Why do many railway lines in this country run at a loss instead of being replaced by alternative modes?

[option]

If you purely go by the money, hardly any roads are loss making. The maintenance and running cost of roads is, in rail terms, very cheap. In exchange for that the government gets a huge dollop of fuel duty and VAT (even on the fuel duty!).

Policing costs?
CMPG & NWMPG is ~340 staff, & that's only covering some of the motorway network.

Central Motorway Police Group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

North West Motorway Police Group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Network Rail has ~£55bn in debt, which costs ~£2bn a year to service.
Does Highways England have any debt?

 

[deltic]

If you purely go by the money, hardly any roads are loss making. The maintenance and running cost of roads is, in rail terms, very cheap. In exchange for that the government gets a huge dollop of fuel duty and VAT (even on the fuel duty!).

As the money paid by motorists does not go to the highway authority it is impossible to determine if the majority of roads would be profitable or not if the tax paid followed the vehicle. There are probably quite a few roads that no-where near generate the revenue needed to light, clean and repair them based on the miles driven on them and the revenue received per mile. TfL subsidises motorists to the tune of a couple of hundred million a year even with the congestion charge because of this issue.

 

[miklcct]

Because if I need to drive 30 miles to an "inter-city" station and leave my car there, and pay for parking as inevitably there won't be free parking there, I more likely to just drive all the way.

If your destination is also rural it makes sense to drive all the way, but if you are heading to, say, e.g. Manchester, you would rather park your car and take the fast train rather than suffering in traffic congestion and paying city-centre parking fee!

 

[mmh]

If your destination is also rural it makes sense to drive all the way, but if you are heading to, say, e.g. Manchester, you would rather park your car and take the fast train rather than suffering in traffic congestion and paying city-centre parking fee!

Cities are more than the city centre...

 

[Bletchleyite]

If your destination is also rural it makes sense to drive all the way, but if you are heading to, say, e.g. Manchester, you would rather park your car and take the fast train rather than suffering in traffic congestion and paying city-centre parking fee!

You'd not, though. You'd drive most of the way and park at a park and ride station just outside. Much cheaper.

Also Manchester isn't actually that bad to drive to.

 

[yorksrob]

My argument is only valid when the line is at capacity. In China, the slower line is retained but the rural stations are decommissioned. The freed capacity is used to increase FREIGHT traffic.

In most cases here, if you removed the express passenger service to a high speed line, there'd be enough room for freight and the slower passenger service anyway.

 

[urbophile]

Cities are more than the city centre...

Yes but most of them have better public transport systems than rural areas. Could be much better still of course!

 

[RT4038]

You'd not, though. You'd drive most of the way and park at a park and ride station just outside. Much cheaper.

Also Manchester isn't actually that bad to drive to.

But this is just not borne out in practice. Station car parks are full of cars, so people are well used to getting in their cars, driving to the station [even if there is a closer station on a connecting line], parking up and taking a train. If trains were only used by those who could walk to the station (or go by other public transport [a tiny amount outside of the large conurbations]) there would be many fewer travelling by train.

However, each journey is subtly different - the further to drive to the station, and the shorter the subsequent train journey, the fewer who will not drive the whole way. Yes, where your final destination is, and how easy it is to navigate there and park, will also have a bearing on the decision, as will the costs and the total journey time, which will be a different view for each individual. There is no one answer to this question.

 

[Pinza-C55]

Is there a particular reason the transport solution must be a train thr

If you purely go by the money, hardly any roads are loss making. The maintenance and running cost of roads is, in rail terms, very cheap. In exchange for that the government gets a huge dollop of fuel duty and VAT (even on the fuel duty!).

But you can't measure the societal costs and benefits of infrastructure like roads or railways in financial terms alone.

Roads cause noise and air pollution, which is harmful for people as well as the environment. Congestion wastes time and thus productivity. Railways tend to cause far less noise and air pollution per passenger/tonne-km. And free up roads (when a good service is on offer).

That's not to mention the political cost of closing a railway, or opening a new bypass.

To answer the titular question, Britain's railways are not really there to make money. Because they don't, and they stopped doing so when road transport became viable. But they have many other benefits that justify their existence.

