The Railways . Why ?

[PR1Berske]

Every business has a top price people are willing to pay, and the railway system is going to exceed that and fail. If it costs far more to operate than it takes in revenue then why does it exist at all?

From @Deltic1961 in another thread.

So here's the speculation. A government of the future asks, why do the railways exist at all? What reason do we have them? Because, speculation abound, they could well be closed.

So if the question is "justify the Railways", how do you answer?

 

[baz962]

From what I believe , from some of these threads is that they then help people to move around and access work and sports events , holidays and tourism etc and so bring a lot of money into the economy . This also means more tax take and in general make more than they cost. So yes they are subsidised , but it's the old speculate to accumulate.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Rail often adds many more pounds back into the economy than it costs to run.
Also profit is the only thing, national infrastructure is essential for freight, journeys, industry, and the country wouldn't be the same without the railways, motorway travel is not ideal, and also costs a lot of money for no direct income except on toll roads, but we need them, same is true for rail.

 

[NoRoute]

For major cities with significant commuter, business and leisure travel flows, the railways are necessary because road capacity could not carry the required passenger volumes, closure would be significantly detrimental to the city's economies and worsen existing congestion and pollution.

For bulk materials and freight, railways provide an environmentally friendly means for transporting large quantities between two points, where the alternative would be many more road vehicles adding to congestion and pollution on the motorway network and local roads around origin and destination.

For regional and intercity passenger travel, railways provide a fast service which allows travel into and between towns and city centres with consistent and reliable journey times, free from impacts of connection. Many services are quicker than travelling by car or coach, they also provide better ride quality and a better travel experience than coach travel and typically have more frequent services.

 

[edwin_m]

That railways are, or should be, financially viable is probably one of the top ten fallacies regularly appearing on this forum. Some may cover their operating costs (depending on what costs are actually included) but it's virtually unheard of for one to repay the cost of building it in modern conditions.

However the cost of railways built in Victorian times has long since been written down, either paid off or because the shareholders at the time lost their money.

 

[Clayton]

Yes, odd question. And never asked about motorways

 

[yorksrob]

As railway people, it wouldn't behove us to assume that someone else isn't already asking the question.

Realistically at present, there isn't really any other suitable public transport option for mass intermediate - long distance travel:

Planes - too carbon intensive and not enough airports
Coaches/buses - too slow and not comfortable enough

 

[HST43257]

At the moment I see rail as the decarbonised short distance (say, York to Harrogate) option, along with buses but ahead of cars, I then see medium distance (say, York to London) quickest form of transport, ahead of cars and buses. I then also see rail as the decarbonised long distance (say, Edinburgh to London) option, ahead of planes.

 

[Bald Rick]

The safe, efficient and sustainable movement of people and goods, in high volume flows, over long distances and/or to/from urban areas.

 

[A0]

From what I believe , from some of these threads is that they then help people to move around and access work and sports events , holidays and tourism etc and so bring a lot of money into the economy . This also means more tax take and in general make more than they cost. So yes they are subsidised , but it's the old speculate to accumulate.

By and large they don't "make more than they cost" as a result your last sentence is utterly wrong. Just about the only network you could claim makes more than it costs is the London Underground network - provincial and rural routes across the UK, no chance.

 

[BayPaul]

Yes, odd question. And never asked about motorways

On multiple threads on here it has been asked about motorways - Road tax and taxes on fuel more than pay for the cost of roads, and so they are profitable. It might not be a statistic that is popular on this forum, but that doesn't make it untrue.

 

[edwin_m]

On multiple threads on here it has been asked about motorways - Road tax and taxes on fuel more than pay for the cost of roads, and so they are profitable. It might not be a statistic that is popular on this forum, but that doesn't make it untrue.

A specific motorway can't be directly profitable unless it is tolled (this doesn't include "shadow tolling" arrangements where a private provider is paid a usage fee). It might be possible to prove that it caused enough people to buy cars or to drive further, generating enough tax to pay for the motorway. But this would be difficult to assess, and incidentally would also demonstrate that the project was grossly contrary to environmental objectives.

As to motoring taxes paying for the cost of roads, that may be so but do they pay for externalities such as policing, health service costs relating to accidents, and the indirect effects of pollution and other environmental damage?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You could do most of Serpell (but keep city commuter networks, which he wasn't going to do) and get most of the benefits, provided a quality bus system was in place instead. But if we didn't have railways at all we'd end up building them. Some flows are just too big for road coaches to really work.

 

[341o2]

A tramway rather than a railway, Blackpool's trams run today due to the illuminations. The future of the tramway was discussed a while back and it was realised that the extra traffic generated due to withdrawing the trams would be unsustainable.

 

[wobman]

Do roads and motorways make money ? No they don't as they provide a method to transport people and goods.
That's why there's such high taxes and fuel duty to pay for the road network.

