Do branch lines contribute much financially to the greater network?

[RT4038]

A bus is not a viable alternative or comparable replacement for a train in the minds of the public. The sooner we all accept this, the sooner we can implement attractive alternatives to the car.

This is a very rail enthusiasts view. Buses, and coaches, are perfectly comparable replacements in the right circumstances. Attractive alternatives to the car have to be cost effective - not pursued regardless of cost.
The sooner we all accept that rail is not the optimum answer in every circumstance, the sooner we can implement a cost effective public transport system as an alternative to the car. (N.B. An alternative, not necessarily attractive to everyone!)

 

[Wynd]

Its probably important to stress the public perceptions aspect and not get to caught in the technicality of this. Technically, a bus may work fine. Practically getting commuters to ditch their cars for something slower and more crowded is a tough sell outside of an urban environment.

The bus, like it or not, has a public image problem that prohibits it from taking people out of cars.

Rail, does not have this problem as it is often faster, more direct, nearly always more comfortable and doesn't carry the same socioeconomic stigmas as the bus.

Its also worth noting that my own perspective is of the North East, which has developing world levels of bus provision. Edinburgh has shone a light on how it should be done, but that isnt in the North East.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is a very rail enthusiasts view. Buses, and coaches, are perfectly comparable replacements in the right circumstances. Attractive alternatives to the car have to be cost effective - not pursued regardless of cost.
The sooner we all accept that rail is not the optimum answer in every circumstance, the sooner we can implement a cost effective public transport system as an alternative to the car. (N.B. An alternative, not necessarily attractive to everyone!)

The sooner we accept that the purpose of bus, where rail is present, is to enhance its coverage, the sooner we will have a cost effective public transport system in the UK.

Outside of London (where they still haven't managed proper fares integration) in the UK there are no public transport systems, rather separate modes that only meet by coincidence. Even most single-operator medium-town bus networks aren't systems, they are collections of individual routes which are planned individually with no particular effort to capture journeys not catered for by a through bus.

I've suggested that train to FW then connecting coach from directly outside the station timed to meet the train (and waiting for it) would be a reasonable replacement for the Kyle Line, but it has to be properly integrated. If however you kept the Kyle line, I would suggest that single-point demand responsive transport could well be the way to do it, with a bus going to/from any points on Skye people want, and timed to meet the train in both directions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2022 ==

Its also worth noting that my own perspective is of the North East, which has developing world levels of bus provision. Edinburgh has shone a light on how it should be done, but that isnt in the North East.

Edinburgh is certainly a shining light of good bus operation, but if it was in Germany it'd have a Stadtbahn (wide-reaching tram network with underground bits in the centre) and buses would exist to connect to it. That's a public transport system. The same concepts can be applied just as well to rural areas - indeed in many ways coordination is more important - if you've got two bus services running every 5 minutes, they connect by default, similarly to the London Underground. If you've got a train three times a day, then you need all your connecting bus services to actually meet those trains.

 

[RT4038]

I think with a journey of that length a stop is a virtue!

But in all seriousness that's bad integration. The bus should be there immediately outside the station exit ready for the rail passengers to change onto.

I've done that coach from FW by the way (because there was no Sunday morning train, so it was impossible to reach the South East by train on a Sunday without an overnight stop otherwise), and I can confirm that other than the quite stunning section through bleakness quite near FW it is quite a boring journey compared to the train. The Conwy Valley is similar - north of Betws the main road is just a bit boring, the only stunning bit is the Crimea Pass.

However, a lot of 'ordinary' passengers (not travel or transport enthusiasts) find travelling by rail or road boring (or at best are neutral) and I think this aspect is over hyped (especially as many people are regular travellers who have seen it all before). The Kyle line gets more boring the more frequently it is done. Quite subjective, and no bearing on best value of subsidy. Red herring.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, a lot of 'ordinary' passengers (not travel or transport enthusiasts) find travelling by rail or road boring (or at best are neutral) and I think this aspect is over hyped (especially as many people are regular travellers who have seen it all before). The Kyle line gets more boring the more frequently it is done. Quite subjective, and no bearing on best value of subsidy. Red herring.

Yes, true. And trains, with tables and with a smoother ride, are better if you want to read a book, use a laptop or watch a film rather than look out of the window.

Yes, some buses have tables, comfortable seats and plenty of legroom. Most don't. Unfortunately, the Alex Hornby quality culture does not pervade the UK.

 

[RT4038]

The sooner we accept that the purpose of bus, where rail is present, is to enhance its coverage, the sooner we will have a cost effective public transport system in the UK.

Outside of London (where they still haven't managed proper fares integration) in the UK there are no public transport systems, rather separate modes that only meet by coincidence. Even most single-operator medium-town bus networks aren't systems, they are collections of individual routes which are planned individually with no particular effort to capture journeys not catered for by a through bus.

