Line Closures

[penrithsteve]

Coming back to the OP I think its highly unlikely that we've seen the last rail closure in my lifetime. Our transport needs continue to evolve, and the rail network will change with it.

Predicting the future is notoriously difficult, but here's a few scenarios that might result in a line closing:

i) Building of a new alignment to speed up an existing line (like the Selby diversion), resulting in the old line closing. The Dawlish sea wall is just one example of where this could happen. There's also been suggestions to divert Newquay services to St Austell, which would doubtless mean the closure of the line via Bugle.

ii) A new line, perhaps to a new town or airport, which draws traffic away from an old line.

iii) Closure of a line, and replacement with a cheaper form of transport - either light rail or a dreaded guided busway. Not inconceivable that Stourbridge Town or even Ryde-Shanklin might go this way in the future.

ii) Closure of a port (or maybe even an airport!). There aren't many that are rail served left, but this seems to have been a trend over the last 30 years. For example if the IOM ferries were ever diverted away from Heysham then this line would surely close. At one stage there was talk of the Lymington ferries moving to Keyhaven; and in this scenario you'd struggle to see the line from Lymington Town to Lymington Pier being retained.

iii) A major structure requiring complete replacement. For example if the Calstock or Glenfinnan viaducts ever required complete replacement then you'd struggle to justify the retention of lines to Gunnislake and Mallaig. This may be a long way off, but we have lots of lots of Victorian infrastructure on lightly served lines.

I'm not saying that these would all be a good thing, or that any of the above will happen. However its almost certain that we'll see the rail network evolve to some degree in the years ahead.

 

[yorksrob]

iii) A major structure requiring complete replacement. For example if the Calstock or Glenfinnan viaducts ever required complete replacement then you'd struggle to justify the retention of lines to Gunnislake and Mallaig. This may be a long way off, but we have lots of lots of Victorian infrastructure on lightly served lines.

I've never understood our double standards as a country in this respect. If a structure on a minor road needed replacing it would get replaced, yet on the railway we are forever having to justify the permanent way.

 

[edwin_m]

We've tried all this before.

Bus replacements don't work. The railway network isn't big enough as it is. We should be reopening lines, not closing them.

In Germany and Switzerland there is good integration between buses and trains, which helps to make public transport more attractive and has probably helped to keep many railways open by feeding passengers into them from buses. No doubt it has also allowed railways to be closed where there is no reason to keep them open, but still providing a frequent bus service to the nearest railhead with through ticketing.

With a few isolated exceptions this has never been the case in the UK, so it's fair to say that bus replacement hasn't worked here. And I think pretty much all the lines where bus replacement might have been suitable were closed many years ago - and the passengers lost to the private car.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Very informative. One of only two WYPTE route closures, the other being Normanton-Altofts-Woodlesford which has now reopened to passenger trains (but without the station).

So are there any lines elsewhere in the country which could be at risk of closure?

AIUI Altofts station being served would be incompatible with the same train serving Castleford.

given that Altofts station is further from the middle of Altofts than the middle of Altofts is from Normanton station, plus the regular bus services through altoftsa to Wakefield / Castleford - also running within a few hundred feet of Normanton Station ... ( depending on which stop you use)

 

[infobleep]

ii) Closure of a port (or maybe even an airport!). There aren't many that are rail served left, but this seems to have been a trend over the last 30 years. For example if the IOM ferries were ever diverted away from Heysham then this line would surely close. At one stage there was talk of the Lymington ferries moving to Keyhaven; and in this scenario you'd struggle to see the line from Lymington Town to Lymington Pier being retained.

I think in that case unless the place had major redevelopment they would just run a parliamentary service. Be it a replacement bus; taxi or train in 1 direction only once a week.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[yorksrob]

Lymington seems to support a service throughout the day so I'd expect it to be relatively safe, even if the ferry went. I fear that Heysham might be vulnerable in a similar situation though.

 

[muddythefish]

We've tried all this before.

The railway network isn't big enough as it is. We should be reopening lines, not closing them.

Hear hear.

This is a railway supporting blog - why would anyone be suggesting or advocating closures?

With population growth over the past 50 years there are significant towns that need a railway station.

And please don't be started on the corruption of Marples and Beeching or I will go into full rant mode.

