Would it be better to declare Beeching closures 'Damnatio memoriae'

[zwk500]

Are there any freight, diversions or ECS movements that couldn't use other routes? If not, the railway industry will only want to retain the line as long as the politicians pay for the passenger service over it.

As I've mentioned, WCRC use it for test runs out of Carnforth that would other require running to Barrow or on the WCML, and to position locos at Hellifield for S&C tours that would otherwise require routing via Preston and Blackburn. To send these on any line other than the Little NW would increase cost and performance risk considerably, perhaps to the point of unsustainability.

The alternate diversionary route is via Preston, Blackburn and Clitheroe to Hellfield, or via Penrith and Carlisle avoiding lines to the S&C. Depending on exactly what the origin and destination is runrounds may be required.

I don't know if any freight is regularly booked to use it, but in the event that the WCML was blocked north of Preston it does provide an emergency route for Sellafield traffic (nationally strategically important, of course). However this traffic could go via Workington if the Little NW closed. Intermodal can't use it and I doubt there's any stone flows that would make sense to use it, even if all other routes were closed.

 

[The Planner]

I don't know if any freight is regularly booked to use it, but in the event that the WCML was blocked north of Preston it does provide an emergency route for Sellafield traffic (nationally strategically important, of course). However this traffic could go via Workington if the Little NW closed. Intermodal can't use it and I doubt there's any stone flows that would make sense to use it, even if all other routes were closed.

No freight at all, and Id bet it is a very small contingent of FOC drivers that actually sign it.

 

[BayPaul]

In terms of costs, we have a situation where the railway is lumbered with an ongoing revenue payment for rolling stock whereas previously once the initial cost has been paid off, the railway would have had depeciated rolling stock to use for just the maintenance cost. That is a cost that has been created purely to satisfy the free market idealogy of privatisation and I see no reason whatsoever why this cost should be prioritised over the running of the passenger network. This is an example of a cost issue that should be resolved instead of contemplating passenger closures.

Sorry, but your logic here really doesn't make sense. It is sensible financial practice to depreciate an asset over the full duration of its useful life, not to depreciate it over the profitable 75% of its life and then pretend that it's free for the final 25% and use it on an unprofitable service. All that's doing is hiding the rolling stock cost for the branch line in the accounts of the main line. I'm not saying that unprofitable lines should close, but it is definitely wrong to pretend that they are less unprofitable than they actually are.

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry, but your logic here really doesn't make sense. It is sensible financial practice to depreciate an asset over the full duration of its useful life, not to depreciate it over the profitable 75% of its life and then pretend that it's free for the final 25% and use it on an unprofitable service. All that's doing is hiding the rolling stock cost for the branch line in the accounts of the main line. I'm not saying that unprofitable lines should close, but it is definitely wrong to pretend that they are less unprofitable than they actually are.

I don't see why not. The 150's we're using these days must have been paid for many times over already. Where's the logic for continuing to pay for them over and above maintenance ?

 

[tbtc]

Whilst I agree with the bulk of your point, there is some through traffic Leeds-Lancaster. Not much, mind, but some - so there are more than 50 passengers a day using the line. Maybe a couple of hundred in non-COVID times?

Leeds - Lancaster is around 1h50 direct

In comparison, Leeds - Preston is around 1h45 direct and Preston - Lancaster is around 15 minutes, so you could do Leeds - Lancaster is slightly over two hours with a good connection at Preston (given that Leeds - Preston is hourly and Preston - Lancaster can be three or four trains each hour)

Or Leeds - Manchester is around an hour and Manchester - Lancaster is around an hour, if you want to go that way.

So it's not a significant increase in journey times for those longer distance passengers (and, not all of them are obviously heading to Lancaster itself, so may be changing to services for Windermere/ Barrow/ Penrith etc anyway, which makes a journey via Preston less disruptive than may first appear to be the case)

If you're looking at the costs and benefit of a route, then you have to take into account of much more than just revenue in the "benefits" column. That includes all of those benefits to society that you tend to describe as "woolly"

These unquantifiable "benefits to society" are described as "wooly" because they are always relied upon to distract from the fact that very few people use a station/ service/ line - if you have three stations with half a dozen trains a day in each direction but only around fifty departing passengers then you'd struggle to run a minibus with such low levels (and heavy rail obviously has significantly higher costs)

In the example of the Little North Western, you cite the passenger numbers from three intermediate stations - Wennington, Bentham and Clapham - what's the justification for missing out Giggleswick out of interest ?

Giggleswick station serves a couple of houses and a pub on the outskirts of Settle.

