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

[TheKnightWho]

So your saying that you can only have one opinion on here, and if its not in line with the majority on this forum its demonstrably wrong, Interesting, well it gives you a handy hate figure if nothing else

"By all means, state your opinion. We'll just state ours right back, insults and all."

Yes, that's obviously what I said. You're not helping your credentials here.

 

[Greenback]

So your saying that you can only have one opinion on here, and if its not in line with the majority on this forum its demonstrably wrong, Interesting, well it gives you a handy hate figure if nothing else

It's fine to have an opinion and to express it here, providing you abide by the rules. When others don't agree with your opinions insulting them and calling them names is not acceptable.

 

[Lankyline]

What has to be remembered is that when Beeching wrote his report, car ownership & travel was becoming more & more popular and like all governments courting popularity they encouraged this, helped of course by having a transport minister with vested interests in road building namely Marples.

Add in railways not allowed to compete for freight business, under investment etc you can see how railways were screwed. Beechings vision was essentially profitable intercity routes, with cars & buses taking up the slack in rural routes.

 

[alex17595]

Now we'll not have anyone proposing to close Altnabreac thank you! Flow country tourism potential needs enhancing but we'll not see it closing without a fight!

The others make sense but you'd have to keep one of Culrain/Invershin. Kinbrace also an option but as you say it does have some limited utility as well.

Dornoch is so expensive it's not realistic to even suggest it at present. If all the other work was done, journey times cut and numbers increased then maybe it could be on the cards in 20 years time...

I went to altnabreac earlier, It was lovely! (And only 20 minuites wait to go back as well.) Is there any point in closing request stops though, the majority of the time you go straight through anyway. The train was pretty much dead north of lairg and about 3 people between Thurso and Wick. The line could do with some P.R though to raise awareness of its existence, may be the snow has improved it or something.

 

[Bantamzen]

The evidence from the Conwy Valley is that sometimes at least people prefer the bus. The unsubsidised, frequent bus seems to have taken a lot of custom from the heavily-subsidised, infrequent train.

But you have explained why the bus is preferable, because it's more frequent. What would it be like if the trains ran as frequently as the bus? An example where I am is the Bradford FS - Ilkley service. This started to run half hourly, and used to be replicated by a hourly bus service, with another hourly service running along a longer route but still serving most of the areas along the line. Now the train still runs at 2ph, but both bus services are long since gone.

 

[47802]

I went to altnabreac earlier, It was lovely! (And only 20 minuites wait to go back as well.) Is there any point in closing request stops though, the majority of the time you go straight through anyway. The train was pretty much dead north of lairg and about 3 people between Thurso and Wick. The line could do with some P.R though to raise awareness of its existence, may be the snow has improved it or something.

I would love to see the economics of the Far North Line the subsidy must be huge.

The journey time to Wick and Thurso is uncompetitive with the Bus thanks to the Dornoch Bridge, and the A9 has significantly improved since the days when closure was considered.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But you have explained why the bus is preferable, because it's more frequent. What would it be like if the trains ran as frequently as the bus? An example where I am is the Bradford FS - Ilkley service. This started to run half hourly, and used to be replicated by a hourly bus service, with another hourly service running along a longer route but still serving most of the areas along the line. Now the train still runs at 2ph, but both bus services are long since gone.

I think you would struggle to get a half hourly service over the single track Conwy line, and actually finding additional diesel trains at the moment.

There have been 2 occasion's where I have had the option to commute by bus or train, on both occasions I opted more for the bus mainly because the frequency and reliability of the bus service was better than the train at the time.

 

[alex17595]

I would love to see the economics of the Far North Line the subsidy must be huge.

The journey time to Wick and Thurso is uncompetitive with the Bus thanks to the Dornoch Bridge, and the A9 has significantly improved since the days when closure was considered.

I don't think the far north line subsidy would be too high. There is no staff apart from Thurso and Wick (north of Dingwall), Not many signals to bother with only a few lights telling the driver if the points are set. Quite a few AHB crossings - they haven't bothered with lights or barriers.

The train I'm on now is fairly well loaded but you could probably fit everyone on to a dogbox .

At least a benefit of the train is it has less problems with weather eapecially at this time of year some of the roads look pretty bad.

 

[47802]

I don't think the far north line subsidy would be too high. There is no staff apart from Thurso and Wick (north of Dingwall), Not many signals to bother with only a few lights telling the driver if the points are set. Quite a few AHB crossings - they haven't bothered with lights or barriers.

The train I'm on now is fairly well loaded but you could probably fit everyone on to a dogbox .

At least a benefit of the train is it has less problems with weather eapecially at this time of year some of the roads look pretty bad.

