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

[47802]

I travel to Whitby several times a year and the train is always busy, often rammed. This service should run regardless of the operating costs.

Similarly, I use the Bentham line frequently and it is usually busy. This should take precedence. With regards to intermediate stations, why bother closing them when savings will be miniscule and the options of destinations for rail travellers will be further reduced?

Your whole argument boils down to the cost of maintenance versus fare box revenue, yet there are many more thousands of miles of underused roadway and cycle track which all require maintaining and don't bring in any fare box revenue at all, yet there seems to be a consensus that these must be maintained at taxpayers expense for all eternity, which is an unjustifiable double standard.

Typical deluded railway fantasist, the fundamental FACT is road is the main form of transport in this country. I suspect the costs of such as Whitby and the Bentham are outrageous compared to the benefit they give, time for Beeching 2 in view and get rid of some these railway money cesspits.

 

[Busaholic]

Typical deluded railway fantasist, the fundamental FACT is road is the main form of transport in this country. I suspect the costs of such as Whitby and the Bentham are outrageous compared to the benefit they give, time for Beeching 2 in view and get rid of some these railway money cesspits.

Have I strayed onto a Road Forum hosted by Jeremy Clarkson (although even he rates I.K. Brunel)?

 

[najaB]

I don't really think its fair to add the population of the Orkney Islands to the Railway's population figures considering that the Pentland Firth still doesn't have a fixed crossing.
Is there even a connecting bus from the ferry terminal to the railway station?

No. But the rail+sail ticket includes a taxi transfer.

 

[47802]

Have I strayed onto a Road Forum hosted by Jeremy Clarkson (although even he rates I.K. Brunel)?

The railway is good at providing commuter services to our major towns and cities, and good links between major towns and cities but that doesn't mean we should have a railway that serves every tom dick and harry around the country, and yes if had been up to me I would have closed the S&C, and I wouldn't have reopened the line to Tweedbank, although no doubt I will take a trip on it when it reopens.

 

[yorksrob]

Typical deluded railway fantasist, the fundamental FACT is road is the main form of transport in this country. I suspect the costs of such as Whitby and the Bentham are outrageous compared to the benefit they give, time for Beeching 2 in view and get rid of some these railway money cesspits.

I've never heard such drivel. Are you seriously trying to argue that a country byway with four cars a day and a tractor every month is more valuable to society and the economy than an artery that carries four well loaded 158's a day?

Perhaps you should spend more time understanding what a railway is for and less time playing with locomotives.

 

[47802]

I've never heard such drivel. Are you seriously trying to argue that a country byway with four cars a day and a tractor every month is more valuable to society and the economy than an artery that carries four well loaded 158's a day?

Perhaps you should spend more time understanding what a railway is for and less time playing with locomotives.

We are not in the 1800's roads need to be provided as the basic form of transport, railways in many cases are an optional extra and an expensive one at that, which can never offer the reliance or flexibility to make many needed journeys particularly away from major cities. Would you live in such as Bentham and rely solely on rail without road transport I very much doubt it.

 

[yorksrob]

We are not in the 1800's roads need to be provided as the basic form of transport, railways in many cases are an optional extra and an expensive one at that, which can never offer the reliance or flexibility to make many needed journeys. Would you live in such as Bentham and rely solely on rail without road transport I very much doubt it.

Perhaps you need to take some basic lessons in transport economics. People don't all do the same journey to the same places all of the time. People all over the country can rely on the railway because it offers them a wide variety of destinations. If you remove this network capability, no one will be able to rely on the railway and it will become an optional extra as everyone will find an alternative. And you won't be able to run your precious metal box with smoke coming out of the top on it.

Do you think it is a coincidence that the railway only stopped declining after they stopped lopping great chunks off of it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Like many motorists, you forget that to those of us who don't drive, the railway is indeed the primary mode of transport for long and middle distance journeys, yet you delude yourself into thinking that because you drive and can afford to run a car, everyone else does.

