How can the railway cut operational expenditure?

[Bald Rick]

I'm aware of one finance company (one many would have heard of but not one of the bigger ones) which has allowed a return to the office for those who wish to (especially those who live on their own, have inadequate space at home to work, etc.) however are still talking of WFH being encouraged until at least the end of this year.

However WFH, in the medium term, could actually mean more rail travel. As whilst, say 40% of people could work from home (and no that doesn't result in a 40% drop in passenger numbers as they're likely to still be needed to go in from time to time, with twice a month still being 10% of their working time in an office) many of those would already be driving to work rather than using rail.

If you reduce the number of days in the office you reduce the miles traveled by car and so the cost per mile increases significantly (purchase cost, insurance, VED, residents permits, etc. all have no/limited reductions if you reduce travel). As such the value of owning a car (and certainly a second car) starts to fall significantly.


A small shift in the number of miles traveled by road to rail can, because of the way we travel, have a big impact on the number of miles traveled by rail. As an example a 6.25% shift from road to rail would see Rail's milage increase by 50% of the 2018/19 figures.

Even with a 40% fall that's still going to mean more miles by rail than before.

Now whilst that's likely to result in more longer distance travel and less London and the South East travel (although some of the latter would be offset by the longer distance travel within its boundaries) I'd argue that London and the South East were in need of significant upgrades and so whilst trains will be emptier they will still be fairly busy and fairly busy all day.

I’m sorry but there’s some significant leaps in logic in that which simply don’t hold true. Not least that people actually cost their car travel on a whole life cost basis. And also that car based trips to work can be directly replaced by rail based trips to work.

 

[paul1609]

Would that not be an example of reduced commuter frequencies? There aren't really any branch lines in that sense.

Kent will be mentioned because Southeastern are basically a one county TOC once you take out the Oyster/ Contactless/ Travelcard revenue in Greater London.
Ok the Hastings Line south of Tunbridge Wells is in East Sussex but that has never been a huge money earner.
Southeastern is also the LSE franchise that needs the highest subsidy basically because of the astronomical cost of HS1. This despite having some of the highest fares in the country.
Currently on the SEML the morning peak has 4x 12 car trains per hour heading in to London. In the outer area at least thats more coaches than passengers.

 

[RT4038]

I’m sorry but there’s some significant leaps in logic in that which simply don’t hold true. Not least that people actually cost their car travel on a whole life cost basis. And also based trips to work can be directly replaced by rail based trips to work.

and a 6.25% move from road to rail, which is just away with the fairies, as there is no basis for this to happen. in the current circumstance, a reverse I should think.
I really struggle with the statement ' Even with a 40% fall [in commuters] that's still going to mean more miles by rail than before'.

 

[43096]

How many leases/maintenance deals are linked to mileage? They would be the trains getting parked up first (assuming you have somewhere to park them that is cheaper than the saving!).
A Conservative government will surely take on the rail unions as soon as they get some time free to work on a policy? Strikes over pensions, DOO, Sunday’s etc would get limited sympathy from a population facing job losses/tax rises and possible public spending cuts, especially if the public are still reluctant to travel and the Home Counties commuters are used to WFH.
Any investments that don’t involve UK jobs must be at risk, but not sure if there are any?

If I was the Government I’d be imposing new T&Cs on all TOC drivers and guards now that include DOO. They wouldn’t like it, but a national strike would have minimal impact on commuter routes given how low demand is. If they don’t like it, tough: sign or go somewhere else. Covid has actually significantly reduced the unions’ power as we now know many can work from home for significant periods - last year’s SWR strikes would have a much reduced impact if repeated now.

 

[Starmill]

The discussion about revenue is very interesting, but it's a bit off topic for this thread which is mainly about costs. For the purposes of that I think we just need to assume revenue is very low and will remain very low in the next three months, which is probably the timescale we're working with now. I made up 10% - I have no idea of the true figures, nationally or locally.

 

[Meerkat]

Merseyrail got a DfT funding package didn’t it - When does that need to be renewed?
Considering the conditions forced on TfL do you reckon they could make DOO a condition of more funding For Merseyrail? That would raise the stakes somewhat.

The Treasury might be more interested in the clear financial issue of the pension scheme - are new starters still joining it?
Politically quieter to go for the new starters - reduced pension costs, Sundays inside etc
in the end the unions might feel they don’t Like nationalisation any more!