"If you purely go by the money, hardly any roads are loss making. The maintenance and running cost of roads is, in rail terms, very cheap. In exchange for that the government gets a huge dollop of fuel duty and VAT (even on the fuel duty!)"

I'd need to see hard figures before I would accept that. I believe the Financial Times did a study many years ago and found that the roads only made about a third of their costs and the rest was stumped up by the general taxpayer.

 

[The Ham]

"If you purely go by the money, hardly any roads are loss making. The maintenance and running cost of roads is, in rail terms, very cheap. In exchange for that the government gets a huge dollop of fuel duty and VAT (even on the fuel duty!)"

I'd need to see hard figures before I would accept that. I believe the Financial Times did a study many years ago and found that the roads only made about a third of their costs and the rest was stumped up by the general taxpayer.

It depends on what costs you include, if you include the value of accidents (lost time, harm to people, emergency services resources, etc.) then roads are really expensive. However if you exclude those then is it easy to exclude those costs from the costs of running the railways (as many of those costs are built in, such as the cost of the BTP) so you have a fair comparison?

The other factor which is lost in the calculation for the value of roads is the developer funding which is used to improve them, which can be significant from some developments.

 

[Dai Corner]

I'd say the answer to the question posed in the header "Why do many railway lines in this country run at a loss instead of being replaced by alternative modes" is "the consensus is that as a reasonably prosperous country we can afford it and it's worth the money"

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I'd need to see hard figures before I would accept that. I believe the Financial Times did a study many years ago and found that the roads only made about a third of their costs and the rest was stumped up by the general taxpayer.

You need to to do a bit more research. The total amount in all forms paid out on roads from the national exchequer is freely available. The total amount in all forms received by the national exchequer from motorists merely because they are motorists is less precisely available but is vastly greater than the amount spent on roads. It should at all times be remembered that motorists do not pay only road tax and excise duty on fuel. They also pay VAT when buying the car, plus VAT on fuel, spare parts, engine oil, servicing, MOTs etc. etc. plus 12% Government impost on car insurance. Your idea that non motorists tax-payers are subsidising motorists is very wide of the mark.

 

[Dai Corner]

You need to to do a bit more research. The total amount in all forms paid out on roads from the national exchequer is freely available. The total amount in all forms received by the national exchequer from motorists merely because they are motorists is less precisely available but is vastly greater than the amount spent on roads. It should at all times be remembered that motorists do not pay only road tax and excise duty on fuel. They also pay VAT when buying the car, plus VAT on fuel, spare parts, engine oil, servicing, MOTs etc. etc. plus 12% Government impost on car insurance. Your idea that non motorists tax-payers are subsidising motorists is very wide of the mark.

What about the amount spent on roads by local authorities?

 

[BluePenguin]

Quite so. But on the UK most of the railway is over 150 years old and the consultation process for either building a new line or closing a station is long and complex, and often political suicide. Our "High Speed" network so far consists of just one line, HS1, serving exactly one city, London - the other end is the Channel Tunnel. Local opposition to HS2 cost the government a byelection just last week. Conversely, the number of stations closed since 1971 can probably be counted on the fingers.

Technically that is not true, HS1 serves 2 cities. The second being Canterbury!! HS1 also serves lots of towns and villagers in Kent with direct and fast services to the capital. It is not all about the channel tunnel. These places have benefited hugely from having a high speed line, it has opened up numerous journey opportunities and connections which were simply not there before. HS2 will no doubt do the same for the North.

It would be even better if connected HS1 to HS2 and stopped focusing on London so much. It has become too dominant. CrossCountry is an example of how it should be done. Connecting places is better for passengers, rather than stopping at a few selected places before heading to a major city.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Technically that is not true, HS1 serves 2 cities. The second being Canterbury!! HS1 also serves lots of towns and villagers in Kent with direct and fast services to the capital.

