Proposal to rebuild the line to Ballater

[geordieblue]

Is there anywhere in the world where fresh fish is moved by rail? As @DynamicSpirit points out, it seems a traffic singularly unsuited to rail.

I'm old enough (just) to remember fish - and livestock - moving by rail. And I can also see why they no longer do so!

Japan, from memory? And is some carried on the Sleeper? Both in very small quantities, mind.

 

[Killingworth]

Trouble with very many, if not all, rail restoration plans is that we aim to restore basically Victorian infrastructure 150-200 years or so after it was designed, but the world has moved on. Who remembers parcel traffic and luggage in advance?

Back then the alternative for most folks was an expensive stage coach, walk, or go by sea if near the coast. The railway was a fantastic new resource. 100 years ago road transport started to take the rail market, and very quickly. By 50 years ago air transport was taking long distance travel away.

When railways were first built people would walk a mile to the station because there was no alternative. Today's car or bus get a lot nearer to home.

Back then the life blood of many smaller stations was domestic coal, a few wagons dropped off and collected at regular intervals . Wagon load, slow moving, freight was accepted because that was the way it was.The new marshalling yards of the 195Os were able to shunt odd wagons into full sized trains then to be dropped off at many company sidings across the land. That didn't last long!

White blue spot XP fish vans might be added to express services running down the ECML. There were more unusual loads, like racing pigeons. 100- 150 years ago the station account books showed considerable freight revenue, still sufficient to justify retaining some lines a little longer after passenger services were withdrawn 50 years ago.

Let's maintain and improve the railways we still have before chasing too many memories. To see Deeside the best way is slowly, probably on foot or by bike!

 

[Bald Rick]

You work in the railways, but are so deeply skeptical or openly hostile to a reopening?

Why are you so utterly convinced that this won’t happen? Is that even a fair position to take before we have a feasibility study completed?

I am not hostile to reopenings. As I have written several times on my decade on these pages, including replying to you in another thread, I am all for building new railways, whether all new or on the site of old lines. I am also a taxpayer, who wants to see my tax spent wisely.

Feasibility studies still cost money. To get any idea of whether a project is likely to have a case, you need to have a decent evidence base on likely demand, a rough idea of cost (capital and operational), and an examination of alternatives that could deliver a similar benefit per pound invested. This is better described as ‘pre-feasibility’, and for a proposal like this, you’ll be looking at a few hundred thousand pounds. Full feasibility will be several million. Before committing that sort of expenditure, you want to have a reasonable idea of why you are doing it, and what the potential benefits might be. The proposers of the Aberystwyth- Carmarthen reopening have spent the best part of half a million quid to find, to the surprise of almost no-one in the rail industry, that there is nowhere near a case for building that line; half a million pounds that could have been better spent on so many things in that part of the world. So I think it is fair to be asking those questions.

But what has come back from you is... nothing. I have answered every question you have asked me, including those above, including on how I have arrived at figures for costs, relative costs for the Borders line, detail about safeguarding of the route (“protection”) and so on.

I have asked you questions on what the benefits are (post #12), what problem the proposal is designed to solve (#14) and what possible solutions for that problem are (#14), your estimate of costs (#16) and why you think they might be different to the actual costs of new railways being built now (#19), your estimate for the cost of getting the line through the difficult section around Deemount / Duthie Park (#110). And you haven’t answered. What you have done is made unsubstantiated claims, such as:

The benefits are massive

And when asked to justify them, not answered.

You have also exaggerated, or misrepresented what I have written, for example with :

I think my favourite bit of this whole thread is BR aiming to communicate to the entire electorate that this not a serious proposal and won't happen.

yet my post #94 was clearly addressed to the people living in the areas depicted in the aerial imagery, and not ‘the entire electorate’. Having personally had to deal with residents who might have a railway built close to their property, including some who would lose their home, I feel it is important to stress where proposals are serious (ie official policy) or not. Perhaps if you had had to sit in the living room of a lovely retired couple, and explain to them why their ‘forver’ home was to be demolished, whilst they were crying, you’d understand that.

Or:

On that specific point, it’s taken as given that you purchase the land tomorrow

I didn’t say that anywhere. And whilst I assumed compulsory purchase would be required, it would be rash to assume otherwise given that almost every new railway project ever built required it. And even if it didn’t, it wouldn’t noticeably affect the costs of property acquisition - if anything without CP the costs would go up.