 

[47802]

We've tried all this before.

Bus replacements don't work. The railway network isn't big enough as it is. We should be reopening lines, not closing them.

Do you have an idea of how much running a line should cost, or do you just think we should slash away at our network willy nilly until someone somewhere decides we've gone far enough ?

Do we really want a Government with "the balls" to close lines ? What if they had "the balls" to close your own local line ? Would you still be prepared to sacrifice your areas economic well being on the alter of finding some sort of ill defined profitable railway, or would you start squealing?

We should really start looking at artificial costs such as rolling stock leasing and track access charges and ask whether these reflect the true costs of running local lines, rather than (as I suspect) inflating them.

This is the sort of attitude that makes my blood boil, I suspect there are a number of lightly used routes where the cost is massive in relation to the amount of revenue generated why should I as a Tax payer pay for that, and this set in stone attitude on the present network is crazy given that in many cases what was closed and what was saved in many cases didn't have a great deal of logic to it. 50 years latter travel patterns have changed roads improved, and railway should meet the needs for the bulk of travel flows for the 21st century not the 1960's.

And no don't think we should slash away at the network willy nilly, but we need to look at the heavily subsidised routes with a low level of service to see if they give good value for money, and if they don't what are the alternatives? which might include closure, or possibly with such as the Whitby line might include it being operated by such as NYMR with a subsidy to operate the school/commuter services.

Replacement buses haven't worked in the past no, but you would put mechanisms in place to ensure they were included as part of the rail franchise and to remove the bus it would have to go through similar procedures again as closing a rail line.

I'm I against reopening no but they would need a good business case in terms economic benefit, good revenue generation etc, and I suspect there are a number of closed routes which aside from the high cost of reopening would generate far more revenue and meet their running costs far better than some existing lines.

The were a number of rural lines kept open in the 60's due to the hardship it would bring that was in an age, when roads were poorer, less people could afford cars, and the railway did more than just carry passengers as it does on some routes now.

The fact is there are great many parts of the country which don't have a rail service and never will and they seem to manage perfectly well, including where I live.

Then I have seen rail reopening campaign's supported partly on the basis that the local bus service is poor, yet it would more than likely be far more cost effective in many cases to provide improved bus services, which suggests to me we need to look at the way buses are provided and subsidised differently, with more connecting buses to the Rail Network, a whether the buses should be deregulated in some parts of the country

 

[yorksrob]

Replacement buses haven't worked in the past no, but you would put mechanisms in place to ensure they were included as part of the rail franchise and to remove the bus it would have to go through similar procedures again as closing a rail line.

Buses tend to be more cramped, less comfortable and in many cases take longer. This is why they are generally less popular and simply not suitable for longer journeys, whatever mechanisms you managed to put in place.

I'm I against reopening no but they would need a very good business case in terms economic benefit, good revenue generation etc.

The were a number of rural lines kept open in the 60's due to the hardship it would bring that was in an age, when roads were poorer, less people could afford cars, and the railway did more than just carry passengers as it does on some routes now.

Yes, and look at those railways now. The Whitby branch is just such a line which only survived due to the very hardship factors mentioned, yet try getting a seat on a Saturday. The line wasn't even kept open to serve Whitby, rather as a back up for the intermediate stops en route, yet already it is vital to the economy of that town. Where is that captured in your "analysis" of fare box revenue ?

The fact is there are great many parts of the country which don't have a rail service and never will and they seem to manage perfectly well, hell I only live 7 miles from Leeds but I don't have a local rail service but seem to manage with road transport.

Bully for you. I can think of many towns that have had their rail link removed and have suffered as a consequence. Leigh springs to mind, and Tavistock in terms of road congestion. Corby until quite recently. There are towns that need connecting to the railway network we should perhaps be concentrating on getting these connected, rather than trawling over the failed ideology of the past.

This is the sort of attitude that makes my blood boil, I suspect there are a number of lightly used routes where the cost is massive in relation to the amount of revenue generated why should I as a Tax payer pay for that.

And have you thought about what makes up that cost. Have you considered why service such as Skipton - Carnforth with minimal signalling and no intermediate station staff, attracts the same rolling stock leasing and track access charges as a route with full staffing and signalling would ? As I have said previously, I suspect that our current regime inflates the revenue cost of running these routes and this is what we need to be looking at before we reach for the axe.