If the railways are obsolete as the initial poster says, wouldn't the trains be empty and rusting away. the poster in question wants traincrew paid minimum wage, if you read the comments from them.
Not realising the value of a skilled workforce and what an asset they are.

I think the race to the bottom mentality of some people doesn't help......

 

[wobman]

On multiple threads on here it has been asked about motorways - Road tax and taxes on fuel more than pay for the cost of roads, and so they are profitable. It might not be a statistic that is popular on this forum, but that doesn't make it untrue.

So isn't the subsidy of the railways paid by taxation exactly the same ?

 

[trebor79]

You could do most of Serpell (but keep city commuter networks, which he wasn't going to do) and get most of the benefits, provided a quality bus system was in place instead. But if we didn't have railways at all we'd end up building them. Some flows are just too big for road coaches to really work.

I think you'd lose a lot of traffic. I do quite a lots of work on trains whilst travelling to and from meetings. I can't imagine that being possible on road coaches, and road is always going to be more hit and miss with regard to timing due to traffic (hence coach journeys are often timed uncompetitievly slow compared to train).
Is just drive isntead, much as I'd hate it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you'd lose a lot of traffic. I do quite a lots of work on trains whilst travelling to and from meetings. I can't imagine that being possible on road coaches, and road is always going to be more hit and miss with regard to timing due to traffic (hence coach journeys are often timed uncompetitievly slow compared to train).
Is just drive isntead, much as I'd hate it.

Yes, probably true. But with regard to branch lines our dysfunctional, non-integrated bus operations make me convinced that they need to stay.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, probably true. But with regard to branch lines our dysfunctional, non-integrated bus operations make me convinced that they need to stay.

The relationship with buses cuts both ways. It's nonsense to retain an expensive and lightly used railway when a bus could provide a comparable or better service if only the legislation allowed things like ticket and timetable integration without cherrypicking by competing operators. This might happen for example in an area without traffic congestion and where some major destinations didn't have nearby stations.

So some railways might prove unnecessary, but on the other hand there are others where bus feeders to a railhead could bring more passengers to a railway, which could do what it does best - moving larger numbers of people in areas where the parallel roads are too busy to provide a reliable bus service. This is the basis of the Swiss model, also used in Germany and elsewhere.

 

[baz962]

By and large they don't "make more than they cost" as a result your last sentence is utterly wrong. Just about the only network you could claim makes more than it costs is the London Underground network - provincial and rural routes across the UK, no chance.

Thanks for the misquote. Pretty sure I didn't say that the railway pays for itself. I said I believe that the railway brings money by way of the economy , not directly from the farebox or toc payments. I might still be wrong and I didn't say by individual routes , but as a whole.

 

[Ianno87]

You just need to imagine a city like London, but without being fed by railways.

Exactly. You can't.

 

[HSTEd]

Railways are a bulk transport system that beats virtually all other options at shifting vast amounts of people relatively long distances at relatively high speeds.

They also have strongly nonlinear economic benefits - doubling your spending on the railway can earn far more than a doubling of the benefits.

But that would have to be linked to rebuilding the railway for capacity above all else.

 

[Ianno87]

Also, I know it's corny, but part of Rail's purpose is set out for me in this Virgin Trains advert from 2010:

What other mode connects people to each other in quite the same way rail does....?

 

[squizzler]

So here's the speculation. A government of the future asks, why do the railways exist at all? What reason do we have them? Because, speculation abound, they could well be closed.

So if the question is "justify the Railways", how do you answer?

Imagine the same logic applied to other fields. Elderly people are a net burden on society, why not euthanise them all, and poor people while we are at it? Culture is dispensable, getting rid of grants for theatres and museums would free up money for other things. And what does the armed forces contribute in exchange for all that money spent on it?

The original question is so preposterous in my view, it scarcely warrants an answer.

 

[wobman]

Imagine the same logic applied to other fields. Elderly people are a net burden on society, why not euthanise them all, and poor people while we are at it? Culture is dispensable, getting rid of grants for theatres and museums would free up money for other things. And what does the armed forces contribute in exchange for all that money spent on it?

The original question is so preposterous in my view, it scarcely warrants an answer.

Well said

 

[clagmonster]

By and large they don't "make more than they cost" as a result your last sentence is utterly wrong. Just about the only network you could claim makes more than it costs is the London Underground network - provincial and rural routes across the UK, no chance.

Tomorrow I will be traveling by rail to a football match. I will visit a couple of pubs, buy some food, buy my match ticket. All of these will contribute to the economy, including through direct taxation, which will likely outweigh any subsidy on the rail fare. Without the rail service none of my spending tomorrow would be possible.

 

[tbtc]

The original question is so preposterous in my view, it scarcely warrants an answer.

The question is a fair one

We can have discussions about abolishing the monarchy, about leaving/joining the EU, about Scottish independence or Irish unification and about all sorts of other things that affect the future of the UK, but it's preposterous to discuss the future of heavy rail?

