Do branch lines contribute much financially to the greater network?

[yorksrob]

In addition, to take this point head on, trains might have more permanence in reputation but do they actually in facts? Very very few places that used to be railways have no bus service any more. The only one that I can think of is Callander to Crianlarich where the bus was reduced to one trip a day.

True, but while the infrastructure exists, it has a sense of permanence.

I bought my current house fifteen years ago partly because it was fifteen minutes walk from a railway station. The bus stop wouldn't have had the same pull (although it is convenient for buses to Wakefield to be fair) .

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==

So you two are suggesting that you never use, and think others should never use motorised vehicles on roads, including not purchasing anything that is delivered by motor vehicles on roads?

I'm actually suggesting an improvement to a publicly funded local public transport service which would be cheaper than the railway to run and produce more output, not suggesting that we should be inducing traffic. Also I'm very unconvinced that better maintained roads induce speeding or extra driving but that's by the by.

This has been such a big one I wonder if it needs it's own dedicated thread.

It wouldn't be an improvement to my mind if you have to slash the railway network to achieve it. That's more like one step forward to two steps back.

 

[lachlan]

In addition, to take this point head on, trains might have more permanence in reputation but do they actually in facts? Very very few places that used to be railways have no bus service any more. The only one that I can think of is Callander to Crianlarich where the bus was reduced to one trip a day.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==


Indeed I agree. And closing Girvan - Stranraer while using the money saved to pay for more bus services and more frequent Glasgow Suburban services (for example) will help to achieve that aim. What's the issue?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==


I think that we can be damn near sure that we aren't going to need to convert Tain - Wick and Girvan - Stranraer back into passenger use any time within your sensible planning horizon of choice, or indeed introduce a rail freight service on the latter.

I have never been to Stranraer by train. I have however been to Wick and Thurso by train and taken the coach between the two. That journey would have been far less pleseant if the whole thing was on the coach and I would be much more likely to be travelsick. Not to mention the intermediate stops not served by the coach. My point here is the line is in use now and the alternatives (coaches via Culrain?) would be inferior.

 

[Starmill]

I have never been to Stranraer by train. I have however been to Wick and Thurso by train and taken the coach between the two. That journey would have been far less pleseant if the whole thing was on the coach and I would be much more likely to be travelsick. Not to mention the intermediate stops not served by the coach. My point here is the line is in use now and the alternatives (coaches via Culrain?) would be inferior.

The coach would not run via Culrain, that would be completely ridiculous. The existing local service between Tain and Lairg would be reworked to connect to the trains at Tain. Coaches would work from Tain to Wick, reducing overall end to end journey time significantly.

I'm afraid your personal disliking of a coach journey isn't a sound basis for how to spend public money.

 

[RT4038]

In terms of the question that you've posed to @MattRat, what relevance does it have of reopening Blythe will have more benefit than running to Stranrear. They are different propositions and will come from different budgets (not least because Strangest is revenue whereas reopening Blythe is capital). One might just as easily as what benefit reopening Blythe has over the local pot hole budget.

So the re-opened train service to Blythe (sic) [Ashington I presume you mean] is not going to require any operating (revenue) subsidy? Dream on...

 

[Starmill]

It wouldn't be an improvement to my mind if you have to slash the railway network to achieve it.

The service would be significantly more frequent, cheaper (could look at passing on a proportion of the savings to users instead of redistribution), and more useful because it would serve the town centre and the port, rather than the disused harbour. It would be better for everyone except for railway enthusiasts.

 

[tbtc]

We should be doing everything we can to reduce private car use due to the number of road deaths, pollution (tailpipe and tire particulates), congestion, and the inaccessibility to non-drivers. I don't agree that better maintained roads is a bad thing but building new roads or widening existing ones absolutely does encourage people to drive

Indeed I agree. And closing Girvan - Stranraer while using the money saved to pay for more bus services and more frequent Glasgow Suburban services (for example) will help to achieve that aim. What's the issue?