And:

But that’s ok, some of the posters and some of the readers, particularly ones who actually possess local knowledge and are aware of the issues here are convinced. The proposals have also been very positively

Where are the people who are convinced? And where have they been “positively” ? (received, presumably). With one exception (@AlistairFraser - who is more concerned with Peterhead), they are not on this thread, and this forum is, as you might expect, very pro-rail. If you can’t get at least some people on a pro-rail forum in favour of a proposal, then in the real world it gets real difficult.


So please forgive me if I’m being seen to be deeply sceptical. Perhaps if some questions were answered, with even very basic evidence, I would change my mind. So are you going to provide any answers? Or not? Because if not, then I’m afraid I will have to assume that either you don’t know, or that you do know and realise that there won’t be a case and are thus just making noise in the hope that a politician doesn’t notice that there isn’t a case. Either way, I will leave it to the forum readership to judge the credibility of the proposal accordingly.

Alternatively you might have the answers. As Churchill said “when the facts change, I change my mind”. I’m happy to do so. Are you?

I do wonder where he gets the patience from though.

I find it’s better to be helpful and polite, even if people do their very best not to understand, listen, or be willing to be open to alternative viewpoints, than to get grumpy or cross. Better for one’s own mental health too.

Or maybe I’m just a Saint

Is there anywhere in the world where fresh fish is moved by rail?

The Flying Kipper, surely.

 

[Energy]

Ballater to Aberdeen is about 40 miles and Google gives an estimate of about an hour. That is short enough for a bus service with a good frequency. Looking online there isn't a bus service yet...

 

[Bald Rick]

Ballater to Aberdeen is about 40 miles and Google gives an estimate of about an hour. That is short enough for a bus service with a good frequency. Looking online there isn't a bus service yet...

There is, and a good one. Normal times half hourly to Banchory, extended hourly to Ballater / Braemar. It also serves the intermediate communities, including the small ones. Quick estimate, that bus service will cost about half as much to run as an hourly train service would.

Of course if the railway was built, the traffic from the bigger settlements would swap to the train, making the bus uneconomic, and either reduced in frequency or removed altogether at a loss to the smaller communities, clearly. Unless the local authority stepped in with subsidy. So you spend upwards of a billion pounds to fund a railway that wouldn’t cover its costs, and results in having to also subsidise a worse bus service that currently doesn’t need subsidy.

Or put another way, for the cost to government of just operating a rail service, you could double the frequency of the bus service, make it electric and reduce the fares. And not spend a billion quid.

 

[Killingworth]

There is, and a good one. Normal times half hourly to Banchory, extended hourly to Ballater / Braemar. It also serves the intermediate communities, including the small ones. Quick estimate, that bus service will cost about half as much to run as an hourly train service would.

Of course if the railway was built, the traffic from the bigger settlements would swap to the train, making the bus uneconomic, and either reduced in frequency or removed altogether at a loss to the smaller communities, clearly. Unless the local authority stepped in with subsidy. So you spend upwards of a billion pounds to fund a railway that wouldn’t cover its costs, and results in having to also subsidise a worse bus service that currently doesn’t need subsidy.

Or put another way, for the cost to government of just operating a rail service, you could double the frequency of the bus service, make it electric and reduce the fares. And not spend a billion quid.

Surely anyone with local knowledge would already know all this to be true? I'd seriously question any other policies proposed by a politician promoting this reopening. Attention seeking kite flying, that's all.

But maybe on the island of Sodor Bertie the bus and Thomas would both be able to operate viable services - supported economically by sales of picture books!

 

[Llandudno]

There is, and a good one. Normal times half hourly to Banchory, extended hourly to Ballater / Braemar. It also serves the intermediate communities, including the small ones. Quick estimate, that bus service will cost about half as much to run as an hourly train service would.

Of course if the railway was built, the traffic from the bigger settlements would swap to the train, making the bus uneconomic, and either reduced in frequency or removed altogether at a loss to the smaller communities, clearly. Unless the local authority stepped in with subsidy. So you spend upwards of a billion pounds to fund a railway that wouldn’t cover its costs, and results in having to also subsidise a worse bus service that currently doesn’t need subsidy.

