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

[47802]

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!

I think I said that such as Whitby could be examined that's not quite the same as closure on a whim which you couldn't do anyway, and that might include options to turn the route over to the NYMR and pay them a subsidy to run weekday Schools and Commuter services and lease a 156 from the Northern Pool. Weekend Services might be left for the NYMR to decide.


Of course there have been many reopening across the country since the dark days of the 70's, have these been a success well I would measure success by a reopening which doesn't add to the subsidy budget, I have no doubt many would disagree with that.

 

[Greenback]

I think I said that such as Whitby could be examined that's not quite the same as closure on a whim which you couldn't do anyway.


Of course there have been many reopening across the country since the dark days of the 70's, have these been a success well I would measure success by a reopening which doesn't add to the subsidy budget, I have no doubt many would disagree with that.

They would because such things should be measured against more than the subsidy. I think that's a point of view that you will never find a great deal of agreement with.

 

[47802]

They would because such things should be measured against more than the subsidy. I think that's a point of view that you will never find a great deal of agreement with.

That's something we will have to disagree on, the only time I might agree with that is for something like Crossrail were clearly extra capacity is needed for the countries capital and carn't really be provided any other way.

 

[Greenback]

I don't mind disagreeing with people. We can't all agree on everything. As long as we don't start insulting people because we don't agree, or calling them names, then it's fine!

I'm glad you don't include Crossrail in things that should be measured in terms of subsidy and cost alone. It seems like a step towards acknowledging that this may also be the case with other lines where benefits can't be provided in any other way, even though it involves a subsidy!

 

[yorksrob]

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

We've got a whole thread on Northern subsidy where we've been discussing subsidy figures, how they are derived, their shortfalls etc. Have you contributed anything to that discussion to justify why we should accept the status quo? No.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think I said that such as Whitby could be examined that's not quite the same as closure on a whim which you couldn't do anyway, and that might include options to turn the route over to the NYMR and pay them a subsidy to run weekday Schools and Commuter services and lease a 156 from the Northern Pool. Weekend Services might be left for the NYMR to decide.


Of course there have been many reopening across the country since the dark days of the 70's, have these been a success well I would measure success by a reopening which doesn't add to the subsidy budget, I have no doubt many would disagree with that.

We'll, there you are. You're starting off from a flawed definition of what constitutes a successful/useful railway. If there's a chance that such a flawed methodology being used to assess the future of the existing regional network (again) I'd rather the issue wasn't revisited.

 

[47802]

We've got a whole thread on Northern subsidy where we've been discussing subsidy figures, how they are derived, their shortfalls etc. Have you contributed anything to that discussion to justify why we should accept the status quo? No.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


We'll, there you are. You're starting off from a flawed definition of what constitutes a successful/useful railway. If there's a chance that such a flawed methodology being used to assess the future of the existing regional network (again) I'd rather the issue wasn't revisited.

Well I disagree just because something was flawed it doesn't mean you carn't revisit it, your saying well its difficult find a valid criteria to judge its value so lets not bother and just keep paying the bills regardless!

As far as the northern subsidy goes well I'm not particularly interested in picking on northern specifically, I'm interested in all lines as to whether they are essentially good value money, and of course as I have said that's not easy to define, the issue about northern lines standing out as high subsidy while others are potentially hidden by profitable routes etc: is best left for another thread.

 

[RichmondCommu]

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.

It would be extremely unfair to start increasing the costs of motoring when for many people they have little or no choice but to use their cars. For many journeys it will always be more practical to use their cars. And if you start increasing the taxes that haulage companies pay, the goods and services that you and I buy become more expensive. As much as I would like to see more freight transferred to railways in many instances road transport will always be quicker.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Going back to the original title of this thread, I can only think of one route which, to my mind, doesn't serve any real purpose in the 21st century. It's not a rural route with a sporadic service, and it doesn't have any freight or diversionary uses. If it was anywhere other than where it is, it would likely have closed long before Beeching.

It is of course the St. Albans Abbey line.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Of course there have been many reopening across the country since the dark days of the 70's, have these been a success well I would measure success by a reopening which doesn't add to the subsidy budget, I have no doubt many would disagree with that.