I'm pretty confident that if you closed the station, the vast majority of the current passengers would just use Settle instead (the station in the centre of the town, rather than Giggleswick, which is pretty inconvenient for most people)

This clearly ignores the use of the line as a through route. And you can't justify that omission by saying "oh you can use other routes"

As mentioned above, the time penalty for going via Preston is pretty small over a two hour journey

I travel regularly between Yorkshire and Lancaster and have had cause to use all routes due to Northern's lockdown timetables and strikes etc. The missing through trains via Skipton cause me real issues in getting between the two and theit benefit isn't easily replicated by a long and winding alternative route

It'd be a five/ten minute increase in journey times from Leeds to Lancaster (less if you are heading to Windermere/ Barrow etc)

Saying it's cause you "real issues" sounds significant, but we're just talking about a mild inconvenience on leisure trips, right?

Similarly with Sugar Loaf Mountain. If the only people who use the Heart of Wales line are the one person a day from that stop, then you may have a point, however that's clearly not the case, so I don't see how this amounts to an argument against the route

It's a station that barely gets any use - yet you still can't accept closing it - there'll never be a station with passenger numbers pathetic enough for you to accept it doesn't warrant a heavy rail service

In terms of costs, we have a situation where the railway is lumbered with an ongoing revenue payment for rolling stock whereas previously once the initial cost has been paid off, the railway would have had depeciated rolling stock to use for just the maintenance cost. That is a cost that has been created purely to satisfy the free market idealogy of privatisation and I see no reason whatsoever why this cost should be prioritised over the running of the passenger network. This is an example of a cost issue that should be resolved instead of contemplating passenger closures.

Under any twenty first century organisation, you have assets and prices associated to them. Given that the Government got money when it sold the trains to the ROSCOs, they are recouping that money.

But, as usual, you're trying to move the goalposts. Even if the trains were provided by the ROSCO for no cost, you're still paying for drivers/ guards/ track maintenance/ signalling/ insurance etc - fifty passengers a day probably aren't covering the cost of one driver's wages yet alone all of the other costs.

The reason that the Bentham line is being discussed isn't because the ROSCOs are charging for use of their assets. The reason that the Bentham line is being discussed is because the passenger numbers are so low - blame privatisation if you want, blame the free market, but there's no getting away from the fact that the three stations in questions (with around half a dozen trains a day in each direction) don't have combined passenger numbers to fill a single 153.

Sorry, but your logic here really doesn't make sense. It is sensible financial practice to depreciate an asset over the full duration of its useful life, not to depreciate it over the profitable 75% of its life and then pretend that it's free for the final 25% and use it on an unprofitable service. All that's doing is hiding the rolling stock cost for the branch line in the accounts of the main line. I'm not saying that unprofitable lines should close, but it is definitely wrong to pretend that they are less unprofitable than they actually are.

I think Rob would like it if we fudged the figures so that we didn't have to count any of the awkward bits (hence the idea to "hide" heavily loss making services in the same set of figures as busy/profitable InterCity services, so that nobody notices the subsidies required to maintain the likes of the Bentham line)

 

[geordieblue]

Leeds - Lancaster is around 1h50 direct

In comparison, Leeds - Preston is around 1h45 direct and Preston - Lancaster is around 15 minutes, so you could do Leeds - Lancaster is slightly over two hours with a good connection at Preston (given that Leeds - Preston is hourly and Preston - Lancaster can be three or four trains each hour)

Or Leeds - Manchester is around an hour and Manchester - Lancaster is around an hour, if you want to go that way.

So it's not a significant increase in journey times for those longer distance passengers (and, not all of them are obviously heading to Lancaster itself, so may be changing to services for Windermere/ Barrow/ Penrith etc anyway, which makes a journey via Preston less disruptive than may first appear to be the case)

Point taken, but the context was about passenger numbers, not necessarily alternative routes if closure was to happen - we haven't got to that point yet! So I think the fifty passengers a day is still a bit dubious.

 

[BayPaul]

I don't see why not. The 150's we're using these days must have been paid for many times over already. Where's the logic for continuing to pay for them over and above maintenance ?

I don't see why not. The 150's we're using these days must have been paid for many times over already. Where's the logic for continuing to pay for them over and above maintenance ?

For 3 reasons that I can think of off the top of my head:
1- as mentioned before, you don't just spend all profits an asset makes paying it off at the start of its life, you deprecate it over its useful life. As they are still working fine, we are still in that useful period.
2-Even if you didn't work in that way, the 150s have pretty much always been on loss making routes, so where has the money come from to pay them off
3-Even if you ignore that, there is also the opportunity cost. For every 150 running around carrying 3 passengers and a labrador on a rural line, it is one less 2 car service into central Manchester that could be made up to 4.