This rather proves the OP's point. The OP would have us close the stations serving those towns and villages.
Although trains to Canterbury do use HS1, the last 15 miles from Ashford takes 14 minutes (average speed 64 mph) on a 19th century line which also carries a stopping service calling at three intermediate stations (Wye, Chilham, and Chartham), of the kind the OP advocates should be closed to speed up the intercity services.
(Edited for arithmetic)

 

[yorksrob]

This rather proves the OP's point. The OP would have us close the stations serving those towns and villages.
Although trains to Canterbury do use HS1, the last 15 miles from Ashford takes 14 minutes (average speed 32 mph) on a 19th century line which also carries a stopping service calling at three intermediate stations (Wye, Chilham, and Chartham), of the kind the OP advocates should be closed to speed up the intercity services.

AsI recall from my childhood days, it used to take about half an hour in the car from Ashford to Canterbury, so 15 minutes seems like a very competitive journey time.

 

[RT4038]

I'd say the answer to the question posed in the header "Why do many railway lines in this country run at a loss instead of being replaced by alternative modes" is "the consensus is that as a reasonably prosperous country we can afford it and it's worth the money"

The most succinct answer so far.

 

[mike57]

Because if I need to drive 30 miles to an "inter-city" station and leave my car there, and pay for parking as inevitably there won't be free parking there, I more likely to just drive all the way.

I think this is one of the many negative aspects of multimode travel:

When someone makes a journey they have 3 things to consider: cost, convenience and journey time

If they are less able, or carrying heavy luggage they will prioritise a direct/one mode service over a faster or cheaper multi mode journey or even consider a slower direct train (a good example would be Peterborough - Warrington, faster via London, but not attractive if you are less mobile or have a lot of luggage)

Business travellers probably prioritise journey time over cost

Lesiure travellers may prioritise cost above the others

The problem with switching modes of transport during a journey is that all three considerations take a hit. If you have to drive to a main station (Hull or York in my case) that means less convenient, higher cost (parking at York is an eye watering £17 per day during the week), and the possibility of there being no space on arrival. Buses, where they run, are slow and not designed for people carrying significant luggage. The other problem is that with a few exceptions bus and rail timetables are not integrated. Buses are also still at the mercy of road congestion, bus lanes in cities go some way to address this, but once you leave the cities there is not much you can do.

Having good local as well as inter city rail services ticks the boxes in terms of convenience and journey time. I predict that if you cut the rail network back to the point where most of the feeder branches and local stations are closed then even this rump would be unsustainable within 5 years. An interesting statistic would be the proportion of revenue and journeys that originate or finish using local or branch line services. If these services were removed I would predict that over 75% of this revenue would be lost. To relate an example I gave in an earlier post in this thread, Home > Hull > London KX > Paris, losing the local service would probably tip the balance towards flying, with the route being Home > Leeds-Bradford > Paris CDG > Paris RER, i.e. total loss of revenue to UK rail. This journey, even using advance tickets will cost around £200 return per person. Flying is sometimes cheaper, but currently convenience makes rail more attractive, and journey time is similar, with rail just having the edge door to door (Airport check in times and luggage retrieval at the other end really add up, also strict baggage weight limits).

So unless you have a rail system that offers local travel there will not be a rail system at all as it will wither and die.

 

[Bald Rick]

When someone makes a journey they have 3 things to consider: cost, convenience and journey time

Is absolutely correct.

An interesting statistic would be the proportion of revenue and journeys that originate or finish using local or branch line services. If these services were removed I would predict that over 75% of this revenue would be lost.

Is absolutely incorrect. Depending on your definition of ‘local’ or ‘branch line’ services. A very significant majority of people using long distance services do not use a connecting train. They may use a bus or tube (particularly in London), but that is a different question. Many of those who do use connecting trains are not on a branch line. And of those that do, it is reasonable to assume that some would find another way to reach the main line service. I’m afraid I can’t share the data.

 

[RT4038]

So unless you have a rail system that offers local travel there will not be a rail system at all as it will wither and die.

To a very large number of people, especially outside of conurbation suburban systems, rail does not feature in their local travel at all. Rail is already not a 'system' to these people, and to many never has been.

 

[daodao]

"the consensus is that as a reasonably prosperous country we can afford it and it's worth the money"

Post-Brexit and post-Covid, the UK (if it still exists as an entity in the longer-term) is at risk of going the same way as Argentina. There are still a number of railway lines kept alive by subsidies, which do not serve substantial settlements or are duplicating lines, that really ought to be for the chop. A prime example is the Settle and Carlisle line.