That seems a strange way of measuring success. Imagine, say, a reopening that hypothetically required an additional £100K/year of subsidy, but which also reduced congestion, lowering journey times for 1 million car journeys a year by an average of 5 minutes, lowered air pollution levels in the area, and directly created 20 jobs for rail staff (causing 20 wages to be ploughed back into the local economy - more than offsetting the £100K subsidy increase). By your definition, such a reopening would be considered a failure - and that is clearly nonsensical.

Besides, how do you measure how much change in subsidy a reopening causes? To tell that, you'd need to know not only how much the subsidy after the reopening is, but how much the subsidy would have been without the reopening. Any reopening will cause all sorts of feedback effects on the economy - over a period of several years, people will change travel mode, businesses will move in response to the reopening etc., which means that latter figure is going to be impossible to know beyond a crude estimate (perhaps accurate for the first 3-4 months, but certainly not after that). So you have a supposed measure of success which is both impossible to measure accurately and would give silly results even if you could measure it accurately.

Ultimately you can't get away from the issue that you need to look at the whole picture, when assessing success, estimating as best you can of all the ways that a reopening effects the local economy and quality of life .

 

[tbtc]

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

That’s a very fair summary.

There were some lines closed that I’d have thought would be fairly busy today (York – Beverley - Hull is one that always comes up in these discussions), and some “saved” stations/ lines that still see pitiful passenger numbers in 2015 (despite the huge growth in passenger numbers at most stations).

If I were doing it (with fifty years of hindsight) I’d do things differently. BUT, I’m grown up enough to accept that they took decisions based on what evidence that they had at the time (they didn’t have today’s computers/ analysis, so had to rely more on observations than any equivalent project would today).

It was imperfect (in hindsight), but then everything was back then. Still building steam locomotives despite the fact that diesel was the way forward. Attempts at “modernisation” that didn’t work out. But that doesn’t mean that some surgery wasn’t required.

The conspiracies about the Beeching period get pretty boring to listen to after a while – maybe we should consign them to one of those secret passages in Box Hill tunnel!

Similarly the “wise after the event” experts who would have retained every abandoned trackbed because they *knew* that we might need it again one day... impossible to argue with people of such amazing hindsight!

Should we have kept all coal mines in situ, in case we go back to mass mining again? And retained every canal built in the industrial revolution in case the barge one day replaces the HGV as the main way of distributing goods round the UK? Maintained every old phone box, despite them seeing practically no use? Where do you draw the line...

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

Ah, this old chestnut!

We can’t consider a line for closure based on it only getting a couple of trains a day? So presumably the only “solution” to this would be to find the extra resource to increase the number of services? Presumably you’d want to keep this going for at least a couple of years in order to assess any increase in passenger numbers – maybe longer (since it’d be unfair to assess passenger numbers after only a short period)? i.e. you'd never actually take a difficult decision on when something isn't worth the candle.

Reality is, Knottingley – Goole is never going to attract many people, it’s a line through a pretty empty part of the country (with only around 15,000 people in Goole, so not pot of gold at the end of the rainbow), any intermediate stations on it are only around five miles from the parallel Leeds – Selby line (so not going to create a “public transport desert” like if you closed the Heart Of Wales/ Far North etc, where there are no alternative lines nearby)...

...any spare resource that you might rustle up to provide an enhanced service between Knottingley and Goole could be much better used elsewhere in northern England (e.g. extending existing services on routes that are already busy)...

...if you can’t accept that this route is unsuitable for heavy rail in the twenty first century then there seems no point in trying to argue about more marginal cases.

"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

The “ah, but it could be useful for diversions” argument gets overstated, and evidence shows that the railway generally puts people on coaches instead nowadays.

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.

Well, I’ve tried using passenger statistics and Government subsidies as evidence to back my argument up.

You obviously don’t trust these, yet have no alternative evidence of your own...

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{

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

It’s a shame that we can’t discuss things without some people getting so wound up – there’s clearly some lines/services that are unsuitable to mass transportation like a train – surely you can be pro rail without blindly accepting that we have to retain every inch of track inherited from the Victorians?