 

[deltic08]

Well possibly the overall cost structure does need looking at, but so do all routes which don't cover their daily costs, these should be periodically reviewed and the worst performers looked at very closely, as for the idea that every town with a population of 15000 or more should have a rail service that's ridiculous.

It should also include stations with low passengers numbers, how much tax payers money is wasted on services like Barton, Bentham, Whitby etc

The new Tweedbank service, aside from the large amount of money that been required to rebuild it, will it cover its operating and track maintenance costs? or will that be yet another burden on the tax payer.

The 2009 ATOC Report "Connecting Communities" looked at every settlement of 15,000 inhabitants and above not connected to the rail system. New construction was looked at as well as reinstatement. The raison detre was to reduce road congestion in currently connected railhead towns and cities by increasing the number of railheads. Settlements were rejected if they were too close to other railhead towns or where there had been extensive development of the disused trackbed. This left about 35 settlements where a new railhead was viable. These were split into two. Those that had a positive BCR including line construction costs and those where annual operating costs would be covered by the fare box but construction costs would not be covered within 60 years.

In the case of Ripon-Harrogate the BCR was 4.5 on operating. When construction costs were included BCR dropped to 0.9. (our own study completed by Arup in 2005 saw a construction BCR of 1.3.)

64% rail passenger growth in the Leeds City Region since the 2005 Ripon study and planned increase of 50% in the current population by 2025 in the Local Development Framework, experts tell me that BCR for Ripon-Harrogate reinstatement, including construction costs and two trains an hour, could be as high as 4.6.

The railway to Whitby is a lifeline and deserves taxpayers support. People living outside the area will not know that most of the population lives in the Esk Valley but all the roads to the outside world are across the Moors. These roads are impassible in Winter and gradients out of the valley are so steep buses have difficulty even on dry roads. As such secondary school children travel to Whitby by train.

Huge deposits of potash have been discovered south of the River Esk now close to the closed Whitby-Scarborough line as well as at Boulby. The mining company want to lay an underground pipeline from Whitby to Teesport and pump the potash but there is increasing pressure to send it by rail on the Whitby-Middlesbrough line as this will have less impact on the Esk Valley near Whitby and North Yorkshire Moors National Park than constructing a pipeline. Who would have expected this when all lines to Whitby were put up for closure in 1965. You just don't know what will be needed in the future.

One of the biggest blunders made by BR managers in the 1980s was closing the Lincoln Avoiding Line and March-Spalding. Many objected to the TUCC, myself included, as we all knew what would happen but arrogant managers knew better. Both are needed to-day. Lincoln High Street level crossing is a nightmare for most of the day when diversions occur and now additional daily freights and a dive under is being planned at Werrington Junction at great cost because March-Spalding freight now conflicts with busy ECML traffic because it has to be routed via Peterborough.

 

[47802]

Perhaps you need to take some basic lessons in transport economics. People don't all do the same journey to the same places all of the time. People all over the country can rely on the railway because it offers them a wide variety of destinations. If you remove this network capability, no one will be able to rely on the railway and it will become an optional extra as everyone will find an alternative. And you won't be able to run your precious metal box with smoke coming out of the top on it.

Do you think it is a coincidence that the railway only stopped declining after they stopped lopping great chunks off of it?

The point is that Railway doesn't offer a journey to a wide range of destinations as it is and when did a lot of it wasn't economic, removing a few more might make a marginal difference but in the grand scheme of things but that would be a way of reducing growth on the railway. Beeching had the right idea reducing the railway to around 8000 miles of track pity it wasn't fully carried out.

