Unprofitable rail services could be axed under Government proposals

[Metroland]

Services on some lines would run less frequently, could have fewer carriages and stop at fewer stations.

The proposals are contained in a Government consultation document on rail franchising.

While operators would be free to cut back services on unprofitable routes, they would also be given freedom to shift staff and trains to where there is greater demand.

“This would enable them to deploy the trains or staff on routes with higher demand.”

But critics fear this would lead to train companies cherry-picking the most profitable routes and cutting back on services which are less lucrative.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...could-be-axed-under-Government-proposals.html

Meanwhile

THE transport secretary has signalled fresh doubt over the likelihood of electrifying the Great Western Main Line to Bristol and Swansea. Plans to upgrade the route were announced by the former Labour government last year, but Philip Hammond has now warned that the pledge may not have been justified.

The scheme is currently on hold, while post-election departmental spending plans are placed under the Treasury microscope, but Mr Hammond has told the Western Mail that electrification needs to be 'examined in the cold light of day'.

It had been expected that the £1 billion project would have been financed by more Network Rail borrowing. However, this is already at almost £24 billion, and the government is considering whether the company's debts should be included in the national balance sheet, and therefore become part of the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement. If this happened, more Network Rail borrowing could become very difficult, because Treasury approval might well be withheld.

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/07/23-new-doubts-over-great-western.html

Transport Secretary Philip Hammond has criticised his predecessor, Lord Adonis, for being a “railway romantic” who pledged too many rail improvements that were unaffordable.

Hammond told a rail conference last week that he was a “railway realist”. But speaking about predecessors in post, he said: “Some of them not long gone, were frankly railway romantics.

http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/news/?id=23564

 

[mrcheek]

Electrifying the GWML sounds to me like a typical Labour government idea. Ill thought out, incorrectly costed, and impractical. What bits do you electrify? The main line divides at Reading, and again at Didcot, then it goes off in 3 directions at Swindon. Most people talk of ending the wires at Bristol and Swansea. Leaving the whole of the south west unwired, meaning that scores of diesels will have to keep going under the wires.

far better to electrify the rather more contained Midland Main Line. They just need to go to Sheffield, and do the loops to Corby and Nottingham, and its more or less complete.

BTW, I live by the GWML, so theres no regional bias here.

Theres no doubt that Lord Adonis was a "railway romantic". In some ways that was a good thing. At a time when government spending needs to be slashed, the bad side of that emerges. Many of us will hate Hammond for being a "realist", and for all the cuts that will have to be made. But in the long run, at least he is being honest about the realities of the situation.

As for the Telegraph article, maybe we could rewrite it, and have a new headline:

"Government announces plans to increase rail services"

"Services on busier lines would run more frequently, could have more carriages and stop at more stations.

The proposals are contained in a Government consultation document on rail franchising.

While operators would be free to increase services on busy routes, they would also be given freedom to shift staff and trains away from where there is little demand.

“This would enable them to deploy the trains or staff on routes with higher demand.”

Rail users and commuters groups praised the move as it would lead to companies concentrating on ther busiest, most popular routes, and cutting back on services which are little used, and a waste of public money."

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I seem to recall reading the exact same ideas either in the press or on this forum several months ago, except that then it was a leak from within the DfT?

 

[mumrar]

So surely the WAG will be the first under-used service to fall on it's sword then. The WCML was electrified with splits off to Liverpool and Manchester, and with loops electrified via Northampton, via Birmingham, and via Stoke, so surely the GWML is no worse off?

 

[mrcheek]

The WCML was electrified with splits off to Liverpool and Manchester, and with loops electrified via Northampton, via Birmingham, and via Stoke, so surely the GWML is no worse off?

True, but if you do a straight comparison of GWML v MML, then MML should take priority.
Do the GWML later, when the country actually has some money.

 

[Ivo]

Agreed - so long as it doesn't mean that prioritising the MML means electrifying it on an awkward budget and thus underpowering it (I would have said the same for the Western). As for services to be cut? So long as "services to be cut" means "services to be cut" and not "Beeching III" [or "IV", allowing for Serpell] then I have no real objection - just so long as there is no bustitution or flood of Dentons...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But on a global scale most railways run at a loss anyway, so why should they suddenly insist on profitability? As Serpell proved, if the most loss-making go then the Heart of Wessex is vulnerable...

