Royal Mail is to stop transporting post by rail after 170 years in a bid to cut costs.

The company claims that the rail network is too expensive and in future will use road and rail.

49 mail trains will begin to be cancelled from next month and stopped altogether from next March with around 500 jobs at risk.

There have also been concerns about effects on the environmental as more lorries take to the roads.

Will Royal Mail's decision to transport post by road and air improve the service? What will be the effects on the environment?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:

SUGGEST A DEBATE This topic was suggested by Guy Chapman, UK Goodbye to the travelling post office. Is this just short-termism? Send us your suggestions for Have Your Say debates

Bad decision. This will clog up the roads even more. I thought that RM had its own mail trains, so why the increase on cost - surely they will now need more Lorries to replace their trains?
Phil W, UK

Yet again a company opts for the cheapest solution and hang the consequences. Mail trains operate with the highest priority, the same as express passenger trains. This move will mean more Lorries on the road, more pollution and invariably more road accidents. What a short-sighted penny pinching move this is; the government must act to prevent this from happening.
Phil Gates, UK

Everything gets worse in this country and this is just one more for the book. Our delivery of mail will be slower and the price of a stamp will increase. To stop mail trains will be another mistake.
S Gordon Mottau, England UK.

I think the main loser out of this will be the customer. I would say the majority of mail trains run during off-peak hours so journey times should be enhanced. A bad move Royal Mail.
Chris Powell, Wales

If it is sound business decision, then what is the problem? Use the track capacity for other rail business. Realize that it is shippers that buy transportation based on cost and efficiency.
Jim Blaze, USA

The new management seems to be getting a grip and trying to turn it around John Smith, UK

Following years of pointless improvements and restructuring the Royal Mail has been shown to be incapable of meeting its service levels. The new management seems to be getting a grip and trying to turn it around. If this change gets it closer to providing the quality of service that we used to have 20 years ago then it's a good thing. That's the only thing that need worry the Royal Mail. The rail problems need to be pushed back at Notwork Rail to sort out. Until they do they'll keep losing key customers like Royal Mail.
John Smith, UK

The problem with Royal Mail, the Railways or indeed anything which has been Government owned at some time is that the Government have successively reduced the amount of money spent on the public services. No doubt the wages of the MPs went up simultaneously. EWS own some brand new Class 325 trains dedicated to mail, built in the 1990's, and they are now behind made redundant.

There has only ever been one rail hijacking, the robbery of 1963, but there have been many more road hijackings. You are also 125 more times likely to get killed on the roads than on the rails. The accountants at Royal Mail are obviously looking at that little column on the bit of paper that contains the profit figures, and no further.
Tom Beevers, UK

Now that trains are no longer fit to carry post, never mind people, isn't it time to tarmac over the lines and build nice straight, flat roads that go from city centre to city centre and make them exclusively for HGVs and coaches.
Bob, UK

Our railways are now run to make a profit and to do that they have to charge enough to cover their costs. The cost of a railway network (not just the UK's) is too high without subsidies to be able to compete with road transport so to cut costs Royal Mail are cancelling the expensive train in favour of a cheaper truck. Given that RM is losing hundreds of millions a year at the moment, it's a very sound business move. I work in the road transport industry and I can assure you that despite the traffic jams on our roads we're cheaper, quicker and more flexible than the rail network. This doesn't surprise me at all.
Alex, UK

The Royal Mail, like the various rail companies should never have been privatised in the first place. This is a terrible decision and will adversely affect both services.
Howard, UK

Many of my childhood memories are of standing (with my grandparents) on the platform at Bath Spa station with the bags of mail and baskets of pigeons. I'd rather keep the tradition and wait a little longer for the mail. Please keep negotiating!
M. Allem, US/UK

The environmental impact of bulk mail movement by air and road will be far greater than by rail Ozz, UK

The advent of cheap air transport may provide faster movement of 1st class mail, but the environmental impact of bulk mail movement by air and road will be far greater than by rail. One locomotive hauling 1015 tonnes would produce less pollution than 58 trucks hauling 17.5 tonnes each, which also add to traffic problems on roads that are already congested. The pollution generated by aircraft to move 1015 tonnes is staggering, far greater than road or rail!
Ozz, UK

I work for RM and can see there problems, I work at the sharp end so I think I will know more than most. There is very little wrong with EWS trains; it's the state of the lines that need addressing. Lorries also brake down and aeroplanes do get fog bound as well. I think this service will get worse, could it be that a lot of our managers have transferred from Parcel Force or have there finger in road transport companies.
Bob, UK

The end of the mail train may not be the disaster everyone fears. Mail trains running through the night interrupt maintenance activity meaning repairs and renewals take longer and cost more. This decision may actually help Network Rail improve the network.
Neil, UK

Why are we so bad at running railways in this country? Compared to Air Transport, rail is much less environmentally damaging. Other countries have great rail systems, why can't we?
Jason White, England

Sensible decision; railways only make sense in densely populated areas.
AJ Elder, UK

What chance now of a first class letter getting to the other side of the country the next working day? Do the powers that be not realise that one train can keep a hundred Lorries of our overcrowded and over polluted roads? And I refuse to believe that it's cheaper to buy and run 100 Lorries (and pay 100 drivers) than to use one train!
Alan, England