 

[RT4038]

Having good local as well as inter city rail services ticks the boxes in terms of convenience and journey time. I predict that if you cut the rail network back to the point where most of the feeder branches and local stations are closed then even this rump would be unsustainable within 5 years. An interesting statistic would be the proportion of revenue and journeys that originate or finish using local or branch line services. If these services were removed I would predict that over 75% of this revenue would be lost. To relate an example I gave in an earlier post in this thread, Home > Hull > London KX > Paris, losing the local service would probably tip the balance towards flying, with the route being Home > Leeds-Bradford > Paris CDG > Paris RER, i.e. total loss of revenue to UK rail. This journey, even using advance tickets will cost around £200 return per person. Flying is sometimes cheaper, but currently convenience makes rail more attractive, and journey time is similar, with rail just having the edge door to door (Airport check in times and luggage retrieval at the other end really add up, also strict baggage weight limits).

The number of people travelling from your local station to Paris, by train, each year is....... you and ? Anyone else in your village would drive or hire a taxi or get a lift to a local airport and go by plane. If your local service wasn't there, you would do the same to Hull or York Station, because you a rail enthusiast.

Most villages in the UK do not have rail service, so is spending millions a year subsidising your local rail service good value for money, compared to a small amount of through long distance tickets that may be at risk ?

 

[mike57]

The number of people travelling from your local station to Paris, by train, each year is....... you and ? Anyone else in your village would drive or hire a taxi or get a lift to a local airport and go by plane. If your local service wasn't there, you would do the same to Hull or York Station, because you a rail enthusiast.

Most villages in the UK do not have rail service, so is spending millions a year subsidising your local rail service good value for money, compared to a small amount of through long distance tickets that may be at risk?

To answer the question, yes, we may be the only ones for Paris, but other long distance journeys are made by others from our village by train. Our 'local' airport (Leeds Bradford) isnt local at all, its a 1.5hr + drive, so calling in favours for lifts is probably not feasable, and the taxi fare is pushing towards £100. That leaves drive and park as the only option if flying, that adds to the time and cost. I will admit we are a geographical oddity in that we are a long way (for mainland England) from an airport with an international service, Humberside, Teeside and Leeds Bradford are all a roughly 90 min drive, and flights from Humberside which is marginly the nearest are fairly limited. With a reasonable train service (hourly) from home that means the door to door times from Home to Paris are slightly quicker by train. However remove the local train, and we are looking at drive and park, Hull and York are both roughly 1hr drive anyway, so may as well carry on to an airport...

I agree that a lot of villages dont have the train option, but one of the reasons we moved here rather than other similar villages without the rail option is that we are able to manage with one car, as if we both need to be out at the same time in different directions one of us can use the train.

I reckon if you remove the train from local stations on main lines and close branch lines then the majority of those journeys will transfer to car. So the subsidy question becomes a much bigger one as increasing car usage is seen as bad, all the governments since the 60's have grappled with it, none of them have really come up with an answer, and the status quo is probably politically the least worst option. (i.e. subsidise the existing network where needed but no large scale reopenings)

 

[miklcct]

To a very large number of people, especially outside of conurbation suburban systems, rail does not feature in their local travel at all. Rail is already not a 'system' to these people, and to many never has been.

I believe that this can be partially contributed to the fact that the rail system in the UK is so hard to use, that an hourly train can't even be guaranteed between a village and the neighbouring major city / town.

In another thread I asked about why the system is so hard to use and I led to a conclusion that we don't have enough infrastructure (passing tracks) to allow express services passing minor stations without affecting the possibility to give a useful stopping service.

In an "ideal" system, there should be an express service stopping at major cities only all the way to London, and a local stopping service giving 15-30 minute headway on the whole line with the express service passing the local service at major stations, giving convenient travel between any two stations on the same line.

Now the status quo is that, local travel is sacrificed to give way to express trains on the line, but the express trains are not really frequent or fast enough to provide a truly competitive service except from a few key routes into London, because the companies need to find some combinations of trains to stop at the rural stations.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

What about the amount spent on roads by local authorities?