 

[starrymarkb]

Though isn't the GWML more tied to stock replacement. The MML has a Modern Fleet in the 222s. Would there be enough long 222s to replace HSTs on the GWML if the MML was wired? If you build more then are you suggesting that the GWML then has to wait for the new 222s to become life expired before any work takes place?

I'd reckon HST replacement should start to take place around 2020 at the latest...

 

[Greenback]

I must reluctantly admit that at the present time electrifying the MML makes more economic sense than electrifying the GWML.

The story about 'unprofitable' routes and line sis not entirely unexpected. I wish politicians would realise that 'profit' is not a term that can be rigidly applied to rail. For example, some late night services may seem quiet, but in reality they may serve as positioning stock in the right place for servicing before forming busy morning services.

And as the quote mentions, TOC's may well ignore some flows that are marginally profitable, in favour of routes which show a higher percentage return. This may not necessarily be in the best interests of the local communities, the economy or the country as a whole.

 

[Metroland]

If we're talking about loss making services, that's essentially anything off main lines and the SE commuter network which could open themselves up to cuts, and I'll hazard a guess bustitition by the bus bandits, who would I suspect like nothing more than a monopoly.

It's all very well Theresa Villain saying just how successful privatisation is, but the reality is

1) It hasn't led to any sort of innovation much or cost reductions. The franchises have just bought off the shelf at often inflated prices and NR still more expensive than RT/BR.
2) Apart from pre-book long distance fares, there is no reduction in ticket prices. And the system is horribly complex design to extract as much out the the passenger as possible.
3) It hasn't solved the problem of union exploitation or a shortage of labour in some areas
4) Nationalised London Underground and foreign nationalised railways have seen similar if not more growth.
5) If the Tories invoke a Beeching II, they will be just seen as 'coming back to finish the dirty work' after putting in such an unsustainable costly system in the name of ideology.

'unprofitable' services are in effect a public service, providing services people want as part of their lives that are not justified commercially, but may have social and other economic benefits.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ultimately you have a problem in that this is probably one of the last major Rail Networks in Central Europe that has NOT been fully electrified. Its not just embarressing, its near inexplicable when you consider plans were put forward at the same time Beeching was putting down his axe to electrify what was left.

So we have taken 40 plus years to achieve mediocre efforts towards electrification, then we argue the system is not cost effective so we must start chopping services.

In Japan or any other industrial country, when a recession hits they pump money into infrastructure to get it doing again. In the UK, we hide behind the sofa and hope it goes away.:roll:

I can see the logic about why the GWML ought to wait, but I dont think its a question of whether they will electrify it or MML. It think its a question about whether they consider it value to spend any money on the Railways at all. Whatever you say about Adonis, at least he was a man of some vision. Im not getting any vision here other than a big pair of scissors.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Whilst most of Germany's mainlines are electrified (Munich-Zürich & Hamburg-Puttgarden are the only non-electric ones I can think of), there are still loads of minor routes which are diesel only. Munich even has a diesel s-bahn line

 

[northwichcat]

Are we going to go down the BR approach of where a route isn't that profitable it gets a service cut so it only runs at inconvenient times and then the operator can say look there's only 10 people on the train (at 5am)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst most of Germany's mainlines are electrified (Munich-Zürich & Hamburg-Puttgarden are the only non-electric ones I can think of), there are still loads of minor routes which are diesel only. Munich even has a diesel s-bahn line

Is Koln-Bonn Airport station still diesel only? I seem to remember it was diesel only when I was there shortly after it opened.

I think BBC News a while back claimed Switzerland is 100% electrified.

 

[PhilipW]

IT is worth noting that if any English electrification schemes are cancelled/delayed, the Scottish Government is still going 'full speed ahead' on the Glasgow-Edinburgh
electrication.

Very sensible too.

One rule for Scotland and another for England. Ah well !

 

[gordonthemoron]

Koln to Koln/Bonn airport is electrified. ICEs, regional trains & s-bahn are all electric through there

 

[CarterUSM]

IT is worth noting that if any English electrification schemes are cancelled/delayed, the Scottish Government is still going 'full speed ahead' on the Glasgow-Edinburgh
electrication.

Very sensible too.

One rule for Scotland and another for England. Ah well !