Come to think of it, why are taxpayers supporting thousands of minor roads which see one man and his hay wagon ? There are all sorts of things that I stump up for as a taxpayer for the greater good, with little likelihood of gaining personal benefit from them. It's called being a grown up citizen.

I'm sorry if my post makes your blood boil, however I can assure you that I find so called railway enthusiasts who get overly excited about a metal box with smoke coming out of the top of it, yet who take a cavalier attitude to the network itself and the vast benefits that it brings to our society, equally incomprehensible.

 

[47802]

Buses tend to be more cramped, less comfortable and in many cases take longer. This is why they are generally less popular and simply not suitable for longer journeys, whatever mechanisms you managed to put in place.
.

Those points may well be true although personally I would prefer a Modern Bus to a Railbus, but the key point is the bus may be far more cost effective, in the same way its more cost effective to run a 150 or Railbus down a branch line than a 2 car HST but less comfortable.

Yes, and look at those railways now. The Whitby branch is just such a line which only survived due to the very hardship factors mentioned, yet try getting a seat on a Saturday. The line wasn't even kept open to serve Whitby, rather as a back up for the intermediate stops en route, yet already it is vital to the economy of that town. Where is that captured in your "analysis" of fare box revenue ?
.

Yes but what is the real cost of that line against the economic benefit?, and are there better and more cost effective solutions for that line other than closure? or is the current cost to benefit acceptable?

Bully for you. I can think of many towns that have had their rail link removed and have suffered as a consequence. Leigh springs to mind, and Tavistock in terms of road congestion. Corby until quite recently. There are towns that need connecting to the railway network we should perhaps be concentrating on getting these connected, rather than trawling over the failed ideology of the past.
.

I you bothered to fully read my post I did state that some reopening may well be justified, Corby is a very large Town which probably justified the reopening of a rail link. Tavistock may well improve the viability of a largely existing rail line as an alternative to closure especially if a developer is largely paying for the cost of reopening as well as there being some economic benefit.

Again if you bothered to fully read my post I did say we need to examine the "options" which might include closure but equally it may not.

And have you thought about what makes up that cost. Have you considered why service such as Skipton - Carnforth with minimal signalling and no intermediate station staff, attracts the same rolling stock leasing and track access charges as a route with full staffing and signalling would ? As I have said previously, I suspect that our current regime inflates the revenue cost of running these routes and this is what we need to be looking at before we reach for the axe.
.

That may well be true but it may also be true that the line you quote is still expensive run compared with the revenue and benefits it brings and alternatives need to looked at. Just because it has minimal signalling and no station staff doesn't make it cheap to run, especially being based on an old decaying Victorian infrastructure.

Come to think of it, why are taxpayers supporting thousands of minor roads which see one man and his hay wagon ? There are all sorts of things that I stump up for as a taxpayer for the greater good, with little likelihood of gaining personal benefit from them. It's called being a grown up citizen.
.

Whether you like it or not with the possible exception of London, Rail is not the primary means of Transport anymore Road Transport is. I don't need a lecture from you about being a grown up citizen, yes there are plenty of things I will stump up for as a tax payer which I wont personally benefit from, but I do want reasonable overall value for money and benefit.

I'm sorry if my post makes your blood boil, however I can assure you that I find so called railway enthusiasts who get overly excited about a metal box with smoke coming out of the top of it, yet who take a cavalier attitude to the network itself and the vast benefits that it brings to our society, equally incomprehensible.

I no intention of taking a cavalier attitude to rail network, but I do want a network that gives good value for money, and is not carting around fresh air for little benefit.

 

[yorksrob]

Those points may well be true although personally I would prefer a Modern Bus to a Railbus, but the key point is the bus may be far more cost effective, in the same way its more cost effective to run a 150 or Railbus down a branch line than a 2 car HST but less comfortable.

Yes but what is the real cost of that line against the economic benefit?, and are there better and more cost effective solutions for that line other than closure? or is the current cost to benefit acceptable?

