Beeching II - you wield the axe.....

[Meerkat]

There was no deal, Project Fear turned out to be right, there is no money, you have just been appointed Rail Minister and a great big axe put in your hands.
What are you going to cut, ‘nothing’ is not acceptable?

Off the top of my grumpy head.....

Sack all the guards who won’t sign up to what the TOCs want - strikes should save quite a lot of money and justify cutting services whilst blaming the unions (time for big boy rules )

Close lines:
Reedham-Yarmouth
Island Line (unless the 230s really pull it out the bag and the IoW pay)
Bletchley-Bedford (unless fares rise to cover 230s)
Sudbury
Felixstowe (passenger)
Barton upon Humber
Knottingley-Goole
Leeds-Morecambe
Whitby
Newquay
St Albans Abbey

A station closure Act, culling all those tiny stations that stop railways being proper regional services on lines like Barnstaple, Yeovil-Weymouth, Wigan-Southport, Lewes-Hastings-Ashford, RTW Hastings, Oxford-Worcester, Stratford lines, Nottingham-Grantham, Nottingham-Lincoln, Cumbrian Coast, Hull lines plus Menheniot, Beaulieu Road, Chathill

I got scared before I got to anything which would really save money......anyone tougher?

 

[B&I]

Here's an idea: everyone who starts a thread on here proposing closures should nominate the station closest to their home address, the line serving it and any other stations and lines within a 15 mile radius, before they are allowed to nominate any others. They would also be forced to sell any motor vehicle in the household, and be subject to a lifelong ban on using taxis.

They should then be asked how happy they still feel about closing railway lines other people depend on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Far North Line is probably an obvious one.

Realistically, if you needed to do some *heavy* pruning, a rule along the lines of "if the route or station doesn't have at least an hourly weekday service it can go" would probably cut the majority of the real basket cases.

 

[higthomas]

Here's an idea: everyone who starts a thread on here proposing closures should nominate the station closest to their home address, the line serving it and any other stations and lines within a 15 mile radius, before they are allowed to nominate any others. They would also be forced to sell any motor vehicle in the household, and be subject to a lifelong ban on using taxis.

They should then be asked how happy they still feel about closing railway lines other people depend on.

This is a pure speculation thread. The proposer almost certainly doesn't want to decimate the rail network given they're on this forum, they're simple interested in SPECULATION, hence the sub-forum.

Now, every station within 15 miles of me... Waterloo, gone. Victoria, gone...Not really going to help balance the books is it...

Yes, we all agree the railways are needed as a public good, which requires subsidy. But this is speculation where there ain't no money for subsidy.

Anyway, I'd probably just take the serpell report and take whichever option was about eight for the situation. The south east hasn't suddenly emptied since then...

 

[yorksrob]

I'd like to be involved in the resistance movement, encouraging civil disobedience until it becomes too much of a headache for the powers that be, to carry out.

 

[Meerkat]

I left out Scottish and Welsh lines as a UK transport minister couldn’t directly make such choices.
Not having a station with fast trains to London would have been an advantage for me as I could have afforded a bigger first home.....

Something does need to be done at least about the joke stations - how much better would the Barnstaple line be if it’s services could rush through the smaller stations?

 

[deltic]

A simpler approach would be to sell off Network Rail, allow complete open access and scrap all subsidies to the rail sector - then the market would determine what went and what stayed.

 

[yorksrob]

I would close Waterloo East.

(Then replace it with an extension of Waterloo main in exactly the same location. I would save money by reusing all the structures from the old Waterloo East).

 

[Journeyman]

Get rid of all the Parliamentary stations for a start.

 

[B&I]

This is a pure speculation thread. The proposer almost certainly doesn't want to decimate the rail network given they're on this forum, they're simple interested in SPECULATION, hence the sub-forum.

Now, every station within 15 miles of me... Waterloo, gone. Victoria, gone...Not really going to help balance the books is it...

Yes, we all agree the railways are needed as a public good, which requires subsidy. But this is speculation where there ain't no money for subsidy.

Anyway, I'd probably just take the serpell report and take whichever option was about eight for the situation. The south east hasn't suddenly emptied since then...

If this is a speculative thread, I will speculate about how much the 'I'm Alright Jack' mentality towards railway closures annoys me

 

[AndrewE]

This is a pure speculation thread. The proposer almost certainly doesn't want to decimate the rail network given they're on this forum, they're simple interested in SPECULATION, hence the sub-forum.
Now, every station within 15 miles of me... Waterloo, gone. Victoria, gone...Not really going to help balance the books is it...

Yes, we all agree the railways are needed as a public good, which requires subsidy. But this is speculation where there ain't no money for subsidy.

