellers would switch from taking Avanti to LLJ and changing, to either driving the whole way, or taking a tourist coach, or taking a taxi from LLJ to their final destination in Snowdonia.

On a per-vehicle basis, no. I'm not doubting that an hourly bus along the corridor wouldn't be useful but it's slower and less comfortable than a train. Furthermore, concessionary passes are valid on the railway line already so you wouldn't get many more seniors going out and about.

The line certainly isn't perfect - it should be hourly till Betws and 2-hourly to Blaenau at a minimum, but a bus wouldn't suddenly fix that problem without many negative side-effects. Upgrading the railway pays off far more in the long-term than trying to replace it with buses. That's not to say that there isn't plenty you could do to on the bus side of things - the Sherpa bus network works excellently and it should be developed further.

See the rise of Ember in Scotland - yes, things have gotten objectively better from a fares, comfort and frequency perspective, but at the same time the Highland Mainline and other nearby railways aren't achieving their full potential and abstracting rail passengers won't help their case.

Of course the line shouldn’t be closed but if TfW can’t be bothered to resource the line properly (minimum 2 hourly frequency) and provide a reliable, usable service then maybe it’s better being closed and a proper, high quality bus service introduced instead plugged into the Senedd’s ever increasing Traws network?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2026 ==

Just been looking at the journey planner for todays trains from Llandudno to Bleanau Ffestiniog, all cancelled and replaced by buses. The usual last train from Llandudno to Blaenau normally departs around 1910, but for some reason there are rail replacement buses scheduled to depart at 2020 and 2318!

Unbelievable z,

 

[Johnnie2Sheds]

The thing about the sunlit uplands of bus services is, just as soon as they appear and all seems well, they can disappear just as quickly. Forcing those who can, to buy a car and those who can't or don't want to to whistle.

 

[Farigiraf]

Of course the line shouldn’t be closed

That's contrasting with:

Just close the damn thing and run an hourly electric bus from Llandudno - Porthmadog every hour 0600-2300 it would save £millions and carry far more passengers!

If you think it shouldn't be closed then why do you think an electric bus service would provide better value and far more intensively used?

but if TfW can’t be bothered to resource the line properly (minimum 2 hourly frequency) and provide a reliable, usable service then maybe it’s better being closed and a proper, high quality bus service introduced instead plugged into the Senedd’s ever increasing Traws network?

Increasing to 2-hourly (rather than the current 3-hourly-ish service) requires even more work in addition to the recurring maintenance work to keep it open. Now I think it's worth the cost, but do you?

The T12 and T14 have shown that TrawsCymru isn't afraid to withdraw important regional connector buses, replacing them with the former slower and less integrated local service. This shows that even if the transport route is franchised out by the government, there's still a chance that it'll be cut due to funding issues.

You could introduce a new Llandudno - Betws - Blaenau bus, with higher frequencies and modern buses, and then out of the blue it could be withdrawn or reduced to e.g. 2-hourly, because Conwy or Gwynedd council no longer want to pay for it. Whereas a rail service on the Conwy Valley line is run by TFW, and therefore unlikely to be withdrawn due to low ticket sales or funding difficulties, because it's a vital public utility that must be retained - that's why they keep spending millions on keeping the line open. If you would like them to get on with work a bit faster, or to build more resilience into the infrastructure, then how would you manage to get the associated tax increase through to Welsh voters (keeping in mind how popular the 20mph urban speed limit was amongst this voterbase) in order to pay for it? Or alternatively where else would TFW have to cut services at to pay for it?

With current UK levels of bus regulation (i.e. none), why wouldn't a bus service be equally (if not more) susceptible to reliability issues and timetable meddling than a railway service?

 

[gazthomas]

The line isn't closed today. Rather TfW don't have enough functioning 197s and the service on this line has been sacrificed to make a unit available elsewhere. I think greater frequently on this line would bring success, but TfW have bigger problems to solve, such as the absolute dire availability of the terrible 197s

 

[Gareth1990]

The line isn't closed today. Rather TfW don't have enough functioning 197s and the service on this line has been sacrificed to make a unit available elsewhere. I think greater frequently on this line would bring success, but TfW have bigger problems to solve, such as the absolute dire availability of the terrible 197s

semantics, with no available trains the line is effectively closed

 

[yorksrob]

semantics, with no available trains the line is effectively closed

Yes, but it does suggest that sourcing adequate rolling stock would be a better option than closing the line. Isn't TfW awash with DMU's following the electrification of the valley lines.

