Trivia: lines which are open but really shouldn't be?

[Greenback]

While I have previously endorsed suggestion of combing services like shops, post offices and even pubs with ticket offices in appropriate rural locations, I don't see it as a way of getting parcels back on trains. They are very separate issues.

 

[deltic08]

If you say no one is disadvantaged by a closure in any shape or form then nothing will ever close so cannot agree with that, yes I'm sure some people will be disadvantaged by a closure but it depends how many and you would have to make a judgement on that, so yes possibly some people might be disadvantaged but frankly that's tough.

I do like to see compassion in a man.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

If you say no one is disadvantaged by a closure in any shape or form then nothing will ever close so cannot agree with that, yes I'm sure some people will be disadvantaged by a closure but it depends how many and you would have to make a judgement on that, so yes possibly some people might be disadvantaged but frankly that's tough.

Would you feel the same if a new report comes out and suggests that the lines you use are too costly and should close?

 

[johnnychips]

Would you feel the same if a new report comes out and suggests that the lines you use are too costly and should close?

I can't speak about rail but I used to go for a drink with a mate in his village once a month and get the last bus back at about eleven. I was usually the only person on it, there were never more than three. It was withdrawn last year, but how can I possibly complain? Some types of unprofitable transport are socially necessary, but some are plain wasteful.

 

[47802]

Would you feel the same if a new report comes out and suggests that the lines you use are too costly and should close?

Most definitely the railway is not a charity, and what it does best is transport large numbers of people from A to B not be the personal transport for a few people.

 

[Bantamzen]

I can't speak about rail but I used to go for a drink with a mate in his village once a month and get the last bus back at about eleven. I was usually the only person on it, there were never more than three. It was withdrawn last year, but how can I possibly complain? Some types of unprofitable transport are socially necessary, but some are plain wasteful.

And this is also exactly how bus companies justify running services into the ground, by culling lesser used runs the service becomes less useful and subsequently less people use it less until the company pulls it completely. But public transport is supposed to be for the public, so if there is demand there ought to be a service. If this kind of logic where applied to say a supermarket, then you wouldn't have them open for more than a few hours a day, let alone 24 hours. Yet stores do open for long hours because they look at the overall picture, not individual times when there are fewer shoppers.

But there is more to the the public transport picture than how much the operator makes on each service. Public transport can help boost local economies, reduce wasted time for businesses with their workers not being constantly stuck in traffic, and it offers those people who don't drive the opportunity to travel to places they wouldn't be able to otherwise. A consistent, reliable, joined up public transport network can benefit the entire nation. Sadly this important point seems to have been lost on some who cannot or will not see beyond the operator's bottom line. And this is exactly why it should never have been handed over to the private sector. All we have now is companies squeezing passengers more & more for higher profits on ever reducing services (on the buses at least).

 

[47802]

And this is also exactly how bus companies justify running services into the ground, by culling lesser used runs the service becomes less useful and subsequently less people use it less until the company pulls it completely. But public transport is supposed to be for the public, so if there is demand there ought to be a service. If this kind of logic where applied to say a supermarket, then you wouldn't have them open for more than a few hours a day, let alone 24 hours. Yet stores do open for long hours because they look at the overall picture, not individual times when there are fewer shoppers.

But there is more to the the public transport picture than how much the operator makes on each service. Public transport can help boost local economies, reduce wasted time for businesses with their workers not being constantly stuck in traffic, and it offers those people who don't drive the opportunity to travel to places they wouldn't be able to otherwise. A consistent, reliable, joined up public transport network can benefit the entire nation. Sadly this important point seems to have been lost on some who cannot or will not see beyond the operator's bottom line. And this is exactly why it should never have been handed over to the private sector. All we have now is companies squeezing passengers more & more for higher profits on ever reducing services (on the buses at least).

Yes but Supermarkets still manage to make profits and the shops that don't tend to get closed eg. Tesco's recent announcement, plus I suspect keeping a large supermarket open for 24 hours to the public is a marginal cost anyway as you will still have staff in refilling the goods as anybody who goes late at night knows it becomes more like an assault course.

Yes there are benefits to public transport more than just the bottom line, but there isn't and shouldn't be an unlimited cheque to fund un profitable services.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes there are benefits to public transport more than just the bottom line, but there isn't and shouldn't be an unlimited cheque to fund un profitable services.

I'm not talking about unlimited funding, simply that you cannot simply look at the profits of a route in isolation. You have to factor in the knock-on effects of closing a line on the places it serves, as well as the likelihood of alternative forms of public transport being used rather than cars. Bus companies are very fickle, and rapidly lose interest in routes they don't perceive as making decent profit margins, even when as a company they make an overall profit from their network. Public transport should serve the needs of the commuters, not the other way around. If a railway network costs £4 billion to run, but results in £5 billion going back into the economy (for example) then it's a net benefit.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes there are benefits to public transport more than just the bottom line, but there isn't and shouldn't be an unlimited cheque to fund un profitable services.

There isn't. Which is why basic railway options with minimal staffing and signalling have been developed. Of course, however much you reduce these costs, it will never be enough for those with an idealogical axe to grind. If you somehow managed to half the cost of running the Bentham line, the same people would still be calling for its closure.