I've suggested that train to FW then connecting coach from directly outside the station timed to meet the train (and waiting for it) would be a reasonable replacement for the Kyle Line, but it has to be properly integrated. If however you kept the Kyle line, I would suggest that single-point demand responsive transport could well be the way to do it, with a bus going to/from any points on Skye people want, and timed to meet the train in both directions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2022 ==



Edinburgh is certainly a shining light of good bus operation, but if it was in Germany it'd have a Stadtbahn (wide-reaching tram network with underground bits in the centre) and buses would exist to connect to it. That's a public transport system. The same concepts can be applied just as well to rural areas - indeed in many ways coordination is more important - if you've got two bus services running every 5 minutes, they connect by default. If you've got a train three times a day, then you need all your connecting bus services to actually meet those trains.

In order to fund this system the most cost effective forms of transport need to be determined, so money is not wasted. This is not an excuse for misty eyed retention of railways (or buses for that matter) for their own sake.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2022 ==

Yes, true. And trains, with tables and with a smoother ride, are better if you want to read a book, use a laptop or watch a film rather than look out of the window.

Yes, some buses have tables, comfortable seats and plenty of legroom. Most don't. Unfortunately, the Alex Hornby quality culture does not pervade the UK.

Buses could do, at a fraction of the cost of providing some rail lines. As always, it is all to do with funding, and no continuous bleating about systems is going to have any effect until this inconvenient issue is sorted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In order to fund this system the most cost effective forms of transport need to be determined, so money is not wasted. This is not an excuse for misty eyed retention of railways (or buses for that matter) for their own sake.

I don't disagree, and you'll recall upthread that I posted a specification for a quality connecting bus service to be used to enhance (and in some cases replace) the rail network, and pointed out that I strongly oppose any and all closures until such time that the UK Government can get it into its thick skull that the modes are better working together with each doing the thing it's good at. Rail is good at trunking large numbers of people long distance, light rail at carrying large numbers of people short distances, and bus is best at connecting people to rail where rail itself isn't viable.

I'd not remove commercial long distance coaches entirely as they provide a useful service for those who are time-rich and cash-poor, thus enabling people to travel who may not have been able to otherwise. However, Scottish Citylink and ScotRail really need to be under the same "hive mind" and managed in a manner that brings the benefits of both to a single network, with a single set of fares, a single booking system and a single set of policies, even if that does mean losing some bits of railway. Same for TfW Rail and Trawscymru.

"Bus and rail - better together, weaker apart".

 

[Wynd]

I don't disagree, and you'll recall upthread that I posted a specification for a quality connecting bus service to be used to enhance (and in some cases replace) the rail network, and pointed out that I strongly oppose any and all closures until such time that the UK Government can get it into its thick skull that the modes are better working together with each doing the thing it's good at. Rail is good at trunking large numbers of people long distance, light rail at carrying large numbers of people short distances, and bus is best at connecting people to rail where rail itself isn't viable.

I'd not remove commercial long distance coaches entirely as they provide a useful service for those who are time-rich and cash-poor, thus enabling people to travel who may not have been able to otherwise. However, Scottish Citylink and ScotRail really need to be under the same "hive mind" and managed in a manner that brings the benefits of both to a single network, with a single set of fares, a single booking system and a single set of policies, even if that does mean losing some bits of railway. Same for TfW Rail and Trawscymru.

"Bus and rail - better together, weaker apart".

Systems level thinking is indeed the way to crack this. I agree with the hypothesis you propose entirely.

But how to get it implemented, this is the challenge.

 

[Meerkat]

I've done that coach from FW by the way (because there was no Sunday morning train, so it was impossible to reach the South East by train on a Sunday without an overnight stop otherwise), and I can confirm that other than the quite stunning section through bleakness quite near FW it is quite a boring journey compared to the train. The Conwy Valley is similar - north of Betws the main road is just a bit boring, the only stunning bit is the Crimea Pass.

I've driven it twice and thought it was pretty spectacular.

I don't disagree, and you'll recall upthread that I posted a specification for a quality connecting bus service to be used to enhance (and in some cases replace) the rail network

When those on Tyneside got the choice didnt they choose to stay on the buses rather than connect onto the Metro?

 

[Bletchleyite]

When those on Tyneside got the choice didnt they choose to stay on the buses rather than connect onto the Metro?

Don't bring the Gateshead example into it, it is blatently absurd and only used when those with an agenda wish to discredit integration. Anyone who genuinely believes in integrated transport for maximum benefit knows full well that the Gateshead example was madness. It was almost as if it was set up to wilfully discredit the concept. It's almost a textbook example of how not to integrate, basically using the two modes for the thing they are worst at and creating inconvenience without benefit.

