Idea: Fort William to Glasgow via Perth

[frobisher]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Most people wouldnt care about semantics.

its a tax to use the road… we all know that.

 

Plus in quite a few places on gov.uk they do conflate the two with one being "commonly known as" the other.

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, frobisher said:

 

Plus in quite a few places on gov.uk they do conflate the two with one being "commonly known as" the other.

It's true that people do commonly refer to VED as road tax, so it makes sense for gov.uk to say that. It's not claiming it's accurate but it does mean that people who are reading it know which payment they've got to make it's talking about.

[Dungrange]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

no ones checking the serial numbers of those £20’s to see if the exact same road tax £20’s are being poured into a money pit on the A14 and not an a community outreach centre for retired insect lovers of Scunthorpe, but if it isn't the exact same £20 note, its another one identical to it, printed in the same place and coming out of the same rusty government vault, probably with conditions attached to it and an expectation that £25 will be returned later.

 

I think the point is more that the £20's don't need to tie up in any way at all.  They don't even need to be in the same ballpark.  Just because Vehicle Excise Duty draws in £X Million to central government funds doesn't mean £X Million has to be spend on roads.  It won't be if a community outreach centre for retired insect lovers of Scunthorpe were to be considered a bigger vote winner than spending the money on road maintenance.  The government could hike 'road tax' (either Vehicle Excise Duty or Fuel Duty) and spend the money on free rail travel if it so desired.

 

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

but tax doesn't have to always be punitive, it can be made to look appealing…

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/finance/rail-industry-finance/
 

Rail industry income. £22bn.

 

However there's some paper money here… The govt gives Network Rail £7bn, but counts £3.4bn as “other income” received from Network Rail.

so perhaps its really a £18.6bn railway ?

The UK has 31million tax payers.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/income-tax-liabilities-statistics-tax-year-2020-to-2021-to-tax-year-2023-to-2024/bulletin-commentary#:~:text=5.1 Number of Income Tax, UK in 2020 to 2021.

(section 2.2)

 

So if the £18bn was divided by the 31mn, it works out £50 per month, and we could have a free to use railway network for everyone.. young and old who pays the “Rail tax”.

 

Is this "rail tax" voluntary? 

 

If the railway were to become free to everyone who pays this tax, then my first question would be how many people would actually pay?  Of the 31 million income tax payers, some will make 500 trips per annum (two trips per day, five days per week, 50 weeks of the year) and others perhaps just a handful of trips.  Some won't travel by rail at all because there is no rail line between the places they travel between.  Whilst a £600 flat annual fare would represent exceptional value for some regular travellers, it probably doesn't represent good value for many occasional users.  Obviously, as you contract the number of people willing to pay a voluntary tax, your tax rate would have to rise to meet your fixed costs.  If only half of income tax payers were to sign up for your "rail tax", then the rate would have to be double your indicative value.  The only way for that not to happen would be to make it compulsory that all income tax payers pay, but that's really no different to increasing the rate of income tax and allocating a proportion of that to subsidising the rail network (which is effectively the current situation).

 

The other point is of course that the same source shows rail industry expenditure as £25 billion per annum.  That is the cost of running the existing level of service provision.  If everyone who pays the "rail tax" were to start making more journeys by rail (because the marginal cost of each additional journey has dropped to zero) then the cost of running the railway will increase and therefore the cost of your "rail tax" would have to increase as well.  If everyone were to make twice as many journeys, then you'd need twice as many trains and twice as many drivers so twice the cost.  That would therefore mean doubling your "rail tax".  If only half of income tax payers were signed up to your "rail tax", then you'd need to quadruple the rate. 

 

Extra travellers could probably be accommodated on many Scottish rural routes without significant infrastructure upgrades, but obviously there are large parts of the network that are capacity constrained (either line or terminal capacity) and the cost of that new infrastructure would also have to be met from your "rail tax", as what you are proposing at the moment really just covers the day to day operating costs, not the cost of adding an extra pair of lines to the West Coast Mainline and extra Platforms at London Euston or wherever people want to travel for free just because they've paid your "rail tax".  Once you set it at a level that provides for increase capacity (both network and services) you're talking about a lot more money, which would probably tend towards the current cost of a rail pass.  That is, purchasing a rail pass like the Spirit of Scotland is effectively the closest equivalent to your 'rail tax'.   For £189 you can have eight days unlimited travel over fifteen consecutive days.

 

https://www.scotrail.co.uk/tickets/combined-tickets-travel-passes/spirit-of-scotland

 

Sadly, I think your calculations are overly simplistic and not very realistic - a bit like the initial suggestion for a new railway line to serve Fort William.

