Trivia: UK rail line with best case for closure

[tbtc]

As we found out in the Newhaven thread, there are a lot of enthusiasts who can't accept that *any* station should be closed - there are always excuses to be found.

We can probably forget about closing any lines that see freight (given what a sacred cow it is, even if there's only one scheduled freight service a week).

We can probably forget about closing anywhere particularly scenic (passenger numbers on the Heart Of Wales/ Far North/ Settle'n'Carlisle etc are pretty rubbish, but no politician is going to take on that fight.

We can probably forget about any line that gets used as a diversionary route for a couple of weekends a year because I know the way this Forum works...

So, in no particular order:

The Island Line. Passenger numbers have gone down at every station over the last five years (as discussed on the recent thread), it's relatively expensive to operate, non-standard stock, isolated, fairly comprehensive bus services in the area - so nowhere would be without public transport if the Island Line closed.

The Barton on Humber branch. Could have closed when the Humber Bridge was opened - it's a quiet branch that doesn't serve anywhere intermediate of size, plus Barton has regular buses to Grimsby/ Scunthorpe/ Hull.

Burnley - Colne. Another quiet branch that has minimal passenger numbers (parallel bus services mean nowhere would be without public transport).

...just three off the top of my head. Plenty more could be mentioned (was tempted to list Knottingley - Goole, but we've been over this before).

Nothing *will* close though - any enthusiasts will continue to come up with excuses to keep anything open. Prepare for excuses like "ah, but if you ran more services then more people would use it" (which sounds promising, but is blatantly true of every route - and if there are spare resources to throw at lines like Brigg then wouldn't we be better using them on lines that are already busy?) - or excuses about how nobody buys tickets - or how the unquantifiable benefits that non-believers can't see mean that it's really a success... :roll:

An interesting idea for a thread, The Leeds to Morecambe line between Long Preston and Carnforth could be seen as one as its only used by 5 trains per day in each direction and the most amount of passengers any intermediate station along the line sees per year is 25,000

Agreed - probably the quietest bit of double track railway in the UK?

Railways are part of the national infrastructure and like the many unprofitable country lanes, closure would always be a mistake

It's not a museum - if a line is no longer fit for purpose then why not at least consider closure? We shouldn't be scared of at least negotiating.

With most underused lines and stations the answer isn't just to close the station or line its to improve the service.

25 years ago Bromsgrove had 1 platform meaning southbound trains had to cross onto the northbound line to stop there and it was served by 5 trains per day in both direction and would have made a good case for closure.

Today it has 2 platforms and for most of the day is served by the hourly Birmingham to Hereford services with 571,000 passengers using the station last year. With some of the other underused stations and lines such as Leeds to Lancaster and Peartree station improving service levels may improve usage numbers.

Most stations have seen huge increases over the past twenty five years, but some haven't - if a station still gets rubbish passenger numbers now (after a generation of increasing numbers virtually every year) then when do we accept that it's just not worth it?

If there are extra resources for Leeds to Lancaster then why not use those resources on lines that are actually busy instead?

The HoWL also provides a good service in an area that does not have an adequate bus service

Any intermediate places that don't have an adequate bus service are because they are pretty small towns a long way from anywhere of size .

A dial-a-bus may be more appropriate than heavy rail - sledgehammers and nuts.

It provides an important qualitative benefit to the local communities

many of these service provde a key social benefit to local communities, which can rarely be quantified.

This is the problem with trying to have a debate about closing any line - there's always some unquantifiable number that someone will add in to justify weak figures.

Indeed. People seem to be relying purely on passenger numbers. Firstly these figures are highly unreliable on rural services

Passenger numbers are a pretty good idea of revenue.

But, as ever in these threads, some lines are deemed a success because the passenger numbers look good...

...but any lines where passenger numbers look weak are either because most people don't buy tickets or because there's some unquantifiable benefits that mean that it's a huge success and anyone who thinks the line is failing JUST DOESN"T UNDERSTAND THE BIGGER PICTURE etc etc. It's Attack Of The Unsinkable Rubber Ducks stuff...

 

[Markdvdman]

tbtc - the negativity you portray is baffling! Closures should no longer happen as history proves it.

It is a Tory philosophy and always bites you in the proverbial.

As the roads are getting far worse we need MORE not less, and passing loops need dualling.