 

[Dr Day]

Surely if they wanted to, as a multi-modal transport authority TfW could decide to stop funding the Conwy Valley rail service and fund a bus instead or not at all. Just because a service is currently operated by a train shouldn't mean it is immune from funding cuts in perpetuity. Indeed I would expect any organisation, even those in the public sector, to regularly review their business plans and consider what, if anything, they need to change to better deliver against their objectives (economic, environmental, social etc - not purely financial). If the benefits of rail versus bus are that strong across all the relevant criteria, the line shouldn't have anything to worry about.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Surely if they wanted to, as a multi-modal transport authority TfW could decide to stop funding the Conwy Valley rail service and fund a bus instead or not at all. Just because a service is currently operated by a train shouldn't mean it is immune from funding cuts in perpetuity. Indeed I would expect any organisation, even those in the public sector, to regularly review their business plans and consider what, if anything, they need to change to better deliver against their objectives (economic, environmental, social etc - not purely financial). If the benefits of rail versus bus are that strong across all the relevant criteria, the line shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Not really as (apart from the CVL newtwork) TfW don't own the infrastructure and the Welsh Government, not TfW, set the terms of the original Keolis-Amey franchise.

It's all academic anyway, since Plaid Cymru hold seven of the twelve seats in the two Senedd constituencies through which the line runs. A south-Walian dominated Welsh Labour Government might have toyed with the idea of closure, a Plaid one, never in Europe, good boy.

 

[cactustwirly]

Is it time that Welsh/UK taxpayers were saved £millions per year by closing the Conwy Valley Line?

What is the point of continually throwing good money after bad in subsidy for such an appalling service?

It seems as though the service is cancelled more often than it runs..

Regular cancellations/complete cessation of service due to:
Flooding or likelihood of flooding
Too windy, trees might obstruct the track
Too hot (last week)
No one to open the crossing gates at Tal-y-Cafn (this week)
More trains than usual needing repair (today)
Shortage of train crew
Animals on the line
Blaenau tunnel issues
Points failure at Llanrwst
Regular Sunday engineering work

No doubt in January 2027 no trains for a month due to North Wales mainline closure

Just close the damn thing and run an hourly electric bus from Llandudno - Porthmadog every hour 0600-2300 it would save £millions and carry far more passengers!

Same question can be asked of lines in Scotland, Whitby, Tamar Valley line etc

Is the railway for profit or providing a social service to communities?

 

[The exile]

I suspect that the rail line is closed more frequently than the Crimea Pass these days.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2026 ==


Of course the line shouldn’t be closed but if TfW can’t be bothered to resource the line properly (minimum 2 hourly frequency) and provide a reliable, usable serviice….

If the rail line can’t be operated, alternatives can be made available. If there’s no train and the Pass is closed, then that’s that.
“Can’t be bothered” is simply unfair. “Isn’t sufficiently resourced” would be nearer the mark.

 

[tbtc]

I read Roger Ford's very interesting article about the bus to Tilbury Riveside:

Every route 99. 4 of 25.

Tuesday 10th March 2026 I’m pretty sure this route 99 will be one of the least used to be featured in this year’s fortnightly series looking at all Britain’s 25 bus services beari…

busandtrainuser.com

A decision was taken in the early nineties that (since BR wanted to close the branch, on the grounds that it was a railway built to serve a ferry terminal that no longer had any ferries, due to the Dartford Crossing obliterating the need for boats shuttling over the river) a bus would have to run at the same frequency as the former railway line. Forever.

The 99 is protected by an Act of Parliament. Unlike normal bus routes, cutting/withdrawing this service would require all of the expensive faffing about needed to close an inch of railway line

So the argument that replacing this infrequent branch line would automatically see a bus route that would be scrapped shortly afterwards isn't strictly true. Why couldn't we have a similar Act of Parliament to ensure that a replacement bus was at least as frequent as the trains had been (on the days that the line was fully open, there were sufficient staff, the operator didn't have a shortage of stock...)