Lines like Whitby. Far North line where the bus is quicker, West Highland Line, belong in the history books not the real world.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 2009 ATOC Report "Connecting Communities" looked at every settlement of 15,000 inhabitants and above not connected to the rail system. New construction was looked at as well as reinstatement. The raison deter was to reduce road congestion in currently connected railhead towns and cities by increasing the number of railheads. Settlements were rejected if they were too close to other railhead towns or where there had been extensive development of the disused trackbed. This left about 35 settlements where a new railhead was viable. These were split into two. Those that had a positive BCR including line construction costs and those where annual operating costs would be covered by the fare box but construction costs would not be covered within 60 years.

In the case of Ripon-Harrogate the BCR was 4.5 on operating. When construction costs were included BCR dropped to 0.9. (our own study completed by Arup in 2005 saw a construction BCR of 1.3.)

64% rail passenger growth in the Leeds City Region since the 2005 Ripon study and planned increase of 50% in the current population by 2025 in the Local Development Framework, experts tell me that BCR for Ripon-Harrogate reinstatement, including construction costs and two trains an hour, could be as high as 4.6.

If you can build a railway to Ripon that covers all its costs including construction then feel free but it aint going to happen in my lifetime

 

[yorksrob]

@ 47802

Nonsense, the railway offers travel to a huge range of destinations. It allows me to get to work, get to leisure activities on the weekend, visit friends, visit family, go on holiday, attend conferences and meetings for work.You'd be surprised, but it really is remarkably easy to live ones life by the railway, and Whitby and the Far North are part of that.

The only thing that belongs to the history books are the 1970's era rantings of motorists who believe that people only use the railway to go backwards and forwards to work in London.

 

[47802]

@ 47****

Nonsense, the railway offers travel to a huge range of destinations. It allows me to get to work, get to leisure activities on the weekend, visit friends, visit family, go on holiday, attend conferences and meetings for work.You'd be surprised, but it really is remarkably easy to live ones life by the railway, and Whitby and the Far North are part of that.

The only thing that belongs to the history books are the 1970's era rantings of motorists who believe that people only use the railway to go backwards and forwards to work in London.

Well bully for you but for many people its not and option.

My journey to work is 40mins to about an hour by car, by public transport it would require Bus, Train, Tram plus 20min walk total journey time about 2.5 hours.

Yes I remember taking a day trip to Whitby once, the booking office clerk at Leeds station thought we were a bit lacking in brain cells I think to travel from Leeds to Whitby by train, especially in those days when there was no direct Middlesbrough service and you had to change at Darlington.

 

[yorksrob]

Well boo hoo. Rather than going on about how hard done by you are, why not consider that many people rely on the railway just as much as you rely on your car.

 

[Greenback]

Because I don't use a car, should I argue that roads are uneconomic and should not be funded? Any that people aren't willing pay the proper costs of upkeep for should be closed off. I mean, why should my council tax go towards keeping a road open across a mountain to serve a couple of houses, a farm and nothing else?

It's a silly argument, as even if I don't drive a car myself I benefit from the road network, either directly or indirectly, and that includes those remote places where it doesn't make economic sense to have a road at all.

 

[The Planner]

In the case of Ripon-Harrogate the BCR was 4.5 on operating. When construction costs were included BCR dropped to 0.9. (our own study completed by Arup in 2005 saw a construction BCR of 1.3)
64% rail passenger growth in the Leeds City Region since the 2005 Ripon study and planned increase of 50% in the current population by 2025 in the Local Development Framework, experts tell me that BCR for Ripon-Harrogate reinstatement, including construction costs and two trains an hour, could be as high as 4.6.

Talking into account the costs will have bound to have gone up in the ten years meaning that the BCR would drop from the 0.9 or 1.3, the benefits must be absurdly large to hit 4 again. If thats the case then cost is meaningless in that and the scheme would just be pushed through? Something doesnt sit right there to me.

 

[deltic08]

The railway is good at providing commuter services to our major towns and cities, and good links between major towns and cities but that doesn't mean we should have a railway that serves every tom dick and harry around the country, and yes if had been up to me I would have closed the S&C, and I wouldn't have reopened the line to Tweedbank, although no doubt I will take a trip on it when it reopens.