Still have to maintain the Radio signalling and the 167 miles of track not counting the Kyle line, with the last 100 miles of track beyond Lairg being maintained for 4 trains per day each way.

 

[alex17595]

4 trains a day would require very little maintenance. The fact its mainly jointed means you just need a track gang to replace rail and sleepers, no stressing. I guess they send some guys out to grease fishplates and points.

It probably gets second hand rail anyway.

 

[Greenback]

There have been 2 occasion's where I have had the option to commute by bus or train, on both occasions I opted more for the bus mainly because the frequency and reliability of the bus service was better than the train at the time.

You can't use your two occasions as definitive evidence that the bus is always better. I've been in a similar position twice as well, but with different results.

Mostly, I've had no choice but to commute by bus. I've found the buses to be highly unreliable in terms of punctuality and turning up at all. They have also run past me without stopping when they were full, and on one memorable occasion due to cancellations and buses not stopping, I was waiting for 40 mins for a bus on a route that had a 10 minute frequency plus extras. It was pouring with rain too and the shelter was predictably full!

Where I've had the choice I've found train wins. One of these times there was an hourly bus or a half hourly train, albeit with a slightly longer walk to the station. The return rail fare, at the time, was about £1, while the return bus fare was £1.50.

I can choose my rail or bus for my most recent commute too. The bus has a better frequency, but costs £7 odd for a day return, compared with £5.50 for the train. A season ticket for the bus is also more expensive than the rail equivalent, but it does cover more services. The travel time for the bus is longer than the train for my particular journey, but it may not be for everyone, as it depends on where they work in Swansea.

So, I don't demand that buses be withdrawn because they don't suit my purposes. I recognise that they will be useful for some people, and I believe that it's good to keep services going on the grounds of social need, as otherwise it's likely to cost us all far more in the long run in having to deal with the consequences of isolation and the resulting associated problems, which includes access to health care.

The train I'm on now is fairly well loaded but you could probably fit everyone on to a dogbox .

It's not exactly a popular time of year for leisure travel either. The dark days and inclement weather ensure that January and February are probably the quietest months for travel on these sort of lines.

When I've travelled on the Kyle line later in the year (various trips from March to October since 1992) it's been very well loaded, and the Far North, though quieter, hasn't been far behind. On the latter line, there seems to be a lot more shorter, local journeys than the former.

At least a benefit of the train is it has less problems with weather eapecially at this time of year some of the roads look pretty bad.

And not only that, but from the potential customers point of view the train also has the advantage of connectivity via through tickets and compensation for being delayed, for instance.

Still have to maintain the Radio signalling and the 167 miles of track not counting the Kyle line, with the last 100 miles of track beyond Lairg being maintained for 4 trains per day each way.

No one is saying that there aren't costs in keeping railway lines open. What is being asked is whether the amounts are anywhere near what you describe, but don't define, as 'huge'.

 

[D6975]

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.

Well said that man..

If you're going to ignore people just because they're at the other end of a ferry ride, then what's the future for:
Holyhead (line beyond Bangor)
Heysham (beyond Morecambe)
Fishguard Harbour
Lymington Pier (last bit from the town)
none of which has a huge population.

In the case of Lymington Pier, I'd guess that 95%+ of passengers are getting on/off the IOW ferry.

 

[deltic08]

Or perhaps after the intense S&C campaign they were effectively scared off hence the parliamentary and token services that there are. If you think I'm being provocative to fuel my own ego then so be it, I'm simply saying there is a different point of view to the status quo that all the current network should be maintained regardless of cost.

Yes, it was intense. 25,000 objections were received by the TUCC, the most received before or since for a proposed closure. As a member of the campaign committee who spent a lot of voluntary time and money on keeping the S&C open, not for ideological reasons, but logical reasons that it provided a service and a third route from Scotland for traffic unable to use the West and East Coast lines. We were future-proofing as you never know what will happen in the future. Who would have thought even ten years ago how much growth there would be on the railways.

I have mentioned previously on this thread that apart from the almost hourly passenger service between Leeds and Carlisle, there are currently 43 MGR coal trains and empties each way daily. Hardly an insignificant amount of traffic and more than a lot of other routes

I worked for 40 years for the NHS. If I took the same attitude you take towards railways, I would not have treated patients who smoked, drank to excess and who are obese because these were self inflicted illnesses and cost the NHS £billions annually. There would be an outcry just as us rail supporters are objecting to your attitude.

 

[47802]

No one is saying that there aren't costs in keeping railway lines open. What is being asked is whether the amounts are anywhere near what you describe, but don't define, as 'huge'.

