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

[HSTEd]

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

So it must remain a double track but poorly signalled, slow and diesel operated anachronism in an increasingly streamlined and intensively operated network, as a hedge against some faint possibility that it will be needed again?

That sounds like a false benefit to me really.

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.

Except there has been little to no Biomass capacity built in recent times. Co-firing biomass doesn't really get you out of the Large Combustion Plant directive restrictions on operating hours - it just allows you to tap into a giant subsidy pot. The few coal plants that escape closure under the LCP tend to be closer to the sea and are unlikely to need ot ship coal over the S&C.
Now that nuclear has been destroyed by political interference and privatisation I am afraid the future is gas fired.
Also any large scale new biomass burner is likely to be built at a coastal or near coastal site, with the imported material delivered directly to the storage silos from the ship. Only the overhang of converted generation capacity prevents this from occuring now (which was largely laid in in a previous era when coal was moved twenty miles from the pit to the furnace).
See Kingsnorth as an example.

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.

Except there is no reason for this biomass to be shipped via this route once the new generators are brought on line with their dedicated unloading piers.
Electricity is a hell of a lot cheaper to move over these very short (comparitively) distances than biomass is.

 

[DT611]

So it must remain a double track but poorly signalled, slow and diesel operated anachronism in an increasingly streamlined and intensively operated network, as a hedge against some faint possibility that it will be needed again?

That sounds like a false benefit to me really.

electrify it and put in whatever the latist signalling is and hook it up to a signalling centre and up speeds where possible if you want. or leave it. what an intensively operated railway in full has to do with it i don't know. i do know singling it would be the hight of stupidity and history repeating itself for what? singling was proved to be a mistake and saved pittence but sure it probably looked good on paper to the relevant department/minister/whatever, while removing flexibility and costing more in the long term. That doesn't sound like, but definitely is a false benefit

 

[RichmondCommu]

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.

Now then just the other week you were busy telling everyone that the future electrification of our railway network was finished due to the future projections of the price of oil. So which one is it?

In terms of a HS line to Scotland, who exactly has the political will to do that? It would cost an awful lot of money and the bums on seats don't justify the expense. It would still be quicker to fly.

 

[HSTEd]

Now then just the other week you were busy telling everyone that the future electrification of our railway network was finished due to the future projections of the price of oil. So which one is it?

You have to remember there is a difference between what I think is the best option and what I think will actually happen. What I think is best would be total electrification - what I expect to happen is the thing I said last week.

In terms of a HS line to Scotland, who exactly has the political will to do that? It would cost an awful lot of money and the bums on seats don't justify the expense. It would still be quicker to fly.

It will be one of the many things Salmond (as future leader of the Westminster SNP) will extract from Ed Milliband as the price for putting him into Downing Street in May.

 

[RichmondCommu]

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.

A very good point well made. If you take a look at the LVG network in France, it has thrived whilst the classic network is in a permanent decline. The SNCF are still building LGV lines which don't stand a chance of being profitable. And I would suggest that the same could be said for a HS line to Scotland.

 

[HSTEd]

electrify it and put in whatever the latist signalling is and hook it up to a signalling centre and up speeds where possible if you want.

Can't electrify it in its current state as the tunnel clearance works will cost a fortune - single track through the tunnels and conductor rail and the cost of the gauge clearance works will drop drastically.
Ditto the overbridges on the more heavily populated ends of the line.

or leave it.

If we leave it you will have to accept that the railway will not recieve any significant improvements at any time, and it will suffer a downgrade by stealth as the signalling and track is renewed.

what an intensively operated railway in full has to do with it i don't know. i do know singling it would be the hight of stupidity and history repeating itself for what? singling was proved to be a mistake and saved pittence but sure it probably looked good on paper to the relevant department/minister/whatever, while removing flexibility and costing more in the long term. That doesn't sound like, but definitely is a false benefit

"Flexibility"? What Flexibility?
It is so slow as to be worthless as a passenger diversion for either the WCML or ECML - it doesn't actually serve any large conurbations or the like and the freight capacity argument will die with the coal traffic.
I am proposing a plan that will lead to a railway actually useful for its future functions rather than an ancient anachronism.
The future is an intensively operated railway with higher frequency services on clockface timetables - the S&C is not suitable for such operation at this time.