And if the S&C had closed what would have happened to the 43 freight trains each way daily? They are only routed this way as there is insufficient capacity on the two other Anglo-Scottish routes. That would have been a clever decision wouldn't it? Imagine the damage 3200 44 tonne lorries travelling daily between Ayrshire and Aire Valley power stations would cause to the motorways and A66.

Passengers from the West Riding to Carlisle would have a longer journey with an additional change at Lancaster or Newcastle. How hard do want to make it?

 

[Altnabreac]

The point is that Railway doesn't offer a journey to a wide range of destinations as it is and when did a lot of it wasn't economic, removing a few more might make a marginal difference but in the grand scheme of things but that would be a way of reducing growth on the railway. Beeching had the right idea reducing the railway to around 8000 miles of track pity it wasn't fully carried out.

Lines like Whitby. Far North line where the bus is quicker, West Highland Line, belong in the history books not the real world.

West Highland Line is one of the busiest rural lines in the country and generates very large numbers of tourists which are a huge part of the areas local economy.

You'd be completely mad to contemplate closing it.

Whitby is interesting in that as you point out it's slower than bus if you're coming from the south. However this is much less of an issue from North East and within the Esk Valley itself the train is both quicker and more reliable. Just because it doesn't serve Leeds well doesn't mean it doesn't serve anyone.

Far North line is tricky. Passenger numbers on the south of the line have grown strongly with an increase in Inverness commuters and the new stations at Beauly and Conon Bridge. Commuter traffic is strong at least as far as Tain and journey times are competitive to Lairg so the Invergordon cut off suggestion is daft.

Kyle is also very important for tourists and not much slower than the coach.

There is an issue with Caithness traffic as the bus is significantly quicker, especially to Wick. The solution is probably a combination of some upgrades to infrastructure to enable faster journey times (especially the RETB, points and level crossings), Closure of some of the less useful stations (Culrain, Kildonan, Kinbrace, Scotscalder, Georgemas Junction) and a new north - west chord at Georgemas to allow direct running to Thurso without reversal.

Ultimately you could possibly justify closure of the Wick branch but the marginal cost of operating it is probably very low so I'd keep it open but focus journey time improvements on Thurso where it's easier to compete and the link to the Orkneys adds to its strategic value.

 

[deltic08]

Talking into account the costs will have bound to have gone up in the ten years meaning that the BCR would drop from the 0.9 or 1.3, the benefits must be absurdly large to hit 4 again. If thats the case then cost is meaningless in that and the scheme would just be pushed through? Something doesnt sit right there to me.

Yes construction costs will have escalated in 10 years but so have rail fares. Harrogate-Leeds day return has more than doubled.

It doesn't sit right because North Yorkshire County Council prefer to spend £millions on bypasses and will not support reinstating rail to Ripon. The same with Leeds Metro. The Minister told me that his hands are tied because he cannot initiate reinstatement. It must come from NYCC. All other rail reinstatement schemes I can think of have occurred with pressure from County Councils but somebody will tell me otherwise.

 

[HSTEd]

And if the S&C had closed what would have happened to the 43 freight trains each way daily? They are only routed this way as there is insufficient capacity on the two other Anglo-Scottish routes. That would have been a clever decision wouldn't it? Imagine the damage 3200 44 tonne lorries travelling daily between Ayrshire and Aire Valley power stations would cause to the motorways and A66.

Lorries would have caused no damage because the coal would almost certainly have been shipped via Coasters (coastal freighters/barges).
It would never be moved by road.

Passengers from the West Riding to Carlisle would have a longer journey with an additional change at Lancaster or Newcastle. How hard do want to make it?

Is that really a large passenger flow?
Additionally the length of time to go Leeds-Carlisle over the S&C is apparently ~2h55..... Nationalrail.co.uk has a 3h08 journey via Manchester Oxford Road. And a ~2hr57 changing at Manc Picc.
So the addition of time is hardly catastrophic.