[black and decker boy]

On 26/03/2024 at 19:40, FelixM said:

 

This is opentopomap (link). On the left is Tulloch station on the West Highland line, and on the right Dalwhinnie station on the Perth to Inverness line. Today a train journey from Glasgow to Dalwhinnie is 2h15min, from Glasgow to Tulloch however 3h15min, so an hour longer.

 

Looking at the map and seeing these figures, I wondered whether it is a good idea to build a new Tulloch – Dalwhinnie line and in the same vein abandon the Tulloch – Crianlarich section, rerouting Fort William services via Perth.

 

The new line would be ~45km (27mi) long, replacing the 100km Tulloch to Crianlarich section that passes through Rannoch Moor. I cannot make out how long trains would need via the new line but certainly less than that hour.

 

The list of CONS:

 

Generally low patronage to Fort William compared to other lines, making any spending difficult to justify, however it is not clear to me whether there are few passengers because of few slow services, or whether there are few slow services because of few passengers.

 

Losing Corrour, Rannoch, Gorton, Bridge of Orchy and Upper Tyndrum stations.

 

Losing direct services from Fort William to Helensburgh, Dumbarton and Dalmuir.

 

Less patronage on the Crianlarich to Glasgow section, only being fed by the Oban branch.

 

In my view, services to Fort William would best be split at Stirling from Glasgow to Aberdeen fast services, currently using legacy HST rolling stock. This extends the driver-needed length of line to the split/merging point (Stirling instead of Crianlarich).

 

Perhaps signalling upgrade needed from Stirling to Dalwhinnie to accomodate Fort William and Inverness trains running in the same direction in quick succession.

 

The list of PROS is longer:

 

Abandonment of a 100 km line across a moor (slow speed, costly maintenance) and exchanging it for a 50 km line on rock soil.

 

Reduced travel times between Fort William and Glasgow.

 

As trains would be calling at Perth and Stirling, connections to Dundee, Edinburgh are available.

 

Fort William services calling at Blair Atholl and Dunkeld & Birnam could speed up some Perth to Inverness services, removing these stops from Inverness services.

 

Abandonment of the split/merge operation in Crianlarich, speeding Oban services up.

 

Routing of all remaining WHL services to Oban, enhancing service levels to Oban.

 

UNDECIDED

 

It is unclear to me how much the tourist appeal of the West Highland line would suffer from the abandonment of the Crianlarich to Tulloch section. While I appreciate that Rannoch moor is beautiful, there aren't exactly many businesses dependend of those extra passengers that would not ride the line if Fort William services would go via Perth instead of via Crianlarich.

 

I am mystified whether Caledonian Sleeper would be routed to Oban instead, perhaps with a connecting bus link to Fort William, or to Fort William via the new line. A removal of Highlander services between Edinburgh and Glasgow would be a considerable Con, I suspect.

 

Rolling stock profile would change, fewer DMUs would be needed to work the Oban section, but Fort William services would need diesel-electro stock for the eventual electrification of the Highland main line. I am not sure whether the total number of trains to be needed would rise eventuallly.

 

So, a lot of guesswork and playing with numbers here. But what do you think, is it an idea worth to persist with? Appreciating these times rail infrastructure projects have a difficult stand, but on the other hand the reopening of the Borders railway was just under a decade ago.

Are you aware that there was once a more direct route from Crainlarich via Callendar to Dunblane and thence Stirling. It closed in the 1960s after a rockfall. It could no doubt have been repaired but economics meant the services were simplified to what we have today.

 

population of Fort William is a mere 10,000 and Mallaig is under 1000. Oban is around 8,000. The service outside of the tourist season is very much a social rather than commercial basis with very few trains a day.

 

efficiency and cost drive things hence RETB signalling and services which split at Crainlarich.

 

Tourism is heavily linked to the West Highland Way so cutting off trains from that would harm ticket sales and having to run all services individually to Oban or Ft William would increase costs.

 

i think whatever small amount is available for railway infrastructure upgrades has a much better use on higher density lines & services, especially where passenger and freight run together more frequently.

 

the borders railway was perhaps different being a reopening of an existing route and very much (affluent) commuter belt for Edinburgh.

[KeithMacdonald]

On 26/03/2024 at 20:06, Jeremy Cumberland said:

not even the most rail-mad First Minister could pursuade the voting public that this was worth spending millions of pounds on.

 

Oh I don't know, they've kept pouring public money into the bottomless pit known as Ferguson.

 

Quote

The two ferries, which will ultimately serve routes in the West of Scotland with CalMac, are some six years late and will cost almost four times the original price of £97m.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-68680453

[Reorte]

15 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

Are you aware that there was once a more direct route from Crainlarich via Callendar to Dunblane and thence Stirling. It closed in the 1960s after a rockfall. It could no doubt have been repaired but economics meant the services were simplified to what we have today.

 

population of Fort William is a mere 10,000 and Mallaig is under 1000. Oban is around 8,000. The service outside of the tourist season is very much a social rather than commercial basis with very few trains a day.