 

[RichmondCommu]

You have to remember there is a difference between what I think is the best option and what I think will actually happen. What I think is best would be total electrification - what I expect to happen is the thing I said last week.

In that case then you don't expect any more routes to be electrified. As you said last week.

It will be one of the many things Salmond (as future leader of the Westminster SNP) will extract from Ed Milliband as the price for putting him into Downing Street in May.

In terms of priorities for the SNP a high speed line to Scotland will be a very low priority. It certainly wasn't one of the carrots offered to the Scots prior to the election. The closure of the naval base at Faslane is much more important to the SNP.

 

[HSTEd]

The SNP don't want Faslane closed - their actual position is that Trident will be disposed of and the base will remain as a conventional naval base. Closing the base would destroy the economy of the local area so if they said that they would serious electoral issues in the area.

Unfortunately we have no need at all for such a base.
I am rather worried that Milliband will sacrifice the independent deterrant.

Either case, the SNP will make sure they get plenty for the deal as it will likely do serious damage to their fortunes north of the border, they will want big ticket infrastructure spending rather than the somewhat nebulous removal of the Faslane boogieman. They need stuff they can point to and say "we did that".
The loss of sixteen thousand jobs at Coulport and Faslane is not one of those things.

EDIT:

Rather ironically my proposal involves double track on the one singled part of the S&C - the Ribblehead Viaduct, it makes it far more practical to single Blea Moor and maintain my target 2tph service capability.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The SNP don't want Faslane closed - their actual position is that Trident will be disposed of and the base will remain as a conventional naval base. Closing the base would destroy the economy of the local area so if they said that they would serious electoral issues in the area.

Unfortunately we have no need at all for such a base.
I am rather worried that Milliband will sacrifice the independent deterrant.

Either case, the SNP will make sure they get plenty for the deal as it will likely do serious damage to their fortunes north of the border, they will want big ticket infrastructure spending rather than the somewhat nebulous removal of the Faslane boogieman. They need stuff they can point to and say "we did that".
The loss of sixteen thousand jobs at Coulport and Faslane is not one of those things.

If you remove the Trident submarines from Faslane then Faslane will close. It really is as simple as that. There is no need to have a base at Faslane if the Trident boats are forced out. As far as the SNP is concerned the departure of the Trident boats is far more important than the building of a HS line. SNP voters would feel betrayed if the SNP backed down on its election pledge to rid Scotland of Trident boats.

 

[HSTEd]

If you remove the Trident submarines from Faslane then Faslane will close. It really is as simple as that. There is no need to have a base at Faslane if the Trident boats are forced out.

I know that, you know that, but Scottish voters cannot be allowed to know that. It would cause the SNP major major damage considering the shear number of people employed at the facility. It would be something equivalent to a hundred and sixty thousand job losses in England.

As far as the SNP is concerned the departure of the Trident boats is far more important than the building of a HS line. SNP voters would feel betrayed if the SNP backed down on its election pledge to rid Scotland of Trident boats.

Everyone knows that the SNP will not be able to get the abolition of Trident - at best they will get Labour abstentions on the vote to renew - at which point Conservative votes carry the day.
Labour will go to the Liberals and the Irish nationalists before it votes for that.
And Salmond did in fact lobby the Government for the retention of Trident in 2010.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Rather ironically my proposal involves double track on the one singled part of the S&C - the Ribblehead Viaduct, it makes it far more practical to single Blea Moor and maintain my target 2tph service capability.

I suspect that the repairs that were made to Ribblehead viaduct in the 1980's / 1990's would prevent your plan from happening.

 

[HSTEd]

I suspect that the repairs that were made to Ribblehead viaduct in the 1980's / 1990's would prevent your plan from happening.

If that is the case I can rejigg it slightly, it just provide a nice bit of redundancy - although I hear talk that redoubling is on the cards as the load is causing problems as it is not what the bridge deck was designed for.