 

[47802]

To be fair its all academic anyway as none of the main political parties have got any bottle to contemplate any significant closures at present, the one thing I would say about reopening of lines, is that I'm not against a one off cost to fund the building of the line but beyond that once opened any new line should be able to cover its running costs, we should not be increasing the subsidy burden.

 

[HSTEd]

Well then the question becomes whether we should increase the capital cost a large amount to permit routes to cover operational costs.

For instance installing electrification equipment and extra kit to allow the line to be operated without a guard would significantly reduce a lines operating costs, but would significantly increase the construction cost of the route.

 

[Penmorfa]

Lorries would have caused no damage because the coal would almost certainly have been shipped via Coasters (coastal freighters/barges).
It would never be moved by road.

This already happens to some extent. A coaster shuttles between Hunterston and Ellesmere Port and Freightliner then moves the coal by rail from Ellesmere Port to Fiddler's Ferry power station.

 

[Howardh]

I'm beginning to wish I'd never started this thread!
Meanwhile, just been on a train - intercity Virgin - which had about 20 on it, and it's been like that every time I've used it, save for big football games. 1840 Glasgow-Birmingham. AFAIK it's the last train back to England (beyond Carlisle)on a Saturday, dunno why it's doesn't carry on to Euston and possibly have more pax?
I'm glad it runs, it's invaluable, but isn't it a bit early to be the last train back to England (beyond Ca......) on a Saturday??

 

[L&Y Robert]

When I was a student (post-grad. Urban & Rural Planning) in the 60s we had a Canadian in the year-group. Transport planning was part of our remit, but the studies, as far as they went, were almost entirely road oriented – cars per household, origin and destination surveys, highway capacity, road and junction design, parking provision – that sort of thing. But I and my Canadian colleague, and one or two others in the group were well aware of the growing unease in academic circles about the unbridled growth of road traffic, and we, and others besides us, foresaw the problems of congestion we now experience. So we suggested, as part of the course project work, that a part of transport planning should require the protection of existing transport assets for the future, whether they were wanted just then or not. My Canadian friend talked about the rail closures he had seen in Canada, surprised that ''closure" in the UK also meant dismantlement and ultimate destruction of the asset.
"Why do you go to so much trouble to rip them up?" he asked me. " I dunno" I answered, then "So what do you do in Canada?"
"Leave 'em be - let 'em rust" he answered.
But we were only students, and the motor vehicles on roads was the way forward as far as officialdom was concerned. I remember Mrs. Thatcher, in some speech or other, proclaiming “The railway is old 19th century technology. Roads and road transport are 20th century technology” – or something like that.
But how grateful we would be today if the “Let ‘em rust” policy had appertained here in the 60s! I think of the Bedford-Cambridge problem, for example.
If, ultimately, after all your deliberations you decide you must 'close' these lines, so be it. But for goodness sake don't destroy them as well! Who knows what the future holds?

 

[deltic08]

When I was a student (post-grad. Urban & Rural Planning) in the 60s we had a Canadian in the year-group. Transport planning was part of our remit, but the studies, as far as they went, were almost entirely road oriented – cars per household, origin and destination surveys, highway capacity, road and junction design, parking provision – that sort of thing. But I and my Canadian colleague, and one or two others in the group were well aware of the growing unease in academic circles about the unbridled growth of road traffic, and we, and others besides us, foresaw the problems of congestion we now experience. So we suggested, as part of the course project work, that a part of transport planning should require the protection of existing transport assets for the future, whether they were wanted just then or not. My Canadian friend talked about the rail closures he had seen in Canada, surprised that ''closure" in the UK also meant dismantlement and ultimate destruction of the asset.
"Why do you go to so much trouble to rip them up?" he asked me. " I dunno" I answered, then "So what do you do in Canada?"
"Leave 'em be - let 'em rust" he answered.
But we were only students, and the motor vehicles on roads was the way forward as far as officialdom was concerned. I remember Mrs. Thatcher, in some speech or other, proclaiming “The railway is old 19th century technology. Roads and road transport are 20th century technology” – or something like that.
But how grateful we would be today if the “Let ‘em rust” policy had appertained here in the 60s! I think of the Bedford-Cambridge problem, for example.
If, ultimately, after all your deliberations you decide you must 'close' these lines, so be it. But for goodness sake don't destroy them as well! Who knows what the future holds?