I’m “pro rail”, but that doesn’t mean I can’t question whether some routes/services are a waste of time (and the same resources could be better used on other routes/services).

The mood seems to be that anyone questioning any single bit of infrastructure must be a heretic though! (awaits comments about being “Worse than Clarkson” etc)

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

But for all of the moaning about rising fares, passenger numbers have gone up every year for a generation.

For every individual “priced off” the railways, there appear to be more new passengers joining it!

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 don’t think anything has been suggested “at random” – I’ve used passenger numbers for the only two examples of lines I’ve suggested for closure (Barton branch and Knottingley – Goole) to show how poorly used the stations are.

But every time I try to use Government statistics I seem to get told that this can’t be trusted (and sometimes that they are part of a Government “agenda”).

And even if people accept the figures, I get told that "these are just numbers" and don't reflect some other unquantifiable criteria (that surprisingly always show that railways are the best option for every possible problem)

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?

We have established cost/benefit ratios for assessing new lines/stations – no reason why the same can’t be applied to maintaining existing lines/stations.

Come up with a benchmark (lets hypothetically say “at least a quarter of the revenue is met through the farebox”) and take it from there?

I think that the Northern franchise sees half it's revenue from the farebox (but with some busy lines like Ilkley - Leeds which must see most of their costs met - which means some must be nowhere near the average), so if you required lines to take at least a quarter of revenue from the farebox then you'd weed out the weakest lines - if a line can't cover more than 25% of its costs then questions surely need to be asked.

(Though obviously if the figures look bad we’ll hear a lot of froth about “unquantifiable” social benefits, and how not everything is about numbers)

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

I’ve tried using passenger numbers and subsidy figures – whilst they may not be perfect, they are at least a guide – but I see very little factual evidence from those trying to preserve everything as it currently is.

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

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

My comment was a reply to Crehld ‘s point that it was unfair to calculate average daily passenger numbers at these intermediate stations as they “will get very few passengers during the autumn and winter as the main clientele are walkers and tourists” (see above).

Now I’m being told that it’s unfair to treat them as stations where demand is seasonal (and they are used almost all year round, as long as there’s no snow)?

I don’t mind which way you want to frame the argument, but can’t have it both ways!

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

So the line can only be busy if we allow deeply discounted travel (I remember the free trips for Pensioners being used to fill empty seats around November when I lived in West Yorkshire many years ago – do they still do them - handy way to artificially boost passenger numbers I suppose)?

Aren’t there better uses of rail capacity though? (e.g. if the S&C is quieter in the winter, stick a 153 on it and use the 158 on the Calder Valley – rather than virtually giving away tickets on the S&C whilst people paying regular prices to travel to Manchester are forced to stand due to insufficient seats?)

 

[RichmondCommu]

But for all of the moaning about rising fares, passenger numbers have gone up every year for a generation.

For every individual “priced off” the railways, there appear to be more new passengers joining it!

Passenger numbers have indeed been going up but that doesn't mean to say that our railways are affordable to the average working person with having to cut back elsewhere. Take a look at the peak time fares into London from outside of Greater London, they are ludicrous. On the MML, even outside of the peak if there are two people travelling its often cheaper to drive to Brent Cross and take the Tube from there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So the line can only be busy if we allow deeply discounted travel (I remember the free trips for Pensioners being used to fill empty seats around November when I lived in West Yorkshire many years ago – do they still do them - handy way to artificially boost passenger numbers I suppose)?

Aren’t there better uses of rail capacity though? (e.g. if the S&C is quieter in the winter, stick a 153 on it and use the 158 on the Calder Valley – rather than virtually giving away tickets on the S&C whilst people paying regular prices to travel to Manchester are forced to stand due to insufficient seats?)

There's a huge difference between having discounted travel through the use of a railcard and travelling for free.

And with regard to the S & C even in winter a class 153 is not sufficient without insisting on people standing from at least Settle in the direction of Leeds.

 

[Greenback]

I don’t think anything has been suggested “at random” – I’ve used passenger numbers for the only two examples of lines I’ve suggested for closure (Barton branch and Knottingley – Goole) to show how poorly used the stations are.