I am not going into detail - be thankful for what we have!

 

[backontrack]

As we found out in the Newhaven thread, there are a lot of enthusiasts who can't accept that *any* station should be closed - there are always excuses to be found.

We can probably forget about closing any lines that see freight (given what a sacred cow it is, even if there's only one scheduled freight service a week).

We can probably forget about closing anywhere particularly scenic (passenger numbers on the Heart Of Wales/ Far North/ Settle'n'Carlisle etc are pretty rubbish, but no politician is going to take on that fight).

We can probably forget about any line that gets used as a diversionary route for a couple of weekends a year because I know the way this Forum works...

So, in no particular order:

The Island Line. Passenger numbers have gone down at every station over the last five years (as discussed on the recent thread), it's relatively expensive to operate, non-standard stock, isolated, fairly comprehensive bus services in the area - so nowhere would be without public transport if the Island Line closed.

The Barton on Humber branch. Could have closed when the Humber Bridge was opened - it's a quiet branch that doesn't serve anywhere intermediate of size, plus Barton has regular buses to Grimsby/ Scunthorpe/ Hull.

Burnley - Colne. Another quiet branch that has minimal passenger numbers (parallel bus services mean nowhere would be without public transport).

...just three off the top of my head. Plenty more could be mentioned (was tempted to list Knottingley - Goole, but we've been over this before).

These are good suggestions, but I don't really agree with your argument that enthusiasts are wrong. I won't explain why, because I'll just get shouted down, and labelled as an 'enthusiast'. Personally, I feel that it is very difficult on this forum to be able to have/express a complex opinion. :roll:

 

[Llanigraham]

Personally, I'm surprised that the Cambrian Line has a station at Caersws and not at Montgomery. But enough quibbling.

There has never been a station at Montgomery! It isn't even on the Cambrian.

And the population in the catchment area for Caersws is much greater.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Any intermediate places that don't have an adequate bus service are because they are pretty small towns a long way from anywhere of size .

A dial-a-bus may be more appropriate than heavy rail - sledgehammers and nuts.

Which goes to prove that you don't know the area and are being very urbano-centric!!

 

[DT611]

The Island Line. Passenger numbers have gone down at every station over the last five years (as discussed on the recent thread), it's relatively expensive to operate, non-standard stock, isolated, fairly comprehensive bus services in the area - so nowhere would be without public transport if the Island Line closed.

The Barton on Humber branch. Could have closed when the Humber Bridge was opened - it's a quiet branch that doesn't serve anywhere intermediate of size, plus Barton has regular buses to Grimsby/ Scunthorpe/ Hull.

Burnley - Colne. Another quiet branch that has minimal passenger numbers (parallel bus services mean nowhere would be without public transport).

While these places would not be without public transport should the lines go as they have existing alternative public transport, the reality is rail users do not transfer from rail to busses upon closure, or at least very few. Most go to the car. In these particular cases that wouldn't matter. However if you were to simply implement exact bus replacements for lines where busses don't exist all ready, it wouldn't be worth the bother as they would be disused. But maybe this is for another thread?

A dial-a-bus may be more appropriate than heavy rail - sledgehammers and nuts.

Again i suspect it would be pointless. If your going to shut the line then shut it. However little point in putting in a bus replacement, they don't seem to get used by the former rail users. They would be a tocan jesture and nothing more. Best off telling them "buy a car"

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There was a political comment , many years ago, that the purchase of a brand new car for the (few) users of the Central Wales line , would have been a prudent move !!.

Very difficult to close lines or stations - just as well - and the Community Rail initiative was a welcome move which has been succesful in increasing both patronage and awareness.

I do wonder though about Barton on Humber ...

 

[6Gman]

Not true, I'm afraid. All the Scottish lines you've mentioned benefit from tourism, and there's quite a bit of usage down the southern half of the Far North Line. (The first train down from Wick is usually quite crowded because of the early ferry from Stromness). The HoWL gets some tourists too, but not nearly as many.

Surely all trains leaving Wick are Up trains?


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

tbtc - the negativity you portray is baffling! Closures should no longer happen as history proves it.

Proves what?

Are you seriously suggesting that the railway lines to Red Wharf Bay, Llanberis, Bethesda and Holywell (to take some examples from North Wales) should all have been retained?