 

[SussexLad]

I think artifical intelligence in a TOC control center could reduce op ex.

Also if you lock all the toilets and mark them out of order so you don't have to clean or fix them youd save loads. Oh wait, theyre already like that!

I joke but a marginal improvement would be if you reduced the amount of water carried onabord. Less people = less water = less electricity to move.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The weight of the bog tank is likely to be negligible in the scheme of things, to be honest.

 

[Starmill]

I think that new starters do join the Railways Pension Scheme, but it's closed to new entrants. For example, I think Grand Central employees aren't enrolled in it?

Replacing it with a new scheme could certainly be done, with the existing investors given the choice to stay where they are or move to the new one. But this would be a long-term project taking years to have an effect, and probably wouldn't save the employer any money in contributions? So it's unclear what the gains are.

 

[squizzler]

A lot of people have in the past complained that the railways have not controlled their costs so well in the past. I for one hope that is true as it would seem to put the industry in a strong position if asked to reduce expenditure. Whereas other industries have had to cut into the muscle and even bone of their business, the rail industry would be able to register impressive savings just by losing a little of its organisational fat.

I’m sorry but there’s some significant leaps in logic in that which simply don’t hold true.

I agree strongly with sentiments expressed by @The Ham insofar as the decline in commuting may be made up for by longer distance travel from an increasingly non-motorist population (an existing long term demographic trend - so why would it not be accelerated by the lockdown and its aftermath like most other long term trends such as home shopping, telecommuting, wealth inequality?). I agree that his debating style tends to embellish the argument with baseless figures and is perhaps a little verbose, but that does not detract from the predicted outcome being broadly plausible. As @Bletchleyite has pointed out, such an outcome would result in a more even spread of demand across both time and space that permits a less costly service to be provide the same utility. The operational savings, therefore, would simply happen as a result of the changed travel patterns within the UK.

 

[Starmill]

As @Bletchleyite has pointed out, such an outcome would result in a more even spread of demand across both time and space that permits a less costly service to be provide the same utility. The operational savings, therefore, would simply happen as a result of the changed travel patterns within the UK.

People insist on this point, and I agree it sounds very sensible. But the problem is this: where are the actual cost savings? They would have to come from reduced staff numbers or fewer trains on lease. How can these realistically be achieved? Of course, the market price of railway labour or the price of rolling stock lease could go down, and almost certainly has done, but how exactly are you going to undo the current contracts?

 

[Bletchleyite]

People insist on this point, and I agree it sounds very sensible. But the problem is this: where are the actual cost savings? They would have to come from reduced staff numbers or fewer trains on lease. How can these realistically be achieved? Of course, the market price of railway labour or the price of rolling stock lease could go down, and almost certainly has done, but how exactly are you going to undo the current contracts?

It depends how quickly it needs doing. If it can be accepted that it's done over a period of time, a recruitment freeze would be the first step (and potentially offering early retirement/genuinely voluntary redundancy with an attractive package). With regard to stock, we might see cascades to eliminate the remaining ex-BR units, in particular EMUs, and possibly some of the worst of the post-privatisation stock like the Junipers.

It won't need doing everywhere, for instance Northern might potentially be able to scrap a few 150s and 153s, but in reality they had such an overcrowding problem that it'll just provide a solution for that.

 

[Meerkat]

I think that new starters do join the Railways Pension Scheme, but it's closed to new entrants. For example, I think Grand Central employees aren't enrolled in it?

Replacing it with a new scheme could certainly be done, with the existing investors given the choice to stay where they are or move to the new one. But this would be a long-term project taking years to have an effect, and probably wouldn't save the employer any money in contributions? So it's unclear what the gains are.

The government guarantees the railway pension doesn’t it? That must have some effect on government accounting??
Most private companies have stopped new starters joining DB schemes as it reduces the risk of having to keep providing top ups.
Are you saying new starters to franchises are still starting on DB pensions? That’s bonkers!

 

[The Planner]

I think that new starters do join the Railways Pension Scheme, but it's closed to new entrants. For example, I think Grand Central employees aren't enrolled in it?