The basis of getting benefit from integration is "long rail journey, short connecting bus journey". For instance, train from Glasgow to Fort William, thence a shorter coach journey to Kyle and Skye. Or train to Girvan or even Ayr, connecting bus to Stranraer.

 

[RT4038]

Don't bring the Gateshead example into it, it is blatently absurd and only used when those with an agenda wish to discredit integration. Anyone who genuinely believes in integrated transport for maximum benefit knows full well that the Gateshead example was madness. It was almost as if it was set up to wilfully discredit the concept. It's almost a textbook example of how not to integrate, basically using the two modes for the thing they are worst at and creating inconvenience without benefit.

Yes, it is quite interesting that this example is always brought up, years after the event and after the reasons for it have become misty and misunderstood. However, it does show the dichotomy of centralised planning vs. the free market. But I don't think it was quite so simple.

I worked in the North East at the time of the Metro opening and for some years afterwards, although not in the Tyne & Wear area. I seem to recall the twin problems of the Engineers being very concerned about the deteriorating state of the High Level Bridge (allegedly exacerbated by the quantity of heavy buses crossing) and the inadequate bus terminal facilities in central Newcastle (Worswick Street and Marlborough Crescent being particular examples).
There was probably no way that a new Metro bridge across the Tyne and central underground section, plus a rebuild of the High Level Bridge and new bus terminal facilities were going to be affordable at that time (oh no - that funding issue again).
So the central planners (understandably IMHO) plumped for the shiny new Metro and curtailing most buses at Gateshead, with some longer distance buses still crossing via the Tyne Bridge, and sell off the land of some of the downtown terminal facilities. I expect that the costs saved by the curtailment also went towards the business case of the Metro, and anyway too many buses crossing via the Tyne Bridge would have created congestion issues. Shame the passengers didn't like the centrally planned idea, but what else really could have be done in the circumstances, without the benefit of any hindsight?
I think work was eventually done to rehabilitate the High Level Bridge, when funds became available.

Ever since then Gateshead has been heralded as an example of Central Planning of transport being a bad idea - from a certain angle it was: the greater good / affordability over the interests of some passengers. It can be seen why there are those who are suspicious of your integrated system proposals, as similar reasoning of decisions could easily take place almost anywhere in the country. However, that is the machinations of Politics in a macro sense too.

 

[tbtc]

Everyone will drive, pollution will sky rocket. Well done (sarcasm).

Surely I don't have to explain why the car is terrible at mass transit?

But we are talking about lightly used branch lines here, where a DMU is more polluting than everyone driving in a reasonably modern vehicle

Certainly that is the right wing view. But austerity is not the only option, as the Scandinavian countries demonstrate - a more progressive approach to taxation is also an option. Austerity has in my view been a terrible and unnecessary policy caused by nothing other than the Conservative unwillingness to increase income and Council tax to pay for the package of services needed to support society (and things far more essential than rail have been wrongly cut in my view).

And no, this isn't "tax others". I would be happy to pay more tax if the value of it was made clear.

Austerity has been pretty terrible

But, however much you want a German transport system and a Scandinavian level of public services and various other bells and whistles, we are stuck with the country that we have - it's not a case of what we want in some idealistic crayon-based utopia, but more about what is a realistic option for any Westminster Government to follow - and I don't see PM Sunak/ Patel/ Javid having a Damascince conversion to massively investing in rural branch lines when faced with the massive financial black holes caused by two years of Covid (and falling passenger numbers)

The idea that we'll have a Scandinavian model of tax/spending at Westminster in the next decade is what I believe people on this forum would call "fanciful"...

Scotland, as did Wales, endured a massive reduction in rail infrastructure and it goes far beyond sentiment alone to say that the Scottish network should be trimmed no further and on the contrary requires significant expansion, particularly in the North East

I'd be perfectly happy with investing in short simple branch lines on corridors where a frequent commercial bus service is sustainable, like Aberdeen to Peterhead - these are much better suited to heavy rail than the likes of Kyle.

However, we are stuck subsidising various sink holes, Because Sentiment.

it's posted upthread that the coach service on the Far North is dying off as, umm, people aren't using it despite it being quicker than the train.

Edit: just two buses each way per day now: https://bustimes.org/services/x99-inverness-bus-station-scrabster-pier

I don't know what the pre-Covid bus timetable was - obviously a lot of routes have seen significant reductions - but the fact that the market isn't big enough for a coach to compete with a train service where rail passengers are paying significantly less than half the true cost of their journeys isn't quite the gotcha that you think it is

That's a fairly restrictive way of evaluating the benefits of tourism. Buy that argument, it would be worth running a luxury tourist service to a casino hub as those tourists spend a lot of money, whereas we should cut a link from an inner-city area to the local beauty spot as the tourists walk up a hill and bring their own sandwiches.

