On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:03:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



Fundamentally rail doesn't work in low density areas . The track and
staffing costs need high traffic volumes to justify the outlay.
Quite, those railways were doomed when the lorry and roads got
improved enough to provide a supplier to customer service for the
smaller items and the main power source of much of the country changed
from coal delivered in railway trucks to station yards from which coal
merchants moved it on in smaller quantities to electricity and for
some gas which have their own networks to supply them.
A train may be a better experience than a bus , especially the
underpowered buses of the 1960's but you don't need all the
paraphernalia of a railway designed to carry tons at a time to carry
20 or so passengers weighing about 14 stone each.


There's lots of romantic crap talked about railways.

A lot of the branches that were kept had some people moaning about how
they were rationalized to keep costs to a minimum ,bus shelter style
buildings ,no staff at many stations with tickets sold on the train
etc.
What those people really wanted was a steam loco at the head of a
couple of coaches with a compartment to oneself and acquaintances , a
coal fire in a waiting room and a porter to greet them and make them
feel important.
It was indeed a romantic notion but far too costly to provide and had
largely been so since the 1920's . Closures had started in the 30's
under the private companies and many had taken large share holdings
in bus operators ,eg Southern Railway - Southern National, Great
Western -Western National so they could move forward to a cheaper way
of moving people in country areas. WW2 interrupted this plus
Nationalisation afterwards made it politically undesirable for a
decade till the economics got really silly. If WW2 had not happened
non of us would talk about Beeching as many of the lines would have
closed a generation or two before.

G.Harman