Well that's why it would good to actual see the figures for some of these lines, I don't doubt there are some grounds for social need but it shouldn't have an unlimited price tag, I've no doubt you could claim some sort of social need for most of the lines that have closed over the years, but the mind boggles as what the subsidy would be if many of these lines hadn't closed.

No the bus is not better for all journeys by a long way, but for some its an acceptable alternative, and probably more cost effective

 

[Greenback]

I do agree that there are some lines that might be better served by bus if some sort of through ticketing and similar consumer protection can be guaranteed.

The problem, as I see it, is identifying which lines these are, and finding a consensus about what level of cost or subsidy is too high rather than worth it. I think it may be almost impossible to reach that consensus, as what you regard as huge, for example, may not be seen in the same light by everyone else.

I think it will also be very difficult to establish how much revenue can be attributed to individual lines.

I think what we have at the moment is probably a good balance. I'm against reopenings such as Aberystwyth to Carmarthen, as I don't deem it as value for money. Others think it is, though they are in the minority as far as I can see. But I don;t regard myself as someone who thinks no line should ever be closed and that we should be reopening all sorts of routes no matter what the cost. But there remain real, practical difficulties with suggesting that a line or lines should be shut because the subsidy is too high.

 

[UrbanWorld]

A line that does not make its running costs on ticket sales does not mean it is not economically viable. These lines create economic growth in the communities they serve. That growth is not taken into the figures.

 

[HSTEd]

How will the S&C cope if the projected phase out of coalappens and far less material has to be moved over it?
That starts to erode the case for maintaining a largely double track line through the middle of nowhere.

Singling beckons.

 

[TheKnightWho]

How will the S&C cope if the projected phase out of coalappens and far less material has to be moved over it?
That starts to erode the case for maintaining a largely double track line through the middle of nowhere.

Singling beckons.

Or maybe we shouldn't do large, expensive-to-reverse infrastructure changes because the price of coal is currently quite low?

Coal doesn't only sell in this country, and do you seriously think that's going to happen in the next ten years? They have double track lines over equally rural lines all over the place - it's hardly an expensive maintenance cost, as was found during all the singlings last century.

 

[RichmondCommu]

How will the S&C cope if the projected phase out of coalappens and far less material has to be moved over it?
That starts to erode the case for maintaining a largely double track line through the middle of nowhere.

Singling beckons.

History has clearly taught you very little, if indeed anything. The MML slow lines were singled or in some cases completely removed in the 1980's and are now being re-installed at great expense. The same can also be said for the route running through the Cotswolds.

 

[Greenback]

I hope that history has taught the decision makers something!

 

[tbtc]

It’s a shame that we can’t have any discussion about services/ lines that are poor uses of resources without triggering a hysterical reaction along the lines of “THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT BEECHING WOULD HAVE DONE – I SUPPOSE YOU WANT TO CLOSE DOWN EVERY NON-INTER-CITY ROUTE” etc...

For me, there are some busy routes that we need to throw some additional resources at. There are some where we are using scarce stock inefficiently. I’m not suggesting that we close every branch line down or kill anyone’s first-born (despite the reaction of some!), just that in some places the resources that we have could be better used.

Yes, railways are a “public service”, but that shouldn’t mean that they are inflexible – enthusiasts like to use the “public service” defence as an excuse to prop up any failing station/line.

Should every village have it's own police station/ fire station/ hospital/ library/ post office too? These are "public services", but I think that most people accept that not every place warrants all of them.

If every time someone suggests a potential cut you are going to come back with “but if we threw lots of resources at it, it’d get more passengers” then I think you are in denial, sorry.

I also don’t buy the “any cut will impact on the wider network” argument – you could close the least used hundred stations today and wouldn’t even notice it when next year’s UK wide figures are published – you could prune a few leaves without affecting the overall health of the tree.

It's laughable to cite a route such as Goole - Knottingley, a route with a next to useless service of two trains one way and one train another as being an example of a service with low patronage. Of course it has low patronage - it has barely any trains

Yes, ridiculously low patronage, and its seen its services drop because passenger numbers weren’t enough to warrant that level of service (and the resources could have been better used elsewhere.

Eventually there comes a point where you surely have to accept that some things aren’t a worthwhile use of a train (and that resource could be used better elsewhere – e.g. returning back to Leeds to run another service instead of trundling to Goole for the sake of one man and his dog) – some markets just aren’t suited to mass transportation.

But if you can’t accept that this line isn’t worth the candle then there seems little point in trying to have a reasonable discussion about other lines (?).