In reality, the gambling hub serves people who are largely already healthy and brings with it various social ills, whereas the local beauty spot provides healthy outdoor recreation to lower income city dwellers, so ought to be prioritised for transport.

I'm not sure why you're now talking about casinos, but you were the one who suggested that "tourists could be an important part of the local economy", now you're shifting the goalposts to "people walking up a hill and not spending any money in the local economy is good, actually"

You're just going to keep twisting things so that "running a branch line through the middle of nowhere is desirable", even though the objectives keep shifting... you're not trying to solve any problems, you just want to run heavy rail through empty countryside regardless

Yes, it is quite interesting that this example is always brought up, years after the event and after the reasons for it have become misty and misunderstood. However, it does show the dichotomy of centralised planning vs. the free market. But I don't think it was quite so simple.

I worked in the North East at the time of the Metro opening and for some years afterwards, although not in the Tyne & Wear area. I seem to recall the twin problems of the Engineers being very concerned about the deteriorating state of the High Level Bridge (allegedly exacerbated by the quantity of heavy buses crossing) and the inadequate bus terminal facilities in central Newcastle (Worswick Street and Marlborough Crescent being particular examples).
There was probably no way that a new Metro bridge across the Tyne and central underground section, plus a rebuild of the High Level Bridge and new bus terminal facilities were going to be affordable at that time (oh no - that funding issue again).
So the central planners (understandably IMHO) plumped for the shiny new Metro and curtailing most buses at Gateshead, with some longer distance buses still crossing via the Tyne Bridge, and sell off the land of some of the downtown terminal facilities. I expect that the costs saved by the curtailment also went towards the business case of the Metro, and anyway too many buses crossing via the Tyne Bridge would have created congestion issues. Shame the passengers didn't like the centrally planned idea, but what else really could have be done in the circumstances, without the benefit of any hindsight?
I think work was eventually done to rehabilitate the High Level Bridge, when funds became available.

Ever since then Gateshead has been heralded as an example of Central Planning of transport being a bad idea - from a certain angle it was: the greater good / affordability over the interests of some passengers. It can be seen why there are those who are suspicious of your integrated system proposals, as similar reasoning of decisions could easily take place almost anywhere in the country. However, that is the machinations of Politics in a macro sense too.

Interesting context - how many bus services from Northumberland were terminated at Regent Centre (since that was the other main change)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But, however much you want a German transport system and a Scandinavian level of public services and various other bells and whistles, we are stuck with the country that we have - it's not a case of what we want in some idealistic crayon-based utopia, but more about what is a realistic option for any Westminster Government to follow - and I don't see PM Sunak/ Patel/ Javid having a Damascince conversion to massively investing in rural branch lines when faced with the massive financial black holes caused by two years of Covid (and falling passenger numbers)

I also don't see them closing any, as it is a political hot potato, particularly if Network Rail was to close Scottish or Welsh ones from under Sturgeon/Drakeford (the service side is a devolved matter). There aren't that many serious basket cases in England where the infrastructure isn't needed for another reason (e.g. nuclear trains or biomass to Drax), and just taking a single unit and crew out does not save very much.

I'd not be surprised to see Heysham (but not Morecambe*) close once the power station does as passenger usage is near nil (though I think there is a reasonable chance of a new one on the same site at some point), and the middle bit of the Cumbrian Coast once Sellafield closes but that's years off (and similarly it might be a site for a new station at some point). Which other genuine basket cases are there where you could close and lift the line? Barton-on-Humber is about the only one that springs to mind, I also suggested Berney Arms but it was pointed out that even if you close the station (which given the near zero maintenance it requires might actually be profitable from enthusiasts going there** if the trains are running anyway). Ormskirk-Preston was in the 80s considered vulnerable, but these days there'd be uproar particularly given the congested A59. The S&C maybe but again there would be uproar. Rose Hill Marple? Maybe, but it's quite well used and a very short branch, and you'd run the train anyway to give Marple (Bridge) 3tph if you didn't run it to Rose Hill. Any other serious suggestions? The Marston Vale would once have been, but EWR has likely saved it, though station closures are proposed.

* I think it's a real shame they aren't planning-gaining some sort of light rail to the Eden Project North up the old route, then the whole thing could close and save WCML paths.

** I don't know what it's like now, but when you consider that the one-a-week Saturday Stockport-Stalybridge was just stops in an ECS that ran anyway, I would not be entirely surprised if in the days of enthusiasts and drinkers making it quite busy the only marginal cost of running it - the guard and a bit of extra brake wear and diesel for the stops - might actually have been covered by the fares.