Replacing it with a new scheme could certainly be done, with the existing investors given the choice to stay where they are or move to the new one. But this would be a long-term project taking years to have an effect, and probably wouldn't save the employer any money in contributions? So it's unclear what the gains are.

Not in NR we don't, we have to wait for 5 years before you can join the final salary (not that it is that either now) side of it.

 

[squizzler]

In terms of reducing staffing headcount to accord with a simpler service I would have thought that under the current situation there are a lot of frontline workers of a certain age or with underlying health issues who are perceived as vulnerable to virus. Whilst I don't know about human resources management, I suspect many of them would be happy to take voluntary redundancy.

 

[Starmill]

Designing a voluntary redundancy package is an expensive immediate hit, with savings paid back over time. Again, is this likely to satisfy the Treasury?

 

[Meerkat]

If it was hardball time how tight is demarcation in railway contracts?
I get the impression from here that lots of platform staff are contract or outsource contract??
If so they could all be binned off and then who could be forced to transfer to those roles?
presumably ticket office folk could be, but possibly also guards?
Can they legally downgrade crew roles - ie intercity to local to depot etc?
It would be saved for when relations had already broken down though probably - it’s the sort of things companies do when they want people to leave.

 

[RT4038]

It depends how quickly it needs doing. If it can be accepted that it's done over a period of time, a recruitment freeze would be the first step (and potentially offering early retirement/genuinely voluntary redundancy with an attractive package). With regard to stock, we might see cascades to eliminate the remaining ex-BR units, in particular EMUs, and possibly some of the worst of the post-privatisation stock like the Junipers.

It won't need doing everywhere, for instance Northern might potentially be able to scrap a few 150s and 153s, but in reality they had such an overcrowding problem that it'll just provide a solution for that.

Plenty of people across the country have already lost their jobs by Compulsory Redundancy, with statutory minimum packages only. I am not sure why railway staff should be in a much better position?

 

[The Ham]

I’m sorry but there’s some significant leaps in logic in that which simply don’t hold true. Not least that people actually cost their car travel on a whole life cost basis. And also that car based trips to work can be directly replaced by rail based trips to work.

Whilst people may not cost their car travel on a whole life cost there's likely to be times (such as when they replace a car) when they may well think more carefully about if they actually have a need for it.

Especially if they are that it sits at home for 3+ days a week without being used or being used for short trips which could be undertaken by a different mode of transport almost as easily but isn't going to cost them £100+ a month in finance payments.

It's likely that with reduced travel to work there will be more who consider "is a second car in a household actually needed?"

Even if rail isn't an option for a lot of trips (such as to/from work), it is an option for a lot of miles of travel each year. For instance statically 25% of travel is journeys more than 50 miles, as such just a few of them extra would reach the 6.25% of travel switches from road.

Whilst the average car travels 10,000 miles per year the average we each driver is around 7,000 miles. Therefore 6.25% of that is around 440 miles.

Likewise the fall in rail use is likely to be overrated, 40% of people could WFH.

However ~40% of rail travel isn't business or commuting, so that's 24% assuming 100% working from home.

However it's more likely to be an average of 50% WFH, at that rate it's down to a 12% reduction. However even at 70% WFH that's reduced the fall to 17%.

Add in population growth and the net result would be an even smaller reduction.

A 10% rise in rail use over a 2 year period is fairly likely, with 20% is likely over 4 or more years.

The other thing to consider is that flexible working and WFH has been growing significantly over the last decade and rail growth has still been seeing 4% and 5% year on year growth over that timeframe.

Even a 20% fall would only take us back to passenger numbers seen 5 years ago, and there was no calls for significant cuts to the expenditure then.

Therefore whilst there maybe a need to make short term cuts (maybe until Easter 2021) it's likely that it would only be short term.

The other thing to consider is that rail is green, so green that it beets EV's in terms of emissions, even though 1/2 of the energy use is from diesel.

As a small (think VW Up sort of size) had a well to wheel emission of 85g/km. Given that the average occupancy of cars is 1.6 people then the emissions per passenger km is 53g.

This compares with Rail's average emissions of 36.6g/passenger km.

If we wish to be carbon neutral then we'll need to do a lot more walking/cycling/using trains than using EV's, unless we're willing to pay out a lot more in carbon offset charges.

That's not too say that will be the case for everyone, as there's still going to be people for whom a car is the only option, however they tend to make up fairly small percentages of the population (those with a disability <10%, rural population ~15%, etc.).