I'll be honest, I hadn't even seen your suggestions, and I was only referring to the Far North and Whitby line which were discussed earlier in the thread.

We have established cost/benefit ratios for assessing new lines/stations – no reason why the same can’t be applied to maintaining existing lines/stations.

That's a fair starting point, I think.

Come up with a benchmark (lets hypothetically say “at least a quarter of the revenue is met through the farebox”) and take it from there?

Potentially, that could work. As long as the farebox revenue included those travelling to the line (or station) as well as from it, thus avoiding one mistake that has dogged the Beeching closures for fifty years.

I think that the Northern franchise sees half it's revenue from the farebox (but with some busy lines like Ilkley - Leeds which must see most of their costs met - which means some must be nowhere near the average), so if you required lines to take at least a quarter of revenue from the farebox then you'd weed out the weakest lines - if a line can't cover more than 25% of its costs then questions surely need to be asked.

You'd need to take into account of the network effect as well. How would closing a line affect usage of lines it feeds into?

(Though obviously if the figures look bad we’ll hear a lot of froth about “unquantifiable” social benefits, and how not everything is about numbers)

You can't expect people not to put up opposition to having a line closed, especially if they do happen to use it themselves. That's why proposed closures should continue to be looked at by some sort of independent body to determine whether the arguments put forward against them are groundless or not.

I’ve tried using passenger numbers and subsidy figures – whilst they may not be perfect, they are at least a guide – but I see very little factual evidence from those trying to preserve everything as it currently is.

The best I can suggest is that using a mixture of passenger numbers (which I don't think are themselves wholly reliable) any information that is available about the cost of keeping a line open, plus any analysis of revenue as a starting point.

In my view, it's difficult to present a proper case for either retaining or closing lines because some of these figures are difficult to obtain in the first place, and even then the accuracy of them can be challenged. Statistics can be used in many ways, as we all know, and sometimes it's hard to get at the real truth of the matter.

 

[yorksrob]

Well I disagree just because something was flawed it doesn't mean you carn't revisit it, your saying well its difficult find a valid criteria to judge its value so lets not bother and just keep paying the bills regardless!

If the alternative is a Government which I don't trust (that's all of them on this issue - just so you know I'm not being partisan) and civil servants who probably never have use for the regional railway network anyway, using suspect calculations and crude statistics to come up with a closure which will in all likelihood be irreversible, too right I'd rather keep paying the bills.

In reality, it would probably be better to see if any economies could be made, starting with the money-go-round system which seems to push up the cost of running these lines unnecessarily (the other thread is highly relevant to this by the way). However, the Establishment is wedded to this system, so inertia it must be.

You squeal blue murder about potentially paying a bit more for your petrol, yet you're not only attacking my hobby, but also my primary means of getting around the Country.

 

[backontrack]

And there are still lines that could be reopened because they need to be, such as Perth-Cowdenbeath, which would cut down train times between Inverness and Edinburgh quite a bit, as well as serve Kinross, a substantial town.

Not all track replacement is how you say it is. Passing loops are also needed on some routes, such as for Tain to Inverness, where the train is well used.

Referring back to Beeching, it seems that most of the lines that were needed were closed by Labour, not by Beeching, because of the losses made by other lines.

Perth-Cowdenbeath and Woodhead are good examples of these.

 

[yorksrob]

Should we have kept all coal mines in situ, in case we go back to mass mining again? And retained every canal built in the industrial revolution in case the barge one day replaces the HGV as the main way of distributing goods round the UK? Maintained every old phone box, despite them seeing practically no use? Where do you draw the line...

Not destroying our network now would be a good start.

Ah, this old chestnut!

We can’t consider a line for closure based on it only getting a couple of trains a day? So presumably the only “solution” to this would be to find the extra resource to increase the number of services? Presumably you’d want to keep this going for at least a couple of years in order to assess any increase in passenger numbers – maybe longer (since it’d be unfair to assess passenger numbers after only a short period)? i.e. you'd never actually take a difficult decision on when something isn't worth the candle.