On another thread, people have already quoted the vastly smaller amount of money spent per head of population in the regions compared to London on transport (the whole of transport note, not just the railway). As has been noted on another thread, this is around £200 - £250 compared to £800 in London. This suggests to me that the costs of running our network of regional railways are nowhere near excessive compared either to transport elsewhere or other forms of Government expenditure. And yes, as a society, we are prepared to spend more on a rail service than a bus, because it offers a better quality of service. What do you think the figure of expenditure should be per head. What would you be working towards as you closed lines ?

I you bothered to fully read my post I did state that some reopening may well be justified, Corby is a very large Town which probably justified the reopening of a rail link. Tavistock may well improve the viability of a largely existing rail line as an alternative to closure especially if a developer is largely paying for the cost of reopening as well as there being some economic benefit.

Again if you bothered to fully read my post I did say we need to examine the "options" which might include closure but equally it may not.

Well that's precisely the problem. You seem to have a vague feeling that you want to make cuts somewhere, but you have no idea how much you think we should be spending on the railway or of how much a route should cost to run. We have been here before in the early seventies and it is a recipe for mindless slashing away at the network doing untold damage.

The problem I have with your mindset is where do you stop the endless salami slicing ? I have no doubt that if more lines had closed and the network had shrank an extra ten percent over what it actually has, people such as yourselves would still be looking for the next ten percent of the network to close. Once we embark on that route, there is no end to it.

That may well be true but it may also be true that the line you quote is still expensive run compared with the revenue and benefits it brings and alternatives need to looked at. Just because it has minimal signalling and no station staff doesn't make it cheap to run, especially being based on an old decaying Victorian infrastructure.

Whether you like it or not with the possible exception of London, Rail is not the primary means of Transport anymore Road Transport is. I don't need a lecture from you about being a grown up citizen, yes there are plenty of things I will stump up for as a tax payer which I wont personally benefit from, but I do want reasonable overall value for money and benefit.

Like I say, expensive compared to what ? Given the overall expenditure on transport in the regions which isn't in any way excessive, I don't think the cost of our regional railway is excessive. True, if you end up having to replace a Victorian bridge on a rural route it can be quite expensive, but the same would be true of a bridge on a rural road, yet there would be no question of not replacing this. Why do we have this double standard ?

I no intention of taking a cavalier attitude to rail network, but I do want a network that gives good value for money, and is not carting around fresh air for little benefit.

Firstly, where are these trains carting around fresh air ? Are we trying the old ploy of pretending that any route which isn't profitable in the fare box must automatically be carrying fresh air ?

Secondly, how do you define good value for money, given all that's been said on costs.

 

[47802]

On another thread, people have already quoted the vastly smaller amount of money spent per head of population in the regions compared to London on transport (the whole of transport note, not just the railway). As has been noted on another thread, this is around £200 - £250 compared to £800 in London. This suggests to me that the costs of running our network of regional railways are nowhere near excessive compared either to transport elsewhere or other forms of Government expenditure. And yes, as a society, we are prepared to spend more on a rail service than a bus, because it offers a better quality of service. What do you think the figure of expenditure should be per head. What would you be working towards as you closed lines ?
.

Expenditure per head is difficult one to work out but the line needs to be drawn somewhere particularly where the costs may be excessive for a particular route, and yes spending more on a better quality of service that rail offers is justified where it gives good value, on the other hand there may routes where to cost to provide this service is really too high compared to the cost of bus service even if that provides a lower quality of service.

Well that's precisely the problem. You seem to have a vague feeling that you want to make cuts somewhere, but you have no idea how much you think we should be spending on the railway or of how much a route should cost to run. We have been here before in the early seventies and it is a recipe for mindless slashing away at the network doing untold damage.
.

No what want to see is how much each route really costs, what's the benefit, can costs be reduced, what's the consequences if closed, would alternatives be significantly cheaper and would they largely mitigate the consequences or not.

The problem I have with your mindset is where do you stop the endless salami slicing ? I have no doubt that if more lines had closed and the network had shrank an extra ten percent over what it actually has, people such as yourselves would still be looking for the next ten percent of the network to close. Once we embark on that route, there is no end to it.
.

I'm not interested in salami slicing but if its vastly more cost effective to replace a sparse train service with perhaps on average say 40 users per train with a bus, then should we not consider that as offering better value for money?