I myself am likely to stop off at Ribblehead today, yet because I will be breaking my journey, it is unlikely that my use of the station will be included in the flawed statistics

The statistics don’t back up your prejudices, so the statistics must be wrong?

The ones that we have seem to be a fair representation (unless you’ve got a better alternative?).

A few people will break journeys at places like Ribblehead, but I’d suggest that significantly more people will break journeys at stations with already high passenger numbers (e.g. Leeds).

Just because you don’t use the Barton branch, doesn't mean that others don't

I didn’t say that *nobody* used it (you’re putting words into my mouth yet again...), just that the numbers don’t seem high enough to warrant a dedicated train.

you moan at me saying lines should stay open, yet I went out on a limb to.name potential closures

Well, which is it?

I agree that there are those who have their heads in the clouds and not willing to be objective and rational with these things. But I'm always wary about people citing station usage statistics as an indicator of patronage. Such figures are based on ticket sales. All of these stations, save Appleby, are unstaffed and I'm afraid to say the Northern guards 50% won't bother to walk through the train and sell you a ticket. I've regally witnessed people boarding the train and later get off without purchasing a ticket. If I wasn't so honest (sorry to be smug) I could have avoided paying for tickets from Hellifield about 50% of the time (no offence guards, but there are a proportion of you who just sit in the back cab and read the paper, and only get out to open the doors). So patronage is likely to be far higher than the statistics suggest. I imagine this to be the situation on any of the lines mentioned which are predominately served by unstaffed stations

I agree (and, as someone who always pays for his own ticket, I get frustrated with ticketless travel), but the statistics are the only decent “benchmark” we have.

The alternatives are things like arguing about population sizes (which is no indicator of how busy a station will be, given that many people stay within their town’s boundaries) or anecdotal evidence (we have a few posters on here who think that the “anecdote plus anecdote = data” or "number of people who'll sign a petition", but I’d trust the cold statistics over the “I took a train to the seaside last summer and the train was really busy” line of argument.

Additionally this line is very much affected by seasonal demand. Some of the smaller stations (Horton, Ribblehead, Dent, Garsdale) will get very few passengers during the autumn and winter as the main clientele are walkers and tourists. The annual statistics distort the actual level of demand. Unfortunately as such seasonal changes are not recorded, it is not possible to tailor services accordingly

This is a tricky one to solve (seasonal demand on a relatively inflexible railway – do you keep spare stock for ten months of the year for the sake of a couple of busy summer months – do you reduce capacity on “non tourist” lines to borrow stock for Scarborough/ Blackpool/ Skegness?).

But then, if we accept that the main clientele are walkers and tourists for leisure purposes (and attribute a significant proportion of the station usage statistics to those groups) then that means even fewer “locals” using the trains, which presumably means that there’s less of the “community lifeline” argument.

Like Beeching, you're looking at it purely from an accountant's point of view and not seeing the wider picture. Railways have other societal benefits besides pure bums on seats - as has been pointed out many times and as government recognises.

Accusing your opponents of being “like Beeching” is at the playground insults end of the spectrum and doesn’t help your argument.

It is possible to think that some lines are a poor use of resources without signing up to the Beeching/ Serpel agenda!

The reality of the 21st century is that rail travel is more popular than at any time in the past 100 years and even with low oil/petrol prices (which will go back up sooner rather than later) the growth in passenger numbers continues year after year.

...and yet, despite this enormous growth, there are almost fifty stations that see fewer than the equivalent of one departing passenger a day (i.e. 720 entries and exits pa). Or, around seventy stations that see the equivalent of fewer than two departing passengers a day.

If the numbers at these stations are still rubbish (after decades of continued national growth) then maybe we should accept that not every station has a future?

If people can’t accept that then is there any debate to have?

Thurso serves 28,000 people. Add in Wick, and it's roughly 35,000. That's well above the ATOC criteria mentioned earlier. The only problem I see with the line is that the service frequency is probably too low, and a higher frequency might well improve popularity of the service.

The “if you increased the frequency, you’d get more passengers” argument applies to every line though.

I agree that Thurso and Wick look to be large enough places on paper to warrant a train station but they are a considerable distance from any other towns with large populations, which is more important in a railway perspective.

I’ve wondered in the past whether they are large enough to sustain some “local” services (i.e. a shuttle between the two, rather than everything running through to Inverness), but I think that the timings are too awkward for a clockface service (?).

The passenger numbers aren’t huge (63 departing passengers per day at Thurso, 31 at Wick – which suggests that the ferry market must be quite significant for the smaller town of Thurso to have roughly double the passenger numbers), though I can’t see the Far North ever closing – it’s far too symbolic a route – it’d be political suicide.