Reality is, Knottingley – Goole is never going to attract many people, it’s a line through a pretty empty part of the country (with only around 15,000 people in Goole, so not pot of gold at the end of the rainbow), any intermediate stations on it are only around five miles from the parallel Leeds – Selby line (so not going to create a “public transport desert” like if you closed the Heart Of Wales/ Far North etc, where there are no alternative lines nearby)...

...any spare resource that you might rustle up to provide an enhanced service between Knottingley and Goole could be much better used elsewhere in northern England (e.g. extending existing services on routes that are already busy)...

...if you can’t accept that this route is unsuitable for heavy rail in the twenty first century then there seems no point in trying to argue about more marginal cases.

Well, you keep bringing up this line, so expect to get this old chestnut roasted every time you do.

Firstly, the route gets a decent amount of freight, so you're wrong to start off with. But even taking into account passenger services, I do believe we should be able to at least trial a proper service on it (much like BR used to do for some routes in the 80's) before we give up on it.

As for rolling stock, why should I, as a regional passenger suffer because of poor decisions made about the sell-off of our rolling stock industry. The current log jam is an aberration. In any rational way of running a railway, rolling stock would be built continually, so as to cope with the replacement of assets as they become life expired. In this way, you would have nearly life expired stock that could be used to test out a route before going to the torch.

The “ah, but it could be useful for diversions” argument gets overstated, and evidence shows that the railway generally puts people on coaches instead nowadays.

Routes such as the S&C have been used for diversions for decades. I don't think we should base network changing decisions on the folly of a few here today, gone tomorrow TOC's.

Well, I’ve tried using passenger statistics and Government subsidies as evidence to back my argument up.

You obviously don’t trust these, yet have no alternative evidence of your own...

I have an alternative. Work out the cost of maintaining the track, structures, rolling stock, fuel and staff and work on that, rather than loading on nebulous charges per train such as stock leasing and track access etc. That way, at least if someone does manage to make a cost saving on aspects of running the line, it will be visible as a cost saving for the route.

It’s a shame that we can’t discuss things without some people getting so wound up – there’s clearly some lines/services that are unsuitable to mass transportation like a train – surely you can be pro rail without blindly accepting that we have to retain every inch of track inherited from the Victorians?

Well, it wasn't our side of the argument with the potty mouth.

But for all of the moaning about rising fares, passenger numbers have gone up every year for a generation.

For every individual “priced off” the railways, there appear to be more new passengers joining it!

Fair point, but you can only go so far on this before the railway becomes a "rich mans toy" to quote one former transport minister. I'd love it for someone to do a proper study of the comparative socio-economic groups that use the different sectors because from my (admittedly unscientific) observations it seems that the regional railway often has the greatest mix of people in terms of families, lower income workers, youths etc.

I don’t think anything has been suggested “at random” – I’ve used passenger numbers for the only two examples of lines I’ve suggested for closure (Barton branch and Knottingley – Goole) to show how poorly used the stations are.

But every time I try to use Government statistics I seem to get told that this can’t be trusted (and sometimes that they are part of a Government “agenda”).

The station passenger figures are definately flawed, but I don't think they're part of a conspiracy. The TOC subsidy figures, on the other hand, are most definately being used by the Government and DfT to pursue an agenda.

And even if people accept the figures, I get told that "these are just numbers" and don't reflect some other unquantifiable criteria (that surprisingly always show that railways are the best option for every possible problem)

On the Buxton - Matlock thread recently, you were against removing a cycle route, yet as this has no fare paying users or tolls, it's entire existance can only be judged on "unquantifiable" criteria. Why are you happy to accept these criteria for cycle routes and roads, yet for a railway, they suddenly become "unquantifiable" ?

Come up with a benchmark (lets hypothetically say “at least a quarter of the revenue is met through the farebox”) and take it from there?

There would have to be something to take account of passenger use. When I say passenger use, I mean the many passengers I see regularly on lines such as the Bentham line and the Whitby branch.

I think that the Northern franchise sees half it's revenue from the farebox (but with some busy lines like Ilkley - Leeds which must see most of their costs met - which means some must be nowhere near the average), so if you required lines to take at least a quarter of revenue from the farebox then you'd weed out the weakest lines - if a line can't cover more than 25% of its costs then questions surely need to be asked.