Like I say, expensive compared to what ? Given the overall expenditure on transport in the regions which isn't in any way excessive, I don't think the cost of our regional railway is excessive. True, if you end up having to replace a Victorian bridge on a rural route it can be quite expensive, but the same would be true of a bridge on a rural road, yet there would be no question of not replacing this. Why do we have this double standard ?
.

Maybe its not excessive but there may be better ways to spend and target the money for the majority of rail users rather than this just blind we will not close the 1960 based rail lines we are left with.


Why do we have this Double Standard because Road is the primary form of Travel in rural areas simple, and even if you built loads of new rail lines, you couldn't practically serve everywhere by train and you would still need the road for many journeys.

Firstly, where are these trains carting around fresh air ? Are we trying the old ploy of pretending that any route which isn't profitable in the fare box must automatically be carrying fresh air ?

Secondly, how do you define good value for money, given all that's been said on costs.

No i'm not saying that but I think the question has to be asked do all rail lines give good value for money and I agree that may not be easy to define, but your basically saying it doesn't matter if some parts of the network give less good value than others we should just keep throwing money at it regardless.

 

[yorksrob]

Expenditure per head is difficult one to work out but the line needs to be drawn somewhere particularly where the costs may be excessive for a particular route, and yes spending more on a better quality of service that rail offers is justified where it gives good value, on the other hand there may routes where to cost to provide this service is really too high compared to the cost of bus service even if that provides a lower quality of service.

No what want to see is how much each route really costs, what's the benefit, can costs be reduced, what's the consequences if closed, would alternatives be significantly cheaper and would they largely mitigate the consequences or not.

I've nothing against seeing how costs can be reduced on a particular route. Who will it be that decides that a lower quality bus service provides "better value" than a train service. You can bet your bottom dollar it won't be the local people who use the service, rather some faceless bureaucrat who's probably never been anywhere near the area.

I'm not interested in salami slicing but if its vastly more cost effective to replace a sparse train service with perhaps on average say 40 users per train with a bus, then should we not consider that as offering better value for money?

Maybe its not excessive but there may be better ways to spend and target the money for the majority of rail users rather than this just blind we will not close the 1960 based rail lines we are left with.

You may not be interested in salami slicing but that's what you'll get.

Once you give the powers that be the impression that they can close lines without difficulty you'll open a pandora's box. Just consider for a moment the fact that between the worst of the Beeching excesses and the final reprieve of the Settle Carlisle, it took twenty five years to close that box.

I don't want to see that box reopened under any circumstances.

Why do we have this Double Standard because Road is the primary form of Travel in rural areas simple, and even if you built loads of new rail lines, you couldn't practically serve everywhere by train and you would still need the road for many journeys.

Sorry, I don't agree with that at all. There are many more miles of minor roads than there are the railway, all with infrastructure that needs to be maintained and all of which we're happy to throw a never ending supply of money at for ever more. There is simply no good reason not to maintain the much smaller route mileage of railway.

No i'm not saying that but I think the question has to be asked do all rail lines give good value for money and I agree that may not be easy to define, but your basically saying it doesn't matter if some parts of the network give less good value than others we should just keep throwing money at it regardless.

I'm not saying that we should maintain somewhere like Newhaven Marine even though its been superceded by events, but I am dead against any attempt to introduce a mass closure programme.

The network as a whole is a vital asset to the country and there are vast benefits to having a stable network that people can rely on. How are shops and businesses supposed to invest in an area if there is forever going to be an ill defined sword of damocles hanging over something as vital as the railway ?

I'd like some proper research done on the social and economic benefits of local railways to their areas so that we can drive a spike through the heart of the closure argument once and for all.

 

[CockneySparrow]

When the TOCs bid for a franchise the TOC will know what they are bidding for

Lets use GA as an example, the crown jewel has to be Norwich to London and Cambridge to London, other services such as Cambridge to Ipswich, Cambridge to Norwich do ok enough for GA to be pleased with

Lets now look at the rural lines going to Sheringham, Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Felixstowe that in the past are less busy especially during winter months, now GA have been left with these services which possibly some would say run at a loss,

On that basis I would have thought GA would increase the fares slightly on the popular routes or try to increase numbers on lines such as the Norwich to London, this will offset any losses on the coastal routes, so basically GA look at the franchise as a whole rather than a particular route when it comes down to profit and loss

I believe GA has had some subsidy from the Council/Government in the past but believe that this has reduced in recent years of this current economic climate and increased passenger numbers, this money would come out of the pot for transport subsidy as a whole including buses etc, this same pot of money materialises due the acceptance the local government that it needs to spend money on transport

 

[ac6000cw]

I'd like some proper research done on the social and economic benefits of local railways to their areas so that we can drive a spike through the heart of the closure argument once and for all.