 

[crehld]

Nothing *will* close though - any enthusiasts will continue to come up with excuses to keep anything open. Prepare for excuses like "ah, but if you ran more services then more people would use it" (which sounds promising, but is blatantly true of every route - and if there are spare resources to throw at lines like Brigg then wouldn't we be better using them on lines that are already busy?) - or excuses about how nobody buys tickets - or how the unquantifiable benefits that non-believers can't see mean that it's really a success... :roll:

I think you'll find enthusiasts have very little impact on determining how services are run. Clearly it is not all the enthusiasts keeping the railways open!

Agreed - probably the quietest bit of double track railway in the UK?

If there are extra resources for Leeds to Lancaster then why not use those resources on lines that are actually busy instead?

The fact you suggest Leeds to Lancaster isn't busy confirms to me you don't know what you're on about. It is busy. I duly invite you to board the 1645 Leeds to Lancaster, which is frequently still full and standing beyond Hellifield.

This is the problem with trying to have a debate about closing any line - there's always some unquantifiable number that someone will add in to justify weak figures.

I'm all for a reasonable debate. Such a debate will have to acknowledge there are unquantifiable benefits to rural railways. Get over it! If you'd rather focus on purely pecuniary benefits then perhaps consider the local economic case a railway link provides a rural community with poor transport links.

Passenger numbers are a pretty good idea of revenue.

Of course it is! Passenger numbers are based on the revenue collected through ticket sales. As a result it is unreliable, given a very large proportion of passengers are not sold tickets. You're complaining about the poor business value of many lines. Where the sense in running a business in which you let a third of your customers travel for free?

...but any lines where passenger numbers look weak are either because most people don't buy tickets or because there's some unquantifiable benefits that mean that it's a huge success and anyone who thinks the line is failing JUST DOESN"T UNDERSTAND THE BIGGER PICTURE etc etc. It's Attack Of The Unsinkable Rubber Ducks stuff...

I'm afraid I can't help the offence caused to you by the facts that a significant number of passengers travel for nothing and railways offer non pecuniary benefits... They nevertheless remain a matter of fact.

 

[najaB]

Let's save some time - if you want a purely financial railway it will look something like this:

 

[ainsworth74]

Let's save some time - if you want a purely financial railway it will look something like this:

Personally I'm far from convinced that would deliver a profitable railway as I suspect many who currently connect onto mainline services using branch lines or other secondary routes would just drive all the way to their destination (or possibly even fly in some cases) rather than drive to whatever their remaining long distance station was.

So that could actually drive down traffic on the core routes which are supposedly profitable on their own feet.

I wonder if the Serpell Report actually considered the above? I doubt it personally.

 

[The Planner]

We can probably forget about closing any lines that see freight (given what a sacred cow it is, even if there's only one scheduled freight service a week).

Depends, if it is a dead end line to a freight facility, mine, power station etc... then it will become OOU pretty much as soon as the last train goes down it if whatever at the end closes.

 

[najaB]

I wonder if the Serpell Report actually considered the above? I doubt it personally.

I agree, but that is what you end up with you look purely at the numbers, without considering the behaviour of the people behind those numbers.

 

[furnessvale]

I wonder if the Serpell Report actually considered the above? I doubt it personally.

Didn't Serpell have wonderful ideas like closing the GW beyond Exeter. Existing rail passengers from Penzance would catch the express coach to Exeter and ALL of them would transfer to the train there! None of them would stay on the coach for the whole journey.

IIRC That's what his figures said anyway.

 

[ainsworth74]

Didn't Serpell have wonderful ideas like closing the GW beyond Exeter. Existing rail passengers from Penzance would catch the express coach to Exeter and ALL of them would transfer to the train there! None of them would stay on the coach for the whole journey.

Surely they would fly from either Plymouth or even Newquay? But yes there would still be some circumstances where people might change from car/bus/coach to rail but plenty where they would not have me thinks.

 

[47802]

Let's save some time - if you want a purely financial railway it will look something like this:

I don't think we should have a purely financial railway by any means but the network we have today was to some degree more by luck than management and travel patterns are somewhat different to 50 years ago, so there may be good cases for reopening some lines but equally there may be good cases for closing others.