(Though obviously if the figures look bad we’ll hear a lot of froth about “unquantifiable” social benefits, and how not everything is about numbers)

Again, cycle tracks and roads ?

I’ve tried using passenger numbers and subsidy figures – whilst they may not be perfect, they are at least a guide – but I see very little factual evidence from those trying to preserve everything as it currently is.

On the Northern Rail subsidy thread, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the subsidy levels are flawed.

My comment was a reply to Crehld ‘s point that it was unfair to calculate average daily passenger numbers at these intermediate stations as they “will get very few passengers during the autumn and winter as the main clientele are walkers and tourists” (see above).

Now I’m being told that it’s unfair to treat them as stations where demand is seasonal (and they are used almost all year round, as long as there’s no snow)?

I don’t mind which way you want to frame the argument, but can’t have it both ways!

So the line can only be busy if we allow deeply discounted travel (I remember the free trips for Pensioners being used to fill empty seats around November when I lived in West Yorkshire many years ago – do they still do them - handy way to artificially boost passenger numbers I suppose)?

Well, the line is heavily used for full price throughout the summer. Isn't offering cheaper fares at less busy times what InterCity TOC's do all the time?

And allowing pensioners cheaper travel travel in winter - a way to artificially boost passenger numbers or a great way to improve the health and well being of our older citizens and a wonderful way for people to see our beautiful county of Yorkshire ? Personally, I'd say it's the latter, and a good way to use resources (as would the rest of the railway). Oh, but I forgot, you only believe in such things in relation to cycle ways and roads.

Aren’t there better uses of rail capacity though? (e.g. if the S&C is quieter in the winter, stick a 153 on it and use the 158 on the Calder Valley – rather than virtually giving away tickets on the S&C whilst people paying regular prices to travel to Manchester are forced to stand due to insufficient seats?)

Like I say, our inadequate rolling stock set up shouldn't be used as a stick with which to beat the regional railway.

 

[deltic08]

That seems a strange way of measuring success. Imagine, say, a reopening that hypothetically required an additional £100K/year of subsidy, but which also reduced congestion, lowering journey times for 1 million car journeys a year by an average of 5 minutes, lowered air pollution levels in the area, and directly created 20 jobs for rail staff (causing 20 wages to be ploughed back into the local economy - more than offsetting the £100K subsidy increase). By your definition, such a reopening would be considered a failure - and that is clearly nonsensical.

Besides, how do you measure how much change in subsidy a reopening causes? To tell that, you'd need to know not only how much the subsidy after the reopening is, but how much the subsidy would have been without the reopening. Any reopening will cause all sorts of feedback effects on the economy - over a period of several years, people will change travel mode, businesses will move in response to the reopening etc., which means that latter figure is going to be impossible to know beyond a crude estimate (perhaps accurate for the first 3-4 months, but certainly not after that). So you have a supposed measure of success which is both impossible to measure accurately and would give silly results even if you could measure it accurately.

Ultimately you can't get away from the issue that you need to look at the whole picture, when assessing success, estimating as best you can of all the ways that a reopening effects the local economy and quality of life .

Apologies for mentioning Ripon-Harrogate reinstatement again but I am closely involved with the campaign.

All the station car parks between Knaresborough and Leeds are inadequate for the potential usage on offer with no room for expansion for additional spaces. How much traffic is being lost by park and ride passengers being turned away?

By reinstating to Ripon, including a station at Nidd Bridge just to the north of Harrogate, all traffic from the A61 corridor to Ripon, Nidderdale and Northwest Knaresborough who currently can't find a parking space on the Loop and drive to Leeds instead, can use these two stations.

It has already been calculated by stopping traffic along the A61 and asking questions that reinstatement to Ripon will remove 144,000 driver only cars from the A61 corridor annually.

As you say, this has an effect on the local economy and certainly quality of life

 

[RichmondCommu]

Routes such as the S&C have been used for diversions for decades. I don't think we should base network changing decisions on the folly of a few here today, gone tomorrow TOC's.