Just to note, I live in a rural settlement (population of less than 10,000, and there's a number of other such settlements within 4 miles) and it has a train station. As do several others, so even then not all of that ~15% of the population is excluded from being able to access a train station when paired with walking, cycling or other public transport.

Whilst there are a few urban areas which are, they are fairly infrequent and tend to be very much towards the smaller sized ones.

 

[Bald Rick]

Whilst people may not cost their car travel on a whole life cost there's likely to be times (such as when they replace a car) when they may well think more carefully about if they actually have a need for it.

Especially if they are that it sits at home for 3+ days a week without being used or being used for short trips which could be undertaken by a different mode of transport almost as easily but isn't going to cost them £100+ a month in finance payments.

It's likely that with reduced travel to work there will be more who consider "is a second car in a household actually needed?"

Even if rail isn't an option for a lot of trips (such as to/from work), it is an option for a lot of miles of travel each year. For instance statically 25% of travel is journeys more than 50 miles, as such just a few of them extra would reach the 6.25% of travel switches from road.

Whilst the average car travels 10,000 miles per year the average we each driver is around 7,000 miles. Therefore 6.25% of that is around 440 miles.

Likewise the fall in rail use is likely to be overrated, 40% of people could WFH.

However ~40% of rail travel isn't business or commuting, so that's 24% assuming 100% working from home.

However it's more likely to be an average of 50% WFH, at that rate it's down to a 12% reduction. However even at 70% WFH that's reduced the fall to 17%.

Add in population growth and the net result would be an even smaller reduction.

A 10% rise in rail use over a 2 year period is fairly likely, with 20% is likely over 4 or more years.

The other thing to consider is that flexible working and WFH has been growing significantly over the last decade and rail growth has still been seeing 4% and 5% year on year growth over that timeframe.

Even a 20% fall would only take us back to passenger numbers seen 5 years ago, and there was no calls for significant cuts to the expenditure then.

Therefore whilst there maybe a need to make short term cuts (maybe until Easter 2021) it's likely that it would only be short term.

The other thing to consider is that rail is green, so green that it beets EV's in terms of emissions, even though 1/2 of the energy use is from diesel.

As a small (think VW Up sort of size) had a well to wheel emission of 85g/km. Given that the average occupancy of cars is 1.6 people then the emissions per passenger km is 53g.

This compares with Rail's average emissions of 36.6g/passenger km.

If we wish to be carbon neutral then we'll need to do a lot more walking/cycling/using trains than using EV's, unless we're willing to pay out a lot more in carbon offset charges.

That's not too say that will be the case for everyone, as there's still going to be people for whom a car is the only option, however they tend to make up fairly small percentages of the population (those with a disability <10%, rural population ~15%, etc.).

Just to note, I live in a rural settlement (population of less than 10,000, and there's a number of other such settlements within 4 miles) and it has a train station. As do several others, so even then not all of that ~15% of the population is excluded from being able to access a train station when paired with walking, cycling or other public transport.

Whilst there are a few urban areas which are, they are fairly infrequent and tend to be very much towards the smaller sized ones.

I’m sorry I gave up reading half way, as the leaps in logic left me lost.

The nub of it is: if working at home becomes much more commonplace, which is likely, the rail will lose a lot of passengers directly. Perhaps as many as 20-40%. These will almost all be passengers who travel into the main conurbations, and mostly into central London.

The type of passenger you seem to think will come flooding back to the railway will be limited to those who fulfill the following criteria:

1) currently commute by car
2) have a journey that has a reasonable rail equivalent in cost, time and comfort factors
3) currently working at home
4) will still have a job
5) will in future be working at home only some of the time, and back at work some of the time
6) have no need for their car other than getting to and from work
7) are sufficiently cost concious to need to give up their car
8) persuade themselves to change modes.

I think you’re looking at fractions of one percent that require the deployment of at least two zeros. Which means it will be nowhere near offsetting the demand loss.

What research has been done (and there’s plenty of it being done), shows a clear small but sustained switch *from* rail to other modes, particularly car and cycling.

 

[Starmill]

Whilst people may not cost their car travel on a whole life cost there's likely to be times (such as when they replace a car) when they may well think more carefully about if they actually have a need for it.