Agreed - an improved service to somewhere like East Kilbride would take a lot more cars off the road than the line south of Girvan currently does - people like to play the "Green" card on here without thinking about the logical conclusions which would be to focus heavy rail on the kind of mass markets where one single train can remove over a hundred cars from the road, even if that means closing a handful of lines where it may take a month's worth of trains to remove that many cars from the road

It wouldn't be an improvement to my mind if you have to slash the railway network to achieve it. That's more like one step forward to two steps back to my mind.

Again with the hysterical language... there's no need for your scaremongering... nobody is talking about "slashing" the railway network... you could save millions of pounds in annual subsidy by removing a small number of lightly used lines... the fact that you have to sound so alarmist about less than 1% of passenger miles suggests that you know how weak your argument is, so need all of this hyperbole to pad it out

 

[yorksrob]

The service would be significantly more frequent, cheaper (could look at passing on a proportion of the savings to users instead of redistribution), and more useful because it would serve the town centre and the port, rather than the disused harbour. It would be better for everyone except for railway enthusiasts.

There's never been any reason not to relocate the station near to the town centre.

I have buses to Leeds that are more frequent and cheaper but I wouldn't use them instead of the train.

 

[lachlan]

The coach would not run via Culrain, that would be completely ridiculous. The existing local service between Tain and Lairg would be reworked to connect to the trains at Tain. Coaches would work from Tain to Wick, reducing overall end to end journey time significantly.

I'm afraid your personal disliking of a coach journey isn't a sound basis for how to spend public money.

I don't have a personal dislike for coaches, but they are inferior to trains in terms of comfort. Your proposal would likely push those who can drive to so rather than taking the train and leave a less convenient service for non-drivers who'll now have to change from a train to a bus part-way through their journey

Agreed - an improved service to somewhere like East Kilbride would take a lot more cars off the road than the line south of Girvan currently does - people like to play the "Green" card on here without thinking about the logical conclusions which would be to focus heavy rail on the kind of mass markets where one single train can remove over a hundred cars from the road, even if that means closing a handful of lines where it may take a month's worth of trains to remove that many cars from the road



Again with the hysterical language... there's no need for your scaremongering... nobody is talking about "slashing" the railway network... you could save millions of pounds in annual subsidy by removing a small number of lightly used lines... the fact that you have to sound so alarmist about less than 1% of passenger miles suggests that you know how weak your argument is, so need all of this hyperbole to pad it out

If we have to cut something, make it the Silverton Tunnel, Lower Thames Crossing, or the A9/A96 dualling. Why should we cut rail projects when there are plenty of harmful planned road projects?

 

[yorksrob]

Agreed - an improved service to somewhere like East Kilbride would take a lot more cars off the road than the line south of Girvan currently does - people like to play the "Green" card on here without thinking about the logical conclusions which would be to focus heavy rail on the kind of mass markets where one single train can remove over a hundred cars from the road, even if that means closing a handful of lines where it may take a month's worth of trains to remove that many cars from the road



Again with the hysterical language... there's no need for your scaremongering... nobody is talking about "slashing" the railway network... you could save millions of pounds in annual subsidy by removing a small number of lightly used lines... the fact that you have to sound so alarmist about less than 1% of passenger miles suggests that you know how weak your argument is, so need all of this hyperbole to pad it out

Slashing lines is slashing lines. That's what it is. And what of these millions of pounds within the billions of subsidy that the railway received in non-covid year ?

If you're that worried about subsidies, let's talk about rebranding costs, rolling stock leasing costs etc. All those things that the John Major privatisation enthusiasts are desperate to distract attention from by proposing route cuts.

We all believe in prioritising things. It's just that while some prioritise maintaining the structure of John majors railway act as the most important use of public funds, some of us prioritise the maintenance of the railway service.

 

[lachlan]

There's never been any reason not to relocate the station near to the town centre.

I have buses to Leeds that are more frequent and cheaper but I wouldn't use them instead of the train.

Buses can be more convenient than trains, such as from where I was staying in Darlington to the railway museum in Shildon. However for my onward journey to Saltburn, I took the train. A good example of how both the bus and the train line are important.