IIRC, the E&G services used to be the only ones in Scotland to turn a profit. Does anyone have any figures?

 

[Greenback]

The former boss of ATW once said that no services in Wales were profitable. Looks like the end of railways in Wales then...!

 

[gordonthemoron]

presumably all of Northern Rail's services are unprofitable?

 

[starrymarkb]

Are we going to go down the BR approach of where a route isn't that profitable it gets a service cut so it only runs at inconvenient times and then the operator can say look there's only 10 people on the train (at 5am)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Is Koln-Bonn Airport station still diesel only? I seem to remember it was diesel only when I was there shortly after it opened.

I think BBC News a while back claimed Switzerland is 100% electrified.

It isn't but it is very high - 96% IIRC (there are a few Steam/Diesel line) - Liechtenstein is 100% electrified - all 6 miles of it!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Bahnhof_Schaan-Vaduz_20-08-2007.JPG

 

[northwichcat]

presumably all of Northern Rail's services are unprofitable?

Well if all of Northern's were when some of them leave passengers behind because they are too full, then presumably it would mean every Pacer or Sprinter operated service in the UK is unprofitable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It isn't but it is very high - 96% IIRC (there are a few Steam/Diesel line) - Liechtenstein is 100% electrified - all 6 miles of it!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Bahnhof_Schaan-Vaduz_20-08-2007.JPG

The BBC must have rounded to the nearest 10% then. Maybe that's how they also get Swiss railways 100% punctuality.

 

[Greenback]

That may well be the case. Regional Railways (or Provincila Services) was created ou tof all the bits left after Inter City and Network South East were formed.

I should imagine, although I am not privy to any facts, that with the costs of privatisation factored in (track access charges, consultants, lawyers, franchise bids and higher salaries), there's less chance of most of those lines being profitable now.

 

[northwichcat]

It'd be interesting to see how profitability compares on routes where Sprinters have been replaced by newer stock, compared to on routes with similar patronage where Sprinter stock is still used.

 

[Greenback]

It would, but I imagine such info is considered commercially sensitive!

 

[Metroland]

The infamous Serpell Map A was the only bits that were profitable in BR days, in the strictest sense. BR finances pickled up in later years, you could argue Intercity and NSE, plus Railfrieght was profitable, the rest was not.

Today, I doubt ANY of it is, in the strictest sense, such as the damage been done by privatisation.

All comes back to whether you want to run a railway for profit or for service, and the Tories have always had some 'issues' with the second.

 

[Greenback]

I agree. It all depends on how 'profitable' is defined. if the government wants to ahve a commercially viable railway requiring no public money at all, there would be nothing left, for the idea that you can trim off branches and keep the trunk routes profitable has been shown to be wrong.

How many people using the ECML are making use of othe rlines for part of their journey? How many would continue to use the train if the feeder lines were closed?

 

[scandal]

When looking back on the Beeching cuts...which I possibly think were again due to a deficit, in raiwlay terms considering that post the 1955 BR Modernisation Plans the raiwlays never made a profit (which I attribute poersnally down to paying off the loans of the Modernisation Plan whichw eren't compelted until the mid-1980s). The plan was far from perfect as has been well documented elsewhere and when in 1963 the scheme was looked at there had been a failure to properly invest and improve services which lead to the cuts.

Obviously again it comes down to ideas on what you want the railway to be - a fast InterCity network that turns a profit and supplements the motorway network (the thinking if looked at the second part of the Beeching report) or a public service that provides people with affordable alternatives to cars as well as reducing congestion (benefitting car users) and improving road safety due to less cars on the roads. There are of course the environmental benefits of rail travel which need to be better exploited by the industry. One of the interesting comments from commentators at the time of the Beeching Report was that if you prune the netwrork by removing the branches you leave the trunk devoid of traffic and passengers as the branches feed in and benefit the network.

Why drive to an InterCity station for a service when its quicker to go direct from your house to the destination in a car?

I do find interesting comparisons to the recession of the 1990s, it should be noted that InterCity despite being it by traffic was the only profitable InterCity service in Europe and this was in the middle of a recession! NSE was due to be subsidy neutral by about 1993 again during a recession. Nowadays of course despite record numbers of users and higher rail fares the railway companies are on cap and collar revenue support, quite how the WCML, ECML, GEML, MML and GWML have gone from profitable in a recession to loss making even in the boom time is quite frankly a scandal..