Otherwise this is a perfect example of the Sunk Cost Fallacy. We have to spend a few more million fixing the track that washed away, since we've previously spent tens of millions on propping it up, and we just cross our fingers that we absolutely definitely won't be spaffing yet more millions on it in months to come

Compare and contrast the hysteria on here every time the sea wall at Dawlish sees the line closed for a few hours ("we must spend hundreds on millions on an alternative BECAUSE RESILIENCE!") with the shoulder shrugging every time this fragile branch fails

 

[splashoutradio]

TfW recently conducted a consultation with the intention of implementing some quite significant timetable changes over the Conwy Valley line. Whilst still a 3 hourly service, operated by a single unit, timings were adjusted to attract additional local and tourist traffic.

Unfortunately, with timetable data for December 2026 now showing on various online platforms, it appears not to be commencing in December as originally planned, and I've not been able to find anything official from TfW, one way or the other, since the initial consultation.

 

[6Gman]

How often is the Crimea Pass blocked by snow in the winter? That was one reason the line survived as the schoolchildren of Dolwyddelan couldn't be reliably bustituted.

Very rarely these days.

My primary school teacher commuted from Ffestiniog into Llandudno Junction. In winter she would - occasionally - come in by train if the Crimea was blocked. Would be very, very, very rarely these days!

 

[43096]

I read Roger Ford's very interesting article about the bus to Tilbury Riveside:

Roger French, I think you mean.

 

[fishwomp]

I read Roger Ford's very interesting article about the bus to Tilbury Riveside:

Every route 99. 4 of 25.

Tuesday 10th March 2026 I’m pretty sure this route 99 will be one of the least used to be featured in this year’s fortnightly series looking at all Britain’s 25 bus services beari…

busandtrainuser.com

A decision was taken in the early nineties that (since BR wanted to close the branch, on the grounds that it was a railway built to serve a ferry terminal that no longer had any ferries, due to the Dartford Crossing obliterating the need for boats shuttling over the river) a bus would have to run at the same frequency as the former railway line. Forever.

The 99 is protected by an Act of Parliament. Unlike normal bus routes, cutting/withdrawing this service would require all of the expensive faffing about needed to close an inch of railway line

Is something similar going on with Minehead - it was still shown in the rail timetables last time I looked - and you can see it on real time trains such as: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C27411/2026-07-01/detailed

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Very rarely these days.

My primary school teacher commuted from Ffestiniog into Llandudno Junction. In winter she would - occasionally - come in by train if the Crimea was blocked. Would be very, very, very rarely these days!

Well, the road has been much improved, so Bwlch yr Oernant (the correct indigenous name for the Crimea) is seldom closed these days.

However, the historic reason a line suffered or escaped the axe is irrelevant to the current situation. Any decision needs to be made on the basis of current usage etc.

To think otherwise is another version of the 'this line should never have closed therefore it must be reopened' argument. What happened sixty years ago has zero relevance to today's decision making.

 

[zwk500]

Is the railway for profit or providing a social service to communities?

It is for providing a social service - that justifies the subsidy. It's an important qualification.

So the argument that replacing this infrequent branch line would automatically see a bus route that would be scrapped shortly afterwards isn't strictly true. Why couldn't we have a similar Act of Parliament to ensure that a replacement bus was at least as frequent as the trains had been (on the days that the line was fully open, there were sufficient staff, the operator didn't have a shortage of stock...)

I would be in favour of the closure paperwork including this as a requirement for a decent length of time (5 or 10 years) to allow travel patterns to establish. However I would learn the lesson of the 1960s bus replacements and not mandate that the buses had to leave from the station forecourt, if a more advantageous location was available within a reasonable area. I'd also include a minimum distance to qualify for the provision so that something like Newhaven Marine didn't have to happen.

 

[Krokodil]

How often is the Crimea Pass blocked by snow in the winter? That was one reason the line survived as the schoolchildren of Dolwyddelan couldn't be reliably bustituted.

Blaenau is now in a different local authority to Dolwyddelan so schoolkids travelling between the two are exceptional (we used to have one mother who was in temporary housing across the border, I can't think of any others).

For the rest of the line, with a couple of individual cases the school traffic was lost to buses some years ago - because the train was unreliable.