The railways need billions of pounds in subsidy but around 95% of people barely use them, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to occasionally ask the question about what the UK taxpayers are getting for their money (without getting emotional about the straw-man idea of killing tens of millions of people, or trying to balance it out by the economic benefits of purchasing a couple of pints or justifying the subsidy on the grounds that coach seats aren't as comfortable)

Heavy rail does a number of things very well, there's a sweet spot of time/distance where it's cheap/ efficient/ convenient/ popular (and there are enough people travelling between the same two places, or on the same corridor) - you generally wouldn't wait on a train for journeys of under a mile but there aren't a lot of non-London flows of over a hundred miles where there are enough people going between two places to make a service viable (sometimes a service works okay because it's lots of different flows tied together - e.g. there aren't a lot of Portsmouth - Cardiff passengers but a direct service serves a few significant places so there are enough overlapping flows)

If you want railways, you need to be able to justify them to the 95% who don't use them very often (or don't use them at all) - we live in a country that has closed large numbers of libraries/ sports pitches/ hospital wards/ Sure Starts etc - we can't guarantee the lightly used branch lines will carry on being subsidised long term - we need to be able to come up with good reasons (how much more efficient it is to move five hundred people between two cities fifty miles apart compared to putting those people in cars/ buses/ planes)

Look at how BR managed to close stations pretty much every year in their final fifteen years whilst also growing the overall market (nowadays we'd have squeals that "closing Sinfin Central will significantly deplete passengers connecting onto InterCity services through Derby and the long distance trains through Derby rely on passengers changing from the Sinfin branch to keep them viable" - whereas BR realised that you could trim back certain branches whilst keeping the main network viable and growing)

But let's not pretend that it's the best solution for every market that it currently serves or that heavy rail is sacred - the fact that some people seem so squeamish about giving proper justifications suggests that they know that some lines are a busted flush and are scared of attention being focussed on them...

 

[Dr Hoo]

They also have strongly nonlinear economic benefits - doubling your spending on the railway can earn far more than a doubling of the benefits.

Noting from ORR official statistics that government spending on the rail network has increased from around £3,000,000,000 per year in the early 2000s to around £6,000,000,000 per year in the late 'teenies' (pre-Covid) when do you feel that the more-than-doubling of benefits will be evident to the average passenger (let alone taxpayer)?

 

[HSTEd]

Noting from ORR official statistics that government spending on the rail network has increased from around £3,000,000,000 per year in the early 2000s to around £6,000,000,000 per year in the late 'teenies' (pre-Covid) when do you feel that the more-than-doubling of benefits will be evident to the average passenger (let alone taxpayer)?

The situation in the early 2000s is fundamentally different to that which prevailed in 2019?

I'm talking about "all else being equal"

Also have those figures been inflation adjusted?

 

[wobman]

The question is a fair one

We can have discussions about abolishing the monarchy, about leaving/joining the EU, about Scottish independence or Irish unification and about all sorts of other things that affect the future of the UK, but it's preposterous to discuss the future of heavy rail?

The railways need billions of pounds in subsidy but around 95% of people barely use them, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to occasionally ask the question about what the UK taxpayers are getting for their money (without getting emotional about the straw-man idea of killing tens of millions of people, or trying to balance it out by the economic benefits of purchasing a couple of pints or justifying the subsidy on the grounds that coach seats aren't as comfortable)

Heavy rail does a number of things very well, there's a sweet spot of time/distance where it's cheap/ efficient/ convenient/ popular (and there are enough people travelling between the same two places, or on the same corridor) - you generally wouldn't wait on a train for journeys of under a mile but there aren't a lot of non-London flows of over a hundred miles where there are enough people going between two places to make a service viable (sometimes a service works okay because it's lots of different flows tied together - e.g. there aren't a lot of Portsmouth - Cardiff passengers but a direct service serves a few significant places so there are enough overlapping flows)

If you want railways, you need to be able to justify them to the 95% who don't use them very often (or don't use them at all) - we live in a country that has closed large numbers of libraries/ sports pitches/ hospital wards/ Sure Starts etc - we can't guarantee the lightly used branch lines will carry on being subsidised long term - we need to be able to come up with good reasons (how much more efficient it is to move five hundred people between two cities fifty miles apart compared to putting those people in cars/ buses/ planes)

Look at how BR managed to close stations pretty much every year in their final fifteen years whilst also growing the overall market (nowadays we'd have squeals that "closing Sinfin Central will significantly deplete passengers connecting onto InterCity services through Derby and the long distance trains through Derby rely on passengers changing from the Sinfin branch to keep them viable" - whereas BR realised that you could trim back certain branches whilst keeping the main network viable and growing)

But let's not pretend that it's the best solution for every market that it currently serves or that heavy rail is sacred - the fact that some people seem so squeamish about giving proper justifications suggests that they know that some lines are a busted flush and are scared of attention being focussed on them...

As soon as you said 95% don't use the railways I stopped reading, how out of touch some people are.