 

efficiency and cost drive things hence RETB signalling and services which split at Crainlarich.

 

Tourism is heavily linked to the West Highland Way so cutting off trains from that would harm ticket sales and having to run all services individually to Oban or Ft William would increase costs.

 

i think whatever small amount is available for railway infrastructure upgrades has a much better use on higher density lines & services, especially where passenger and freight run together more frequently.

 

the borders railway was perhaps different being a reopening of an existing route and very much (affluent) commuter belt for Edinburgh.

There's a little bit of freight on the West Highland too, the aluminium trains to Fort William. Don't think there's any log traffic any more though (would love to be proved wrong).

[DCB]

Anyone familiar with the A 86(?)  road along this route will realise how impractical and expensive such a route would be.
The A 86 is a fantastic road to drive, ideally in the evening after the motor homes have pitched up for the night, but sweeping round the bends by Loch Treig at 60MPH  on cruise control is great fun (Don't try it in a Skoda) (Or an evie, your battery will go flat) .    The road can be seen in in Monarch of the Glen repeats as the main location, the big house if on the A86 and the line would probably pass alongside the lake (Station is Broomhill on the Strathspey maybe 60 miles North)
The West Highland has genuine social benefits,  the road to Mallaig is single track in places and there is only one road and no diversion route what so ever.   The train is faster than the road at the Western end, and in icy weather the road must be challenging to say the least.
It is a question of resources.   Some lines and services can never cover their costs,let alone make a return on their capital investment. and yet serve no real social need.  They are called "Commuter Networks"  and their routes are duplicated by roads and public Taxi and Bus services.  No body needs them.  yet trains run hourly or better.  Not three a day like the West Highland. Why live in Brighton and work in London.   It's mad. Get a job in Brighton or work from home.   Selling off the southern3rd rail network real estate for development and the infrastructure  for scrap would make Millions for several MP's personal  portfolios, people could work from home and we could easily fill the redundant offices with the homeless.   But Popularism always wins over logic   People hate change, why they would have to find hobbies and a life to replace 10 hours commuting per week.    In summer 40% of Mallaig trains are steam hauled and around 75% of the passengers.    So there is my plan  Scrap South East commuter services, bring back steam on the main line and introduce a 3 minute interval service on the West Highland and a 3 a day in the Southeast. Redress the balance.    (Damn got the date wrong, thought it was going out Monday.)
 

[Northmoor]

On 26/03/2024 at 18:40, FelixM said:

The list of PROS is longer:

• Abandonment of a 100 km line across a moor (slow speed, costly maintenance) and exchanging it for a 50 km line on rock soil.
• Reduced travel times between Fort William and Glasgow.
• As trains would be calling at Perth and Stirling, connections to Dundee, Edinburgh are available.
• Fort William services calling at Blair Atholl and Dunkeld & Birnam could speed up some Perth to Inverness services, removing these stops from Inverness services.
• Abandonment of the split/merge operation in Crianlarich, speeding Oban services up.
• Routing of all remaining WHL services to Oban, enhancing service levels to Oban.

Considering the scale of what you are proposing (50km at perhaps £100M/km?), this seems like an eye-wateringly expensive way to save a small amount of money.  A bit like saying your 15 year old Ford Focus needs some new tyres for the next MOT, so to avoid the expense you replace it with a new Bentley.

[DCB]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

  A bit like saying your 15 year old Ford Focus needs some new tyres for the next MOT, so to avoid the expense you replace it with a new Bentley.

That only works with Local Authorities as the tyres come from the maintenance budget which is completely spent whereas the Bentley is capital expenditure and can be taken from the capital account. Likewise the bloke to empty the ashtray is from revenue but the new car with an empty ashtray is Capital.    A larger car with a larger ashtray could result in significant savings whereas an electric car with no ashtray  would result in the constructive dismissal of the ashtray cleaning operative, and a series of 3 day strikes whenever the sun came out  and repercussions for the ashtray cleaning team line manager who would probably go sick from the stress of having no one to manage and a pool of money he/she/they could not spend. 

Edited March 28 by DCB

[BoD]

5 hours ago, DCB said:

the road to Mallaig is single track in places

Are you sure about that?

[DCB]

7 hours ago, BoD said:

Are you sure about that?

Last time I went some of the bridges were not wide enough for 2 vehicles to pass.

[KingEdwardII]

A much more obvious place to spend this kind of money in Scotland is in the borders - extending the existing line from Tweedbank to places like Kelso and Hawick. Lots more people and a practically short journey time to Edinburgh.

 

Yours, Mike.

[lmsforever]

All that will happen is new rolling stock and more passengers as future policy will force many people to stop using cars and turn to public transport this will happen in the next twenty years ,so make the most of driving your cars.