Its worth mentioning here that the S & C was indeed used a few weeks a go for diversions when the WCML was closed due to the weather.

 

[deltic08]

I think I said that such as Whitby could be examined that's not quite the same as closure on a whim which you couldn't do anyway, and that might include options to turn the route over to the NYMR and pay them a subsidy to run weekday Schools and Commuter services and lease a 156 from the Northern Pool. Weekend Services might be left for the NYMR to decide.


Of course there have been many reopening across the country since the dark days of the 70's, have these been a success well I would measure success by a reopening which doesn't add to the subsidy budget, I have no doubt many would disagree with that.

If it is decided moving potash from the proposed new mine near Whitby to Teesport is better by rail, large infrastructure improvements will be required such as more passing loops, new chord at Battersby Junction and resignalling,

 

[Lankyline]

Looking at the original points of this thread (anyone remember that) one of those was would some lines open today pass the Beeching cost test, without starting another debate about how flawed or not Beeching's evaluation process was, is the current cbr test actually"fit for purpose" ?

 

[Bantamzen]

So the line can only be busy if we allow deeply discounted travel (I remember the free trips for Pensioners being used to fill empty seats around November when I lived in West Yorkshire many years ago – do they still do them - handy way to artificially boost passenger numbers I suppose)?

The free offers have long since gone, pensioners pay the same as Metrocard / Dalescard holders although the offer is only open to pensioners Monday to Friday and after 09:30 for the rest during the week.

But even with a heavy discount, isn't it better to have a full 158 (and sometimes it's a 158 & 153 set) rather than a near empty 153? You see some of these people might not have considered ever travelling the route before and if they enjoy it, or realise just how easy it is to get deep into the Dales, they may return again when the discount is not available. To coin a business phrase, it's about growing the business. And it's working, as this extract from a BBC article from just over twelve months ago seems to suggest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-25364686

It was exactly 30 years ago that British Rail first announced plans to close the famous Settle to Carlisle railway, one of the last great main lines of the Victorian era.

But campaigners fought hard to save it and now it is a thriving route, clocking up 1.2 million journeys a year.

1.2 million journeys up and down the S&C isn't bad for a little backwater branch line is it? That's 1.2 million that might well return, maybe stopping off along the way next time and spending money, thereby helping along the local economies. And those 1.2 million people might recommend the route to friends and family etc etc.

And anyway, what's wrong with offering discounted tickets? Plenty of people use discounted tickets up and down the country all the time. Heck, I've just recently booked a Leeds-Warrington journey with TPE with a 25% discount on top of the already cheaper 1st Advance. And let's not forget that even the TOCs on the mainlines offer discounted tickets all year round. As I said, this is how you build up business. Get the punters in and hopefully they will return.

Aren’t there better uses of rail capacity though? (e.g. if the S&C is quieter in the winter, stick a 153 on it and use the 158 on the Calder Valley – rather than virtually giving away tickets on the S&C whilst people paying regular prices to travel to Manchester are forced to stand due to insufficient seats?)

As has been mentioned, if you stuck a 153 on the route it would potentially fill up with Aire Valley passengers meaning that people wanting to travel onto the S&C wouldn't be able to. Yes the Calder Valley does need strengthening, but this is not the fault of the S&C, but of Northern's hands being tied in not be allowed to procure new stock, and simply rely totally on cascaded units from elsewhere.

 

[47802]

While journeys are vastly up compared to when the closure notices were posted, I wonder how close to covering its costs it now comes.

Just been looking at the Beeching 2 map it was certainly extreme even by my standards, no trains to Inverness, Blackpool, Cambridge etc. but then it was different times and the populations of some town's and cities have increased quite a bit, Inverness has nearly doubled from 1962 figures, overall give or take a few lines I think what was retained was mostly about right even if it was to some degree more by luck than management.

 

[Howardh]

Looking at the original points of this thread (anyone remember that) one of those was would some lines open today pass the Beeching cost test, without starting another debate about how flawed or not Beeching's evaluation process was, is the current cbr test actually"fit for purpose" ?

