Rational justifications for keeping open lightly used lines

[quantinghome]

It's come up a number of times in recent threads: What is the point of keeping the Conwy Valley / S&C / Heart of Wales / etc. line open? The level of subsidy per passenger must be enormous.

Personally I wouldn't be in favour of cuts because it won't actually make any difference to the overall railway finances unless you cut extremely deep. And there are other arguments: they are social necessary, there's not the political will, it's a diversionary route, and so on. But none of these really stack up very well; they aren't particularly rational or quantifiable justifications.

So, just for fun, can we put together some rational, quantifiable justifications for why a lightly-used line should stay open?

 

[Journeyman]

To keep enthusiasts happy?

 

[zwk500]

Because the cost of closure in the full legal process is many times the subsidy required to keep the line open?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

To keep potential voters happy where the lines run through marginal constituencies?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Social inclusion?

 

[Bald Rick]

To prevent whichever politician (or railway Chairman) progresses it being forever labelled as another Beeching.

 

[Purple Orange]

How many lines have been closed since Beeching? Has that whole project made it almost politically impossible to close a line?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many lines have been closed since Beeching? Has that whole project made it almost politically impossible to close a line?

It's nonzero, but it's not a particularly big number, probably <10 plus a few stations.

 

[SteveM70]

Because the Tories have pinned their colours to the “reversing Beeching” mast

 

[simonw]

How many lines have been closed since Beeching? Has that whole project made it almost politically impossible to close a line?

Depends where post beeching is measured from. There was a round of closures in the early 70s. Swanage, Minehead, Bridport, Alston spring to mind. I'm sure there are others

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Depends where post beeching is measured from. There was a round of closures in the early 70s. Swanage, Minehead, Bridport, Alston spring to mind. I'm sure there are others

Probably those line (and station) closures which (i) weren't listed in "The Reshaping of British Railways" for closure and (ii) took place after Dr. Richard Beeching had ceased to be chairman of the British Railways Board in June 1965.

 

[Purple Orange]

Depends where post beeching is measured from. There was a round of closures in the early 70s. Swanage, Minehead, Bridport, Alston spring to mind. I'm sure there are others

It doesn’t so much matter I guess where the line of post beeching is drawn, but rather that the idea of Beeching’s closures is seen publicly as a negative to the extent that any reasonable line closure is now politically not possible, because of the perception of the Beeching closures.

Therefore the purpose of Beeching’s axe was to streamline the railway in to a more financially viable operation, but the legacy of the whole project is that such rationalisation is not possible now. Even to the extent of rationalising services on lines that won’t be closed, I.e. everywhere to everywhere that is blighting the Manchester network.

 

[quantinghome]

OK, we know it's politically impossible to close lines. The purpose of the thread is to identify if there are any rational transport-related reasons why lightly used lines should be kept open.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Would transporting schoolchildren to/from school in rural areas count as a valid reason (the light loadings on the line being at other times of the day)?

 

[30907]

That providing alternative transport would be particularly difficult/cause undue hardship (generalised version of Esk Valley/Cambrian Coast cases).

That the savings to be made are relatively low in proportion to the subsidy.

 

[stuu]

Tricky. My inherent bias in favour of rail travel would say that somewhere without rail is much more inaccessible e.g. somewhere like Bude feels much more out of the way than places which kept a railway. This perception of being left behind has been frequently used in reopening campaigns so there must be something in it, although whether there is any measurable economic difference is questionable.

 

[bluenoxid]

Conversion to an alternative mode (eg Guided Bus/Light Rail) where the line exists is too substantial compared to retaining the existing service.

The forecasted usage/business case of the alternative mode where conversion is mooted does not outweigh the cost.

 

[backontrack]

Because people still use them, and railways still fulfil a social function.

(And now to mute this thread, because this is a surprisingly unpopular opinion on this forum, bizarrely.)

 

[zwk500]

Because people still use them, and railways still fulfil a social function.

(And now to mute this thread, because this is a surprisingly unpopular opinion on this forum, bizarrely.)

What level of usage justifies 'rational' retention though? 1 person making 1 return journey per day? 10? 100?

Quantifying the social function is very difficult, but again the question has to be asked if the same or greater benefit could be provided by alternative means, and if so does it remain rational to retain the rail link.

I'm not saying we should close all loss-making lines, and of course the limit will vary depending on local circumstances, but surely at some point the level drops low enough to make it impractical to justify retention.

 

[stuu]

What level of usage justifies 'rational' retention though? 1 person making 1 return journey per day? 10? 100?

Quantifying the social function is very difficult, but again the question has to be asked if the same or greater benefit could be provided by alternative means, and if so does it remain rational to retain the rail link.