Just means I have to gauge clear a couple of bridges just south of Dent.

 

[deltic08]

So it must remain a double track but poorly signalled, slow and diesel operated anachronism in an increasingly streamlined and intensively operated network, as a hedge against some faint possibility that it will be needed again?

That sounds like a false benefit to me really.



Except there has been little to no Biomass capacity built in recent times. Co-firing biomass doesn't really get you out of the Large Combustion Plant directive restrictions on operating hours - it just allows you to tap into a giant subsidy pot. The few coal plants that escape closure under the LCP tend to be closer to the sea and are unlikely to need ot ship coal over the S&C.
Now that nuclear has been destroyed by political interference and privatisation I am afraid the future is gas fired.
Also any large scale new biomass burner is likely to be built at a coastal or near coastal site, with the imported material delivered directly to the storage silos from the ship. Only the overhang of converted generation capacity prevents this from occuring now (which was largely laid in in a previous era when coal was moved twenty miles from the pit to the furnace).
See Kingsnorth as an example.

Except there is no reason for this biomass to be shipped via this route once the new generators are brought on line with their dedicated unloading piers.
Electricity is a hell of a lot cheaper to move over these very short (comparitively) distances than biomass is.

I would not have thought that all the investment at Drax and Ferrybridge would be spent for just a few years of biomass burning.

There are long term plans to reinstate the lower half of the Waverley route for removal of timber and home grown biomass from Keilder Forest. The S&C would be part of this plan. Bit difficult moving this by ship.

 

[adrock1976]

The SNP don't want Faslane closed - their actual position is that Trident will be disposed of and the base will remain as a conventional naval base. Closing the base would destroy the economy of the local area so if they said that they would serious electoral issues in the area.

Unfortunately we have no need at all for such a base.
I am rather worried that Milliband will sacrifice the independent deterrant.

Either case, the SNP will make sure they get plenty for the deal as it will likely do serious damage to their fortunes north of the border, they will want big ticket infrastructure spending rather than the somewhat nebulous removal of the Faslane boogieman. They need stuff they can point to and say "we did that".
The loss of sixteen thousand jobs at Coulport and Faslane is not one of those things.

EDIT:

Rather ironically my proposal involves double track on the one singled part of the S&C - the Ribblehead Viaduct, it makes it far more practical to single Blea Moor and maintain my target 2tph service capability.

My bold.

I would like to point out that Trident is no way an independent deterrent, as the technology is owned and manufactured by the USA. In other words, this ties the UK into USA foreign policy. Furthermore, Trident does not deter against any threat that is faced by the UK. For example, 7/7 and the burning jeep that ram-raided the terminal building at Glasgow Airport, despite Trident being based on the opposite side of the Clyde and a few miles downstream.

Regarding the jobs issue, I'm of the feeling that you've fell for the nonsense that has been spouted by the Dumbarton (New) Labour MSP Jackie Baillie. The STUC published a report a few years ago saying that Trident is actually a hindrance to job creation and diversification and overall, there would only be around 500 - 600 jobs affected at Faslane if Trident was scrapped, which most of these could go through natural wastage and people retiring and not being replaced.

Here is the link for the report:
http://www.cnduk.org/information/br...ings/item/956-trident-jobs-and-the-uk-economy

Cheers

Adam
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you remove the Trident submarines from Faslane then Faslane will close. It really is as simple as that. There is no need to have a base at Faslane if the Trident boats are forced out. As far as the SNP is concerned the departure of the Trident boats is far more important than the building of a HS line. SNP voters would feel betrayed if the SNP backed down on its election pledge to rid Scotland of Trident boats.

One thing that seems to have been forgotton is that although the SNP leadership have the position of ridding Scotland of Trident, they also want an independent Scotland to become a member of NATO, which in my view would make it harder to scrap Trident as NATO is a front for the proliferation of nuclear bombs.

Both Belgium and Germany are members of NATO, and have been trying for years to get rid of tactical nuclear bombs that were positioned there by the USA under the auspices of NATO.