Well said and I couldn't agree more.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is a campaign at present, albeit a low-key one, to see this line re-opened and it's being seriously looked into by the local authorities from what I understand. There have been comparisons between Ripon and Ilkley - although one is a town and one a city, there is an argument that had the railway stayed in Ripon as it did in Ilkley, the railway would have enabled the town to flourish and become a true tourist hot spot.

Anyone who's local to the area will note the success of the 36 bus service - and it's the only public transport option for Ripon - Leeds. There's every reason to believe that re-instating the line to Ripon - and then Northallerton I suppose - could be a big success. If fares were competitive with the busses you'd not only have the tourists, but also the elderly, those wishing to visit Fountains Abbey/Studley Royal, school kids (large numbers travel from Ripon to Harrogate - one school has about 6-8 coaches of school kids coming from Ripon each day) as well as commuters.

It depends on your definition of successful. The number 36 bus from Ripon to Harrogate is only "successful" because it is heavily subsidised by bus pass concessions, 553,000 in 2012. Buses outside the peaks, every 15 minutes, only have a handful of passengers and they are mostly bus pass holders.

Bought tickets are expensive as there is no rail competition but on the Harrogate-Leeds leg of the 36, fares are much cheaper due to parallel rail route.

There is a campaign to reduce the service to Ripon by half due to the pollution from slow moving buses in the narrow streets in the centre of Ripon.

Bus services to the North of Ripon are almost non existent. Reinstating the railway from Ripon to Northallerton is just as urgent as the bigger flow south.

Time wise, the 36 cannot compete as the railway journey would be a third of the bus journey time due to traffic congestion in Harrogate and the tortuous nature of the A61 Ripon to Harrogate road where there have been 24 fatalities in 14 years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm beginning to wish I'd never started this thread!
Meanwhile, just been on a train - intercity Virgin - which had about 20 on it, and it's been like that every time I've used it, save for big football games. 1840 Glasgow-Birmingham. AFAIK it's the last train back to England (beyond Carlisle)on a Saturday, dunno why it's doesn't carry on to Euston and possibly have more pax?
I'm glad it runs, it's invaluable, but isn't it a bit early to be the last train back to England (beyond Ca......) on a Saturday??

Don't say that. Discussion is what a Forum is all about.

Service frequency is all about demographics. Southbound services from Edinburgh are much later, 2100 to Leeds on weekdays, because of the greater population down the northern part of the ECML.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Lorries would have caused no damage because the coal would almost certainly have been shipped via Coasters (coastal freighters/barges).
It would never be moved by road. QUOTE

Why is it not shipped by coasters now? Is it because rail is the most effective mode?

 

[HSTEd]

The problem is, even if you could make a case for essentially extending Harrogate line services to Ripon, even electrifying it as an extension of the eventual Harrogate line project - there is absolutely no way to continue north of Ripon, as far as I can tell from Google Earth the alignment has been annihilated.

Additionally there doesn't really seem to anything to serve north of Ripon, a handful of villages that would likely struggle to justify a tram stop, thats all.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Greenford branch? The trains are always near-enough empty once they come off the mainline, it's the quickest route to nowhere, and frequency is far poorer than the alternative Central line. Useful for diversions though

 

[St Rollox]

I remember post Beeching when almost every station seemed to be staffed 18 hours a day.
In my little patch of this island there was 3 very small stations on a branch line that had the buildings to go with them.
That was 7 days a week with workers wages to go with it.
Now one ticket collector working the branch/line junction saves ScotRail at guess £200,000 a year in wages etc.
That's were Beeching made the biggest mistake.
The system was totally overmanned.