 

[Starmill]

Your proposal would likely push those who can drive to so rather than taking the train and leave a less convenient service for non-drivers who'll now have to change from a train to a bus part-way through their journey

So few people use trains north of Tain this risk is a very small one to take. Plus the lower end to end journey time would be an attraction over driving.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==

but they are inferior to trains in terms of comfort.

This is most certainly not universally true and is your opinion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==

There's never been any reason not to relocate the station near to the town centre.

Except for the capital cost. Why spend that capital in Stranraer where the same sort of cash would build a station in somewhere like Bonnybridge, which vastly more people would use?

 

[lachlan]

So few people use trains north of Tain this risk is a very small one to take. Plus the lower end to end journey time would be an attraction over driving.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==


This is most certainly not universally true and is your opinion.

It takes longer to take the train between Tain and Inverness than it does to drive. So how would the end-to-end journey be any shorter than it is today either by bus or by train?

 

[Starmill]

If we have to cut something, make it the Silverton Tunnel, Lower Thames Crossing, or the A9/A96 dualling. Why should we cut rail projects when there are plenty of harmful planned road projects?

I agree that capital spending on those projects is a very poor use of money indeed and have argue against them, but unfortunately such arguments face very very heavy public or contractual resistance. And really here we're focusing on the current spending on rail subsidies.

 

[yorksrob]

So few people use trains north of Tain this risk is a very small one to take. Plus the lower end to end journey time would be an attraction over driving.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==


This is most certainly not universally true and is your opinion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==


Except for the capital cost. Why spend that capital in Stranraer where the same sort of cash would build a station in somewhere like Bonnybridge, which vastly more people would use?

It's the railway industries fault that it costs too much to build platforms.

When BR relocated Falmouth station to the town it built a simple concrete halt. The industry needs to get back to building stations cheaply.

 

[Starmill]

It takes longer to take the train between Tain and Inverness than it does to drive. So how would the end-to-end journey be any shorter than it is today either by bus or by train?

A typical end to end driving time of 2 1/2 hours could be matched by a coach connection at Tain. You may be correct that it is more sensible to support more through bus services however. Regardless, either way, there's simply no chance of competitive train journey times to places north of Tain.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==

It's the railway industries fault that it costs too much to build platforms.

When BR relocated Falmouth station to the town it built a simple concrete halt. The industry needs to get back to building stations cheaply.

Or we could just build an enhanced bus stop? It would be much cheaper and just as pleasant.

 

[yorksrob]

A typical end to end driving time of 2 1/2 hours could be matched by a coach connection at Tain. You may be correct that it is more sensible to support more through bus services however. Regardless, either way, there's simply no chance of competitive train journey times to places north of Tain.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==


Or we could just build an enhanced bus stop? It would be much cheaper and just as pleasant.

Except there wouldn't be a train service to catch.

 

[Starmill]

Except there wouldn't be a train service to catch.

But people would be able to get to Ayr, Paisley, Glasgow more quickly and with an hourly connection. So they would still use it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==

let's talk about rebranding costs,

Hasn't it been established that this is a red herring?

 

[yorksrob]

But people would be able to get to Ayr, Paisley, Glasgow more quickly and with an hourly connection. So they would still use it.

But would they prefer to sit on a bus all that way for a connection rather than their direct train !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==

But people would be able to get to Ayr, Paisley, Glasgow more quickly and with an hourly connection. So they would still use it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==


Hasn't it been established that this is a red herring?

Maybe, but stock leading costs are quite substantial.

 

[Starmill]

But would they prefer to sit on a bus all that way for a connection rather than their direct train !

There are no direct trains to Paisley and almost none to Glasgow. Most people going to Glasgow already change. It is not "all that way" it is 45 minutes.

 

[lachlan]

I agree that capital spending on those projects is a very poor use of money indeed and have argue against them, but unfortunately such arguments face very very heavy public or contractual resistance. And really here we're focusing on the current spending on rail subsidies.

I'm glad we agree on some things! However if we're discussing the wider transport network we can't view the rail budget in isolation.

