Is rail REALLY that bad in the North?

[Moonshot]

So, to summarise, the North needs:

1. More trains
2. Longer trains
3. New trains
4. Electrification, 4-tracking and new stations
5. Infrastructure works at key points (e.g. Dore, Ardwick)

Just remind me ... what's the current level of subsidy for Northern Rail?

Amazing how many train enthusiasts forget about this......the reality of rail in the North is that it needs an operating subsidy.

 

[6Gman]

Compared to the South, especially the SE we do get a raw deal financially I think, but the small infill projects and minor electrification programmes could make a big difference if the stock were sufficient.

This.

A rolling programme of building 172s after the LM order would have made one hell of a difference.

(But would still have had to be paid for ...)

 

[northwichcat]

Just remind me ... what's the current level of subsidy for Northern Rail?

No official figure available at present but it should be much lower than the old franchise. Also TPE is supposed to become a premium paying franchise once the planned enhancements have been implemented.

 

[6Gman]

Amazing how many train enthusiasts forget about this......the reality of rail in the North is that it needs an operating subsidy.

Correct.

So, is it to be higher fares or higher subsidy?

 

[otomous]

Amazing how many train enthusiasts forget about this......the reality of rail in the North is that it needs an operating subsidy.

What level of subsidy does South Eastern need?

Or the NHS?

Or the roads?

This is a society that includes everyone, everywhere, not a sink or swim struggle to the death.

 

[northwichcat]

Amazing how many train enthusiasts forget about this......the reality of rail in the North is that it needs an operating subsidy.

Incorrect. It's amazing how many people forget the North has services operated by numerous operators, the most lucrative routes are with VTWC and VTEC while the least lucrative ones are with Northern and Merseyrail. Even the English parts of the ATW franchise (including Manchester-Chester and Manchester-Hereford) are profitable. It's also amazing how many people forget without local connecting services the profitable Intercity services would lose a lot of passengers. Having through Advance ticketing which allows you to catch a later train if your local connection is delayed is a selling point of suburban rail services over buses and light rail systems which aren't part of the National Rail network.

 

[northwichcat]

Correct.

So, is it to be higher fares or higher subsidy?

Or franchise reorganisation to create more GWR style franchises, rather than creating lucrative Intercity franchises alongside loss making local franchises which form a crucial role in getting passengers to stations served by Intercity services.

 

[Bantamzen]

Amazing how many train enthusiasts forget about this......the reality of rail in the North is that it needs an operating subsidy.

Is this not in part because of the effect of the Pacers when it comes to track access charges? I'm sure I read somewhere that they cost more per mile than other types of DMUs?

And staying on the subject some of us in this area are more than prepared to pay more if it means more capacity and shorter transit times, as well as better connectivity. Just because they subsidies are higher (but rapidly coming down as I understand it) doesn't mean nothing can or should be done. With more capacity there are greater revenue opportunities (something often forgotten why subsidy arguments are raised), and better transit times along with better quality units will attract more passengers.

 

[Moonshot]

Is this not in part because of the effect of the Pacers when it comes to track access charges? I'm sure I read somewhere that they cost more per mile than other types of DMUs?

And staying on the subject some of us in this area are more than prepared to pay more if it means more capacity and shorter transit times, as well as better connectivity. Just because they subsidies are higher (but rapidly coming down as I understand it) doesn't mean nothing can or should be done. With more capacity there are greater revenue opportunities (something often forgotten why subsidy arguments are raised), and better transit times along with better quality units will attract more passengers.

You could argue until you are blue in the face about the finer detail, but the reality is that Rail in the North needs an operating subsidy......and it always has done and will continue to do so. I will semi agree with J Collins however that there are some elements of it which dont ....which are pretty much the intercity services. Withdraw the subsidy in its entirety and 75% of services in the North will dissapear.....that is the reality.

 

[Moonshot]

What level of subsidy does South Eastern need?

Or the NHS?

Or the roads?

This is a society that includes everyone, everywhere, not a sink or swim struggle to the death.

Oh i agree.....but then what sort of income tax levels do we want to pay? We are all quite happy to see our tax rates fall. I guess a train driver would be happy to be taken out of the 40% tax bracket

 

[Eccles1983]

Northern will never operate without subsidy, due to the obvious fact that all the profitable routes are handed to other companies.

