Dec 12 2006
Just before Christmas John Armitt, chief executive of Network Rail proposed cutting rural routes that were 'running mostly empty' in order to re-invest into crowded routes around cities.
Is this the sort of rail service, more than that, the sort of country we want? Do we need to take this man seriously (see letters to Ian McAllister and response)? Most of us want more track and trains on the network, not a reduction. Its generally agreed that the Beeching cuts abandoned the network, sentencing people who live outside big cities to a life of car commuting, with all that that implies in terms of house prices, community cohesion and quality of life. To exacerbate the situation will make us a country like America, not able to get anywhere unless you take your own car. Buses have never proved to be a substitute for trains, they run (inconveniently) for a couple of years, are ignored and then abandoned. This is because buses are not trains, they are slower, you cant work or read on them, they take ages to get through towns.
Least used rail routes actually include Paddington-Hereford! It makes you wonder where Armitt has got his facts from. Does Hereford count as rural? Is the Hereford-London train empty? Presumably Armitt and colleagues have never been to Hereford, they know it is out west somewhere near Wales, they think of cider and so yokels and so classify it rural. In truth it is more rural than London, so they are right there, but with 65,000 people and growing fast and hardly a green space to be seen in the town it is actual more exact to call it 'urban'. Last time I caught the (now) 6.43 to London in early December, about 50 people got on at Hereford, the same at Ledbury, more at Colwall, three quarters full by Malvern, full by Worcester and standing from Oxford. The returning service is the same, only rather more crowded until Oxford.
To say the money will be re-invested in crowded tracks is a poor excuse. Where is all the money for rail going, we know it costs something like five times as much as it used to under British Rail (taking inflation into account), what are Armitt and his team doing with our money. With all the investment cant we be like other European countries, and have less crowded city trains and our network to towns other than London. If cutting routes is the best idea he can come up with, good riddance and lets hope his successor (Iain Coucher, deputy) does better
These are the trains least used (apparently ...). I have been on most of them, enjoyed using them and the freedom they gave me to go where I wanted.
Exmouth-Barnstaple; Ryde-Shanklin; Brockenhurst-Lymington; Cardiff-Maesteg; Machynlleth-Pwllheli; Paddington-Hereford; Nottingham-Worksop; Tey-Sudbury; Oxenholme-Windermere; Saltburn-Bishop Auckland