Or put another way, for the cost to government of just operating a rail service, you could double the frequency of the bus service, make it electric and reduce the fares. And not spend a billion quid.

And the commercially provided bus service runs until after midnight in non covid times!

 

[HSTEd]

Like I said, if you can come up with a reason for a bulk flow to the upper Dee valley, you might have a case for a line in the valley.

I can't think of one, short of spending billions on developing winter sports resorts in the eastern Cairngorms.
(I kinda think we shouldd evelop Scottish skiing as a national UK-wide policy thing, but that would be better focussed on the likes of Aviemore and Glenshee with superior transport links)

 

[Tobbes]

Like I said, if you can come up with a reason for a bulk flow to the upper Dee valley, you might have a case for a line in the valley.

I can't think of one, short of spending billions on developing winter sports resorts in the eastern Cairngorms.
(I kinda think we shouldd evelop Scottish skiing as a national UK-wide policy thing, but that would be better focussed on the likes of Aviemore and Glenshee with superior transport links)

The only source of bulk demand I could think of would be new housing for commuters to Aberdeen - and a lot of it.

 

[Bald Rick]

I can't think of one, short of spending billions on developing winter sports resorts in the eastern Cairngorms.

Having walked almost every mountain in that area, there’s not much that’s skiable. It’s mostly too steep, not steep enough, or too low. There are a few isolated areas - south, west and north slopes of Beinn a’ Bhuird (not east!), south and west of Beinn Bhotrain, a small area to the south of Cairn Toul, and that’s about it. And they are not linkable by any reasonable means.

The only source of bulk demand I could think of would be new housing for commuters to Aberdeen - and a lot of it.

And there’s plenty of places nearer Aberdeen where that could go without spending a billion quid plus on a railway

 

[30907]

But maybe on the island of Sodor Bertie the bus and Thomas would both be able to operate viable services - supported economically by sales of picture books!

Quite. And Bertie, having lost the race, would contentedly run feeder services to Thomas's stations

 

[Energy]

Or put another way, for the cost to government of just operating a rail service, you could double the frequency of the bus service, make it electric and reduce the fares. And not spend a billion quid.

Yep. The project is just vote scoring, its pretty clear that the current bus service (now I know it exists!) is fine and does the job excellently.

 

[6Gman]

Feasibility studies still cost money. To get any idea of whether a project is likely to have a case, you need to have a decent evidence base on likely demand, a rough idea of cost (capital and operational), and an examination of alternatives that could deliver a similar benefit per pound invested. This is better described as ‘pre-feasibility’, and for a proposal like this, you’ll be looking at a few hundred thousand pounds. Full feasibility will be several million. Before committing that sort of expenditure, you want to have a reasonable idea of why you are doing it, and what the potential benefits might be. The proposers of the Aberystwyth- Carmarthen reopening have spent the best part of half a million quid to find, to the surprise of almost no-one in the rail industry, that there is nowhere near a case for building that line; half a million pounds that could have been better spent on so many things in that part of the world. So I think it is fair to be asking those questions.

I thank @Bald Rick for making a point I was going to make. Feasibility studies are VERY expensive, and every penny spent on one is a penny which cannot be spent elsewhere. It's therefore reasonable to screen out the basket cases in advance of a full feasibility study.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I'm sure Bald Rick would be delighted to have a railway reopen - just that this one is not feasible with its current business. BR is being reasonable, giving his rough cost estimate based on other rail projects instead of blindly saying that this is a great spend of money because no matter where it is a new railway is good. It could change in the future, but right now it doesn't have a good business case...

Is that not a good reason? At the rough price estimates it has got to serve a lot of people to be worthwhile, the treasury aren't the most willing to give money away, I heavily doubt they will provide the very large amounts of money unless there is enough demand.

Fully detailed feasibility studies take time and money and are very likely to be close enough to BR's rough estimates. When there is a passing chance of a good business case then it can get a feasibility study.

Because its fairly clear that it is not viable, MPs propose new rail lines all the time, doesn't mean they happen.

My favourite part of this thread is you trying to reject his cost proposals which have had evidence provided in the form of other rail projects while you don't give a proposal yourself.

Make that 15+ and you might be able to justify a freight train a day, not a whole line though. Also if its containerised, why not just have trucks take it to a rail port?