Increasing to 2-hourly (rather than the current 3-hourly-ish service) requires even more work in addition to the recurring maintenance work to keep it open.

No infrastructure work would be required to double the frequency to 3tp2h. Two hourly is possible too but doesn't make the most efficient use of units.

 

[The exile]

I would be in favour of the closure paperwork including this as a requirement for a decent length of time (5 or 10 years) to allow travel patterns to establish. However I would learn the lesson of the 1960s bus replacements and not mandate that the buses had to leave from the station forecourt, if a more advantageous location was available within a reasonable area. I'd also include a minimum distance to qualify for the provision so that something like Newhaven Marine didn't have to happen.

I would suggest a minimum of 10 and making removal of the bus service thereafter subject to full closure proceedings in perpetuity. You need to guarantee continued service of the station anywhere there is still an interface with the rail network, but I agree that elsewhere, more suitable routings should be permitted. That, however, raises an issue. A rail connection is clearly defined so is easy (in terms of paperwork) to “protect”. Bus routing between 4 or 5 places on a closed railway branch line may not have an infinite number of possibilities. How do you guarantee the service without either fossilising it or requiring vast amounts of bureaucracy to allow for minor beneficial adjustments?

 

[positron]

Yes, but it does suggest that sourcing adequate rolling stock would be a better option than closing the line. Isn't TfW awash with DMU's following the electrification of the valley lines.

The electrification may be done but the train rollout isn't. They've just last week got a single 398 running in service for half the day. Once they're properly available then the 231s can be moved to mainline + Ebbw vale and Maesteg journeys which then will mean more 197s available.

The problem with the Conwy valley line is that a train every 3 hours is just a non-existent service as far as most are concerned, that's like a rural bus that runs once a week to take the elderly to market and back, it's not a useful service for most people. If it ran at 2 hourly or 1 hourly more ideally than it probably see more usage.

Though I will say, it doesn't need to be an either-or, why not the current train offering + an electric bus to fill in the gaps?

 

[zwk500]

I would suggest a minimum of 10 and making removal of the bus service thereafter subject to full closure proceedings in perpetuity.

I wouldn't, the whole point would be that after the initial period the bus service either is justified on it's own merits or travel patterns have changed sufficiently it's redundant.

You need to guarantee continued service of the station anywhere there is still an interface with the rail network, but I agree that elsewhere, more suitable routings should be permitted.

Agree with this (connection to remaining Railway being legally protected)

That, however, raises an issue. A rail connection is clearly defined so is easy (in terms of paperwork) to “protect”. Bus routing between 4 or 5 places on a closed railway branch line may not have an infinite number of possibilities. How do you guarantee the service without either fossilising it or requiring vast amounts of bureaucracy to allow for minor beneficial adjustments?

Again, I wouldn't guarantee the service after the initial period expired. That a railway was built somewhere 150 years ago is no indicator of current travel patterns. Much will have changed on the route in the time the railway operated, and in many areas much will be likely to change in the 10 years after the railway closed.

I would structure the requirements along the lines of 'A bus must operate at intervals of no more than XXmin in both directions from Mainline Junction to Dunestown, serving the settlements of Anyvalley, Broadhill, and Castledown. The bus must have calling points within 400m/0.25 miles of the railway stations listed for closure in this legislation, except Broadhill where the stop must be within 400m of Broadhill Village Hall.'
It provides for flexibility to add or remove stops and to run more frequent services while protecting the core intention of providing a bus service that closely substitutes for the railway, excepting 1 station where the railway company built it 2 miles away for engineering reasons. When setting the requirements there would be a statutory duty to consider the local road network as well to avoid specifying a ridiculously sinuous route.

Before I get accused of going off-topic, this is very relevant to the Conwy Valley proposal because the railway is sometimes very much in the settlement and sometimes it's the other side of the river from it.

 

[Harpo]

Is it time that Welsh/UK taxpayers were saved £millions per year by closing the Conwy Valley

Unusual to hear a North Walian want to spend less up there and to save Cardiff millions. The more usual view is concern about the heavy Cardiff-centric bias in Welsh rail spending.

The Blaenau branch infrastructure has been bought up to a reasonably resilient standard. It now needs TfW to have enough reliable trains to operate all scheduled services as advertised.