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

Around a hundred and fifty departing passengers per day, though I don’t know if this includes the significant number of school kids? Probably not, I’d guess.

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

That sounds a reasonable benchmark for future reopenings.

Whilst we are stuck with a number of weak lines/ weak stations, that’s no excuse not to have a more rigorous threshold for any new ones.

If Metrolink can run without operating subsidies in Manchester (replacing train lines that needed subsidies) then maybe we should apply the same threshold to "new" lines.

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

Yes, that is a concern.

I don’t think that enthusiasts appreciate how lucky the railway has been to get a significant increase in investment at a time when austerity is savaging many other public services.

All the moaning about descoping of proposed passing loops or six month delays in certain projects needs to be seen in the context of Government cuts – railways have been very very lucky.

What are you doing on a railway forum, if you insult the members and get rid of something that would hurt a lot of the nation?

I believe someone needs their membership reviewed.

Is there any need to get that personal, just because someone disagrees with your opinion?

This thread has clearly rattled some people.

Thats true for half of it - but it almost certainly wouldn't have gone all the way to Tweedbank if not for some good old pork-barrel spending.

Yes, something lost on many people.

The railway south of Gorebridge is only being built as the price of political coalition a decade ago – frustratingly the line through Midlothian would have been in operation for a few years now if it weren’t hamstrung by the conditions of this political fudge (the terms of which forbade running services to the busy Dalkeith section of the line until they were running to the rural Borders end too, since they were worried that the railway would find an excuse to stop building after reaching Gorebridge).

I see Beeching still being blamed for the closures, in case anyone forgot he wrote the report & both Tory & Labour govts actually sanctioned closures. And if you want to get political Labour promised to reverse closures as an election promise yet under Barbara Castle closed more railway mileage than Tories.

Lets not forget that a significant number of lines were shut in the 1950's before Beeching, and while his final plan was too severe, some of it bearing in mind the time period of the early 1960's rather than today was correct.

I agree with both of the posts above.

However most enthusiasts find it easier to blame one person (or conspiracy) rather than accept that the reality of the 1960s were of a haemorrhaging railway that needed some surgery.

But I see people blame Beeching for anything and everything on the railways, even closures like Woodhead in the 1980s.

I'm surprised no-one's made the point that if you close the various loss-making branch lines, suddenly, the Intercity trunk routes start being loss-making too. This was one of the key failings of Beeching. If you force people to get in their cars, they'll just make the whole journey by car, which means less revenue for the Intercity services.

This was one of the main reasons some of the big franchises were "lumped together", like Greater Western, Greater Anglia etc. This allows a vaguely accurate representation of how much a sector of the railways is doing (ie: -£X Million on Local Service +£X Million on Intercity = +/- £X Million for network). Do you think East Coast and West Coast would make as much money without a large feeder network from Northern, London Midland, East Midlands etc?

I agree that there are people using the branches who go on to use the “main line” services, but I think that this does get overstated by enthusiasts.

I’d be genuinely interested to know what percentage of people travelling from London to Sheffield/ Manchester/ Leeds/ Cardiff (etc) are finishing their railway journey at that city compared to the percentage who are connecting onto branch lines. The swell in numbers at the Leeds/ Sheffield taxi ranks/ parking when a London train has arrived suggests that quite a few aren’t continuing their journey on a branch line.

Yes, it was intense. 25,000 objections were received by the TUCC, the most received before or since for a proposed closure

Not many of those 25,000 seem to use the intermediate stations very often, according to the statistics though.

I have mentioned previously on this thread that apart from the almost hourly passenger service between Leeds and Carlisle, there are currently 43 MGR coal trains and empties each way daily. Hardly an insignificant amount of traffic and more than a lot of other routes

Almost hourly?

Leaving Carlisle you have:

05:50
08:53
11:55
14:04
15:05
16:18
18:14

Leaving Leeds you have:

05:29
08:49
09:47
10:49
12:49
14:49
18:06

To me, that looks like a train every two hours (with one extra northbound departure mid-morning and a mid-afternoon departure southbound, but with some gaps of over two hours at other times).

We can all do the “glass half full”/ “half empty” argument, but to claim that the S&C sees an “almost hourly” service is stretching things a bit far!

I worked for 40 years for the NHS. If I took the same attitude you take towards railways, I would not have treated patients who smoked, drank to excess and who are obese because these were self inflicted illnesses and cost the NHS £billions annually. There would be an outcry just as us rail supporters are objecting to your attitude.

The NHS are great for cost/benefit ratios – look at the way that NICE fairly assess quality of drugs against price – and sometimes remove approved drugs from their list when things change – nothing is set in stone.