 

[RT4038]

But we are talking about lightly used branch lines here, where a DMU is more polluting than everyone driving in a reasonably modern vehicle



Austerity has been pretty terrible

But, however much you want a German transport system and a Scandinavian level of public services and various other bells and whistles, we are stuck with the country that we have - it's not a case of what we want in some idealistic crayon-based utopia, but more about what is a realistic option for any Westminster Government to follow - and I don't see PM Sunak/ Patel/ Javid having a Damascince conversion to massively investing in rural branch lines when faced with the massive financial black holes caused by two years of Covid (and falling passenger numbers)

The idea that we'll have a Scandinavian model of tax/spending at Westminster in the next decade is what I believe people on this forum would call "fanciful"...



I'd be perfectly happy with investing in short simple branch lines on corridors where a frequent commercial bus service is sustainable, like Aberdeen to Peterhead - these are much better suited to heavy rail than the likes of Kyle.

However, we are stuck subsidising various sink holes, Because Sentiment.



I don't know what the pre-Covid bus timetable was - obviously a lot of routes have seen significant reductions - but the fact that the market isn't big enough for a coach to compete with a train service where rail passengers are paying significantly less than half the true cost of their journeys isn't quite the gotcha that you think it is



I'm not sure why you're now talking about casinos, but you were the one who suggested that "tourists could be an important part of the local economy", now you're shifting the goalposts to "people walking up a hill and not spending any money in the local economy is good, actually"

You're just going to keep twisting things so that "running a branch line through the middle of nowhere is desirable", even though the objectives keep shifting... you're not trying to solve any problems, you just want to run heavy rail through empty countryside regardless



Interesting context - how many bus services from Northumberland were terminated at Regent Centre (since that was the other main change)?

I'm not sure. From my March 1985 T&W timetable the main 'feeder' station was Four Lane Ends. This wasn't served by many routes that didn't also go into the centre of Newcastle:
63 Four Lane Ends-Killingworth (20 mins, 10 mins with 62 that did go to Central Newcastle)
346/7 Four Lane Ends-Whitley Bay via Shiremoor (every 30 min)
357 Four Lane Ends-Clousden Hill-Whitley Bay (every 30 min.)
358/9 Blyth-Seghill-Four Lane Ends-Annitsford-Cramlington (every 30 min)

Quite a lot of longer distance routes from Northumberland (Dudley, Blyth, Cramlington, Morpeth and beyond) served both Four Lane Ends and/or Regent Centre Metro Station going in and out of central Newcastle, but they weren't 'feeders' as in the operation at Gateshead. I don't think any routes from Co. Durham were feeders to Gateshead. Heworth Metro was also an important feeder station from the South East of T&W and various other stations (Wallsend, North Shields) from their local areas.
It is probably the closest any UK place has got to a @Bletchleyite system. One of the reasons it was not any closer is because the main lines to the South/West/North had no frequent enough suburban train service capable of supporting feeder services from a much wider area - T&W only stretched so far; an equivalent in Germany would have covered a far wider area.

 

[A0]

I'm not sure why you're now talking about casinos, but you were the one who suggested that "tourists could be an important part of the local economy", now you're shifting the goalposts to "people walking up a hill and not spending any money in the local economy is good, actually"

You're just going to keep twisting things so that "running a branch line through the middle of nowhere is desirable", even though the objectives keep shifting... you're not trying to solve any problems, you just want to run heavy rail through empty countryside regardless

Welcome to the Yorks Rob school of logic and reasoning. Examples aplenty across the site.

 

[MattRat]

Welcome to the Yorks Rob school of logic and reasoning. Examples aplenty across the site.

Even a broken clock can tell the right time twice a day. Tourism is an important industry, and good public transport can help it. Unless of course you want everyone to hire a car like in the USA.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even a broken clock can tell the right time twice a day. Tourism is an important industry, and good public transport can help it. Unless of course you want everyone to hire a car like in the USA.....

I suppose the argument is that in rural Scotland cars don't really cause any harm other than carbon emissions, and DMUs emit carbon as well, while EVs don't if charged from nuclear or renewables. Cars cause most of their harms in cities.

 

[MattRat]

I suppose the argument is that in rural Scotland cars don't really cause any harm other than carbon emissions, and DMUs emit carbon as well, while EVs don't if charged from nuclear or renewables. Cars cause most of their harms in cities.

DMUs emit less carbon, or at least it should work out like that, and if it doesn't they need newer DMUs or a re-engine. Plus roads require bitumen....

 

[Meerkat]

DMUs emit less carbon, or at least it should work out like that, and if it doesn't they need newer DMUs or a re-engine. Plus roads require bitumen....

Depends how many carloads of passengers are on board, how the passengers got to/from the stations, and how much carbon is emitted by all the maintenance of the railway (which gets spread across far fewer passengers/freight than the roads.

