Great Western Coffee Shop

Iain Coucher has resigned an Network Rail Boss - see [here] (http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=8182.).  I note in the Guardian's quote - "Coucher said his decision to step down after three years in charge was not influenced by ..." that we're told what the reason isn't for his departure, and they also quote "Network Rail has warned that meaningful cuts in its budget can only come at the expense of a smaller railway that will have to carry fewer passengers than the 1.3bn journeys it managed in 2009."

Now - whether Mr Coucher really believes that the railway should be smaller, or whether he (as has been suggested) is simply making the most politically unacceptable suggestions to help build up objections, is a moot point; what is worthwhile is taking putting a few figures together and saying "if budget cuts are required, how could they be achieved?"

Hypothetical case study

Services from Qxxxxxxx (a city) to Hxxxxxxx (a terminus about 15 miles away), are currently each provided by what is essentially a dedicated train, and they run roughly every 2 hours.  Twelve of the 15 miles are used only by this service, once it branches off from a more major line.  The line (as a complete package - trains and track) is required to cost the taxpayer significanly less or if in profit to make a bigger net contribution.  What might the effective ways of doing this be?

a) Increase the fares but if the farebox income is low, there's a limit to how much you can do this without loosing so much traffic you end up worse off

b) Increase the number of people using the service but if the terminus, and other places served, are small, this may not do very much for you

c) Reduce the cost of providing the service by sharing one train between this line and the line to Mxxx (another journey of about an hour, of which the last 9 miles are only used by the Mxxx service). But you'll loose a lot of traffic as you halve the service to Hxxxxxxxx, and slash more dramatically the service to Mxxx which is currently run as a branch from the 9 mile short junction for much of the time.  And reducing the service, in my understanding, won't significanly reduce the cost of maintaining the right of way

d) Reduce the standard of maintainance on the 12 miles But how much of this is allowable under health and safety regimes, and what will be the effect on reliability. Are you just building up a backlog of problems?

e) Cease maintaining the line, and describe it as being "temporarily mothballed during the current economic times". But how many lines that were mothballed in past era have come back to life later?

f) Close the line for good (and the line to Mxxx too?) and tell people to use the bus, providing some extra services, perhaps.

Now - people travelling from Hxxxxxxxx and Mxxx probably won't be going just to the junction with the main line - they'll be going through to Qxxxxxxx and perhaps carrying on to London, and a significant reduction in service quality for the first dozen miles might make them move their whole journey to other modes.  Or it might mean they would move, depressing the area.  Visitor numbers in a tourist area would drop.  Some people would doubtless be unable to continue their existing jobs.

g) Restructure the complex way that railways are funded / franchised. But I'm not going to speculate how in this post

h) Raise the cost of other (less environmentally friendly??) means of transport, some of which you could argue currently have an unfair advantage. But Joe Public is going to be really unhappy about this!

---

I haven't put proper place names above (not even the right first letter!)... but I did have a quick think about places which have (to my knowledge) a passenger only service terminating at a smaller place that's not part of an urban sprawl; I came out with over 50 such places across the UK which to a greater (or lesser) extent the above could apply to.   Yes - there are many "special cases", I haven't looked at populations at intermediate stations, etc - but here are potential places where "green lines" on RUS maps may be questioned.

1000 population at terminus (Kxxx xx xxxxxxxx)
1000 population at terminus (Mxxxxxx)
2000 population at terminus (Gxxxxxxxxx)
3000 population at terminus (Fxxxxxxxx)
3000 population at terminus (Wxxxxx xxx)
4000 population at terminus (Bxxxxxx)
4000 population at terminus (Pxxxxxx)
4000 population at terminus (Sxxxxx xxxxx)
4000 population at terminus (Sxxxxxxxxxxx)
5000 population at terminus (Bxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx)
6000 population at terminus (Lxxx)
6000 population at terminus (Nxxxx xxxxxxx)
6000 population at terminus (Pxxxxxxx)
6000 population at terminus (Txxxxxxxxx)
7000 population at terminus (Wxxx)
7000 population at terminus (Txxxxxxxx xxxxxx)
7000 population at terminus (Rxxxxxx)
8000 population at terminus (Lxxxxx)
8000 population at terminus (Oxxx)
8000 population at terminus (Sxxxxxxx)
8000 population at terminus (Sxxxxxxxxx)
9000 population at terminus (Pxxxxxxx xxxx)
9000 population at terminus (Txxxxx)
10000 population at terminus (Bxxxxx xx xxxxxx)
10000 population at terminus (Hxxxx-xx-xxxxxx)
11000 population at terminus (Lxxxx)
11000 population at terminus (Mxxxxxx)
11000 population at terminus (Sxxxxxxxx)
12000 population at terminus (Sxxxxxxxx)
12000 population at terminus (Sx xxxx)
12000 population at terminus (Sxxxxxx)
12000 population at terminus (Wxxxxx xx xxxx)
13000 population at terminus (Mxxxxxx xxxxx)
14000 population at terminus (Hxxxxxxx)
14000 population at terminus (Ixxxxx)
14000 population at terminus (Lxxxxxxxx)
14000 population at terminus (Mxxxxx)
14000 population at terminus (Uxxxxxxx)
14000 population at terminus (Wxxxxx)
15000 population at terminus (Axxxxxxxxx)
15000 population at terminus (Cxxxxxxxx)
16000 population at terminus (Hxxxxxx)
17000 population at terminus (Axxxx)
18000 population at terminus (Mxxxxxx)
18000 population at terminus (Lxxxx)
18000 population at terminus (Sxxxxxxx)
19000 population at terminus (Axxxx)
19000 population at terminus (Sxxxxxxx)
20000 population at terminus (Cxxxx)
20000 population at terminus (Nxxxxxx)
20000 population at terminus (Sxxxxxxxxxxx)
20000 population at terminus (Cxxxxxx)
21000 population at terminus (Bxxxxxxxxx)
21000 population at terminus (Bxxxxx)
21000 population at terminus (Pxxxxxxx)
21000 population at terminus (Cxxxxxxx)

Sorry - but I can go further too.  Not terminating lines, but ones linking places line Lxxxxxxx to Cxxxxx Axxx and Gxxxxxxxxxxx to Bxxxxxxx (perhaps a couple of dozen in this group?) could be considered in a similar light. Interestingly, lines commonly used for main line diversions may not come into this group.

Thoughts, anyone?   I throw this open for discussion.

Just some thoughts.

The ORR publishes footfalls (ins+outs) for all NR stations as a .xls file.

If you take the gross footfall and divide it by the population you get the mean use per year of the service. For reasonably used suburban stations you get c300k +/- and about 25 visits per year, i.e. 12000 population.

If you can't get the population (from OPCS) just take the catchement area based on 12 minute walking time at 4.8km/hr and population of c4500/km2 (13000), giving 325000 footfall.

Some stations have bad access/service so perform badly others are railheads so do much better. The effect of a car park (say 100 spaces) is small as it only generates 50000 visits per year - pedestrian access is the key.

Doesn't answer your Q but may help...

OTC

Graham,

You are on to something here - better use of underutilised resources...


like the 'x' key on your computer keyboard  ;D