Closing down the Railways?

[Thirteen]

This is quite an unlikely thing that will ever happen in the near future but something I've always wondered is if passenger numbers sank so low and it became too expensive to run the railways, would a UK Government ever consider the nuclear option of closing the entire network and legally would it even be possible?

 

[yorkie]

No. Core routes are much more viable than certain branch lines. There is no point even contemplating this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is quite an unlikely thing that will ever happen in the near future but something I've always wondered is if passenger numbers sank so low and it became too expensive to run the railways, would a UK Government ever consider the nuclear option of closing the entire network and legally would it even be possible?

I very much doubt it.

What would be possible would be a "Serpell" approach, which might be able to reach a profitable national network by closing most regional routes, with cities funding their own commuter networks if they want them. But never closing the whole thing unless there was some other sort of complete revolution in transport technologies (I'm thinking the real blue-sky stuff like Star Trek style matter energy transport, not even carbon free flights).

But even that is unlikely, though we could lose a few branches and gain a few others.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I don't know about closing down the railways but I'd imagine maybe fewer trains will run

 

[Bald Rick]

It is certainly possible. Although extremely unlikely. There’s no legal impediment to it, but there would be an almighty row!

Slightly more likely (but still not very likely at all) is a temporary closure.

 

[deltic]

Yes - if autonomous vehicles became a reality then I could see the network closing down

 

[E27007]

The coal industry was closed, NCB was making a headline loss of £5 per ton of coal, there are no sacred cows anymore, a Serpell Railway could be considered

 

[Turtle]

I very much doubt it.

What would be possible would be a "Serpell" approach, which might be able to reach a profitable national network by closing most regional routes, with cities funding their own commuter networks if they want them. But never closing the whole thing unless there was some other sort of complete revolution in transport technologies (I'm thinking the real blue-sky stuff like Star Trek style matter energy transport, not even carbon free flights).

But even that is unlikely, though we could lose a few branches and gain a few others.

Agreed. There could never be a complete closure. At the very worst it would be something along Serpell lines retaining :-
the old: British Rail Intercity.
Network Southeast.
The metro systems of the larger cities.

 

[bluenoxid]

Are there any freight operations that would be viable on a simplified network (eg ports to Daventry)?

 

[HS2isgood]

That's what happened in many Latin American countries, but London really needs its railways, and most devolved authorities wouldn't let them fall. Only one European country that is not an island has done something similar: Albania (which only has a line working in weekends), but they're building a new line that will work every hour, with a spur to the airport.

 

[High Dyke]

Previously discussed, to some extent, here.

Should we proactively consider re-opening lines that would benefit towns/cities bereft of train services, rather than wondering where further cuts should be applied.

That said I'm sure changes to traffic patterns should be considered, in order to improve our rail network.

 

[Bald Rick]

Are there any freight operations that would be viable on a simplified network (eg ports to Daventry)?

Plenty. More or less what runs on strike days.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Previously discussed, to some extent, here.

Should we proactively consider re-opening lines that would benefit towns/cities bereft of train services, rather than wondering where further cuts should be applied.

That said I'm sure changes to traffic patterns should be considered, in order to improve our rail network.

In reality we should probably be both opening and closing lines and stations as the network and demand evolves.

 

[zwk500]

In reality we should probably be both opening and closing lines and stations as the network and demand evolves.

This. Very much this.

 

[greyman42]

The coal industry was closed, NCB was making a headline loss of £5 per ton of coal, there are no sacred cows anymore, a Serpell Railway could be considered

But there was an option to British coal. There is no viable option regarding rail travel. As Yorkie said in post 2, the core routes are always going to be there.

 

[yorksrob]

The coal industry was closed, NCB was making a headline loss of £5 per ton of coal, there are no sacred cows anymore, a Serpell Railway could be considered

The difference being that coal could be imported.

 

[507020]

The difference being that coal could be imported.

I don’t understand this. So it only cost the taxpayer £5 per ton of domestically produced coal. It must have cost (and still cost) astronomically more than that to import coal solely for the political aim of rendering all miners unemployed and why were we incapable of exporting our coal exactly? We could have made a lot more than £5 a ton for it.

In reality we should probably be both opening and closing lines and stations as the network and demand evolves.

What happened to closing a single inch of even the most lightly used railway being completely unacceptable on the grounds that the government would try to keep pushing and wouldn’t know where to stop, leaving us with nothing?