A typical end to end driving time of 2 1/2 hours could be matched by a coach connection at Tain. You may be correct that it is more sensible to support more through bus services however. Regardless, either way, there's simply no chance of competitive train journey times to places north of Tain.

Changing between trains and buses and long-distance bus journeys on windy roads would provide an inferior travelling experience even if end-to-end journey times are reduced (a bus will never have a lower journey time than a car on this route). There are already buses on this route yet people still go out of their way to make use of the four trains per day each way. Evidently they are providing a valuable service that IMO is deserving of subsidy. As I said earlier, road projects should be cut before rail.

 

[Starmill]

Changing between trains and buses and long-distance bus journeys on windy roads would provide an inferior travelling experience even if end-to-end journey times are reduced (a bus will never have a lower journey time than a car on this route). There are already buses on this route yet people still go out of their way to make use of the four trains per day each way. Evidently they are providing a valuable service that IMO is deserving of subsidy. As I said earlier, road projects should be cut before rail.

There's a strong case to switch the subsidy money from rail to bus on this route and give it over to freight (which can operate with much less subsidy). There is a clear case to be made for extending to Tain though if you're running between Dingwall and Inverness anyway, where rail has much more going for it. Especially if capital spend could be found for a loop between Inverness and Beauly as is often proposed, and a new station at Evanton.

 

[daodao]

In addition, to take this point head on, trains might have more permanence in reputation but do they actually in facts? Very very few places that used to be railways have no bus service any more. The only one that I can think of is Callander to Crianlarich where the bus was reduced to one trip a day.

That is incorrect. Defining a regular bus service as at least 1 bus per day Mon-Fri, closed railway routes in Scotland where there are no longer such services include:

• Grantown to Forres
• Crianlarich to Killin
• Hawick to Bellingham
• Douglas to Muirkirk
• Darvel to Strathaven
• Advie to Craigellachie
• Keith to Dufftown

Many of these routes cross watersheds, presumably reflecting the fact that these are economic as well as geographic barriers to regular travel.

Similar examples elsewhere in England & Wales include:

• Treherbert to Blaengwynfi
• Bala to Trawsfynydd
• Kington to Pembridge
• Hay-on-Wye to Eardisley
• Vowchurch to Abbey Dore
• Whitchurch to Welshampton
• Market Drayton to Audlem and Hodnet to Wellington
• Cheddleton to Denstone
• Much Wenlock to Craven Arms
• Tenbury Wells to Wofferton Junction (for Ludlow/Leominster)
• Saxby to Bourne
• Hadfield to Dunford Bridge
• Hellifield to Gisburn
• Bowes to Kirkby Stephen and onwards to Tebay and Oxenholme/Kendal
• Tebay/Low Gill to Kirkby Lonsdale
• Morpeth to Bellingham
• Wooler to Coldstream

 

[Starmill]

That is incorrect. Defining a regular bus service as at least 1 bus per day Mon-Fri, closed railway routes in Scotland where there are no longer such services include:

• Grantown to Forres
• Crianlarich to Killin
• Hawick to Bellingham
• Douglas to Muirkirk
• Darvel to Strathaven
• Advie to Craigellachie
• Keith to Dufftown

Many of these routes cross watersheds, presumably reflecting the fact that these are economic as well as geographic barriers to regular travel.

Similar examples elsewhere in England & Wales include:

• Treherbert to Blaengwynfi
• Bala to Trawsfynydd
• Kington to Pembridge
• Hay-on-Wye to Eardisley
• Vowchurch to Abbey Dore
• Whitchurch to Welshampton
• Market Drayton to Audlem
• Cheddleton to Denstone
• Much Wenlock to Craven Arms
• Tenbury Wells to Wofferton Junction (for Ludlow/Leominster)
• Saxby to Bourne
• Hadfield to Dunford Bridge
• Hellifield to Gisburn
• Bowes to Kirkby Stephen and onwards to Tebay and Oxenholme/Kendal
• Tebay/Low Gill to Kirkby Lonsdale
• Morpeth to Bellingham
• Wooler to Coldstream

Reassuringly, nobody in their right mind would be arguing for building new railways om any of those routes today, although a few examples clearly could support sensible rural bus services.