 

[Bald Rick]

DMUs emit less carbon, or at least it should work out like that, and if it doesn't they need newer DMUs or a re-engine. Plus roads require bitumen....

I’m afraid that DMUs emit more carbon (and pollutants) than an equivalent number of cars (assuming 1.5 people per car), unless the DMU is well over half full. That even the newest DMUs.

Also, railways require steel rails and concrete sleepers.

 

[yorksrob]

But we are talking about lightly used branch lines here, where a DMU is more polluting than everyone driving in a reasonably modern vehicle



Austerity has been pretty terrible

But, however much you want a German transport system and a Scandinavian level of public services and various other bells and whistles, we are stuck with the country that we have - it's not a case of what we want in some idealistic crayon-based utopia, but more about what is a realistic option for any Westminster Government to follow - and I don't see PM Sunak/ Patel/ Javid having a Damascince conversion to massively investing in rural branch lines when faced with the massive financial black holes caused by two years of Covid (and falling passenger numbers)

The idea that we'll have a Scandinavian model of tax/spending at Westminster in the next decade is what I believe people on this forum would call "fanciful"...



I'd be perfectly happy with investing in short simple branch lines on corridors where a frequent commercial bus service is sustainable, like Aberdeen to Peterhead - these are much better suited to heavy rail than the likes of Kyle.

However, we are stuck subsidising various sink holes, Because Sentiment.



I don't know what the pre-Covid bus timetable was - obviously a lot of routes have seen significant reductions - but the fact that the market isn't big enough for a coach to compete with a train service where rail passengers are paying significantly less than half the true cost of their journeys isn't quite the gotcha that you think it is



I'm not sure why you're now talking about casinos, but you were the one who suggested that "tourists could be an important part of the local economy", now you're shifting the goalposts to "people walking up a hill and not spending any money in the local economy is good, actually"

You're just going to keep twisting things so that "running a branch line through the middle of nowhere is desirable", even though the objectives keep shifting... you're not trying to solve any problems, you just want to run heavy rail through empty countryside regardless



Interesting context - how many bus services from Northumberland were terminated at Regent Centre (since that was the other main change)?

People walking up a hill is tourism and can be good for the well-being of the individual, as I suspect you well know.

But the current crisis is the best hope the closure enthusiasts have had in decades, so we're stuck in a sort of half-baked fantasy world where the current train service is supposedly unaffordable, but the state is going to suddenly ditch bus deregulation and guarantee all sorts of rural replacement bus services.

That's on top of the fantasy that whatever the railways financial ills, the only possible way to save money would be through politically damaging route closures.

Oh the mental contortions that the pro-closure people put themselves through !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2022 ==

I also don't see them closing any, as it is a political hot potato, particularly if Network Rail was to close Scottish or Welsh ones from under Sturgeon/Drakeford (the service side is a devolved matter). There aren't that many serious basket cases in England where the infrastructure isn't needed for another reason (e.g. nuclear trains or biomass to Drax), and just taking a single unit and crew out does not save very much.

I'd not be surprised to see Heysham (but not Morecambe*) close once the power station does as passenger usage is near nil (though I think there is a reasonable chance of a new one on the same site at some point), and the middle bit of the Cumbrian Coast once Sellafield closes but that's years off (and similarly it might be a site for a new station at some point). Which other genuine basket cases are there where you could close and lift the line? Barton-on-Humber is about the only one that springs to mind, I also suggested Berney Arms but it was pointed out that even if you close the station (which given the near zero maintenance it requires might actually be profitable from enthusiasts going there** if the trains are running anyway). Ormskirk-Preston was in the 80s considered vulnerable, but these days there'd be uproar particularly given the congested A59. The S&C maybe but again there would be uproar. Rose Hill Marple? Maybe, but it's quite well used and a very short branch, and you'd run the train anyway to give Marple (Bridge) 3tph if you didn't run it to Rose Hill. Any other serious suggestions? The Marston Vale would once have been, but EWR has likely saved it, though station closures are proposed.

* I think it's a real shame they aren't planning-gaining some sort of light rail to the Eden Project North up the old route, then the whole thing could close and save WCML paths.

** I don't know what it's like now, but when you consider that the one-a-week Saturday Stockport-Stalybridge was just stops in an ECS that ran anyway, I would not be entirely surprised if in the days of enthusiasts and drinkers making it quite busy the only marginal cost of running it - the guard and a bit of extra brake wear and diesel for the stops - might actually have been covered by the fares.

The middle bit of the Cumbrian cost route is quite well used as it links a number of fairly sizable coastal settlements. Even without Sellafield, is not a basket case in any definition of the term.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2022 ==

Welcome to the Yorks Rob school of logic and reasoning. Examples aplenty across the site.