Unfortunately when comes to both reopening and closure there are too many deluded fantasists (well I had to get it in somewhere) out there

 

[backontrack]

I don't think we should have a purely financial railway by any means but the network we have today was to some degree more by luck than management and travel patterns are somewhat different to 50 years ago, so there may be good cases for reopening some lines but equally there may be good cases for closing others.

Unfortunately when comes to both reopening and closure there are too many deluded fantasists (well I had to get it in somewhere) out there

And deluded petrolheads, to boot. :roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

Caersws's population is larger than Montgomery's and the station is right in the village not 1.5 miles away, plus it serves a railhead for a number of places.

Similarly a station at Halkirk would make more sense than Scotscalder or Altnabreac. But probably not *enough* sense to fund actually building one. As for closing the other two, as long as serving them doesn't get in the way of the desired service, which on that kind of line it won't (but on the WCML it did for Barlaston, Wedgwood and Norton Bridge), they might as well stay.

 

[70014IronDuke]

how about closing the central, least-used section of the Central Wales (ok, HoW if you insist) line, ie Llandrindrod to Llandovery? That would save something like 28 track miles - almost one third of the 90 miles of track that is exclusive to the route.

This section generates almost zilch in terms of the passenger figures for the line. Anyone going Llandrindrod - Swansea (I suspect there are very few in any case) is better off heading north and changing at Craven Arms, ditto, from Swansea, even from Llanelli, anyone for Shrewsbury/Crewe/Manchester can go via Hereford faster.

Continue to use the current allocation of stock to the line to run a more intensive, useful service on the remaining northern and southern sections, ie Llandrindrod- Shrewsbury - (Crewe) and Llandovery - Llanelli-Swansea.

The larger populations at the northern and southern ends would get a better service and closing Llandrindrod - Llandovery would be a big saving in terms of track, bridges, general PW maintenance, surely? [You could then use the money saved to begin a fund to open up Northampton - Wellingborough, which would be used by a darn sight more passengers, i'd bet. ]

 

[thenorthern]

There are other service reductions instead of line closures which I think would work better if implemented to save money.

To start is it really worth having 3 trains per hour between London Euston and Manchester Piccadilly throughout the day, I would say no as most trains between Crewe/Stoke-on-Trent and London Euston are carting fresh air about.

 

[furnessvale]

Surely they would fly from either Plymouth or even Newquay? But yes there would still be some circumstances where people might change from car/bus/coach to rail but plenty where they would not have me thinks.

Exactly why I said the ideas were "wonderful".

I was being sarcastic!

 

[Llanigraham]

how about closing the central, least-used section of the Central Wales (ok, HoW if you insist) line, ie Llandrindrod to Llandovery? That would save something like 28 track miles - almost one third of the 90 miles of track that is exclusive to the route.

This section generates almost zilch in terms of the passenger figures for the line. Anyone going Llandrindrod - Swansea (I suspect there are very few in any case) is better off heading north and changing at Craven Arms, ditto, from Swansea, even from Llanelli, anyone for Shrewsbury/Crewe/Manchester can go via Hereford faster.

Continue to use the current allocation of stock to the line to run a more intensive, useful service on the remaining northern and southern sections, ie Llandrindrod- Shrewsbury - (Crewe) and Llandovery - Llanelli-Swansea.

The larger populations at the northern and southern ends would get a better service and closing Llandrindrod - Llandovery would be a big saving in terms of track, bridges, general PW maintenance, surely? [You could then use the money saved to begin a fund to open up Northampton - Wellingborough, which would be used by a darn sight more passengers, i'd bet. ]

Have you ever used the line?
Every time I have there have been passengers joining at Llan'dod and intermediate stations to Llandovery, in both directions, and several who continued to Llanelli and Swansea.
And I doubt that WAG would allow any money saved to be transferred to england!!

 

[backontrack]

There are other service reductions instead of line closures which I think would work better if implemented to save money.

To start is it really worth having 3 trains per hour between London Euston and Manchester Piccadilly throughout the day, I would say no as most trains between Crewe/Stoke-on-Trent and London Euston are carting fresh air about.

Really, couldn't they cut a Birmingham service? Virgin hold a monopoly over Manchester trains so they wouldn't cut Birmingham, but there are already trains operated by Chiltern and LM.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We can probably forget about closing anywhere particularly scenic (passenger numbers on the Heart Of Wales/ Far North/ Settle'n'Carlisle etc are pretty rubbish, but no politician is going to take on that fight.