 

[Murph]

I don't really think its fair to add the population of the Orkney Islands to the Railway's population figures considering that the Pentland Firth still doesn't have a fixed crossing.
Is there even a connecting bus from the ferry terminal to the railway station?

There is a bus between Thurso and Scrabster, but the ferry people recommend a taxi. Thurso is the local mainland transport hub for the Orkneys. The relatively unique circumstances maybe mean that the weighting of the population should be other than 1:1, but I think the additional 20,000 people served via Thurso have to be considered, and are a significant factor for transport planning. It's just plain wrong to completely discount that population. If the planning is done properly, ensuring that there's good connections between arrivals and departures for the ferry connection, it should be quite fair to consider the ferry as an extension of the railway to Thurso. It's only 1.5 miles from Thurso to Scrabster, so it's physically a very close connection.

Apart from anything else, politically there's no way that Holyrood would allow the line to close (it's up to them, not DfT). You'll find plenty of support in the Scottish central belt for transport infrastructure to support the Highlands, islands, and far north.

 

[Requeststop]

West Highland Line is one of the busiest rural lines in the country and generates very large numbers of tourists which are a huge part of the areas local economy.

You'd be completely mad to contemplate closing it.

Whitby is interesting in that as you point out it's slower than bus if you're coming from the south. However this is much less of an issue from North East and within the Esk Valley itself the train is both quicker and more reliable. Just because it doesn't serve Leeds well doesn't mean it doesn't serve anyone.

Far North line is tricky. Passenger numbers on the south of the line have grown strongly with an increase in Inverness commuters and the new stations at Beauly and Conon Bridge. Commuter traffic is strong at least as far as Tain and journey times are competitive to Lairg so the Invergordon cut off suggestion is daft.

Kyle is also very important for tourists and not much slower than the coach.

There is an issue with Caithness traffic as the bus is significantly quicker, especially to Wick. The solution is probably a combination of some upgrades to infrastructure to enable faster journey times (especially the RETB, points and level crossings), Closure of some of the less useful stations (Culrain, Kildonan, Kinbrace, Scotscalder, Georgemas Junction) and a new north - west chord at Georgemas to allow direct running to Thurso without reversal.

Ultimately you could possibly justify closure of the Wick branch but the marginal cost of operating it is probably very low so I'd keep it open but focus journey time improvements on Thurso where it's easier to compete and the link to the Orkneys adds to its strategic value.

I've covered the Far North line twice in my life and enjoyed the experiences both times. Wasn't the line saved from the Beeching axe due to the need for the nuclear fuel to be supplied to the Dounreay site and the removal of the spent fuel. I know the site is being decommissioned presently and that it was a major employer of the residents of Thurso.

The trains used to split at Georgemas, but now run to Thurso and then back to Wick before returning back to Thurso, Georgemas and then back south again. Is there any evidence of increased passenger numbers between Thurso and Wick or is there some sort of local emnity between the towns on similar terms as I am aware of between Penance and St Ives?

 

[21C101]

To be fair its all academic anyway as none of the main political parties have got any bottle to contemplate any significant closures at present, the one thing I would say about reopening of lines, is that I'm not against a one off cost to fund the building of the line but beyond that once opened any new line should be able to cover its running costs, we should not be increasing the subsidy burden.

It won't be off the agenda when the continuing £100bn a year deficit with the national debt heading for £2tn comes home to roost and the economy implodes Greece style in a few years
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Have I strayed onto a Road Forum hosted by Jeremy Clarkson (although even he rates I.K. Brunel)?

I think the phrase is "Do Not Feed"