I think Rob would like it if we fudged the figures so that we didn't have to count any of the awkward bits (hence the idea to "hide" heavily loss making services in the same set of figures as busy/profitable InterCity services, so that nobody notices the subsidies required to maintain the likes of the Bentham line)

I know, but I'm having as much fun arguing this case as I'm sure he is!

 

[HSTEd]

I would note that despite the very low traffic numbers, the Little North Western has not been rationalised to any significant degree.

Given the relative lack of level crossings, sidings or other, this would seem to be a prime example of a line where singling, with either RETB or a simplistic ETCS installation, could significantly reduce operational costs.

If we are justifying a "social railway", we have to ask what level of railway infrastructure is necessary to deliver the social service.

We should not condemn a railway entirely based on what it costs now, but instead on what it can be made to cost.

EDIT:

It takes only 39 minutes to cover the distance between Giggleswick and Canforth.
Even if the line was single track from the Settle approach junction to Canforth, eight trains a day could be sustained with no passing loops!

 

[geordieblue]

I would note that despite the very low traffic numbers, the Little North Western has not been rationalised to any significant degree.

Given the relative lack of level crossings, sidings or other, this would seem to be a prime example of a line where singling, with either RETB or a simplistic ETCS installation, could significantly reduce operational costs.

If we are justifying a "social railway", we have to ask what level of railway infrastructure is necessary to deliver the social service.

We should not condemn a railway entirely based on what it costs now, but instead on what it can be made to cost.

Might ETCS make it hard for West Coast to use? I seem to remember steam charters can't run on the Cambrian due to the signalling there.

 

[HSTEd]

Might ETCS make it hard for West Coast to use? I seem to remember steam charters can't run on the Cambrian due to the signalling there.

At some point, probably relatively soon, they will find themselves excluded from more and more track unless they get themselves an ETCS control box.

 

[yorksrob]

Leeds - Lancaster is around 1h50 direct

In comparison, Leeds - Preston is around 1h45 direct and Preston - Lancaster is around 15 minutes, so you could do Leeds - Lancaster is slightly over two hours with a good connection at Preston (given that Leeds - Preston is hourly and Preston - Lancaster can be three or four trains each hour)

Or Leeds - Manchester is around an hour and Manchester - Lancaster is around an hour, if you want to go that way.

So it's not a significant increase in journey times for those longer distance passengers (and, not all of them are obviously heading to Lancaster itself, so may be changing to services for Windermere/ Barrow/ Penrith etc anyway, which makes a journey via Preston less disruptive than may first appear to be the case)

That's fine, but you also get people from places such as Keighley and Skipton using the route to travel West. For them, going back through Leeds or Bradford is a very round-a-bout way.

The LNW also connects quite well into some services towards Barrow at Carnforth. 20 minutes or so gives time to get tea and a bun at the themed station buffet.

As mentioned, it also gives passengers a way round when the S&C or the "Roses" line is closed. (Is there a "Quality Street" line anywhere I wonder ?).

These unquantifiable "benefits to society" are described as "wooly" because they are always relied upon to distract from the fact that very few people use a station/ service/ line - if you have three stations with half a dozen trains a day in each direction but only around fifty departing passengers then you'd struggle to run a minibus with such low levels (and heavy rail obviously has significantly higher costs)

Except you wouldn't fit them on a mini bus as the route carries a lot more passengers than the fifty return journeys a day from those stations. You can make all sorts of interesting speculative arguments about people using other routes, however the reality is that the through passengers using the route obviously have their reasons for doing so.

Giggleswick station serves a couple of houses and a pub on the outskirts of Settle.

I'm pretty confident that if you closed the station, the vast majority of the current passengers would just use Settle instead (the station in the centre of the town, rather than Giggleswick, which is pretty inconvenient for most people)

Except that Giggleswick serves residents from there and Settle who need to travel West. Also it roughly alternates with the services from Settle towards Leeds, so it increases the frequency of services from the whole settlement towards the East.

As mentioned above, the time penalty for going via Preston is pretty small over a two hour journey

It'd be a five/ten minute increase in journey times from Leeds to Lancaster (less if you are heading to Windermere/ Barrow etc)

Saying it's cause you "real issues" sounds significant, but we're just talking about a mild inconvenience on leisure trips, right?

At the end of the day, I'm a paying passenger. Would my inconvenience be more relevant to you if my journeys were business trips ? (actually, I did use the LNW for a business trip once, but that was a few years ago).

It's a station that barely gets any use - yet you still can't accept closing it - there'll never be a station with passenger numbers pathetic enough for you to accept it doesn't warrant a heavy rail service

Well, as I say, it's not a route I use often, so I'm loath to condemn it. The point though is that the Heart of Wales line as a whole isn't the example of a line of empty trains.

Under any twenty first century organisation, you have assets and prices associated to them. Given that the Government got money when it sold the trains to the ROSCOs, they are recouping that money.