In peace

Adam

 

[HSTEd]

IN either case I have said my piece on that topic - so in answer to RichmondCommu's earlier comment:
One can propose ideas that one would hope would be adopted whilst not actually expecting them to be.

 

[RichmondCommu]

IN either case I have said my piece on that topic - so in answer to RichmondCommu's earlier comment:
One can propose ideas that one would hope would be adopted whilst not actually expecting them to be.

So in other words you will continue to promote further electrification on this forum despite believing that it won't happen because of the current oil price which as far as you are concerned will remain the roughly the same for many years to come. Effectively you are telling us all that Network Rail's future plans for electrification are a waste of time because of the price of oil.

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

Just a couple of thoughts here. Firstly if you think tourism along the S&C is just a seasonal, couple of months per year thing then you are mistaken. Guided walks take place just about all year long, and many other walkers & climbers take to the Dales all time with the exception of when the snow closes in. You'd be surprised just how many people do visit the area "out of season". So the line can, and to a degree does act as a route into some of the regions most popular walking areas. What needs to be done is to encourage more people to use the train, as happens during the winter on Northern Rail where discounted tickets are offered for a period to holders of various WY Metrocards & Dales Railcards, which have been very successful in getting more people on the route. Indeed the times I've taken up the offer the service has been full out of West Yorkshire, with people jumping on and off along the route.

Of course the official figures don't reflect this, suggesting that only a few people a day use the stations north and west of Settle. But given the availability of tickets such as the Rangers and Rovers these figures could, and probably are misrepresenting the true picture. And furthermore, following the amazingly successful Tour de France that came through Yorkshire (for which all the rail routes where highly useful, and in some cases essential) many councils in the region have realised the huge potential in developing the tourist industry further. Yorkshire has been mentioned in media across the globe as a desirable place to visit, and having an rail artery from the bigger cities and towns up into the Dales could be key to getting any additional tourists up into the Dales without causing more problems on the roads (if you've ever used the roads up there during busy periods, you'll know just what I mean).

What is needed is for local councils to encourage better connectivity between the stations along the S&C, and the various villages and popular walks around them. This will not only encourage the local population to use the service more often, but will make the movement of tourists easier and thus encourage more.What is not needed is an arbitrary decision based on potentially seriously flawed figures simply to appear to cut costs without actually finding ways to improve the revenue flow.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Just a couple of thoughts here. Firstly if you think tourism along the S&C is just a seasonal, couple of months per year thing then you are mistaken. Guided walks take place just about all year long, and many other walkers & climbers take to the Dales all time with the exception of when the snow closes in. You'd be surprised just how many people do visit the area "out of season". So the line can, and to a degree does act as a route into some of the regions most popular walking areas. What needs to be done is to encourage more people to use the train, as happens during the winter on Northern Rail where discounted tickets are offered for a period to holders of various WY Metrocards & Dales Railcards, which have been very successful in getting more people on the route. Indeed the times I've taken up the offer the service has been full out of West Yorkshire, with people jumping on and off along the route.

Of course the official figures don't reflect this, suggesting that only a few people a day use the stations north and west of Settle. But given the availability of tickets such as the Rangers and Rovers these figures could, and probably are misrepresenting the true picture. And furthermore, following the amazingly successful Tour de France that came through Yorkshire (for which all the rail routes where highly useful, and in some cases essential) many councils in the region have realised the huge potential in developing the tourist industry further. Yorkshire has been mentioned in media across the globe as a desirable place to visit, and having an rail artery from the bigger cities and towns up into the Dales could be key to getting any additional tourists up into the Dales without causing more problems on the roads (if you've ever used the roads up there during busy periods, you'll know just what I mean).

What is needed is for local councils to encourage better connectivity between the stations along the S&C, and the various villages and popular walks around them. This will not only encourage the local population to use the service more often, but will make the movement of tourists easier and thus encourage more.What is not needed is an arbitrary decision based on potentially seriously flawed figures simply to appear to cut costs without actually finding ways to improve the revenue flow.

