zwk500
Veteran Member
If by this you mean 'the crying child gets the milk', then railways are far from the loudest cry/squeakUltimately the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
If by this you mean 'the crying child gets the milk', then railways are far from the loudest cry/squeakUltimately the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
If by this you mean 'the crying child gets the milk', then railways are far from the loudest cry/squeak
I don't disagree with your analysis. I have had enough experience of the public sector budget psyche of 'use it or lose it'.The railway could be the most efficient, cost streamlined service of the year.
Would government reward it and say "you've done well, we won't be so harsh on you next year" ?
Of course not. They'll be asked to save twice as much.
If other wheels are squeaking, the railway needs to squeak more loudly, not less.
(I work for a section of the public sector that's been dutifully swallowing funding cuts and balancing its budgets for twenty years. It's only ever led to tighter budgets).
I don't disagree with your analysis. I have had enough experience of the public sector budget psyche of 'use it or lose it'.
However, I do question if the railway is best served by simply shouting louder to get more lines that require subsidy to operate. If anything the railway need to reduce it's dependence on public money, not simply bully out other areas for what the government is willing to spend.
It's got plenty of empty seats running around now. It should focus on that, IMO.Politically I think the railway needs to get more bums on seats. The more indispensable it is, the more difficult it is for Governments to start cutting things.
It's got plenty of empty seats running around now. It should focus on that, IMO.
Pound for pound, that would mean HS2 east and Crossrail 2 at the expense of anything south west of Bristol. Much of the inefficiency of spending is spreading the benefit to all, even if they are rural people with cars. Urban reopenings, which may include Portishead, would be the focus.
The problem is that using fares as a way of filling empty seats on certain flows (without causing crush-loading where there are already few or no empty seats) inevitably introduces more fare complexity / imbalance when the clamour is that they are too complex already. It can be done with advances (which in many ways are the most complex of the lot) but that’s only going to nibble away at the edges on shorter-distance flows.Making it over fifty quid for a day trip from Leeds to Whitby is an example of there being lots of capacity yet little effort to fill it. There's one.
The problem is that using fares as a way of filling empty seats on certain flows (without causing crush-loading where there are already few or no empty seats) inevitably introduces more fare complexity / imbalance when the clamour is that they are too complex already. It can be done with advances (which in many ways are the most complex of the lot) but that’s only going to nibble away at the edges on shorter-distance flows.
But are there loads of empty seats on the Leeds - York - Middiesborough leg(s) at the sort of time needed for a viable day trip to Whitby?Often it wouldn't though. In my Whitby example, offering a cheap day return at less than the period one would solve the issue.
Infact in a lot of places, having peak, off-peak, day and period returns would solve a lot of these issues.
But are there loads of empty seats on the Leeds - York - Middiesborough leg(s) at the sort of time needed for a viable day trip to Whitby?
Okehampton wasn’t exactly a reopening.Okehampton isn't exactly urban, yet its reopening has been a resounding success. I'd say there's probably more societal benefit to improving public transport to somewhere where there currently isn't much, compared to somewhere that already has lots of good transport options.
Fair enough.Yes, there absolutely are - especially on a weekday when I often go.
Far emptier than the Middlesbrough Whitby section.
(For background, those trains have to be quite long for the Manchester - Leeds market).
It was closed to regular passenger services in 1960-something. It is now open to regular passenger services. So what happened when that changed other than a re-opening?Okehampton wasn’t exactly a reopening.
Aiming for the societal benefit is an exact opposite of bums on seats. Declaring both ends of the scale to be what the government should do next is confusing, it could be the next political policy.
Okehampton wasn’t exactly a reopening.
Aiming for the societal benefit is an exact opposite of bums on seats. Declaring both ends of the scale to be what the government should do next is confusing, it could be the next political policy.
The service had never properly gone away, but I will agree it's a reopening by any meaningful measure.It is absolutely a re-opening. And the fact that its been so popular means bums on seats.
Comparison of actual and forecast passenger demand (as contained in the business case for the Line) on the Dartmoor Line shows that the forecasts under-estimated demand the first 2 full years of the Line’s operation with total demand 47% higher than forecast over this period. However, since November 2023 actual demand by period has typically been marginally lower than forecast. The large variance in the first two years is primarily due to the forecasting methodology assuming more conservative demand ramp-up factors.
