🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 13:43:40 +0100 someone who may be Robert Sneddon
<fred@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-

>>The same dogma is being brought out yet again. There is actually
>>little to cut on deeply rural lines with minimal services, minimal
>>staffing and minimal maintenance.
>
> There is a bottom line requirement for staffing and maintenance for
>safety reasons, regardless of how few services run on such a line. If
>there was only one service a week there would still have to be regular
>line inspections,

These have been tailored to the service operated over the line for a
very long time.

>station staffing for ticket sales,

To take one example, the number of staff involved selling tickets on
the Far North Line is negligible. I doubt if any more than Wick,
Thurso and Dingwall have ticket offices.

>barrier crossing maintenance etc.

Open crossings, no barriers. Signalling is done by one person and a
computer.

>If the line closes totally and the passengers moved to
>a bus service then the fixed costs disappear and the line owners can
>sell the land and buildings and realise a handsome profit. Win-win.

That was the Beeching dogma. However, passengers didn't move to a
bus service.

>Rush-hour services are the most profitable part of the system.

So some people think.

>Lots of passengers on each train,

Usually paying relatively low fares.

>lots of revenue on each trip

Se above.

>with hardly any extra costs.

The extra lines, high capacity signalling, ticketing system and long
platforms all cost money and do not disappear outside peak periods.

A quick reality check is to see which companies pay money to Gordon
Brown and which are paid money by Gordon Brown.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54