This is too optimistic. The pandemic will have demonstrated the clear value of car ownership to even the most uncertain of owners, namely that you could still travel during the period of several months where government asked people not to travel by public transport... And almost everyone who owns a car wasn't uncertain about their need for it anyway.

Also, before the pandemic, I was convinced I would be able to put off learning to drive for an indefinite period of time. Now, I regret that I didn't make it a greater priority, and if I can I will probably investigate learning next year, or when things have improved after the virus if not by then.

 

[tbtc]

Wow - there's a lot of "blue sky thinking" on here that seems to revolve around either attempting to save money by incurring significant short term costs, or slashing ticket prices (which may well end up reducing income - bearing in mind that TOCs will have a reasonable idea of how "elastic" their fare income is, so I don't buy into the perennial enthusiast argument that cutting fares will mean significant increases ins revenue).

The money paid in delay compensation is pretty trivial. It wouldn't make much of a dent in £700 million / month.

Does anyone know (roughly) how much that is, out of interest?

As a small (think VW Up sort of size) had a well to wheel emission of 85g/km. Given that the average occupancy of cars is 1.6 people then the emissions per passenger km is 53g.

This compares with Rail's average emissions of 36.6g/passenger km

....however the rail figure for typical InterCity (two hundred metre electric train) and Provincial (often a twenty/thirty/forty metre diesel train) must be quite different.

I'd argue that a lot of Provincial services must be worse than the 53g figure you quote for private cars.

 

[XAM2175]

... The pandemic will have demonstrated the clear value of car ownership to even the most uncertain of owners ... before the pandemic, I was convinced I would be able to put off learning to drive for an indefinite period of time. Now, I regret that I didn't make it a greater priority, and if I can I will probably investigate learning next year, or when things have improved after the virus if not by then.

I'm afraid I feel the same way - I learnt the basics quite early on but never bothered to sit the test as I was living in Melbourne at the time and found public transport adequate for all but a handful of journeys in a year (thanks in no small part to fully-integrated ticketing with no multi-mode penalties). Now though, after a few years of tender love and care from First Glasgow had pushed me to the brink of conceding defeat and becoming a driver, the experience of the last few months has all but confirmed it.

 

[The Ham]

I’m sorry I gave up reading half way, as the leaps in logic left me lost.

The nub of it is: if working at home becomes much more commonplace, which is likely, the rail will lose a lot of passengers directly. Perhaps as many as 20-40%. These will almost all be passengers who travel into the main conurbations, and mostly into central London.

The type of passenger you seem to think will come flooding back to the railway will be limited to those who fulfill the following criteria:

1) currently commute by car
2) have a journey that has a reasonable rail equivalent in cost, time and comfort factors
3) currently working at home
4) will still have a job
5) will in future be working at home only some of the time, and back at work some of the time
6) have no need for their car other than getting to and from work
7) are sufficiently cost concious to need to give up their car
8) persuade themselves to change modes.

I think you’re looking at fractions of one percent that require the deployment of at least two zeros. Which means it will be nowhere near offsetting the demand loss.

What research has been done (and there’s plenty of it being done), shows a clear small but sustained switch *from* rail to other modes, particularly car and cycling.

There are others for whom additional rail travel is likely:

- those who currently have two cars and can manage the majority of their travel by using one with some travel being undertaken by rail (which may not be work related at all)
- those who work from home nearly all the time and maybe use car club cars for shortish (part day) there and back trips but then use rail for some of their other travel rather than owning a car
- those who are out of work and can't justify the expense of a car but do need to travel occasionally
- those where driving takes more time than using rail (this will likely to start to be seen more and more from when the schools go back).

Whilst short term there's going to be an impact on rail use as soon as life gets back towards a more normal situation then travel is likely to start to increase again. What that looks like currently can be monitored, but what that will look like in (say) 2 years is harder to predict. Especially given that we need to significantly reduce our transport emissions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2020 ==

....however the rail figure for typical InterCity (two hundred metre electric train) and Provincial (often a twenty/thirty/forty metre diesel train) must be quite different.

I'd argue that a lot of Provincial services must be worse than the 53g figure you quote for private cars.

The two would be quite different, however so are some of the larger Electric Cars, with Tesla's having a per passenger km figure of around 71g and there's others which would be worse still.