Some links are arguably better served now than previously with their train services too. For example Gisburn may not have trains to Hellifield, but now it has a bus service to Preston via Clitheroe in one direction and Skipton via Barnoldswick in the other.

 

[lachlan]

There's a strong case to switch the subsidy money from rail to bus on this route and give it over to freight (which can operate with much less subsidy). There is a clear case to be made for extending to Tain though if you're running between Dingwall and Inverness anyway, where rail has much more going for it. Especially if capital spend could be found for a loop between Inverness and Beauly as is often proposed, and a new station at Evanton.

Is there much appetite for freight that is suppressed by capacity restrictions? If so, the line should be upgraded such that it's able to support both the passenger and the freight services.

 

[Starmill]

If so, the line should be upgraded such that it's able to support both the passenger and the freight services.

At whose expense and to what benefit? As I keep saying, we should prioritise resources. Enhancements in the central belt or to Aberdeen will always have enormously better business cases than upgrading the Far North.

 

[daodao]

Reassuringly, nobody in their right mind would be arguing for building new railways om any of those routes today, although a few examples clearly could support sensible rural bus services.

Not entirely true. For example, some folk do advocate the re-opening of the Woodhead line, or running regular passenger trains from Clitheroe to Hellifield.

 

[lachlan]

At whose expense and to what benefit? As I keep saying, we should prioritise resources. Enhancements in the central belt or to Aberdeen will always have enormously better business cases than upgrading the Far North.

We can prioritise resources by taking from funding for roads. The AWPR for example cost almost £1bn, IIRC dualling the A9 and A96 is expected to cost £6bn. Given a quick Google suggests rail subsidies for the entire British network are around £6bn per year, the subsidy for operating the Far North/Kyle lines will be very small in comparison. There is no need to make existing services worse in the name of prioritisation.

 

[Starmill]

Not entirely true. For example, some folk do advocate the re-opening of the Woodhead line, or running regular passenger trains from Clitheroe to Hellifield.

Clitheroe to Hellifield is technically still available and nobody proposes removing it from the national infrastructure, but it cannot support a much better service by rail north of Clitheroe. Certainly it doesn't fit into the current discourse.

The Woodhead route also isn't an outlier. It's closed as closed can be and there is no serious study into changing that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==

There is no need to make existing services worse in the name of prioritisation.

If you accept that government will not give public transport any more money than it has today, there absolutely is this case to be made - although making existing services worse is your take on it. I think they'd be better.

If you don't choose to accept that, then absolutely I agree with you, have at it. Let us know when we can expect Mr Sunak to come around to your point of view, or what your plan is for getting him and his fiscally like-minded kind out of office.

 

[lachlan]

Clitheroe to Hellifield is technically still available and nobody proposes removing it from the national infrastructure, but it cannot support a much better service by rail north of Clitheroe. Certainly it doesn't fit into the current discourse.

The Woodhead route also isn't an outlier. It's closed as closed can be and there is no serious study into changing that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2022 ==


If you accept that government will not give public transport any more money than it has today, there absolutely is this case to be made - although making existing services worse is your take on it. I think they'd be better.

If you don't choose to accept that, then absolutely I agree with you, have at it. Let us know when we can expect Mr Sunak to come around to your point of view.

I don't accept that as governments change frequently. The railway has existed for almost 200 years, governments change every few years. Closing lines due to funding constraints from one government feels incredibly short-sighted.

And you seriously think swapping a through train for a part-train part-coach journey would be better? It might be quicker, but that's about it. Windy roads are less pleasant than railway tracks. Coaches are more cramped and generally lack the tables that trains have. Changing is a faff especially if you have luggage or bikes.

 

[Starmill]

I don't accept that as governments change frequently.

They do but none has been willing to spend more than today's for many years.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2022 ==

Changing is a faff especially if you have luggage or bikes.

If a direct long distance bus service brings greater benefits, that's what should be subsidised instead.