I think that research might be a double-edged sword - it could just as easily suggest that a railway is a very expensive way of providing public transport in 'low demand' areas.

Economically viable railways (i.e. ones that don't lose money on an ongoing basis when all the infrastructure maintenance costs etc. are factored in) have always been the ones carrying high traffic levels. Some branch lines were never economically viable from the day they were built, and only survived by cross-subsidy from within the same railway company. That was OK when times were good, but as soon as real competition for traffic arrived after WW1, closures started (my 'home town' line closed to passengers in the 1920's - motor buses provided a more convenient and frequent service compared to the trains).

If you had a local referendum which asked 'Out of our local taxation, we cannot afford to maintain both the local railway line and the local road system. Which one should we choose to maintain ?' I think I know which way the vote would go....

Use railways for the things they are good at, not for political social engineering - that way they should have a long-term future - which, as supporters, is what we all want, isn't it ?

 

[yorksrob]

Use railways for the things they are good at, not for political social engineering - that way they should have a long-term future - which, as supporters, is what we all want, isn't it ?

So you're saying we shouldn't have a "social" railway at all ? Where do you draw the line to get to this non-politically engineered railway that will supposedly have a long term future ?

The railways that we have attract plenty of passengers, in spite of the presence of the omnibus for the past eighty years.

If you look at the vast amount of capital investment in the railway, a lot of this has gone towards the main lines, so if you were looking to scrap routes which didn't pay for their capital costs, you wouldn't be left with much.

 

[SAYLSA]

They need to be re-orientating it for the town. It would be a pretty dismal opener for either a newly independent Scotland, or a newly rejuvenated union to start off with a rail closure.

Are you suggesting that the Town station is re-opened?

It is a total myth that the Town station is nearer Stranraer town centre. It is not. Google maps put it at 11 minutes walk time from the Castle of St John. By contrast the current station would be 8 minutes, and that walking three sides around a rectangle. Google maps of course has not been updated to show the much shorter road distance to the station than hitherto was the case.

What nearly everyone fails to understand is.

1. To move/relocate the current station would cost £millions. Like £6-8m+ who is going to pay for it?

2. If/when the current fencing is removed then Stranraer station would be about 5 minutes walk from the town centre. Closer than Girvan, yet no-one moans about the siting of that station on the edge of town

3. By re-locating back to the Town station you put the railway ‘out of sight’ hidden away at the back of town. It might be easier to get to if you live in Stranraer as it is located nearer the residential areas, but it would be a retrograde step in our view and take away one of the best views ever, that up Loch Ryan. There aren’t many places where you feel you are riding on water, but Stranraer causeway is one.

The major problem is the lack of bus/rail connections due to the local RTP being totally ineffective in delivering coordinated journey opportunities. One can see the bus stop from the railway station, about 200m away. Sadly the RTP would rather spend millions on extending the Borders Railway to Carlisle than the simple expedient of extending bus services serving Portpatrick, Logan and Castle Kennedy to the station. As only 5 services would be required in a day, it is hardly what any public transport planner worth his salt would call ‘difficult’. The services are tendered i.e. in the gift of the RTP to do something about it.

 

[yorksrob]

Are you suggesting that the Town station is re-opened?

It is a total myth that the Town station is nearer Stranraer town centre. It is not. Google maps put it at 11 minutes walk time from the Castle of St John. By contrast the current station would be 8 minutes, and that walking three sides around a rectangle. Google maps of course has not been updated to show the much shorter road distance to the station than hitherto was the case.

What nearly everyone fails to understand is.