Think now, if any lines were cut, the rails might get taken up (or have them taken up for them....) but the line left there and not be built on - so could be re-railed again, or tarmaced and used as a bus-only lane.
Round my parts it would be fantastic if the Bolton-Bury line was still useable as a bus route, but too much has been built over. As for my OP r/e the Thurso line, if it simply became untenable to continue as rail, then simply turning it into a bus-only road from Georgemas so the link is still there.
Still rather have proper rail/trains though!

 

[47802]

If the alternative is a Government which I don't trust (that's all of them on this issue - just so you know I'm not being partisan) and civil servants who probably never have use for the regional railway network anyway, using suspect calculations and crude statistics to come up with a closure which will in all likelihood be irreversible, too right I'd rather keep paying the bills.

In reality, it would probably be better to see if any economies could be made, starting with the money-go-round system which seems to push up the cost of running these lines unnecessarily (the other thread is highly relevant to this by the way). However, the Establishment is wedded to this system, so inertia it must be.

You squeal blue murder about potentially paying a bit more for your petrol, yet you're not only attacking my hobby, but also my primary means of getting around the Country.

Good grief I missed this comment previously, and you call me arrogant, I'm sorry but what has attacking your hobby got to do with railway finances, this may come as a shock to you but the main railway network isn't there for the benefit of enthusiasts in any shape or form, although some so called enthusiasts seem to think otherwise, and this is the problem with many pro rail people in that they are also rail enthusiasts not to be taken seriously as far as financial matters are concerned in my view.

 

[yorksrob]

Good grief I missed this comment previously, and you call me arrogant, I'm sorry but what has attacking your hobby got to do with railway finances, this may come as a shock to you but the main railway network isn't there for the benefit of enthusiasts in any shape or form, although some so called enthusiasts seem to think otherwise, and this is the problem with many pro rail people in that they are also rail enthusiasts not to be taken seriously as far as financial matters are concerned in my view.

As I said (if you'd bothered to read my post properly) the railway is not just a hobby for me, but also my prime means of getting around. By chopping away at the Regional Railway, you would cause a considerable impediment to me going about my day to day business.

As far as I'm concerned, people who advocate cutting railway routes that would be disastrous for the economies and wellbeing of the local communities that they serve, yet squeal about a marginal rise in petrol prices because it would cause them some personal inconvenience, don't deserve to be taken seriously.

People who bang on about subsidy, yet make no attempt to understand how those statistics are compiled, or the limitations therein, don't deserve to be taken seriously.

 

[HSTEd]

Cutting rural lines might be disasterous, but it would only effect a very small fraction of the country's population - whilst raising the cost of petrol will maybe only be an inconvenience, but it would effect far more people.
So it is quite reasonable to argue that it may be that the cost of petrol rise causes greater total damage.

 

[yorksrob]

Cutting rural lines might be disasterous, but it would only effect a very small fraction of the country's population - whilst raising the cost of petrol will maybe only be an inconvenience, but it would effect far more people.
So it is quite reasonable to argue that it may be that the cost of petrol rise causes greater total damage.

It might affect more people, but the consequences of the loss of a rail link are likely to be far deeper - for individuals and for towns such as Whitby and Bentham.

 

[HSTEd]

It might affect more people, but the consequences of the loss of a rail link are likely to be far deeper - for individuals and for towns such as Whitby and Bentham.

Yes, but the total amount of misery might not be greater than the misery of the whole driving populace from an increase in fuel prices. It might be a hundredth as serious per person, but it effects a thousand times the people.

 

[yorksrob]

True, but that doesn't in any way negate the fact that closure of a rail link is likely to be far more serious to the communities it serves than a marginal increase in the price of petrol.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, but we can't just consider the local effects of such things.
I am all for social rail but we are probably going to have to find more ways to cut the cost of providing it.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, but we can't just consider the local effects of such things.
I am all for social rail but we are probably going to have to find more ways to cut the cost of providing it.

Well, not really. I think with the network we have, closing a railway line should be as inconceivable as closing a road. There needs to be a recognition that for some of us, rail is the primary mode for middle and long distance travel. It also needs to be recognised that many of the lines discussed here already have minimal signalling and staffing costs, therefore we need to think more carefully about how costs are attributed to a given route.