Anyway, I'd probably just take the serpell report and take whichever option was about eight for the situation. The south east hasn't suddenly emptied since then...

The whole premise is wrong.
Actually if you want to save money you would probably be right to close the lines heavily-used for commuting, as they probably lose most... Reduce the London termini to what is needed for a succession of long-distance trains and sell all the spare land (depots and sidings too.) This is the example that shows the nonsense of the assumption that you can prune the network and improve its viability.
Inter-City running trains that each make 3 well-filled trips a day Euston to Scotland and back is about the most cost-effective railway you will ever see.
If you grudge the railway its "subsidy" I would like to see an impartial estimate of the cost of doing without the subsidised bits of the railway - including the loss of business turnover due to the total gridlock in our towns and cities.

 

[deltic]

One of the clear outcomes of this type of thread is the complete lack of transparency in rail finances - in that few people (if anyone) knows the true financial position of any particular part of the network.

If the rail industry was run as a private business with unregulated fares would you really find out what makes money and what doesnt.

 

[AndrewE]

One of the clear outcomes of this type of thread is the complete lack of transparency in rail finances - in that few people (if anyone) knows the true financial position of any particular part of the network.

If the rail industry was run as a private business with unregulated fares would you really find out what makes money and what doesnt.

Ditto for the road network...

 

[deltic]

Ditto for the road network...

Couldn't agree more - the sooner we have road pricing the better

 

[markindurham]

Couldn't agree more - the sooner we have road pricing the better

Really? I would respond to that by saying "Be careful what you wish for". At least, at present, once you have paid your VED for your vehicle, you can drive on almost any road without further charge for their use. (Parking charges are another issue). To put effective control of your freedom of movement in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats is not a good idea.

 

[deltic]

Which is precisely what is wrong with the present system- with road pricing we would see I considerable switch to public transport reducing the need for many of the suggested closures on this thread

 

[Ianno87]

One of the clear outcomes of this type of thread is the complete lack of transparency in rail finances - in that few people (if anyone) knows the true financial position of any particular part of the network.

If the rail industry was run as a private business with unregulated fares would you really find out what makes money and what doesnt.

Good point.

Taking parliamentary stations as a start, the reason so many survive is because their relatively marginal cost to provide.

Similarly (for example) the Whitby line might lose considerably less money than a London commuter route, simply due to the minimalistness of th.e operation. But then the wider economic impact of railways comes into play - London business sinply would not function without the railways to feed it.

 

[squizzler]

I got scared before I got to anything which would really save money......anyone tougher?

I assume the rail minister post would be surplus to requirements, and as such is rolled into the brief of Minister for Transport. I'll base my programme on that assumption. So here we go:

Non railway savings

Cancel any highway funding that benefits motorists or motor traffic. With driverless cars mooted in a decade or so, we really need to know what sort of highway system (assuming they can actually share traditional highways or need their own segregated rights of way) before pouring more tarmac.

Cancel Third runway at Heathrow.

Railway Closure Programme:

Close Birmingham New Street, Snow Hill, Moor Street and move services to a brand new and massive underground station in the middle of town. This will also replace Curzon Street, so more savings there, both operationally and in terms of assets!

Close the Severn Tunnel as soon as traffic can be diverted into a nice, new and dry four track crossing to be built further south (probably between Minehead and Cardiff) which I would authorise. Again replacing an old maintenance hungry asset.

Close the Dawlish Sea wall route, and divert trains onto a nice, new and dry inland route with electrification.

As you can see, I am proposing a brutal programme of rail cuts along with a few cuts to alternative infrastructures (the latter to show that "we are all in this together".

 

[HumberSprinter]

If I was rail minister and given an axe... I'd resign on principle. Politicians care more about their budget than people far too often.

 

[simonw]

A simpler approach would be to sell off Network Rail, allow complete open access and scrap all subsidies to the rail sector - then the market would determine what went and what stayed.

I always thought, although it was never made explicit, that that was the thinking behind privatisation in the first place.

 

[AndrewE]

A simpler approach would be to sell off Network Rail, allow complete open access and scrap all subsidies to the rail sector - then the market would determine what went and what stayed.

and our bigger cities would immediately seize up, and pollution would worsen beyond its current illegal (and grossly not cost-effective) levels. The market has so far proved itself to be totally inadequate and too unreliable to be trusted with anything important. Prisons? Probation services? Big hospitals? Electricity and gas supplies? New nuclear power stations?
You couldn't imagine eliminating the "subsidies" to the road sector because they are almost impossible to track down - like small rural parishes having to pay for the traffic light at road junctions that don't really serve the village.
So why can't we accept that the rail network is part of our national infrastructure, and by definition there will be more- and less-heavily used bits. Would you advocate cutting back the electricity distribution network because a lot of rural users don't use enough to pay for the lines in their area?