However, were the NHS run like the railways, we’d be spending money on drugs that were thought appropriate in the nineteenth century and then wondering why there wasn’t anything in the budget to tackle more modern problems.

Anyone for leeches?

 

[Freightmaster]

(the largest, most well thought-out post I have ever seen on this forum! hock: )

In particular:

I don’t think that enthusiasts appreciate how lucky the railway has been to get a significant increase in investment at a time when austerity is savaging many other public services.

Not just public services, but private ones such as High Street banks, etc.


Why on earth should railways be a special case, immune from cutbacks? :roll:


MARK

 

[W230]

in response to tbtc...

Quite. I couldn't agree more. I get so bored of the Beeching conspiracy theory debate. Some closures were short sighted, some closures were right and some didn't go far enough.

But irrespective of this, it was a totally different era in the 60's. People quote Beeching as being short sighted back then and later BR when track beds were then sold off preventing modern day re-openings etc etc. The benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing but no-one thought there was much future in the railways. It really is that simple.

Nobody wanted trains, everybody wanted cars. Yes things are different now. But I don't think you can complain about decisions made years ago with nearly half a century of hindsight!

Furthermore (as much as I would hate to see any line closed), some lines are simply not a reasonable use of money or resources. This is (was) a discussion into those lines...

 

[Greenback]

Quite. I couldn't agree more. I get so bored of the Beeching conspiracy theory debate. Some closures were short sighted, some closures were right and some didn't go far enough.

I agree with this. There seemed to be quite a lot of inconsistency in terms of what was closed, and what was left open. Some of the decisions seem rather baffling to me.

But irrespective of this, it was a totally different era in the 60's. People quote Beeching as being short sighted back then and later BR when track beds were then sold off preventing modern day re-openings etc etc. The benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing but no-one thought there was much future in the railways. It really is that simple.

This is something I've mentioned quite a few times. At that time, railways, rightly or wrongly were seen as old fashioned and outdated.

Nobody wanted trains, everybody wanted cars. Yes things are different now. But I don't think you can complain about decisions made years ago with nearly half a century of hindsight!

I agree, but I do think we can argue about some of the decisions, or at least how they came to be made!

Furthermore (as much as I would hate to see any line closed), some lines are simply not a reasonable use of money or resources. This is (was) a discussion into those lines...

As I said previously, any such debate needs to have some sort of definition as to what reasonable is, and would still face the problem of knowing what the actual costs and subsidy is for individual lines or even sections of lines.

For instance, I could argue that the line to Pembroke Dock should be cut back to Tenby, but how much does that bit of line actually cost? And how much does it earn? Even if we can accurately establish those facts we would then have to compare these figures with other lines or sections to establish whether it falls within what could be considered as providing value for money in comparison, in order to consider whether it's worth retaining it or whether other lines provide less value. And for that we'd need analyses on all sorts of demographics as well alternative transport, at the very least.

Otherwise, we can just stick to saying things like so and so line must cost a fortune, or, why not close the xxx branch, no one used it when I travelled on it.

Unfortunately, as far as I can see it, such suggestions have about as much merit and supporting evidence as a proposal to reopen a line like the Gwendraeth valley and then electrify it.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, ridiculously low patronage, and its seen its services drop because passenger numbers weren’t enough to warrant that level of service (and the resources could have been better used elsewhere.

Eventually there comes a point where you surely have to accept that some things aren’t a worthwhile use of a train (and that resource could be used better elsewhere – e.g. returning back to Leeds to run another service instead of trundling to Goole for the sake of one man and his dog) – some markets just aren’t suited to mass transportation.

But if you can’t accept that this line isn’t worth the candle then there seems little point in trying to have a reasonable discussion about other lines (?).

Sorry, but you simply can't make a reasonable case for closure on three trains (not even in the same direction) a day.

The statistics don’t back up your prejudices, so the statistics must be wrong?

The ones that we have seem to be a fair representation (unless you’ve got a better alternative?).

A few people will break journeys at places like Ribblehead, but I’d suggest that significantly more people will break journeys at stations with already high passenger numbers (e.g. Leeds).

Well, I'm not sure my experience counts as a "prejudice" but anyway, when it comes to smaller stations on routes like this, how much money are you going to save by closing it ? Given that these stations in particular get a lot of volunteer maintenance, they can't cost a lot to run. Why potentially damage the business case for the whole route by making a closure that won't even save you much anyway.

This is a tricky one to solve (seasonal demand on a relatively inflexible railway – do you keep spare stock for ten months of the year for the sake of a couple of busy summer months – do you reduce capacity on “non tourist” lines to borrow stock for Scarborough/ Blackpool/ Skegness?).