Because the nearest railport is a 4-5 hour drive away and there are not enough spare paths through Montrose to make a NE railfreight hub viable in any way or form, even though the transport of materials for the huge housing growth in the area and components of a spaceport to be built not far away are definitely to be categorised as major flows.

 

[Wynd]

Yep. The project is just vote scoring, its pretty clear that the current bus service (now I know it exists!) is fine and does the job excellently.

If I may inject some facts in to this.

The bus service is badly under-utilised, very very slow and it not used by commuters. I know this to be true as a resident of many years.


The service is also heavily subsidised. This will be detailed within the Aberdeenshire council budget should anyone care to disagree. Most of the services in Aberdeenshire are heavily subsidised in fact, and there are ongoing surveys and re-evaluations of the services provided which is also available on the shire website.

The fact remains that the bus service does not encourage modal shift from car to public transport as the bus has to go through all the same bottlenecks as the car, and take in more stops due to the nature of a rural bus service. This drops it well below a journey time that could compete with driving a car.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The bus service is badly under-utilised, very very slow and it not used by commuters. I know this to be true as a resident of many years.

The service is also heavily subsidised. This will be detailed within the Aberdeenshire council budget should anyone care to disagree. Most of the services in Aberdeenshire are heavily subsidised in fact, and there are ongoing surveys and re-evaluations of the services provided which is also available on the shire website.

The fact remains that the bus service does not encourage modal shift from car to public transport as the bus has to go through all the same bottlenecks as the car, and take in more stops due to the nature of a rural bus service. This drops it well below a journey time that could compete with driving a car.

I agree that, on looking at the timetable, the 1 hr 45 mins journey from Ballater to Aberdeen is unlikely to attract many commuters.

But that doesn't change that a rail service needs a reasonably big passenger flow to make it viable - and a quick check on (a) Google Maps, and (b) population stats for people living around Ballater, makes it look extremely unlikely that a railway line would attract anything like enough people to justify the potentially £hundreds of millions cost of building it.

Look at it this way: You want to get people out of their cars (which I agree is a great thing to do). You have £1Bn to spend on building a railway line to do just that. Does it make more sense to spend that money building a line to a rail-less town where it'll put many thousands of people within easy reach of a station (Peterhead, Levenmouth, Grangemouth, St Andrews), or would it make more sense to build a line to a village where it'll just put barely 1000 or so people within easy reach of the station (plus a maybe few thousand more from other villages who'll be able to reach the station by - ummm - driving to it). Which option is going to get more people out of their cars?

 

[Journeyman]

The bus service is badly under-utilised

Then the trains will be as well.

The service is also heavily subsidised. This will be detailed within the Aberdeenshire council budget should anyone care to disagree. Most of the services in Aberdeenshire are heavily subsidised in fact, and there are ongoing surveys and re-evaluations of the services provided which is also available on the shire website.

Subsidising trains will cost a lot more.

The fact remains that the bus service does not encourage modal shift from car to public transport as the bus has to go through all the same bottlenecks as the car, and take in more stops due to the nature of a rural bus service. This drops it well below a journey time that could compete with driving a car.

You can only justify spending a fortune on building a railway if you know for a fact that there is loads of demand for it. This is doubtful.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

The cost, might MAYBE be justified as far as Banchory, and whilst I always love the ideas of re-opening railways, this can only happen if the benefits of the line will outweigh the costs. Which whilst it may do so as far as Banchory, it might not be viable all the way to Ballater as the populations appear to be quite small to be able to support the massive cost of the railway, not to mention it would be difficult to be able to rebuild the railway line. So, I agree with @Skite Train that the line should be reopened (but only as far as Banchory), but I also agree with @Bald Rick that the massive cost and low populations wouldn't justify the reopening of the whole line all the way to Ballater.

Instead, what I'd probably do instead is order brand new low floor double decker buses for the 201 (ADL Enviro400 MMC SH would be ideal) with dedicated branding replacing the current Volvo B9R Plaxton Elite coaches, to allow the buses to have more seats as well as encourage people to use public transport instead of driving.

 

[Bald Rick]

Instead, what I'd probably do instead is order brand new low floor double decker buses for the 201 (ADL Enviro400 MMC SH would be ideal) with dedicated branding replacing the current Volvo B9R Plaxton Elite coaches, to allow the buses to have more seats as well as encourage people to use public transport instead of driving.