 

[Brush 4]

I would think that some minor lines would be closed and local groups/companies formed to save some but not all, in much the same way that some local amenities like a pub or post office are saved. A test of community spirit, as many amenities are not saved but, a few are around the country. Not as a steam line but as a continuation of the service.

 

[notadriver]

We need to get more dangerous and polluting lorries off the road. Railways will enable that.

 

[A0]

We need to get more dangerous and polluting lorries off the road. Railways will enable that.

But at a massive cost increase to the cost of shipping itens which will fuel inflation, so not a good idea.

And HGV emissions are dropping, driven by LEZs - whereas far more polluting trains are running through London, Birmingham and Manchester on a daily basis.

 

[yorksrob]

I don’t understand this. So it only cost the taxpayer £5 per ton of domestically produced coal. It must have cost (and still cost) astronomically more than that to import coal solely for the political aim of rendering all miners unemployed and why were we incapable of exporting our coal exactly? We could have made a lot more than £5 a ton for it.

What happened to closing a single inch of even the most lightly used railway being completely unacceptable on the grounds that the government would try to keep pushing and wouldn’t know where to stop, leaving us with nothing?

On a purely economic basis it would have been more cost effective to produce coal domestically for longer, however there was a political agenda at play as well.

But the point I was making was that passenger transport can't be imported.

 

[zwk500]

On a purely economic basis it would have been more cost effective to produce coal domestically for longer, however there was a political agenda at play as well.

This is not at all certain. Coal is very labour intensive to produce and even more labour intensive to use in industries. The cost of labour would have risen regardless and made coal uneconomic to use, irrespective of environmental or political concerns.

 

[Thirteen]

It is certainly possible. Although extremely unlikely. There’s no legal impediment to it, but there would be an almighty row!

Slightly more likely (but still not very likely at all) is a temporary closure.

I would imagine in order to close the railways completely, you'd need to regain control from the devolved nations and they wouldn't hand it back without a fight and even MPs within the governing party would not vote for such a proposal.

I imagine the people on here who claim they'll never travel by rail again would suddenly change their tune if the entire railways was going to get closed down.

 

[InTheEastMids]

there would be an almighty row!

This is important because economic closures didn't happen because they became politically unacceptable.

In which case the OP needs to imagine a scenario where not only is rail uneconomic, but its wider societal value has fallen so low that there is a political consensus allowing closure. That is to say either the demand for rail is destroyed, or substituted by other modes.

if autonomous vehicles became a reality

This would definitely change demand. However a self driving car is slow compared to high speed rail and even with autonomy, there would still be traffic. Uber is already self driving from the perspective of the customer, yet made traffic worse in many cities.

There could never be a complete closure

"Never" is a very long time though

 

[507020]

On a purely economic basis it would have been more cost effective to produce coal domestically for longer, however there was a political agenda at play as well.

But the point I was making was that passenger transport can't be imported.

But the perpetrators of this political agenda claimed the basis for it was purely economic…

If you ask me, going back to the 1955 modernisation plan, BR standard steam engines should have seen out their design life, running on domestically produced coal until ~2005, being replaced directly by electrification and renewables, with no need for any Diesel, line closures or road building, especially motorways. In 1981 it was concluded that blanket electrification Aberdeen - Penzance could be completed by 2001 and paid for by 2007, but of course it was not paid for.

On another note, passenger rail transport is already imported in that it is provided by the likes of Abellio, Arriva, JR East, Keolis, MTR and Trenitalia.

This is not at all certain. Coal is very labour intensive to produce and even more labour intensive to use in industries. The cost of labour would have risen regardless and made coal uneconomic to use, irrespective of environmental or political concerns.

Rising labour costs were of course a certainty, so this labour intensity of coal actually worked in the favour of a gradual and timely phaseout in favour of renewables. The point was an entire workforce existed until it was culled entirely overnight, which was not appropriate.

My concern is that Britain becoming a new export market for other economies to supply fossil fuels, either coal itself or oil and gas to replace coal, who were less concerned with environmental factors created a much bigger issue than simply giving a few miners a pay rise.

I would imagine in order to close the railways completely, you'd need to regain control from the devolved nations and they wouldn't hand it back without a fight and even MPs within the governing party would not vote for such a proposal.

With railways already devolved to ScotRail, TfW and Translink, it is a certainty that the network could only suffer total closure in England. What are the odds of all 3 building fixed links to a point in the Irish Sea e.g. the Isle of Man to form a connection avoiding England in such a circumstance?