But, as usual, you're trying to move the goalposts. Even if the trains were provided by the ROSCO for no cost, you're still paying for drivers/ guards/ track maintenance/ signalling/ insurance etc - fifty passengers a day probably aren't covering the cost of one driver's wages yet alone all of the other costs.

The reason that the Bentham line is being discussed isn't because the ROSCOs are charging for use of their assets. The reason that the Bentham line is being discussed is because the passenger numbers are so low - blame privatisation if you want, blame the free market, but there's no getting away from the fact that the three stations in questions (with around half a dozen trains a day in each direction) don't have combined passenger numbers to fill a single 153.

As I recall, you asked the question about other costs on the wider network. If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question.

The reality is that passenger numbers aren't that low in normal times. The fact that you have to gerrymander your argument by selecting the passenger figures for three intermediate stations rather illustrates my point.

For 3 reasons that I can think of off the top of my head:
1- as mentioned before, you don't just spend all profits an asset makes paying it off at the start of its life, you deprecate it over its useful life. As they are still working fine, we are still in that useful period.
2-Even if you didn't work in that way, the 150s have pretty much always been on loss making routes, so where has the money come from to pay them off
3-Even if you ignore that, there is also the opportunity cost. For every 150 running around carrying 3 passengers and a labrador on a rural line, it is one less 2 car service into central Manchester that could be made up to 4.


I know, but I'm having as much fun arguing this case as I'm sure he is!

But the the railways have been building their rolling stock, then running it into the ground for centuries. If this system of paying for it through leasing costs several times over is so much more efficient, how come the original companies or their successors didn't adopt it ? Perhaps John Major and John McGregor were business geniuses who would have transformed the railway industry, if only they'd been around in the 1830's !

The money for the 150's came from the Government as an investment specifically for these routes. I don't really see the logic that because a line is subsidised, it's better to pay for a train carriage three times over rather than once.

At the end of the day, I'm all for running longer trains into city centre stations, but the industry and Government have just scrapped a load of servicable 144's, not to mention the load of 153's about to go off lease, so the argument that they need to rob passengers on rural routes of trains to run an urban service, doesn't really cut it for me, I'm afraid.

I would note that despite the very low traffic numbers, the Little North Western has not been rationalised to any significant degree.

Given the relative lack of level crossings, sidings or other, this would seem to be a prime example of a line where singling, with either RETB or a simplistic ETCS installation, could significantly reduce operational costs.

If we are justifying a "social railway", we have to ask what level of railway infrastructure is necessary to deliver the social service.

We should not condemn a railway entirely based on what it costs now, but instead on what it can be made to cost.

EDIT:

It takes only 39 minutes to cover the distance between Giggleswick and Canforth.
Even if the line was single track from the Settle approach junction to Canforth, eight trains a day could be sustained with no passing loops!

It's an interesting one. You'd haver thought BR would have done it in the 1980's. Perhaps it just makes it that much easier to slot the services in and out of the WCML if they don't end up having to wait at Carnforth to enter the single section. A case of the potential savings not justifying the reduction in resilience.

 

[zwk500]

I would note that despite the very low traffic numbers, the Little North Western has not been rationalised to any significant degree.

Given the relative lack of level crossings, sidings or other, this would seem to be a prime example of a line where singling, with either RETB or a simplistic ETCS installation, could significantly reduce operational costs.

If we are justifying a "social railway", we have to ask what level of railway infrastructure is necessary to deliver the social service.

We should not condemn a railway entirely based on what it costs now, but instead on what it can be made to cost.

EDIT:

It takes only 39 minutes to cover the distance between Giggleswick and Canforth.
Even if the line was single track from the Settle approach junction to Canforth, eight trains a day could be sustained with no passing loops!

There are no intermediate signal boxes between Carnforth Station Jn and Settle Jn, so RETB and ETCS would not give a benefit on operating costs. The Little NW will only be upgraded when the lines either side are done. Singling would, perversely, increase operating costs as it includes additional pointwork, which I suspect is more to maintain than plain line track for low speed.

We are, however, extremely far from the thread topic.

 

[HSTEd]

Singling would, perversely, increase operating costs as it includes additional pointwork, which I suspect is more to maintain than plain line track for low speed.

We are, however, extremely far from the thread topic.

I concur we have drifted substantially, but I don't think it does mean additional pointwork.

The Settle-end junction is a single lead and a crossover is provided at the Carnforth end, at least from aerial photography. (EDIT: Confirmed from the sectional appendix)

That is a net reduction of two point ends, and if we were to accept limiting Bentham Line trains to only Platform 2 at Carnforth, we can save three.

Either way, my central point is, before axing lines entirely we must work out if their social functions can be achieved at lower cost through rationalisation.