I think the S&C, Conwy Valley etc need a bit of a Swiss-style boost - they could be sold on their scenic benefits far better, and early last trains and sparse or nonexistent Sunday services remove any tourist benefits for weekends away.

The Island Line. Passenger numbers have gone down at every station over the last five years (as discussed on the recent thread), it's relatively expensive to operate, non-standard stock, isolated, fairly comprehensive bus services in the area - so nowhere would be without public transport if the Island Line closed.

True. I think that to make it viable long-term it would need something like a light rail conversion - but that probably isn't viable. The only thing it does that nothing else really does is the pier shuttle, but some sort of people mover (or even a strengthening of the pier and a shuttle bus) would do that just as well or better.

What would also be needed is a Verbundtarif on the Island - or even just giving it to Vectis to operate within their fares system.

If there are extra resources for Leeds to Lancaster then why not use those resources on lines that are actually busy instead?

Possibly so. But then again, do we actually need to look at service patterns to make the trains actually useful? FWIW, looking at a map I think it would be easy to argue for closing that if it was substituted with Clitheroe-Hellifield giving better access to the S&C from Preston and Manchester.

...but any lines where passenger numbers look weak are either because most people don't buy tickets or because there's some unquantifiable benefits that mean that it's a huge success and anyone who thinks the line is failing JUST DOESN"T UNDERSTAND THE BIGGER PICTURE etc etc. It's Attack Of The Unsinkable Rubber Ducks stuff...

I do think there's a lack of ambition in some areas of regional rail in the UK, though - it's just operated basically the same way as it always was with occasional rolling stock upgrades. We could do with looking more at the German model with new stock and regular interval timetables - it won't make them profitable (they never will be), but they may well provide far better value for money than a Pacer on an irregular timetable.

(The cheapest option is not always the best value!)

 

[ainsworth74]

Exactly why I said the ideas were "wonderful".

I was being sarcastic!

Oh

*goes and clobbers sarcasm detector*

 

[Techniquest]

I'm going to weigh in here purely from the comments on the Heart of Wales line.

tbtc does not know the line whatsoever, this is obvious from the comments he made on it. Same for 70014 Iron Duke. I might not use it too often, due to connecting buses being stripped out, but even the central section is well used in my experience even in winter. Buses would not provide an acceptable alternative, that much is a promise. It's also worth noting it's not like the roads are that great in many places along that route, ertainly they're not fast ones! Adding more traffic to these areas is simply a nonsense idea, the area especially through the Llanwrtyd area can get pretty busy in the summer. I haven't been on the roads around there for ages so if it's got better in the last few years then my bad.

My point is that section is well used for sure. It's worth pointing out that closing that bit would mean no rail route all the way to Builth Road for the Royal Welsh Show. Yes I know that's only once a year for a few days, but it does bring in a large amount of people to the line. Please don't suggest people would happily change from train to bus at Llandovery or Llandrindod, that just wouldn't happen.

Did I seriously see a suggestion that people from Llandod going to Swansea would be better off going via Craven Arms then down via Cardiff? Outrageous comment of the week! For one, that would take quite some time, and for two the fares to do that would be quite significantly higher than via Llandovery, so no-one would make the journey!

As for closures, the only one that I would totally support right now would be Newhaven Marine. Close it forever and just get rid of it, we don't need it anymore, save the maintenance costs on that junction and just leave that bit of railway history where it needs to be, in the history books. Folkestone Harbour went and we're no worse off are we?

If there was truely a decent, well reasoned case for closure then that would be different. The Far North I noted was a suggestion, well surely if the more coastal route on one of the sections (this was getting on for 10 years ago, without my Baker I can't remember the relevant section) had been built the journey time would have come right down (I think the existing inland route was to stay in service too) and been comparable to the Citylink coach journey time to Inverness from Wick. Knocking out a huge amount of time on that journey would be welcome I'm sure, same for service improvements, and more people would leave the roads and use rail.

It has been an interesting thread mind!

 

[Bletchleyite]

To start is it really worth having 3 trains per hour between London Euston and Manchester Piccadilly throughout the day, I would say no as most trains between Crewe/Stoke-on-Trent and London Euston are carting fresh air about.