A good question to which there are good answers. First, large expenditure on local roads by the local authority is often financed by a grant from Central Government. Second, local authorities have their own revenue stream from motorists in the form of parking charges and fines. I have to pay to park outside my house. Third, if a house has its own garage, the council tax on that property will be higher. Fourth, in London we have what is fraudulently called a congestion charge.

Incidentally, many local authorities, particularly in London, spend very little on roads for the benefit of motorists. They spend a lot on cycle lanes and low traffic schemes but neglect fundamentals such as road surfaces and drains.

 

[yorksrob]

I believe that this can be partially contributed to the fact that the rail system in the UK is so hard to use, that an hourly train can't even be guaranteed between a village and the neighbouring major city / town.

In another thread I asked about why the system is so hard to use and I led to a conclusion that we don't have enough infrastructure (passing tracks) to allow express services passing minor stations without affecting the possibility to give a useful stopping service.

In an "ideal" system, there should be an express service stopping at major cities only all the way to London, and a local stopping service giving 15-30 minute headway on the whole line with the express service passing the local service at major stations, giving convenient travel between any two stations on the same line.

Now the status quo is that, local travel is sacrificed to give way to express trains on the line, but the express trains are not really frequent or fast enough to provide a truly competitive service except from a few key routes into London, because the companies need to find some combinations of trains to stop at the rural stations.

It would be interesting to examine the barriers to people using the system.

Generally I find that the pattern of services (with a few exceptions) is less of a barrier to using the train, than the fares structure and the requirement to book in advance to get an affordable fare.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Now the status quo is that, local travel is sacrificed to give way to express trains on the line, but the express trains are not really frequent or fast enough to provide a truly competitive service except from a few key routes into London, because the companies need to find some combinations of trains to stop at the rural stations.

You keep making all these bald assertions. Can you give examples - plural - of where this actually happens, where there is a genuine long-distance market that isn't being adequately served due to stopping trains getting in the way?

Because this sounds to me awfully like the old "Worcester must have fast trains to London which don't stop in the Cotswolds" argument, which disregards the fact that there genuinely isn't that big a market for Worcester to London.

Generally I find that the pattern of services (with a few exceptions) is less of a barrier to using the train, than the fares structure and the requirement to book in advance to get an affordable fare.

Exactly that.

 

[norbitonflyer]

You keep making all these bald assertions. Can you give examples - plural - of where this actually happens, where there is a genuine long-distance market that isn't being adequately served due to stopping trains getting in the way?

Several unhappy compromises. Relatively large towns like Tuxford, which would probably still have a station were it not to have the misfortune to be on the East Coast Main Line and calls there would delay long distance services. Wantage (Road) is another example. Some, like Ashchurch, have reopened.

Conversely, where there remains a stopping service on a main line, for example the Trent Valley route, or the ECML in Northumberland, or Pewsey, the service is irregular and infrequent as it has to fit between with the long distance services. Look at the very limited service the new station at Reston will get.

And yes, the service to Worcester and Hereford is relatively slow - the IEPs run at barely half the speeds they are capable of on the Cotswold line, and dwell times at intermediate stations are longer than they would be with trains with layouts designed for more frequent stops (such as 165s)

 

[BrianW]

I'm pleased to see this take from China, whether or not one agrees with what seems to be taken as some claim that China is 'superior' to GB- it's different.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm pleased to see this take from China, whether or not one agrees with what seems to be taken as some claim that China is 'superior' to GB- it's different.

Indeed. There is certainly something to be taken from some aspects of collectivism/prioritisation of the greater good rather than Western selfishness.

You keep making all these bald assertions. Can you give examples - plural - of where this actually happens, where there is a genuine long-distance market that isn't being adequately served due to stopping trains getting in the way?

Because this sounds to me awfully like the old "Worcester must have fast trains to London which don't stop in the Cotswolds" argument, which disregards the fact that there genuinely isn't that big a market for Worcester to London.

If China is the comparison, it's structurally very different from the UK - a similar number of cities but they are "megacities" and the distances between them are massive. Thus there is always considerable demand between city pairs and lots of stops have a much bigger impact.

In essence our whole railway is just a metro network in Chinese terms.