But then, if we accept that the main clientele are walkers and tourists for leisure purposes (and attribute a significant proportion of the station usage statistics to those groups) then that means even fewer “locals” using the trains, which presumably means that there’s less of the “community lifeline” argument.

But if those walkers and tourists are spending money in the local area, then they make it just as much of a lifeline to local communities as when the community uses it itself.

You quite often seem to try and compartmentalise routes into being "a community lifeline" or a "tourist line" or a "commuter line" when infact the railway often serves more than one purpose or market. The S&C is a great illustration of this.

I agree that there are people using the branches who go on to use the “main line” services, but I think that this does get overstated by enthusiasts.

I think this point has traditionally been understated. With Beeching most notably, but still to a large extent.

Maybe this is because traditionally many people have used the train to commute and the car for everything else, but at the moment, there are more and more people for whom the railway is the main longer/middle distance form of transport, and for that, you need a network. It won't take much hacking away to destroy that utility.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nobody wanted trains, everybody wanted cars. Yes things are different now. But I don't think you can complain about decisions made years ago with nearly half a century of hindsight!

That's quite an oversimplification.

Plenty of people used the train then, many objected to some of the closures. The reality is that the only criteria on which a railway was judged was:

a) whether it was profitable as an independent unit.
b) whether it's withdrawal would cause considerable "hardship".

That's quite a limited criteria on which to judge a route. Nothing like whether the route was vital to the tourist industry, or was a boost to the economy, or whether a new town was about to be built there etc etc.

Furthermore (as much as I would hate to see any line closed), some lines are simply not a reasonable use of money or resources. This is (was) a discussion into those lines...

Well, a lot of people weigh in with these suggestions, however, once you get into the nitty gritty of what a route actually costs, it all gets a bit more complicated. The Northern Subsidy thread is a good illustration of this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or maybe we shouldn't do large, expensive-to-reverse infrastructure changes because the price of coal is currently quite low?

Coal doesn't only sell in this country, and do you seriously think that's going to happen in the next ten years? They have double track lines over equally rural lines all over the place - it's hardly an expensive maintenance cost, as was found during all the singlings last century.

It's a tricky one certainly.

To my untrained eye, re-doubling of an existing, previously double route shouldn't cost as much as it seems to. Yet, I can think of a few lines for which I am grateful, which might not have survived without it.

I think it's one of those cases where we need to learn from past experience that it doesn't save as much, nor is it as easy to reverse as was originally thought !

 

[HSTEd]

Or maybe we shouldn't do large, expensive-to-reverse infrastructure changes because the price of coal is currently quite low?

Wait what?
The Coal is all imported, so low prices would cause us to continue importing coal and burning it.
With the impending end of all significant coal extraction in Britain the structural changes in the coal market will make it impractical to ship coal the length of the country on trains anyway.

Coal doesn't only sell in this country, and do you seriously think that's going to happen in the next ten years? They have double track lines over equally rural lines all over the place - it's hardly an expensive maintenance cost, as was found during all the singlings last century.

Well the Combustion Plants directive will soon force the shutdown of all almost all available coal generating capacity, and as we saw at Kingsnorth, new coal plant is a practical impossibility.
And they may hve double track lines in the middle of nowhere in other places, but those other places tend to haemmorhage vast amounts of money maintaining them just for the sake of maintaining them.

History has clearly taught you very little, if indeed anything. The MML slow lines were singled or in some cases completely removed in the 1980's and are now being re-installed at great expense. The same can also be said for the route running through the Cotswolds.

Yes, and are being reinstalled because of massive structural subsidies to the rail freight business in order to produce the idea that the country is more 'green' than it was.

Not only will the demise of coal traffic reduce the S&C to a sleepy backwater, but the construction of HS2 to Scotland (which will happen for political reasons) will gut the passenger traffic on the upper WCML/ECML and thus free lots of paths on the superior, electric railways that lead to the North.
If, you proceed with rationalisation (as that is what it is), you can then drastically reduce the cost of the other major cost cutting technology available to us (single line through tunnels impoves overhead clearence), and we can deliver a modern electrified railway that will have capacity and operating costs more in keeping with its new role as a tourist/social railway.
And it would probably still have some reserve capacity for faster, electric hauled freight if you ever needed that again.

 

[DT611]

Wait what?
The Coal is all imported, so low prices would cause us to continue importing coal and burning it.
With the impending end of all significant coal extraction in Britain the structural changes in the coal market will make it impractical to ship coal the length of the country on trains anyway.