It's more reasonable than the half-baked drivel the newly emboldened closure enthusiasts are sprouting. Mind you, you've been spouting it for years.

Ooh, there's a bit of a crisis, so it's time to dust off all of our old hobby-horses of all the regional railways we'd like to see closed. No matter the route, no matter how busy it is, or what the views of passengers or locals, the Beeching brigade will be here to cook up some new and exciting excuse as to why they think yet another route should be closed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2022 ==

I’m afraid that DMUs emit more carbon (and pollutants) than an equivalent number of cars (assuming 1.5 people per car), unless the DMU is well over half full. That even the newest DMUs.

Also, railways require steel rails and concrete sleepers.

And roads don't require concrete and tar-mac ?

 

[A0]

Even a broken clock can tell the right time twice a day. Tourism is an important industry, and good public transport can help it. Unless of course you want everyone to hire a car like in the USA.....

Or many parts of Europe, or Australia or many parts of Asia.

Try going to much of rural France and see how you get on visiting it by public transport. Many of the buses are geared around school / work or market times for example and don't go where the tourists want to.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2022 ==

And roads don't require concrete and tar-mac ?

Right, so the logic is build railways not roads. Care to explain how you're going to accomodate cyclists, fire engines and ambulances on rails? Because last time I checked they needed roads too.

 

[yorksrob]

Or many parts of Europe, or Australia or many parts of Asia.

Try going to much of rural France and see how you get on visiting it by public transport. Many of the buses are geared around school / work or market times for example and don't go where the tourists want to.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2022 ==



Right, so the logic is build railways not roads. Care to explain how you're going to accomodate cyclists, fire engines and ambulances on rails? Because last time I checked they needed roads too.

No, the logic is keep the roads and railways we have (and possibly build some more of either).

I don't really see by what logic a discussion about not closing railway routes has suddenly transformed into a suggestion of not having roads. Clutching at straws I think.

 

[A0]

It's more reasonable than the half-baked drivel the newly emboldened closure enthusiasts are sprouting. Mind you, you've been shooting out for years.

No, any fool can keep changing the premise of the argument and then shouting "I win" as you have helpfully demonstrated. But it's not "reasonable" - because you're being utterly inconsistent.

Your approach to a discussion is on the basis of coming at it from your fixed point and then just changing your example each time one gets dealt with.

And could you provide evidence that I'm a "closure enthusiast"? Somebody else upthread accused me of that and I dealt with that claim by pointing out what I'd said on this thread - you've clearly not read what I said.

 

[yorksrob]

No, any fool can keep changing the premise of the argument and then shouting "I win" as you have helpfully demonstrated. But it's not "reasonable" - because you're being utterly inconsistent.

Your approach to a discussion is on the basis of coming at it from your fixed point and then just changing your example each time one gets dealt with.

And could you provide evidence that I'm a "closure enthusiast"? Somebody else upthread accused me of that and I dealt with that claim by pointing out what I'd said on this thread - you've clearly not read what I said.

Actually, I think you'll find that my position throughout this forum has been solidly consistent. That is that the regional railway is important to passengers and local communities and should at least be retained, as it has a permanence and quality that bus services don't achieve (for whatever reason) I defy you to find anywhere on this forum where I have contradicted this.

Compare that to the laughable closure arguments on this thread alone. We've had:

"The trains are empty" until it's pointed out that they're not.

"People would prefer a well run bus service" until it's pointed out that people tend to prefer the train for longer journeys, and we don't even currently have a way of legislating for consistent quality bus services anyway

"But the trains are full of tourists - we shouldn't be subsidising services for tourists" until it's pointed out that tourism is actually very important for some communities, and actually this has environmental benefits for local residents.

Then as if that weren't laughable enough, we have the (admittedly new) "outdoor tourism isn't of any value because people don't spend anything up a hill" line.

All of this tide of bilge because a few bitter individuals can't accept that the regional railway provides a very important service to the country and should be maintained.

Oh, I forgot to add "people should make do with a coach because I say so". That's a personal favourite.

 

[A0]

Actually, I think you'll find that my position throughout this forum has been solidly consistent. That is that the regional railway is important to passengers and local communities and should at least be retained, as it has a permanence and quality that bus services don't achieve (for whatever reason) I defy you to find anywhere on this forum where I have contradicted this.

It's just that your mentality is it must be preserved *at any cost* - which is a massive subsidy to a very small number of people, paid for by others and there is a reasonable question what the alternatives are.

"The trains are empty" until it's pointed out that they're not.

Well, to you it seems. You always seem to manage to travel on the busiest trains on the obscure routes. The published figures (which are published by the rail industry) tend not to support your claims.