Hooray; another nail in the coffin of a 19th century technology that has plainly had its day! Perhaps now we can move on and start turning the rails into roads and the stations into car-parks. I am not being sarcastic or ironic - I really mean it!
Craig, UK

Why not cut costs elsewhere, such as delivering mail once a day instead of twice a day Suzanne Parker, Canada - England

I was deeply saddened by the announcement regarding the end of our historic mail trains. I understand the need to cut costs, so why not cut costs elsewhere, such as delivering mail once a day instead of twice a day. England is quite rare in its mail delivery; twice a day as well as on Saturdays. I am sure costs could be cut elsewhere and leave our history as it is.
Suzanne Parker, Canada - England

I believe this is an indication that the designers of rail privatisation are close to achieving their goal: total destruction of the rail network. Track access charges, rolling stock leasing and operating company charges all add up to make the railways massively less economically viable than they should be.
Guy Chapman, UK

What ever the decision made, they will probably still fail to meet 80% of their targets. And as others have already said, the environmental impact would be much greater.
Gareth Johnson, UK

This is no surprise to me, or to any other regular rail passenger. I only use rail for business journeys because it is too expensive to contemplate otherwise and even then only when I have no feasible alternative. The reasons for this negative attitude are just the same as Royal Mail - too expensive and unreliable. I really wish this would serve as a wake-up call to the industry, but I frankly think they are now too far gone and too fragmented to mount an effective recovery.
Alistair Dixon, UK

I am quite pleased that this has happened, in a way, as the only way domestic customers will ever get decent prices on rail is if big business starts to complain. The rail system is an absolute disgrace. It is far cheaper to fly within our small country than take the train. This is environmentally pathetic and economically rather laughable. Perhaps now the powers that be will sit up and take note.
Amanda Tucker, UK

Well its no shock is it? The railway is unreliable and too expensive for mail and people alike. The Royal Mail has only done what most of us "cattle class" travellers wish we could do.
Oliver, UK

There are on average ten deaths a day on the roads at today's traffic levels, royal mails 'so called' cost cutting could cost lives.
Dan, UK

More freight is needlessly forced onto the roads, ultimately to the detriment of us all Keith Barrow, Warwickshire, England

Successive governments have treated rail freight with varying degrees of apathy or contempt, with the result that that the industry is forced into decline when it should be thriving. EWS has worked hard to make mail by rail viable in the 21st century, but the company is battling against chronic under investment in infrastructure and an unworkable privatised structure. If freight was able to compete under the same market conditions as road freight, our roads would be less busy. As it stands, more freight is needlessly forced onto the roads, ultimately to the detriment of us all.
Keith Barrow, Warwickshire, England

What ever happened to doing the right thing? In terms of the environmental impact of emissions and congestion the option of more road and air use is clearly foolish. Again short-term policies, based on pure economics, are being implemented at the cost of long-term thinking. The closure of the rail London Royal Mail service is another example of this.
Ed Telford, UK

Whatever happened to the UK's integrated transport policy? The decision by Royal Mail beggars belief. There has in recent years been massive investment in brand new mail trains and modern, specially designed railway stations for use only by Royal Mail trains. The Royal Mail says that it will not add to traffic because it will fill up its trucks which are currently running half-empty. If that is so, why doesn't it run fewer trucks now? This is a short-term decision which ignores the long-term implications.
Andrew Coley, UK

A cement company in the town where I live switched from rail to road a few years ago. The decision then was purely based on cost. It was far cheaper to employ more drivers and buy more lorries than what the rail company was charging. The rail companies have to remember it's a competitive market, and they have to price themselves in line with other transport alternatives.
Peter Hampson, England

The government should put its foot down in this instance, and make Royal Mail use MORE trains, not abandon the system altogether. Whilst they're at it, why don't they decrease the cost of rail travel so that members of the public will be more willing, and able, to use it?
Antonia, London, England

Losing such a stable, long term customer is a commercial disaster. This is yet another stark reminder (as if it were needed) of the unworkable structure of the UK railway system. The fragmented, multi-layered mess of disjointed companies effectively blocks the entrepreneurial drive to compete. The need for vertical integration, whether public or private, is paramount if the system is to evolve.
Paul Burgess, Wales

What about security? There are far more lorry hijackings and robberies than on the trains.
Bob, UK

It will free-up the lines for the time being L. Mckenna (17), UK

It seems wise for Royal Mail to make this decision which I believe will improve services. It will free-up the lines for the time being until such a time that it will be viable for the company to use it again. It simply makes sense for the RM to use more realistic and 'faster' alternatives.
L. Mckenna (17), UK

The irony is that twenty years ago, none of this (e-mail) would have been possible, therefore Royal Mail was thriving. The very tool we are using now to communicate is largely responsible for the general demise of the Post Office
J. Grey, UK

I think it's disgraceful that we are trying to clear our roads, while Royal Mail tries to jam them up for reduced costs. Perhaps if the rail industry was properly managed and renationalised, we could get it going again, and make it an affordable option people would readily choose to travel by, instead of having to take a personal loan to travel!
Sharon Blake, UK