As a member of the FOSCL I completely agree with this. Despite the current timetable there are plenty of people living in the Dales who commute daily into Leeds and indeed Bradford. Whilst the majority travel in from Settle there people like my in-laws who travel in from Ribblehead every day. Its a shame that the first train of the day doesn't stop at Dent given that the train has to slow down for the PSR.

 

[Greenback]

I've deleted some posts that are completely off topic. I may delete more when I have time to go through them. Please keep this discussion relevant to the topic. Thanks.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

After considerable thinking on this subject it appears that no lines should close as they may be used in the future, as an alternative route or help in regeneration.

Maybe this thread should be about which lines should have closed during the cutbacks at various times instead of closed lines?

For example some may say the Hope Valley should of be closed in cuts with the Woodhead route staying open.

Personally I would convert many lines to Metrolink or tramway style operation in urban areas with limited or no passenger service.

 

[backontrack]

You really are talking rubbish and no, I won't be apologising to the railway 'fantasists'.

I have no idea what you're doing on a railway forum, being so self-righteous as to shout down its ideas, claim it purely 'fantasy' and continuously insult its members. As Yorksrob said,

"Better a tree hugger than a dinosaur."

Back on topic, I do feel that the mass of the railway system deserves to be retained, and although some stations don't have many passengers, you would actually gain less from closing them, as they don't take much money to run. And who knows? Maybe, if we put a more regular service on Stockport-Stalybridge, more people would use the stations.

 

[47802]

I have no idea what you're doing on a railway forum, being so self-righteous as to shout down its ideas, claim it purely 'fantasy' and continuously insult its members. As Yorksrob said,

"Better a tree hugger than a dinosaur."

Back on topic, I do feel that the mass of the railway system deserves to be retained, and although some stations don't have many passengers, you would actually gain less from closing them, as they don't take much money to run. And who knows? Maybe, if we put a more regular service on Stockport-Stalybridge, more people would use the stations.

Well I'm on a railway forum because I'm actually pro rail but with a subsidy of 4 billion pounds per year it shouldn't be beyond scrutiny, especially for country that some would argue is essentially bankrupt

I'm sorry If the term Fantasist offends you I wont use it any more, however there have been stupid comments on here about making road travel more expensive, well unless you are going to put most of the 11,000 miles of track back that was removed then rail is not a practical alternative for many people, and I suspect the cost of putting that back would make HS2 costs look like pocket money.

 

[yorksrob]

Well I'm on a railway forum because I'm actually pro rail but with a subsidy of 4 billion pounds per year it shouldn't be beyond scrutiny, especially for country that some would argue is essentially bankrupt

I'm sorry If the term Fantasist offends you I wont use it any more, however there have been stupid comments on here about making road travel more expensive, well unless you are going to put most of the 11,000 miles of track back that was removed then rail is not a practical alternative for many people, and I suspect the cost of putting that back would make HS2 costs look like pocket money.

I can assure you that suggestions of cutting back services that we need and use are every bit as preposterous to those of us who rely on the railway, and a lot more calamitous, than suggestions that road users should pay more to you.

What is more, it strikes me that those who howl loudest about the level of overall subsidy almost always seem to be less concerned and less interesting in how those subsidies are apportioned and calculated, and more willing to blindly believe whatever statistics central Government chooses to churn out.

 

[47802]

I can assure you that suggestions of cutting back services that we need and use are every bit as preposterous to those of us who rely on the railway, and a lot more calamitous, than suggestions that road users should pay more to you.

What is more, it strikes me that those who howl loudest about the level of overall subsidy almost always seem to be less concerned and less interesting in how those subsidies are apportioned and calculated, and more willing to blindly believe whatever statistics central Government chooses to churn out.

But that's just typical talk from Pro rail people, the figures are wrong and all services give good vale for money end of.

 

[muddythefish]

Well I'm on a railway forum because I'm actually pro rail but with a subsidy of 4 billion pounds per year it shouldn't be beyond scrutiny, especially for country that some would argue is essentially bankrupt

I'm sorry If the term Fantasist offends you I wont use it any more, however there have been stupid comments on here about making road travel more expensive, well unless you are going to put most of the 11,000 miles of track back that was removed then rail is not a practical alternative for many people, and I suspect the cost of putting that back would make HS2 costs look like pocket money.