However by the time that a significant majority of the cars on the roads are EV there would likely be more electrification, more bimodals, more battery trains, maybe even more hydrogen trains all reducing the emissions further.

Anyway a straight comparison is a bit unfair as often those traveling mostly by rail would undertake more of their total mileage each year by walking/cycling/other public transport than a typical car user. They are also more likely to consider if a trip is required as the cost of that trip is more obvious and so would likely try and do a couple things within one trip rather than just do one thing and then have to make a similar trip soon after.

 

[Starmill]

There are others for whom additional rail travel is likely:

- those who currently have two cars and can manage the majority of their travel by using one with some travel being undertaken by rail (which may not be work related at all)
- those who work from home nearly all the time and maybe use car club cars for shortish (part day) there and back trips but then use rail for some of their other travel rather than owning a car
- those who are out of work and can't justify the expense of a car but do need to travel occasionally
- those where driving takes more time than using rail (this will likely to start to be seen more and more from when the schools go back).

I'm sorry but these are just not very realistic scenarios for more than statistically insignificant cases.

People drive because it's both of convenient and reasonably priced, all in. Rail is almost never both and is often neither. That's what really needs changing. Rail had some degree of market power in 2019 and the years leading up to it, enough to start enabling that change, but look how far we got. In 2020 it has next to no commercial influence.

 

[The Ham]

I'm sorry but these are just not very realistic scenarios for more than statistically insignificant cases.

People drive because it's both of convenient and reasonably priced, all in. Rail is almost never both and is often neither. That's what really needs changing. Rail had some degree of market power in 2019 and the years leading up to it, enough to start enabling that change, but look how far we got. In 2020 it has next to no commercial influence.

I agree that car use is high because, all in, is a reasonable price. However that's often because you are doing 3,000 to 9,000 miles a year for work (7 to 20 miles each way).

If you are significantly reducing this by working from home then for many the reduction in vehicle costs beyond fuel and parking charges at work are fairly small.

As such the cost per mile for the remainder of your travel increases.

Given that the average car costs over £3,000/year all in (and yes there'll be some for whom this is lower, but not everyone is able to do that, and anyway all that does is shows up that there's others who are paying more) then once you start using it for much less than 6,000 miles then the cost per mile starts to increase noticeably.

If we assume £3,300 whilst doing 10,000 miles per year then that's 33p per mile.

If that falls to £2,900 whilst doing 7,000 miles per year than its 41p per mile.

If it falls to £2,600 whilst doing 5,500 miles per year than its 47p per mile.

It should also be noted that statically 25% of miles traveled are sub 5 miles and so there's scope to reduce car use further than just to/from work.

For instance, if there's no longer a need to drive to work then there's no need to drive the kids to school. With my local schools it's possible to walk from most of the catchment area to school, drop the kids off and walk back home before 9am (Covid-19 will change this site to staggered start times, but it'll still be a 9:15 start at home at the latest).

Yes, certainly rail use wouldn't be suitable for everyone, however assuming a 10-20% gross fall that's likely to be a net fall may not be that much by the end of this year and is likely to be smarter than this by the end of next.

Next year would likely result in trains being busy, but less people standing. Now for London commuter trains this may allow some of the peak trains to be (say) 8 Vs 12, as that's where the fall will be felt the hardest, however there's often people who would use rail but don't due to there but being space, so some of those losses would be reversed anyway. However beyond that I suspect that it's mostly going to be slightly quieter trains.

If you look at some of the busiest trains (over 150% full) then a full 40% reduction would put them at over 90% full. Therefore many of those trains might actually become pleasant to travel on.

Even if into London travel is a greater fall than the average of 40%, then chances are it would allow frequency of fast and semi fast services to reduce and use some of that capacity for running trains which would otherwise be useful but there's not the capacity to run them. How often is it said it'll be useful to ... only to be told that there's not the paths to do that because of the existing trains.

A standard class coach with 66 seats which is currently full with a 15% fall in passenger numbers would then have 10 spare seats, however if it's normally got 4 people standing then it'll have 7 spare seats. Conversely it having 30 seats filled then it'll have 26 seats still filled.

Overall it'll mean that the busiest trains would be fairly OK to travel on whilst having a barely noticeable difference on the quietest trains. Even before accounting for any change in mode, with that then likely to reverse some of those falls.