Quiet rural places which lightly-used lines serve pretty much always have terrible road connections as well. Llandrindod Wells to anywhere else is terrible by road for example. What actual percentage of the total spending on railways gets spent on the most marginal lines anyway? (Conwy valley excepted!)

 

[Mikey C]

Depends where post beeching is measured from. There was a round of closures in the early 70s. Swanage, Minehead, Bridport, Alston spring to mind. I'm sure there are others

In the public's mind (and indeed politicians) every closure within that period of the 60s to the early 70s - "The Motorway era" - seems to be lumped in as a Beeching closure, even if the Lord has nothing to do with it. He's a convenient bogey man

What level of usage justifies 'rational' retention though? 1 person making 1 return journey per day? 10? 100?

Quantifying the social function is very difficult, but again the question has to be asked if the same or greater benefit could be provided by alternative means, and if so does it remain rational to retain the rail link.

I'm not saying we should close all loss-making lines, and of course the limit will vary depending on local circumstances, but surely at some point the level drops low enough to make it impractical to justify retention.

Agreed. After all you wouldn't build a line just because 10 people a day in Little Snowestry need to travel 5 miles to Greater Snowestry every day

And the "buses in rural areas have been terrible since deregulation, and then council cuts" argument is pretty weak really, as the answer then is to sort out the buses.

 

[Class360/1]

It's come up a number of times in recent threads: What is the point of keeping the Conwy Valley / S&C / Heart of Wales / etc. line open? The level of subsidy per passenger must be enormous.

Personally I wouldn't be in favour of cuts because it won't actually make any difference to the overall railway finances unless you cut extremely deep. And there are other arguments: they are social necessary, there's not the political will, it's a diversionary route, and so on. But none of these really stack up very well; they aren't particularly rational or quantifiable justifications.

So, just for fun, can we put together some rational, quantifiable justifications for why a lightly-used line should stay open?

For tourism?
The Welsh government wants to increase the service frequency on one line from 6tpd to 2tph

 

[Western 52]

Another reason is that they act as feeders to other routes. Closure could therefore damage the case for keeping the lines they connect into?

 

[Bletchleyite]

For tourism?
The Welsh government wants to increase the service frequency on one line from 6tpd to 2tph

The Conwy Valley? I'm not sure that wasn't an error or written by someone who genuinely has no idea whatsoever. With the single line, you can't even quite get to hourly, let alone 2tph (I seem to recall a frequency of about one train every 1.5 hours is the best that could be achieved without some additional passing loops). I wonder if when they wrote that they actually meant two-hourly i.e. 0.5tph, which is feasible with the line as it is, albeit requiring a second unit or some linespeed improvements and truncating the service back to the Junction.

 

[Class360/1]

The Conwy Valley? I'm not sure that wasn't an error or written by someone who genuinely has no idea whatsoever. With the single line, you can't even quite get to hourly, let alone 2tph (I seem to recall a frequency of about one train every 1.5 hours is the best that could be achieved without some additional passing loops). I wonder if when they wrote that they actually meant two-hourly i.e. 0.5tph, which is feasible with the line as it is, albeit requiring a second unit or some linespeed improvements and truncating the service back to the Junction.

Yes, it was confirmed by RAIL, with more passing loops, although I doubt the plan would get through the feasibility stage

 

[yorksrob]

Because generally for medium to longer distances, rail is the best option for public transport. I've used buses for these sort of distances (Middlesborough/Scarborough - Whitby, Bodmin Road - Padstow, Leeds - Normanton as examples), and the journey has generally been long, tedious and to an extent, nauseating.

The Settle & Carlisle only gets a passenger train around every two hours, however its still the best way to get from urban West Yorkshire into the Dales.

 

[Class360/1]

Because generally for medium to longer distances, rail is the best option for public transport. I've used buses for these sort of distances (Middlesborough/Scarborough - Whitby, Bodmin Road - Padstow, Leeds - Normanton as examples), and the journey has generally been long, tedious and to an extent, nauseating.

The Settle & Carlisle only gets a passenger train around every two hours, however its still the best way to get from urban West Yorkshire into the Dales.

Not to mention the freight over the s and c

 

[yorksrob]

Not to mention the freight over the s and c

Indeed - and as a poster pointed out, just because there isn't so much freight today, doesn't mean there won't be new flows in the future !

 

[Calthrop]

In the public's mind (and indeed politicians) every closure within that period of the 60s to the early 70s - "The Motorway era" - seems to be lumped in as a Beeching closure, even if the Lord has nothing to do with it. He's a convenient bogey man

I probably repeat this with wearisome frequency; but I have heard the withdrawal of passenger services from one particular line -- which withdrawal happened in 1929 -- attributed to Beeching !

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I probably repeat this with wearisome frequency; but I have heard the withdrawal of passenger services from one particular line -- which withdrawal happened in 1929 -- attributed to Beeching !

Southwold railway?