I have long thought that 2tph all day with peak extras to 4tph would make more sense on that route (and Brum). But I doubt that is costing a fortune - VT's yield management model seems to be sound in terms of maximising profit (rather than bums on seats).

That, or just concentrate the 9-cars on those services allowing the 11s to be used on the less frequent and more overcrowded Scottish runs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If there was truely a decent, well reasoned case for closure then that would be different. The Far North I noted was a suggestion, well surely if the more coastal route on one of the sections (this was getting on for 10 years ago, without my Baker I can't remember the relevant section) had been built the journey time would have come right down (I think the existing inland route was to stay in service too) and been comparable to the Citylink coach journey time to Inverness from Wick.

Tain-Golspie, according to the Wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_North_Line

The loop doesn't appear to serve much of consequence, so it staying open would be surprising. The train might still win, though, as trains are more comfortable than regular Citylink coaches.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Have you ever used the line?

Yes.

Every time I have there have been passengers joining at Llan'dod and intermediate stations to Llandovery, in both directions, and several who continued to Llanelli and Swansea.

I suspect we need to tighten up usage of the English language, Llanigraham. I think what you meant to write is:

"Every time I have there have been passengers joining at Llan'dod and SOME intermediate stations to Llandovery, in both directions, ...."

Because, fact is, several of the stations between Llan'dod and Lland'y have passenger figures of 1,200 - 1,600 a year. So we are talking about 3-5 a DAY - that is for an eight-train service. Sugar Loaf has about 5 passengers per WEEK.

Even the best used stations, ie Llanwrtyd and Builth Rd, at around 8,500 - 9,000 a year, translates to some 20 - 24 per day, ie 10 or 12 getting on and a similar number getting off.

Except, I suppose, the passengers you saw may have been getting free rides?

Anyway, I'm not denying stations like Cilmeri are not used I accept that they are, just about - but at what cost?

And I doubt that WAG would allow any money saved to be transferred to england!!

Just where is Edward 1 when you need him?

 

[ainsworth74]

Does that have anything to do with Mike395 in his cupboard?

The Police told us we had to let him out of the cupboard, some nonsense about 'Human Rights' or similar such guff :roll:

 

[cf111]

Tain-Golspie, according to the Wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_North_Line

The loop doesn't appear to serve much of consequence, so it staying open would be surprising. The train might still win, though, as trains are more comfortable than regular Citylink coaches.

Lairg serves everything west to Cape Wrath and Kinlochbervie - it's their link to Inverness by public transport.

The FNL also cuts inland through Caithness (Altnabraec, Kildonan, Kinbrace) until Helmsdale where it rejoins the A9's costal route until Golspie. It also doesn't cross the Beauly Firth, instead heading west instead of north from leaving Inverness until Dingwall.

The X99 bus is quicker and more reliable than the train, I use it if I'm going up to Thurso ahead of the train even though I still have a Highland Railcard.

 

[Llanigraham]

Yes.
I suspect we need to tighten up usage of the English language, Llanigraham. I think what you meant to write is:

"Every time I have there have been passengers joining at Llan'dod and SOME intermediate stations to Llandovery, in both directions, ...."

Because, fact is, several of the stations between Llan'dod and Lland'y have passenger figures of 1,200 - 1,600 a year. So we are talking about 3-5 a DAY - that is for an eight-train service. Sugar Loaf has about 5 passengers per WEEK.

Even the best used stations, ie Llanwrtyd and Builth Rd, at around 8,500 - 9,000 a year, translates to some 20 - 24 per day, ie 10 or 12 getting on and a similar number getting off.

Except, I suppose, the passengers you saw may have been getting free rides?

Anyway, I'm not denying stations like Cilmeri are not used I accept that they are, just about - but at what cost?



Just where is Edward 1 when you need him?

I wrote what I meant to write!

Sugar Loaf is a request stop with very few houses around it, and is generally used by ramblers. I doubt it costs a lot for it's up-keep!

And what is this "thing" about people getting free rides? Yes some of us locals are able to use our over 60's Bus Passes on the route at certain times of year, but these are then paid for by PCC, just as if we were using a bus (but there isn't one).

Perhaps you need to also read the response from Techniquest!