Road travel is cheap - motoring costs have not risen in real terms for 30 years. There is a good case for taxing cars and lorries far more heavily than they are at present. Road pricing would be a good start. Rail fares meanwhile have soared....

Restoring much of the network would be expensive and is unlikely to happen when the default mode of the DfT to improve infrastructure is to build a new road. Cameron only recently announced another £15bn road-building progamme. For that sort of money for in stance, all the lines in the south west could be electrified, several old lines that should never have closed reopened and plenty of change left over.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But that's just typical talk from Pro rail people, the figures are wrong and all services give good vale for money end of.

There you go again. It's this sort of attitude that irks people.

 

[47802]

Road travel is cheap - motoring costs have not risen in real terms for 30 years. There is a good case for taxing cars and lorries far more heavily than they are at present. Road pricing would be a good start. Rail fares meanwhile have soared....

Restoring much of the network would be expensive and is unlikely to happen when the default mode of the DfT to improve infrastructure is to build a new road. Cameron only recently announced another £15bn road-building progamme. For that sort of money for in stance, all the lines in the south west could be electrified, several old lines reopened and plenty of change left over.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


There you go again. It's this sort of attitude that irks people.

You mean it irks some pro rail people because I have a different viewpoint in the same way that some pro rail people irk me.

OK then lets put up road costs and price many people off the roads can the existing railways cope with the extra traffic?, meanwhile I will catch the bus to Leeds from my village oh no I carn't its been priced off the road, never mind I will catch the train instead, oh no I carn't it closed in the 1960's never mind lets put it back except a lot of its been built on but still maybe we can put it back for quite a few hundred million and lets repeat that around the country for all those that don't have a train service what will that cost 200 billion, 500 billion, 1000 billion, yes lets tear up the roads and do that!

 

[muddythefish]

You mean it irks some pro rail people because I have a different viewpoint in the same way that some pro rail people irk me.

OK then lets put up road costs and price many people off the roads can the existing railways cope with the extra traffic?, meanwhile I will catch the bus to Leeds from my village oh no I carn't its been priced off the road, never mind I will catch the train instead, oh no I carn't it closed in the 1960's never mind lets put it back except a lot of its been built on but still maybe we can put it back for quite a few hundred million and lets repeat that around the country for all those that don't have a train service what will that cost 200 billion, 500 billion, 1000 billion, yes lets tear up the roads and do that!

Rising rail fares have priced many people off the railways and back on to the roads, so it works both ways.

However, you are getting the hang of it. Well done.

Now calm down.

 

[Greenback]

Well I'm on a railway forum because I'm actually pro rail but with a subsidy of 4 billion pounds per year it shouldn't be beyond scrutiny, especially for country that some would argue is essentially bankrupt

I'm sure some would question how pro rail someone can be when they suggest closing branches, seemingly at random, based on nothing more than guesswork as to how much they cost, how much they earn, and how much subsidy is actually required to keep them open.

I'm reminded of the lesson in accounting that was given by James Towler (I think) when the S&C closure inquiry was underway, when he pointed out that using the accounting methods for the ECML would justify the closure of the line between Newark and Grantham.

I'm sorry If the term Fantasist offends you I wont use it any more, however there have been stupid comments on here about making road travel more expensive, well unless you are going to put most of the 11,000 miles of track back that was removed then rail is not a practical alternative for many people, and I suspect the cost of putting that back would make HS2 costs look like pocket money.

I agree that putting track back is not going to happen, and it's just as true to say that it would not be so simple to try and increase the costs of motoring as it would to start closing branch lines on a whim.

But that's just typical talk from Pro rail people, the figures are wrong and all services give good vale for money end of.

Are we anywhere near a definition of value for money yet? Or does it just depend on what an individual thinks is good value for money?