Well the Combustion Plants directive will soon force the shutdown of all almost all available coal generating capacity, and as we saw at Kingsnorth, new coal plant is a practical impossibility.
And they may hve double track lines in the middle of nowhere in other places, but those other places tend to haemmorhage vast amounts of money maintaining them just for the sake of maintaining them.



Yes, and are being reinstalled because of massive structural subsidies to the rail freight business in order to produce the idea that the country is more 'green' than it was.

Not only will the demise of coal traffic reduce the S&C to a sleepy backwater, but the construction of HS2 to Scotland (which will happen for political reasons) will gut the passenger traffic on the upper WCML/ECML and thus free lots of paths on the superior, electric railways that lead to the North.
If, you proceed with rationalisation (as that is what it is), you can then drastically reduce the cost of the other major cost cutting technology available to us (single line through tunnels impoves overhead clearence), and we can deliver a modern electrified railway that will have capacity and operating costs more in keeping with its new role as a tourist/social railway.
And it would probably still have some reserve capacity for faster, electric hauled freight if you ever needed that again.

and then in another few years, put it all back again. leave it alone.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Wait what?
The Coal is all imported, so low prices would cause us to continue importing coal and burning it.
With the impending end of all significant coal extraction in Britain the structural changes in the coal market will make it impractical to ship coal the length of the country on trains anyway.


Well the Combustion Plants directive will soon force the shutdown of all almost all available coal generating capacity, and as we saw at Kingsnorth, new coal plant is a practical impossibility.
And they may hve double track lines in the middle of nowhere in other places, but those other places tend to haemmorhage vast amounts of money maintaining them just for the sake of maintaining them.



Yes, and are being reinstalled because of massive structural subsidies to the rail freight business in order to produce the idea that the country is more 'green' than it was.

Not only will the demise of coal traffic reduce the S&C to a sleepy backwater, but the construction of HS2 to Scotland (which will happen for political reasons) will gut the passenger traffic on the upper WCML/ECML and thus free lots of paths on the superior, electric railways that lead to the North.
If, you proceed with rationalisation (as that is what it is), you can then drastically reduce the cost of the other major cost cutting technology available to us (single line through tunnels impoves overhead clearence), and we can deliver a modern electrified railway that will have capacity and operating costs more in keeping with its new role as a tourist/social railway.
And it would probably still have some reserve capacity for faster, electric hauled freight if you ever needed that again.

How much do you think double track really takes to maintain? It ain't much.

 

[yorksrob]

Well the Combustion Plants directive will soon force the shutdown of all almost all available coal generating capacity, and as we saw at Kingsnorth, new coal plant is a practical impossibility.
And they may hve double track lines in the middle of nowhere in other places, but those other places tend to haemmorhage vast amounts of money maintaining them just for the sake of maintaining them.

Although biomass is more bulky than coal, so a switch to that might retain some traffic

Not only will the demise of coal traffic reduce the S&C to a sleepy backwater, but the construction of HS2 to Scotland (which will happen for political reasons) will gut the passenger traffic on the upper WCML/ECML and thus free lots of paths on the superior, electric railways that lead to the North.
If, you proceed with rationalisation (as that is what it is), you can then drastically reduce the cost of the other major cost cutting technology available to us (single line through tunnels impoves overhead clearence), and we can deliver a modern electrified railway that will have capacity and operating costs more in keeping with its new role as a tourist/social railway.
And it would probably still have some reserve capacity for faster, electric hauled freight if you ever needed that again.

I do worry what effect HS2 will have on the viability of the classic network, particularly if some change in circumstance halts or reverses passenger growth.

It's an option to consider if we need it anyway.

 

[deltic08]

Twice the weight of biomass in needed to give the same calorific value as coal and because less dense than coal three times the volume so there will be at least twice as many trains of biomass as coal over the S&C. Say, 90 each way per day or four trains an hour day and night. Who said it would need to be singled. It would need resignalling with four aspect signals and 5 minute headways.

More would have to travel through the night as the limiting factor is the intensity of passenger trains in the Aire Valley. 43 per day is about the maximum that can run east of Skipton.

It was discovered after singling from Blair Atholl to Dalwhinnie in 1966 that running trains both ways on a single jointed track caused more than the wear and maintenance cost of double track. It was to do with running trains in opposite directions at speed on the one track caused damage to fishplates/joints and chair chocks being vibrated out more frequently due to rail moving back and forth instead of being pushed in one direction only. Do not know if this applies to cwr and pandrol springs.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Yes, and are being reinstalled because of massive structural subsidies to the rail freight business in order to produce the idea that the country is more 'green' than it was.

Does that also apply to the route through the Cotswolds that I also mentioned?