 

[RT4038]

Probably wouldn't happen like this anyway. Initially it would be train mileage cuts (hopefully longer trains on those still running). Possibly more rural (ish) lines run as long sidings or no intermediate passing places etc and/or reduced hours of operation to contain within one shift type of thing. Marginal lines that require infrastructure expenditure would get temporaily bustituted for a very long time/forever. Speeds on all but the main lines would gradually decrease as infrastructure expenditure was squeezed. No new trains. Highly unlikely to be a 'closure list' as this would be too much of a political hot potato. Marginal lines would just fade away.
Look at what has happened in many other countries of the world in similar circumstances. as a guide.

 

[RT4038]

So why can't we accept that the rail network is part of our national infrastructure, and by definition there will be more- and less-heavily used bits. Would you advocate cutting back the electricity distribution network because a lot of rural users don't use enough to pay for the lines in their area?

We do, it is just the size of the 'less heavily used' part of the infrastructure that we can't agree on. Not sure it is quite the same as the electricity distribution network, as there are lots of viable alternatives to rail transport, and rail is unsuitable for most passenger journeys.

 

[Esker-pades]

Get rid of all the Parliamentary stations for a start.

Teesside Airport? Yes.
Brigg/Kirton Lindsey/Rural Highland stations? No.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Teesside Airport? Yes.
Brigg/Kirton Lindsey/Rural Highland stations? No.

I don't think I'd call the likes of the Far North Line Parliamentary, it's just a very rural line that therefore doesn't justify a frequent service.

FWIW, though, I think a reasonable guideline about a *station* is that if it doesn't justify a service every two hours, or being served by all trains on the line if the overall service is less frequent than that, it's questionable as to whether it is worth having it.

 

[Esker-pades]

I don't think I'd call the likes of the Far North Line Parliamentary, it's just a very rural line that therefore doesn't justify a frequent service.

No, fair enough. I slightly missed the point there.

FWIW, though, I think a reasonable guideline about a *station* is that if it doesn't justify a service every two hours, or being served by all trains on the line if the overall service is less frequent than that, it's questionable as to whether it is worth having it.

Which stations would you classify as questionable?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which stations would you classify as questionable?

Nethertown and Braystones might be two examples. Either stop everything there (due to the low frequency of the line) or just bin them off.

Though that doesn't apply to every case - the Conwy Valley morning semifast is more of a train that would be ECS but as it has a guard might as well run in service with a few key stops.

Ardwick is another - either stop all the EMUs there or close it before the rotting footbridge falls down.

Peartree yet another - it either justifies all the EMT local services stopping there, or just get rid of it.

Polesworth - now that really is a joke. Sort it out or close it. I'd suggest building a path up to the road and stopping all the Trent Valley LNR services there.

 

[jon0844]

Close St Pancras International. After Brexit, nobody needs to go abroad. GTR's timetable has still not fully bedded in. The MML never got the electrification works done..

Just turn it into the shopping mall it always wanted to be.

Oh, and you can now extend the champagne bar even longer.

 

[Esker-pades]

Nethertown and Braystones might be two examples. Either stop everything there (due to the low frequency of the line) or just bin them off.

Though that doesn't apply to every case - the Conwy Valley morning semifast is more of a train that would be ECS but as it has a guard might as well run in service with a few key stops.

Ardwick is another - either stop all the EMUs there or close it before the rotting footbridge falls down.

Peartree yet another - it either justifies all the EMT local services stopping there, or just get rid of it.

Polesworth - now that really is a joke. Sort it out or close it. I'd suggest building a path up to the road and stopping all the Trent Valley LNR services there.

I disagree about Nethertown and Braystones. They both serve a population. The current service level is wierd, but I don't think stopping every service there is justified. Perhaps every other service? The other thing to remember is that stopping the loco-hauled sets there would be quite a faff, given the increased dwell times and short platforms.

I would serve Ardwick with the same services that serve Ashburys. I agree with you about Peartree.

Polesworth is a joke. I wrote something about it after my visit and proposed pretty much exactly what you suggest: a footpath from the Up platform to the road at the east/south end of the station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I disagree about Nethertown and Braystones. They both serve a population. The current service level is wierd, but I don't think stopping every service there is justified. Perhaps every other service? The other thing to remember is that stopping the loco-hauled sets there would be quite a faff, given the increased dwell times and short platforms.

As the overall service is roughly hourly, every other one would do, but TBH I'd just make them request stops for all trains. I think that works better in this kind of very rural situation.