An assessment of operating costs and revenue generated in 2023/24 indicates that the Dartmoor Line is creating an estimated annual operating surplus of around £0.85m implying there is no subsidy requirement. However, whilst this provides an early indication of the financial sustainability of the Line, there are significant caveats to this conclusion. These include the analysis being based on a single year and uncertainty around certain costs some of which may increase significantly in future e.g. rolling stock lease costs
The service had never properly gone away, but I will agree it's a reopening by any meaningful measure.
However, I'd question if it's been an "outstanding" success given that after the first 3 or 4 quarters, journey numbers have been slightly below the projections (although showing steady growth). It's definitely been successful (including covering it's immediate costs of operation, huge plus points for that), but I'm not sure it's one to point to for justification of anything that requires more than basically a heavy track renewal and some driver training.
Yes. I hope it does continue to grow.The parkway station may provide a further boost.
Disagree. It helps the case for proposals like the Waterside Line or Burton-Leicester where the line is already there and usable, and there is a clear economic link to be created between town and city.It certainly makes the case for joining towns to the network such as Wisbech and Tavistock where there is a relatively short missing link.
The bit existing is not relevant, it's the scale of the gap to be filled that's important.To take Tavistock, the missing section is lifted, but overall a greater proportion is already passenger standard railway.
Yes. I hope it does continue to grow.
Disagree. It helps the case for proposals like the Waterside Line or Burton-Leicester where the line is already there and usable, and there is a clear economic link to be created between town and city.
The bit existing is not relevant, it's the scale of the gap to be filled that's important.
There's been an Restoring Your Railways and an Open Access Application for it, it's not for want of trying...The lack of anything on the Waterside line is a bit surprising, there's enough population down there that I'd expect a service would be able to wash it's face, but maybe not.
Wisbech and Tavistock (and many others) are more along the lines of Leven and Portishead. How good the modelling there is will inform how reliable the models for other similar rebuilds might be.
The lack of anything on the Waterside line is a bit surprising, there's enough population down there that I'd expect a service would be able to wash it's face, but maybe not.
There's been an Restoring Your Railways and an Open Access Application for it, it's not for want of trying...
Waterside line's perennial problem is capacity at Southampton Central, and level crossing upgrades
I don't think a rail reopening of tavistock is particularly attractive, its a very slow railway.
It's so slow that a ropeway from Saltash would reach Tavistock (going via all stations from Bere Ferrers onwards) in about the same time the train travels from St Budeaux Victoria Road to Gunnislake. We could debate if Saltash would be the best place, but it still makes the argument.
Many of these branch lines exist because they have always existed, but that does not mean they are anyting close to the optimal, and blindly extending them is also not sensible.
That wasn't a huge shock, it was 90% abstraction and 10% Marchwood.Wasn't the latest Waterside line proposal kyboshed by the ORR ? (Too busy worrying about drop-lights and the third rail presumably
The ORR's concerns were actually about the quality of the timetable and the impact on the DfT revenue being abstracted. The proposal was to use Class 769 units so no new third rail and no window-hanging.Wasn't the latest Waterside line proposal kyboshed by the ORR ? (Too busy worrying about drop-lights and the third rail presumably).
That wasn't a huge shock, it was 90% abstraction and 10% Marchwood.
The ORR's concerns were actually about the quality of the timetable and the impact on the DfT revenue being abstracted. The proposal was to use Class 769 units so no new third rail and no window-hanging.
I'd serve it with the Chandlers Ford train if it made any sense to do so, personally.Personally I think a good option for that one would be to extend the Brighton Coastway that currently terminates at Southampton. That would require electrification though.
The best option would be a London service. The next best option is to run a shuttle service that can give a good timed connection from Platform 5 into or out of the London Service.Personally I think a good option for that one would be to extend the Brighton Coastway that currently terminates at Southampton. That would require electrification though.
I'd serve it with the Chandlers Ford train if it made any sense to do so, personally.
The best option would be a London service. The next best option is to run a shuttle service that can give a good timed connection from Platform 5 into or out of the London Service.
I suspect they wouldn't because the paths would end up quite close together, especially if you need to backfill the half of the Romsey Rounder you've split.Both together would give a decent frequency.
There's some peak extras but the off-peak services all go through. However direct peak services and an off-peak local service isn't the worst service in the world.Are there any semi-fasts from London that terminate there, or do they all go to Bournemouth ? Handy to extend something that's already terminating.