That would cost less than just doing a proper feasibility study for the line, and be quicker to deliver...

 

[Tobbes]

That would cost less than just doing a proper feasibility study for the line, and be quicker to deliver..

Ouch. But not wrong.

I'd love to see the whole thing reinstated, and if it had never closed then we'd certainly not be talking about closure.

But it did close and rebuilding it beyond Banchory seems very unlikely to begin to deliver best incremental value for the next transport pound (not least becuase actually getting a route through Banchory looks very difficult). Whether an intensive metro service for Aberdeen as far as Banchory is viable is presumably the question (lots of commuters into Aberdeen).

 

[Bald Rick]

not least becuase actually getting a route through Banchory looks very difficult).

As explained upthread - getting a route out of Aberdeen looks very difficult. It looks like there’s more people affected than on the whole of the Borders line!

 

[SouthEastBuses]

That would cost less than just doing a proper feasibility study for the line, and be quicker to deliver...

Absolutely. And it would improve accessibility too, as my new proposed double deckers wouldn't have steps making it easy for the elderly etc. (Sorry for the off topic)

Don't get me wrong, I want the Deeside line reopened. It's just that due to cost and demand, it would only be ideal to open it from Aberdeen as far as Banchory.

 

[lachlan]

Ouch. But not wrong.

I'd love to see the whole thing reinstated, and if it had never closed then we'd certainly not be talking about closure.

But it did close and rebuilding it beyond Banchory seems very unlikely to begin to deliver best incremental value for the next transport pound (not least becuase actually getting a route through Banchory looks very difficult). Whether an intensive metro service for Aberdeen as far as Banchory is viable is presumably the question (lots of commuters into Aberdeen).

As much as I'd love to see it reopened too, reinstating rail services to Newmachar and Ellon, then Peterhead and Fraserburgh would connect a lot more people and I think there's less in the way too. Perhaps once that is underway, then we should start thinking about the Deeside line.

The Culter to Aberdeen corridor already has a good bus service. The train would presumably have a shorter journey time but how much would be cancelled out by the inconvenience of fewer stops? The bus goes via Union Street too which is a steep climb up from the railway station on foot. The shorter journey times would be more beneficial for travel to Banchory and beyond, but that's a small market.

 

[Bevan Price]

There is, and a good one. Normal times half hourly to Banchory, extended hourly to Ballater / Braemar. It also serves the intermediate communities, including the small ones. Quick estimate, that bus service will cost about half as much to run as an hourly train service would.

Of course if the railway was built, the traffic from the bigger settlements would swap to the train, making the bus uneconomic, and either reduced in frequency or removed altogether at a loss to the smaller communities, clearly. Unless the local authority stepped in with subsidy. So you spend upwards of a billion pounds to fund a railway that wouldn’t cover its costs, and results in having to also subsidise a worse bus service that currently doesn’t need subsidy.

Or put another way, for the cost to government of just operating a rail service, you could double the frequency of the bus service, make it electric and reduce the fares. And not spend a billion quid.

The only problem is that Ballater to Aberdeen by bus is scheduled to take 105 minutes, which is a bit slow to persuade people not to use cars. Even Banchory to Aberdeen takes 64 minutes.

Not that this will increase the tiny possibility of the railway reopening.

 

[A0]

The only problem is that Ballater to Aberdeen by bus is scheduled to take 105 minutes, which is a bit slow to persuade people not to use cars. Even Banchory to Aberdeen takes 64 minutes.

Not that this will increase the tiny possibility of the railway reopening.

To put that in context though, Google Earth reckons driving Ballater to Aberdeen takes circa 70 minutes. An average of 40 miles an hour, so it's not like the roads are particularly quick in any case.

That said, the railway line is about 43 miles (based on the 70km mentioned in the first post), so realistically what would the train journey time be ? To put it in context, Leighton Buzzard to Euston (on a 100 mph + mainline) takes 50 minutes to cover than journey, using 110 mph capable EMUs with 3 stops en-route. This line wouldn't be running at 100mph or using relatively high performing EMUs - so a journey time of 60-70 minutes would be more likely.

The one thing I did notice, which it seems 'Skite Train' seems to have ignored is the article on the first post also says this:

"We [Planet Radio] spoke to Railway engineer Gareth Dennis to get his thoughts.