Emt, atw, virgin and tpe all operate the "sexier" routes whilst northern has to do all of the dogs work to feed these other routes.

Thats the stark reality. Hearing about the subsidy as a tool to beat it with really annoys me. There is so much more to it than simple numbers on a page.

 

[northwichcat]

Is this not in part because of the effect of the Pacers when it comes to track access charges? I'm sure I read somewhere that they cost more per mile than other types of DMUs?

Only the 172s are cheaper on a per carriage basis. However, when you consider Pacers have 15.5m carriages, you can argue other types of trains are proportionally cheaper.

 

[6Gman]

Or franchise reorganisation to create more GWR style franchises, rather than creating lucrative Intercity franchises alongside loss making local franchises which form a crucial role in getting passengers to stations served by Intercity services.

But the overall effect is the same level of subsidy. If you combine a franchise with a £200m subsidy with a franchise with a £200m premium the total impact on the public purse is the same.

And if you then want more trains, new trains etc etc more money will be needed.

 

[HSTEd]

Or franchise reorganisation to create more GWR style franchises, rather than creating lucrative Intercity franchises alongside loss making local franchises which form a crucial role in getting passengers to stations served by Intercity services.

What profitable franchises are those?

TPE, the ICWC franchise and even Cross Country all haemmorhage money.

Railways in the North of England are virtually all hopelessly uneconomic.

 

[northwichcat]

Oh i agree.....but then what sort of income tax levels do we want to pay? We are all quite happy to see our tax rates fall. I guess a train driver would be happy to be taken out of the 40% tax bracket

The changes to the 20p tax rate (proposed by the Lib Dems but the Conservatives have tried to take the credit for) were very logical. Some low earners were paying income tax and getting their tax refunded through working tax credits. While most people were seeing the cost of living rising with little prospect of pay rises so an increase in net income was essential for the lower paid. However, the Conservatives additionally cutting corporation tax, increasing the 40p threshold and cutting the 50p rate has meant VAT and council tax has gone up, reducing the impact of the income tax cuts.

 

[northwichcat]

What profitable franchises are those?

TPE, the ICWC franchise and even Cross Country all haemmorhage money.

Railways in the North of England are virtually all hopelessly uneconomic.

TPE is supposed to be moving towards being profitable as I already mentioned, whether their plan works or whether they'll be like VTWC, EMT, SWT and GWR who have franchise agreements requiring them to pay a premium but can argue they need 'revenue support' is a different question.

Only a fraction of XC's operations are in the North, many of their services don't even go near the North. You'd need a route by route breakdown before claiming they are losing money in the North.

 

[Moonshot]

The changes to the 20p tax rate (proposed by the Lib Dems but the Conservatives have tried to take the credit for) were very logical. Some low earners were paying income tax and getting their tax refunded through working tax credits. While most people were seeing the cost of living rising with little prospect of pay rises so an increase in net income was essential for the lower paid. However, the Conservatives additionally cutting corporation tax, increasing the 40p threshold and cutting the 50p rate has meant VAT and council tax has gone up, reducing the impact of the income tax cuts.

Which is government policy......and the government policy for rail is to put more of the cost of it directly onto the fare paying passenger.

Of course it could be a future government policy to sell off Network rail to the private sector...which would have a big impact on the investment in Northern land if that did happen

 

[lejog]

Correct.

So, is it to be higher fares or higher subsidy?

.......

The yearly subsidy to Northern is targeted to reduce from £250m to £90m by the end of the current franchise.

 

[WelshBluebird]

So, to summarise, the North needs:

1. More trains
2. Longer trains
3. New trains
4. Electrification, 4-tracking and new stations
5. Infrastructure works at key points (e.g. Dore, Ardwick)

Just remind me ... what's the current level of subsidy for Northern Rail?

Amazing how many train enthusiasts forget about this......the reality of rail in the North is that it needs an operating subsidy.

Why does it matter that it needs a subsidy?
Why is subsidy seen as a dirty word these days?
Why does no one use the same kind of language when talking about roads etc?