1. To move/relocate the current station would cost £millions. Like £6-8m+ who is going to pay for it?

2. If/when the current fencing is removed then Stranraer station would be about 5 minutes walk from the town centre. Closer than Girvan, yet no-one moans about the siting of that station on the edge of town

3. By re-locating back to the Town station you put the railway ‘out of sight’ hidden away at the back of town. It might be easier to get to if you live in Stranraer as it is located nearer the residential areas, but it would be a retrograde step in our view and take away one of the best views ever, that up Loch Ryan. There aren’t many places where you feel you are riding on water, but Stranraer causeway is one.

The major problem is the lack of bus/rail connections due to the local RTP being totally ineffective in delivering coordinated journey opportunities. One can see the bus stop from the railway station, about 200m away. Sadly the RTP would rather spend millions on extending the Borders Railway to Carlisle than the simple expedient of extending bus services serving Portpatrick, Logan and Castle Kennedy to the station. As only 5 services would be required in a day, it is hardly what any public transport planner worth his salt would call ‘difficult’. The services are tendered i.e. in the gift of the RTP to do something about it.

Well, if the boats aren't there, the service should be reorientated towards the local population. Whether that involves relocating to town station or just recasting the timetable is up to the local area and what it thinks would be best.

I'm sure the extension of the Waverley route and better bus connections aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[47802]

I think that research might be a double-edged sword - it could just as easily suggest that a railway is a very expensive way of providing public transport in 'low demand' areas.

Economically viable railways (i.e. ones that don't lose money on an ongoing basis when all the infrastructure maintenance costs etc. are factored in) have always been the ones carrying high traffic levels. Some branch lines were never economically viable from the day they were built, and only survived by cross-subsidy from within the same railway company. That was OK when times were good, but as soon as real competition for traffic arrived after WW1, closures started (my 'home town' line closed to passengers in the 1920's - motor buses provided a more convenient and frequent service compared to the trains).

If you had a local referendum which asked 'Out of our local taxation, we cannot afford to maintain both the local railway line and the local road system. Which one should we choose to maintain ?' I think I know which way the vote would go....

Use railways for the things they are good at, not for political social engineering - that way they should have a long-term future - which, as supporters, is what we all want, isn't it ?

Indeed I would like to see some research on the Bentham Line, see how it compares with the S&C and Copy Pit route and also the Barton on Humber line in particular. It could also examine different service options for the for instance on the Bentham route would a shuttle service between Morcambe/Lancaster and Skipton that was more frequent than the current service be better or worse?

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed I would like to see some research on the Bentham Line, see how it compares with the S&C and Copy Pit route and also the Barton on Humber line in particular. It could also examine different service options for the for instance on the Bentham route would a shuttle service between Morcambe/Lancaster and Skipton that was more frequent than the current service be better or worse?

Out of interest, why would you wish to compare the Bentham line with the Settle - Carlisle route ? Surely (with the possible exception of Giggleswick/Settle) this serves a different market and catchment area and so isn't particularly relevant.

You could perhaps compare it to the copy pit line on the basis that it forms a viable alternative route (although as a regular Leeds - Lancaster traveller the change of trains makes it much less convenient. Any study shluld also make reference to the usefulness of the route as an alternative when Copy Pit is closed as was the case with the closure of Holme tunnel.

One might also consider its value for local journeys from places like Bentham as opposed to the bus, although these would undoubtedly be slower, less reliable and less comfortable than the train.

One thing is for certain, the bus couldn't provide a viable alternative for longer distance travellers like myself just as Copy Pit couldn't provide a use to the people of Bentham, so the route occupies a useful sweet spot between the two.

A piece of research I would like to see is one that quantifies the value of the route to the area it serves in terms of economic activity it generates as well as the educational and employment opportunities it opens up for local residents.

 

[gwr4090]

Proposed closure of Stourbridge Town Branch was announced yesterday !

 

[47802]

Proposed closure of Stourbridge Town Branch was announced yesterday !

I don't think that's the case its got confused with a plan to use PPM's on the Folkestone Harbour Branch which has been rejected.

 

[infobleep]

What are PPMs?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[ac6000cw]

What are PPMs?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Parry People Movers (the vehicles used on the Stourbridge Town branch) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parry_People_Movers

 

[tsr]

What are PPMs?

The acronym usually refers to Class 139 Parry People Movers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_139