The Association of Train Operating Companies tells us that there is a case for re-opening 40 stations and 14 lines that were closed after the Beeching report of 1967. A moment for environmentally concerned rail-lovers to rejoice, surely? After all, rail is, according to David MacKay's numbers, by far the most efficient form of fast land transport:
Actually, he has a full electric train as being about as energy efficient as walking. Only cycling beats the energy efficiency---at about a tenth of the speed.
Trains have huge "externality" impacts on society. They cut carbon, provide access, limit urban sprawl, are part of the "glue" of a country in providing a basic framework for people to relate in all the many social ways we enjoy ... Not only that, but small branch stations and railways provide a real "externality" to the rest of the railway and transport system. Someone who can travel from Exeter to Brixham (one of the stations on the revival list) would be able to---and often would---travel more frequently from London to Milton Keynes because the whole railway network is useful to her, not just the branch line she is on. This "contributory revenue" makes branch lines typically very profitable when considered from the point of view of the whole network, although not often when considered from the point of view of a subset of the network. This is the classic "network externality".
So should we rejoice at ATOC's news? Not so fast. The pervasiveness of externalities in railway transport decisions means that these should be properly social and national choices. The fact that ATOC is using the emotive words of "reversing Beeching" with a re-opening of 40 stations---when Beeching closed down 2000 stations---should make us very suspicious. The profit maximising extension of the network---especially under the highly gamed regulatory regime we have---is very likely to be much smaller than the number that would be delivered by a properly deliberated social choice.
So let's not believe the subsidy-chasing ATOC that it has the public interest at heart---it would be failing its shareholders if it did---and let us continue to insist on a political system in which public social infrastructure decisions are made by deliberation rather than by an alliance of bonus-maximisers in the train companies and easy-lifers in Whitehall.