"People would prefer a well run bus service" until it's pointed out that people tend to prefer the train for longer journeys, and we don't even currently have a way of legislating for consistent quality bus services anyway

The thing is the *majority* of journeys are short by nature - which is why a bus is more suitable on many occasions. Many of the rural lines you espouse have stations which are some distance from the village they purport to serve and the railway doesn't necessarily go to the places locals might actually want or need to go to. If you look at somewhere like Kirkby Stephen - the station is a mile outside the village and will take you to Settle or Appleby and Carlisle - but where are the facilities people might want ? A supermarket for example - you're looking at Kendal or Penrith, a hospital again Kendal or Penrith. You can offer them an hourly train, but it wouldn't go where people want or need to go. And then they've got to lug their shopping home, where the bus drops them yards from their door.

"But the trains are full of tourists - we shouldn't be subsidising services for tourists" until it's pointed out that tourism is actually very important for some communities, and actually this has environmental benefits for local residents.

Then as if that weren't laughable enough, we have the (admittedly new) "outdoor tourism isn't of any value because people don't spend anything up a hill" line.

The point being made - which again, you chose to ignore, was that if the cost of providing the train is £ 1m a year (for example) but the "benefit" of the tourist revenue in terms of spending at local services and attractions is £ 100k then actually it's still a massive cost to provide that service and the benefits aren't off-setting that.

The number of places where tourists turn up "en masse" by train is not that significant - and it tends not to be the little rural lines you keep espousing. Some of the seaside resorts, yep - Blackpool no doubt, Scarborough, definitely but Stranraer ? Morecambe ? Workington ? Whitehaven ? I very much doubt it.

And the BIB point you were the one who'd called out the spending in local community and when that was questioned then peddled the suggestion about how tourism was also people who didn't spend in the area, rather undermining the point which had been made ? So you need to make your mind up.

Oh, I forgot to add "people should make do with a coach because I say so". That's a personal favourite.

Any form of support or subsidy should look for the most cost-effective way to provide the service. You can't expect others to fund your wishes and whims. If you want the taxpayer to fund a service, then the taxpayer has a right to expect some value - and if running a coach costs 1/3rd that of a train and addresses 90% of the journey needs then it's quite reasonable that is the direction. And the 10% who *want* a train because *they don't like coaches* can, frankly, go whistle.

 

[A0]

Bald Rick said:
I’m afraid that DMUs emit more carbon (and pollutants) than an equivalent number of cars (assuming 1.5 people per car), unless the DMU is well over half full. That even the newest DMUs.

Also, railways require steel rails and concrete sleepers.


And roads don't require concrete and tar-mac ?

Without wishing to usurp Bald Rick, I think the point he was making is *building* a railway is far from carbon-neutral and is probably higher than building a road.

For example 1 tonne of steel production produces about 1.85 tonnes of CO2 emissions (source: Carbonclean)

Whereas 1 tonne of concrete produces about 622kg of CO2 emissions (source: Imperial College London)

I couldn't find figures for asphalt - but it would suggest that building a mile of railway line (and maintaining it) is probably more CO2 hungry than building and maintaining a mile of road - that's before you start running vehicles on it.

 

[Meerkat]

Without wishing to usurp Bald Rick, I think the point he was making is *building* a railway is far from carbon-neutral and is probably higher than building a road.

For example 1 tonne of steel production produces about 1.85 tonnes of CO2 emissions (source: Carbonclean)

Whereas 1 tonne of concrete produces about 622kg of CO2 emissions (source: Imperial College London)

I couldn't find figures for asphalt - but it would suggest that building a mile of railway line (and maintaining it) is probably more CO2 hungry than building and maintaining a mile of road - that's before you start running vehicles on it.

Running railways does seem to involve an awful lot of diesel vans running around the place!

 

[Bald Rick]

And roads don't require concrete and tar-mac ?

the post I was quoting said that (bitumen rather than tarmac), my point was that building / repairing railways causes carbon emissions too.

 

[lachlan]

Without wishing to usurp Bald Rick, I think the point he was making is *building* a railway is far from carbon-neutral and is probably higher than building a road.

For example 1 tonne of steel production produces about 1.85 tonnes of CO2 emissions (source: Carbonclean)

Whereas 1 tonne of concrete produces about 622kg of CO2 emissions (source: Imperial College London)

I couldn't find figures for asphalt - but it would suggest that building a mile of railway line (and maintaining it) is probably more CO2 hungry than building and maintaining a mile of road - that's before you start running vehicles on it.

The difference between the train and cars is that trains (and buses) should run anyway to provide transport to non drivers. If the train is running anyway, your emissions are effectively zero if you choose to ride it.
I have personally used the Far North and Kyle lines to travel to places unreachable by bus.