I might not think that £1m per annum is good value for having additional services to and from Fishguard Harbour (I've no idea what the actual figure is, it's just being used as an illustration to help the discussion) but someone who uses those train 2 or 3 times a week may feel somewhat differently.

You mean it irks some pro rail people because I have a different viewpoint in the same way that some pro rail people irk me.

I think what probably irks most people in this thread is the lack of a properly researched and evidence based argument. If you put forward some facts instead of rhetoric about high costs, unaffordable lines and £4b subsidies, then the arguments for closing some pieces of the rail system might make a lot more sense. It certainly would for me, as I'm far from a position of having to retain every inch of railway as a matter of principle.

Equally, though, I'd need to see a very good business case for closure, just as I would in order to support a reopening, and not just something based on an opinion, however strongly that opinion might be held.

OK then lets put up road costs and price many people off the roads can the existing railways cope with the extra traffic?, meanwhile I will catch the bus to Leeds from my village oh no I carn't its been priced off the road, never mind I will catch the train instead, oh no I carn't it closed in the 1960's never mind lets put it back except a lot of its been built on but still maybe we can put it back for quite a few hundred million and lets repeat that around the country for all those that don't have a train service what will that cost 200 billion, 500 billion, 1000 billion, yes lets tear up the roads and do that!

There appears to be a lack of proper analysis, evidence, and, dare I say it, common sense, on both sides of this argument.

 

[47802]

I'm sure some would question how pro rail someone can be when they suggest closing branches, seemingly at random, based on nothing more than guesswork as to how much they cost, how much they earn, and how much subsidy is actually required to keep them open.

I'm reminded of the lesson in accounting that was given by James Towler (I think) when the S&C closure inquiry was underway, when he pointed out that using the accounting methods for the ECML would justify the closure of the line between Newark and Grantham.



I agree that putting track back is not going to happen, and it's just as true to say that it would not be so simple to try and increase the costs of motoring as it would to start closing branch lines on a whim.



Are we anywhere near a definition of value for money yet? Or does it just depend on what an individual thinks is good value for money?

I might not think that £1m per annum is good value for having additional services to and from Fishguard Harbour (I've no idea what the actual figure is, it's just being used as an illustration to help the discussion) but someone who uses those train 2 or 3 times a week may feel somewhat differently.




I think what probably irks most people in this thread is the lack of a properly researched and evidence based argument. If you put forward some facts instead of rhetoric about high costs, unaffordable lines and £4b subsidies, then the arguments for closing some pieces of the rail system might make a lot more sense. It certainly would for me, as I'm far from a position of having to retain every inch of railway as a matter of principle.

Equally, though, I'd need to see a very good business case for closure, just as I would in order to support a reopening, and not just something based on an opinion, however strongly that opinion might be held.



There appears to be a lack of proper analysis, evidence, and, dare I say it, common sense, on both sides of this argument.

Well I have never suggested that we close anything down on a whim, we clearly need to look at the costs and benefit it brings, and I accept that quantifying that may not be so easy but does that mean we shouldn't attempt look at it? and it shouldn't be about potentially just saving money but should money be spent on line A in preference to Line B. The definition of good value for money I agree that's a difficult one but some sort of consensus has to be reached, there are certainly some things the Welsh government has done railway wise which don't think are good value for money but obviously the welsh government think differently.

What does irk me about some pro rail people is that any mention of closure just provoke a hysterical reaction rather than a sensible debate, its interesting to find that most people on here don't believe you can believe in some rail closures but be pro rail.

 

[Greenback]

My apologies if you didn't suggest closing the Far North or Whitby lines. It may have been someone else, I haven't looked back to check.

A sensible debate is something I personally would welcome. My own instinct is that almost all of the current network delivers value if you look at things outside pure profit and subsidy, but I'd love to see some sort of evidence that could convince me I'm right or wrong. That would also seem to be a good starting point for determining whether that value was good enough to justify the retetion of the line, giving due regard to local circumstances.

As to Wales, I think that the reopenings we've had since 1988 have been very successful, particularly in the context of the local conditions. But I think we have just about reached the limit now.

Hysteria and emotion are best left out of any serious debate, and that includes everyone!