This would definitely change demand. However a self driving car is slow compared to high speed rail and even with autonomy, there would still be traffic. Uber is already self driving from the perspective of the customer, yet made traffic worse in many cities.

Surely the development of autonomous and electric road vehicles is a worst case scenario, even if autonomy is able to eliminate road traffic collisions entirely, which isn’t looking likely at the moment. The issue is single or low occupancy vehicles in general, either carrying either a single passenger as a car or a single wagon/shipping container as a HGV.

"Never" is a very long time though

Ultimately, in 5 billion years time when the death of the sun is upon us and it expands to engulf the Earth, all terrestrial railways will be destroyed, even if they are still operating at this point, but if humanity or an alien species have managed to build railways on another planet, the technology will be able to live on.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I don’t understand this. So it only cost the taxpayer £5 per ton of domestically produced coal. It must have cost (and still cost) astronomically more than that to import coal solely for the political aim of rendering all miners unemployed and why were we incapable of exporting our coal exactly? We could have made a lot more than £5 a ton for it.

What happened to closing a single inch of even the most lightly used railway being completely unacceptable on the grounds that the government would try to keep pushing and wouldn’t know where to stop, leaving us with nothing?

The UK coal cost £5 per ton more than imported coal. So importing coal cost £5 less than buying locally extracted coal. Consequently our UK coal was going to cost non UK countries at least £5 more than coal from elsewhere PLUS the extra cost of exporting (shipping) it. So the UK coal was hopelessly uneconomic. If imports are cheaper than home produced then your never going to manage to compete in the outside world.

Why was our coal uneconomic ?. The UK had a lot of mines with poor economics (working underground sometimes in thin seams). By comparison the more economic mines are opencast. This is because they have such large seams close to the surface that it makes sense to just scrape the unwanted layers off from above. The imports seem to have come from open cast mines. The UK mining industry could have been more competitive if the UK open cast mines had not been subsidising the labour intensive underground workings.

My interpretation is that the closures required to make UK coal more economic were put off for so long that by the time the problems were addressed it was a huge problem requiring a huge cut back. If a mine with seams needed to be opened nowadays I wonder if anyone would actually want to work down there ?.

The difference with the railways is that there has been no obvious alternative for many users. Now, however, what has changed is working from home has taken away a decent chunk of demand losing a lot of commuter revenue. So, to draw a parallel, it is as if no where else produced coal (the UK had a monopoly) BUT now no one needs the coal anyway. There will still be a certain number of viable lines but how many remains to be seen. But as others have said I would expect the main intercity routes and urban networks around bigger cities to survive. I would say anything that justified electrification in the past would probably survive and maybe a little more (for example most of Cross Country and some urban networks that are (over)due for electrification. Then for other lines there could be many survivors or a few survivors, I could see all the rural routes gone easily - Bustitution looms but I would hope for a more integrated approach (yeah I am really dreaming).

 

[SussexSeagull]

There might be a point in the future where Nuclear Fusion is perfected and we essentially have limitless clean energy, backed with enough computer processing power to control several million small transportation pods allowing for point to point transportation but until then - and even after that - a transport medium allowing the transportation of large amount of people between two destinations at relatively high speed is going have a place, as will a commuter service into major cities with limited road capacity and as an urban transport system.

Paradoxically it would be the ultimate levelling up between north and south and even with reduced commuting it would make a high percentage of London jobs -including finance, the civil service and government - something you had to be in London to take part in.

Crossrail has just been completed and HS2 and EWR are being built. Rail in some format to another is secure for a generation or two.

 

[dk1]

New lines planned & new trains coming around the world as well as here in the UK. So no is the simple answer to that question.

 

[mrcheek]

In the distant future, who knows? Maybe one day the rail network will be all that survives as we all travel in our own emissions free pods on the railway line.

In the short term, as others have mentioned, something more like the Serpell report is always possible, since that report identified most of the lines which actually made money. Of course, whether or not a line actually makes money depends on many factors, such as, erm connections. So if a Serpell-like mass closure ever did happen, they would suddenly find that those lines were no longer making money either, leading to further closures, and a domino effect leading to the end of the network (and of course, people said this about Beeching too!)

 

[Falcon1200]

Yes - if autonomous vehicles became a reality then I could see the network closing down

How many new roads would be required to accommodate sufficient autonomous vehicles to completely replace rail transport?