Dennis estimated by the length of the route that work could cost in the region of £700 Million - although that could be shortened to around £500 Million if you "reduce the specification" - but still a massive outlay."

And his costs don't seem to have considered the removal of housing that has been built on the line.

So Bald Rick's estimates aren't outlandish in the way Skite Train seems to think they are.

 

[lachlan]

To put that in context though, Google Earth reckons driving Ballater to Aberdeen takes circa 70 minutes. An average of 40 miles an hour, so it's not like the roads are particularly quick in any case.

That said, the railway line is about 43 miles (based on the 70km mentioned in the first post), so realistically what would the train journey time be ? To put it in context, Leighton Buzzard to Euston (on a 100 mph + mainline) takes 50 minutes to cover than journey, using 110 mph capable EMUs with 3 stops en-route. This line wouldn't be running at 100mph or using relatively high performing EMUs - so a journey time of 60-70 minutes would be more likely.

There's a 1963 timetable on the Wikipedia article which has an Aberdeen to Ballater service taking 88 minutes, with thirteen intermediate stops. So a modern train stopping at say Cults, Bieldside, Miltimber, Culter, Banchory, Aboyne, and Ballater, six intermediate stops, ought to be a good bit quicker.

 

[A0]

There's a 1963 timetable on the Wikipedia article which has an Aberdeen to Ballater service taking 88 minutes, with thirteen intermediate stops. So a modern train stopping at say Cults, Bieldside, Miltimber, Culter, Banchory, Aboyne, and Ballater, six intermediate stops, ought to be a good bit quicker.

Not necessarily - 6 intermediate stops assuming a 2 minute dwell time gives you 12 minutes before you start and that's before you cover the acceleration / deceleration which will affect your average speed.

The line is 40 miles - compare that to Borders Rail at 35 miles which with 8 stops is taking circa 60 minutes to cover Tweedbank to Edinburgh. You're unlikely to improve on that, so 60-70 minutes is still more realistic, not sure if that meets your assessment of "a good bit quicker" though.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Not necessarily - 6 intermediate stops assuming a 2 minute dwell time gives you 12 minutes before you start and that's before you cover the acceleration / deceleration which will affect your average speed.

The line is 40 miles - compare that to Borders Rail at 35 miles which with 8 stops is taking circa 60 minutes to cover Tweedbank to Edinburgh. You're unlikely to improve on that, so 60-70 minutes is still more realistic, not sure if that meets your assessment of "a good bit quicker" though.

2 minute dwell time? That seems a bit excessive for a local service calling at relatively minor stations. 1 minute max, surely? (I'm quibbling about minor things though - it doesn't change that the fundamental economics of the line don't look at all good).

 

[lachlan]

Not necessarily - 6 intermediate stops assuming a 2 minute dwell time gives you 12 minutes before you start and that's before you cover the acceleration / deceleration which will affect your average speed.

The line is 40 miles - compare that to Borders Rail at 35 miles which with 8 stops is taking circa 60 minutes to cover Tweedbank to Edinburgh. You're unlikely to improve on that, so 60-70 minutes is still more realistic, not sure if that meets your assessment of "a good bit quicker" though.

Perhaps "a good bit quicker" was an exaggeration but this sounds about right.

 

[Killingworth]

But a car starts at the minute the occupants want to start, from the place they want to start, and goes as close as possible to where they want to be. A trip by rail (or bus) needs to factor in the frequency of the service (and its reliability) and places it will pick up and drop off. The comparison of a car drive from the centre of Ballater, or Banchory, to the centre of Aberdeen with a train trip is largely irrelevant unless the user can work to the timetable and wants to leave and arrive very close to the stations.

The prospect of sufficient likely volumes to justify a fraction of the expense seems unlikely, even to Banchory.

The success of the Border Railway is due to it operating through a more populous region (Galashiels 16,000, Banchory under 8,000) and the ability to achieve some quite high speeds. Nevertheless it received massive public support and will require further support as long as it runs. Fare income from a few 2 car trains that might possibly be busy, and a lot more that are almost empty, won't make a business case. It takes a huge weight of other factors to overcome that.

It would probably be cheaper to offer potential Ballater line users a free taxi service for life. It would certainly be more flexible for most of them