I think there are scope for efficiencies in the rail industry if you look at the BR costs for fleet renewal, Main Line upgrades and Crossrail, even adjusted for inflation they are far cheaper then current quotes today. £1bn for electrification of part of the GWML when the ECML was electrified with 20miles of new track is a farce.

People are quite right I think to be up in arms about this, like I say no InterCity service in Europe I believe makes a profit, and few if any railway companies make a profit, indeed those that do often have supplement income from the Hotels they own and the like, something again BR used to have before this was sold off to no doubt increase "profit". What we really need in this country is to have a national discussion about waht we see the railways for and their purpose so we can move on from the Thatcherite profit vs "waste". If you looka t many European Countries they all accept that the railways opearate at about a 50% subsidy, that is a given, but the discussions are how to boost rail use, how best to improve the infrastrucutre and how best to use that infrastructure to encourage business to the countries. Instead in this country we are opposed with internal market compettion and fail to accept that rails main competiton and always will be with road transport and airways, until we get to grips with this and accept a level playing field the railways will never be seen as a viable affordable alternative.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Whilst most of Germany's mainlines are electrified (Munich-Zürich & Hamburg-Puttgarden are the only non-electric ones I can think of), there are still loads of minor routes which are diesel only. Munich even has a diesel s-bahn line

Fair point, and I also know there is some serious talk about reactivating some Steam only lines in Germany to get the tourists in.

OTOH, I doubt there are any major routes left unelectrified. There are whole sections of the UK that they have been discussing electrifying since 1938 with no progress made despite being well used.

A separate issue perhaps from the cutting lesser used services. But this combined with the dicussion of cutting subsidy of lesser used Bus services is going to make it hard to go anywhere if you live out in the styx unless you have a car.

Considering the amount of TOCs that run bus services as well as train service, their future doesnt exactly look too rosy I would have thought.

 

[Ivo]

The infamous Serpell Map A was the only bits that were profitable in BR days, in the strictest sense. BR finances pickled up in later years, you could argue Intercity and NSE, plus Railfrieght was profitable, the rest was not.

Today, I doubt ANY of it is, in the strictest sense, such as the damage been done by privatisation.

All comes back to whether you want to run a railway for profit or for service, and the Tories have always had some 'issues' with the second.

I would have thought that c2c, if nothing else, is profitable. I read somewhere that they received a subsidy of £18m not so long ago; by railway standards that is minute! But that was when the recent recession was at its long-gone worst. I would have thought that by now the line, or at least the main line through Basildon, would be profitable. I would have also thought the Brighton and Cambridge express services would be? Otherwise... you've got me.

Anyway, regarding the Serpell report, it isn't really fair to use map A to compare. At the very least, we should be talking in terms of map B, where some routes do make losses but the effects on the economy such as congestion would be greater than the loss made by the railway (which would save most NSE routes).

For those of you who aren't familiar with Serpell, a brief description of his report can be found on Wikipedia.

(N.B.: I've had to upload my own copy of Map B, because I can't find one anywhere!)

 

[northwichcat]

Considering the amount of TOCs that run bus services as well as train service, their future doesnt exactly look too rosy I would have thought.

They mostly have overseas operations as well. First Group own Greyhound Coaches - the American equivalent of National Express and operate many American yellow school buses in both the UK and America. Stagecoach also have north American operations. Arriva are now DB owned and have operations under the Arriva name in Europe. Serco do just about anything - not just transport.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

They mostly have overseas operations as well. First Group own Greyhound Coaches - the American equivalent of National Express and operate many American yellow school buses in both the UK and America. Stagecoach also have north American operations. Arriva are now DB owned and have operations under the Arriva name in Europe. Serco do just about anything - not just transport.

Yes, I had forgotten that. I gather Connex is still going strong running some rail services in Australia, which Ime sure will gladden the heart of the fans they made in the Southeast.

 

[scandal]

Yes, I had forgotten that. I gather Connex is still going strong running some rail services in Australia, which Ime sure will gladden the heart of the fans they made in the Southeast.

Their still running strong in the UK too under the name of Veolia running many bus services in the UK and rail services across Europe, just how long before they return to UK rail operations is surely only a matter of time?