 

[Bantamzen]

You could argue until you are blue in the face about the finer detail, but the reality is that Rail in the North needs an operating subsidy......and it always has done and will continue to do so. I will semi agree with J Collins however that there are some elements of it which dont ....which are pretty much the intercity services. Withdraw the subsidy in its entirety and 75% of services in the North will dissapear.....that is the reality.

And yet it is being dramatically reduced under the new franchises, whilst major improvements are planned under the very same. It is entirely possible that with greater & better capacity, and with increased revenue as a result that the subsidy levels will come down to a level reflected by many other TOCs. You can't sit on your hands and hope that a franchise will need less subsidy without investment and capacity increase.

Northern will never operate without subsidy, due to the obvious fact that all the profitable routes are handed to other companies.

Emt, atw, virgin and tpe all operate the "sexier" routes whilst northern has to do all of the dogs work to feed these other routes.

Thats the stark reality. Hearing about the subsidy as a tool to beat it with really annoys me. There is so much more to it than simple numbers on a page.

Maybe the Connect brand might be the start of a re-balance? I can imagine Arriva will be planning a major publicity campaign to promote it when it goes live, and whilst it will not be an Inter City type service, they may be able to generate more long distance revenue through it.

Only the 172s are cheaper on a per carriage basis. However, when you consider Pacers have 15.5m carriages, you can argue other types of trains are proportionally cheaper.

So based on length / potential capacity then it could be argued that they cost more than some/most other DMUs, is that fair?

 

[Moonshot]

Why does it matter that it needs a subsidy?
Why is subsidy seen as a dirty word these days?
Why does no one use the same kind of language when talking about roads etc?

Im simply pointing out that rail north needs a subsidy.....that is the reality and it always will be.

 

[HSTEd]

.......

But the subsidy to Northern is much much more than £250m, because you have to take account of the track access subsidies to Network Rail.

I'd love to have an all electric Northern where all the trains are operated by 444-lookalikes or 707s

But we aren't going to get that in the current climate (regulatory and economic).

 

[urbophile]

What level of subsidy does South Eastern need?

Or the NHS?

Or the roads?

This should be a society that includes everyone, everywhere, not a sink or swim struggle to the death.

Corrected this for you. We have a Tory government, sadly.

 

[Moonshot]

But the subsidy to Northern is much much more than £250m, because you have to take account of the track access subsidies to Network Rail.

Indeed.....

 

[Moonshot]

Corrected this for you. We have a Tory government, sadly.

Which we can always vote out......

 

[driver_m]

It's hard to see how the weather can be changed on top of a high hill. I wouldn't call an average of about 50 on a Liverpool to Nottingham to be trundling along very slowly, particularly given all the places it needs to stop and serve.

I typically do an average of over 110mph out of London in the first hour of a service . Even with stops enroute it's a over 90mph, So yes, 50 IS 'trundling' in comparison.

The south TP routes are very poor in comparison to other areas even in the North. Even the A66 is supposed to be getting dualled,

However, even though I'm all for the North getting its fair share, I'd still say that the most critical improvement we could do to transform the whole railway in this country is 4-track New St to Coventry. (even with HS2). The difference this would make to the national railway would be staggering in how much more robust XC and medium distance services could be. Not to say add more potential XC routes like connecting Liverpool once more. (More than aware that New St itself would be a major problem then!)

 

[urbophile]

Railways in the North of England are virtually all hopelessly uneconomic.

Railways anywhere are. As are sewage systems, education, hospitals... all the infrastructure of a civilised society.

 

[Altfish]

Why does it matter that it needs a subsidy?
Why is subsidy seen as a dirty word these days?
Why does no one use the same kind of language when talking about roads etc?

Spot on WelshBluebird; the Tory press have certainly made 'public service' and 'subsidy' into dirty words whereas 'profit' is good.
How is the 'loss' a railway makes factored into the cars, buses, wagons it removes from adjacent roads?

 

[urbophile]

Which we can always vote out......

Not always. Once every five years unless the DUP disappear.

 

[Moonshot]

Railways anywhere are. As are sewage systems, education, hospitals... all the infrastructure of a civilised society.

Indeed.....so then the only question that really needs to be answered is how to spend taxpayers money in the most efficient way to deliver improved infrastructure. Getting back on topic, some years ago an investment was made to convert life expired rail infrastructure in the Manchester area into a light rail system known as Metrolink. Its now the biggest in the UK.