Yes it works impact the profitability of the rail network, however so does many other factors (which the government are happy to cover) such as strikes over Driver Only options. However, much of what people get excited about in terms of government support for the railways is actually signing in enhancements rather than the cost of the day to day running of the network (which had typically been less than £500 million a year).

Even a 20% fall is only going back to what we had 5-10 years ago depending on the franchise.

Increased modal share by car is fine if there's a fall in traffic to accommodate it (which there had been to date, most noticeably due to working from home if you are able advice and schools not being fully back) however it wouldn't take a lot for the roads to start to get busy again. Once they do that's likely to discourage driving once again.

Therefore whilst cuts have been needed up until now (which have happened with reduced timetables) I suspect that (subject to no significant second wave and associated lockdown) that from next year whilst there may be a need to not being into service the 442's (as an example) overall there'll be little which might actually be needed to happen.

For instance things like rural branch line closures would be very politically hard to swallow and probably wouldn't see that much of a fall anyway.

Likewise things like the new trains for Avanti are likely to be delivered after rail use is back to where it was when they were announced (maybe 12 months before), however certainly no where near the levels seen at the failed franchise bid for ICWC about a decade prior to their delivery.

Actually the fall of Flybe could result in positive growth in some rail services. Especially if it results in an overall increase in cost due to there being less competition. Even if that extra cost is just down needing to get to/from a different airport than was the case before.

 

[jamesst]

Merseyrail got a DfT funding package didn’t it - When does that need to be renewed?
Considering the conditions forced on TfL do you reckon they could make DOO a condition of more funding For Merseyrail? That would raise the stakes somewhat.

The Treasury might be more interested in the clear financial issue of the pension scheme - are new starters still joining it?
Politically quieter to go for the new starters - reduced pension costs, Sundays inside etc
in the end the unions might feel they don’t Like nationalisation any more!

Merseyrail got absolutely nothing in the way of help from the DfT

 

[LowLevel]

I personally fear for the likes of small to medium ticket offices and station staffing. Many places already only part day manning look pretty vulnerable to me. The Netherlands is littered with empty station buildings since OV-chipkaart came in.

Further DOO or onboard staff cuts are I feel rather less likely. We've just had a major disaster where for the first time in a very long time the first the railway knew of it was from external contact (shortly followed by an injured staff member turning up at a mechanical signalbox). There is much to be analysed and learned from this incident and that will take time to filter through. DCO possibly more likely in certain environments.

Putting a squeeze on ROSCOs with expensive rolling stock has already started with franchises binning off entirely fleets of nearly new trains, maybe some regulation here is likely?

September will be very interesting to observe.

 

[squizzler]

@The Ham you gotta stop killing us with all these numbers. Its like the rational, logical arguments in favour of staying in the EU or stopping climate change versus the wooly but emotionally comforting counterarguments - you embellish it too much with hard data that might be hard to contextualise and this drives the audience away.

For many rail enthusiasts the comfort zone seems to be nostalgia for the days of Beeching and rail being perceived as a declining industry, and arguments that appeal to that will always have a head start.

Actually there is one very important similarity with Beeching and his reshaping plan, but it is nothing to do with line closures. This is the biggest opportunity since then for the industry to decide exactly what markets it wishes to compete in, and how it will serve them.We have a trinity of factors making this the biggest shake up of the industry since Beeching, certainly more significant than re-privatisation in the mid 1990's:

1. The need to reform the industry structure upon receipt of the completed Williams review.
2. The need to reform the fares, stuck in aspic (except for meddling by the TOC's) since the 1990s.
3. Covid just hit the reset button.

Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty, but equally, the opportunities handed to the industry by the present crisis are enormous, if a little difficult to see right now. If the rail industry gets this right the zero carbon transition will be successful and result in a better society generally, and it is up for all its friends to make the case. We remain pushing against an open door, since the public and political spheres are still in favour of rail (we are proceeding with the expansion programme, including HS2 and electrification).

 

[Meerkat]

Not buying people getting rid of cars. It’s a huge leap once you have got used to the convenience and if you are financially compelled to do it that‘s probably be because you don’t have a job so won’t be commuting by train either.
Look at how difficult it is to get old folk to give up their cars despite free bus passes and dial a ride etc!