It's a tragedy indeed, from all points of view. But at least this decision was announced to you. Here in Switzerland, the privatised Post Office has been quietly phasing out its contracts with the quasi-private rail sector. There hasn't been a line in the papers about it but it's happening here too (and in France as well).
D H Christie, Switzerland

There's no sense in being sentimental James Ollerenshaw, London, UK

It's sad to see the end of a service with such history and it's a tragic that Britain's rail network isn't even adequate to transport mail these days. However, there's no sense in being sentimental. By improving efficiency and cutting costs the Royal Mail is aiming to put itself in a better position for the future. Surely this is better for its customers and its workers in the long term. The real issue is why our rail network is so bad in the first place.
James Ollerenshaw, London, UK

This is an appalling decision. Mail by rail should be improved and expanded, not axed. In France they have introduced TGVs dedicated to La Poste. We should be doing the same here and speeding up the service, not scrapping it!
Andy G, England

Every time I visit the UK (frequently) the traffic gets worse. There are far too many lorries on UK roads already. The Government should step in and reverse this decision, putting MORE mail on trains.
David Griffiths, Spain

Will the Royal Mail be exempt from road tolls? I can't see it being too long before we all have to pay (more) to use the roads (to control the congestion!). I wonder if that was factored into the Royal Mail's decision to move away from rail. So much for an integrated transport policy!
Chris Ireland, UK

Couldn't companies who use rail over road distribution be given 'green' tax breaks? Amy, UK

I'm saddened but not surprised. I would always opt to take the train over driving but it is absurd that I can fly BA to Madrid for less than it costs me to take a train from London to York, and the flight has a better chance of arriving on time. Couldn't companies who use rail over road distribution be given 'green' tax breaks to encourage them and help make rail a more viable option?
Amy, UK

Can't help but think this is an issue of the Royal Mail being poorly managed and not knowing what to do next. EWS are running an excellent service by all accounts and have an amazing 93% reliability. Somehow I don't think the roads and certainly the air network will be able to match that.
Ian Bartlett, UK

This decision means we will all be affected by the increase in road and air traffic and its associated pollution, noise and congestion implications. Government policy to increase rail freight is admirable but the services provided to encourage businesses to move off the roads and onto the trains must be reliable and financially competitive.
Angela Gilbert, UK

The legacy of Beeching still lives on. The decline in our railways has continued inexorably since he slashed so many branch lines, making the main lines uneconomic. Successive governments, despite their pledges, have done nothing to get goods back onto the rail. Why am I not surprised by this latest development, yet still utterly disgusted?
Michael Kilpatrick, Cambridge, UK

How can the Royal Mail do this at a time when the postal services, run by EWS, have been constantly hitting and exceeding the level of performance stipulated for the last 6-12 months at least? How does the government expect to increase rail freight by 80% in the next 10 years if they let this happen? Something needs to be done before we lose these services altogether as once they are gone it is very difficult, if not impossible to get back!!
Scott, Aberdeen, UK

Why the outcry? Rail travel in the UK, whether passenger or freight, is slow, expensive and unreliable. The cause? The total lack of real investment over the last 40 years. Let's scrap the whole thing and replace it with more roads while investing the money saved (government hand-outs) into alternatives to the daily commute and petrol engine. The train is dead, let's leave it that way!
Mike Hodges, UK

Bob Crow acts surprised when customers choose to abandon the railways. But he and his members have been doing their best to disrupt services and drive up costs for the last few years. No wonder the customers go elsewhere.
Peter Hughenden, UK

Standing up against a monopoly Davi Ford, UK

Good for Royal Mail, standing up against a monopoly seeking to extract the last drop from a company struggling to do its best in difficult market conditions. Someone at Royal Mail has at last decided to look outside of the box and make radical plans to save the company.
Davi Ford, UK

This is a tragedy for our transport network and reflects years of chronic underfunding and failure following the disastrous privatisation of our railways. Just like an effective welfare state, well-delivered healthcare and free, universal education, it seems another great idea we had in Britain will be allowed to die. All the members of governments over the past 20 years should be ashamed.
Andy Crick, UK

I am very sad to hear that the Royal Mail is preferring road to rail because of cost. It shouldn't be like this and all should be done to make sure that not just mail, but all manner of freight should be given the incentives to use rail, thus reducing ever increasing congestion on roads. The more rail freight there is, the more efficient and profitable it will become.
David Cooper, UK

Anything that improves Royal Mail's appalling levels of reliability should be welcomed. And this should be a wake-up call to the rail network to actually meet customer needs - whether that's passengers or freight
Nick Bowman, UK

Most mail trains run at night, so use spare capacity in the network at times when it's not needed for passenger traffic - I can't quite see how George (UK) can complain about them "clogging up platforms". But once again, cost triumphs over anything else, and yet more lorries are added to the already overloaded road network - which, in my experience, is a whole lot less reliable for getting from A to B "on time" than the railways.
Mike Knell, UK

I will be glad to see the back of mail trains. They clog up platforms at busy periods, forcing passengers to face platform changes and delays.
George, UK