 

[DT611]

there isn't and shouldn't be an unlimited cheque to fund un profitable services.

not everything has to make a proffit. there are certain things that are for the public good. health, education, public transport. if they make money. great, as they provide a social benefit which is the most important thing, they must be kept. there are ways in which costs can be brought down, but those costs must have an actual benefit to the people, not those with an idealogical preference

 

[ChiefPlanner]

not everything has to make a proffit. there are certain things that are for the public good. health, education, public transport. if they make money. great, as they provide a social benefit which is the most important thing, they must be kept. there are ways in which costs can be brought down, but those costs must have an actual benefit to the people, not those with an idealogical preference

People voted for that in 1945...does not apply today (unfortunately)

 

[deltic08]

Agreed. And add to this that trains between Lancaster and Preston are often already overcrowded, so you don't really want to be forcing more people onto them so they can go via Copy Pit. And for people travelling from/to Lancaster or Morecambe (which is quite a significant destination in its own right) you'd be forcing an additional change of train.

I'd actually suggest that Lancaster-Leeds is a good example of a line that has a lot of potential to become much more useful if only some imagination (and investment) could be applied to it. In particular at the Lancaster end, it runs along the Lancaster-Carnforth commuter route which suffers massive road congestion. Imagine what it could do for the area, both in terms of reducing congestion, making commuting easier and helping tourism if - say - it had an hourly service run with decent trains - timed to interleave with Lancaster-Barrow to make a half-hourly service between Lancaster and Carnforth. A station for commuters at Hest Bank, a park and ride station at Melling (to pick up commuters from that area into Lancaster, and also with buses from Hornby and Kirby Lonsdale timed to connect with the trains, and a guaranteed connecting bus at Bentham to get to Ingleton (a significant tourist destination), with through tickets available...

At the risk of winding up 47802, I think the closure of Clapham Jnc-Low Gill Jnc line is a great loss today. Southbound MGR trains on the S&C are limited in trailing load due to a 1 in 100 gradient from Kirby Stephen to Ais Gill. Diverting MGR trains via this reinstated line, trailing load would be higher as the steepest gradient is 1 in 135 southbound up to Shap summit. There will be a professional railwayman or someone with a degree in applied mathematics who can tell me how much additional load would be possible so a business case could be made for reinstatement.

Ingleton, Kirkby Lonsdale, Sedburgh, Tebay and Shap stations could reopen, Penrith would have a direct service to Yorkshire and East Midlands and West Yorkshire-Glasgow through trains introduced this way in less time than via the S&C.

This would free up capacity on the S&C for a couple of extra local passenger paths each day.

 

[Lankyline]

Most definitely the railway is not a charity, and what it does best is transport large numbers of people from A to B not be the personal transport for a few people.

Actually when Barbara Castle introduced the "social need" policy on certain lines to prevent closure, those lines effectively became "charities" as government subsidy was used to keep services running because they were not profitable.

In different guises this still happens today, but what the railway also does best is transport freight, particularly heavy freight over distance.

 

[47802]

There isn't. Which is why basic railway options with minimal staffing and signalling have been developed. Of course, however much you reduce these costs, it will never be enough for those with an idealogical axe to grind. If you somehow managed to half the cost of running the Bentham line, the same people would still be calling for its closure.

Just because you bring the costs down shouldn't make it immune from closure it might help, but if the costs are still too high in relation to numbers using it and benefit it brings then it should still close.

 

[Mark62]

How many lines actually run at a profit? How is profit determined? I suspect that the majority of lines in the UK outside of the south east run at a loss. Should they all be closed.
Conversely should all the lines that were closed in the 60s where BR deliberately manipulated the financial reports be reopened? One example is the lines to Mablethorpe. BR started to pull trains from the timetable even though they still ran. The dirty tricks on that line were horrendous. In in 1969 the TUCC recommended that the line stay open, yet to everyone's surprise good old Barbara castle weilded the axe,as she did on say many routes. Incidentally one of castles election pledges in 1965 was that she totally opposed the. Beeching report and it's implementation. She closed more lines than Marples!
The UK Governments in the 60s must have been the most corrupt we have ever seen. Not much democracy or accountability around in that decade.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

How many lines actually run at a profit? How is profit determined? I suspect that the majority of lines in the UK outside of the south east run at a loss. Should they all be closed.
Conversely should all the lines that were closed in the 60s where BR deliberately manipulated the financial reports be reopened? One example is the lines to Mablethorpe. BR started to pull trains from the timetable even though they still ran. The dirty tricks on that line were horrendous. In in 1969 the TUCC recommended that the line stay open, yet to everyone's surprise good old Barbara castle weilded the axe,as she did on say many routes. Incidentally one of castles election pledges in 1965 was that she totally opposed the. Beeching report and it's implementation. She closed more lines than Marples!
The UK Governments in the 60s must have been the most corrupt we have ever seen. Not much democracy or accountability around in that decade.

All lines in the UK are run with a healthy guranteed profit for the TOCs. The government subsidies on the over hand suggest that they all cost the taxpayer greatly if investment and Network Rail stuff is included.
Yet I can find a great many varying sources suggesting huge profits and others suggesting huge losses for the taxpayer.
To me it looks like accountants are still fiddling figures.

Mablethorpe's line should be reopened. The town has extreme unemployment outside of Summer. A rail line would regenerate the town. Also around 300,000 caravans are now on the East Lindsey coast. It's got the most dangerous roads for all the visitors.
And the bus is shown on EMTs Skegness timetable.
I see no reason why it would be different to Sherringham or Saltburn in terms of usage.

I think the lines suggested for reopening by ATOCs Connecting Communities and Railfuture's "Missing Links" should be reopened. I can't speak on every line as I haven't seen the situation everywhere.
Ones that I wouldn't reopen include some duplicate lines, and where the bus is currently better than what the train would be.

If lines are to be closed on financial grounds, then all closed lines with a cost to benefit ratio higher than 1 should reopen.