Would it be better to declare Beeching closures 'Damnatio memoriae'

[yorksrob]

Compared to a road, it's massively expensive to maintain.

I'd love to see some figures.. but would be prepared to put a large some of money on rail costing at least 10x more per mile to maintain than a country road carrying a similar number of people

I rather wouldn't mind betting that the cost per mile that most people have for the railways, is some sort of average based on the whole network, rather than looking at lightly used lines with minimal signalling.

 

[Journeyman]

I rather wouldn't mind betting that the cost per mile that most people have for the railways, is some sort of average based on the whole network, rather than looking at lightly used lines with minimal signalling.

You can only reduce costs by so much. The West Highland has RETB signalling, low speeds, is mostly single track and only carries 3 to 6 passenger services a day, depending on which bit you're looking at.

Maintenance costs per passenger carried are astronomical.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As are local trains.

But rural local trains require money to operate them (the infrastructure requires hardly any maintenance - very little was done to Ormskirk-Preston during the 90s, for example). Unless something serious happens like subsidence, a barely-used local road just sits there requiring no attention at all.

A rural branch line is more comparable to a rural bus service.

 

[yorksrob]

But rural local trains require money to operate them (the infrastructure requires hardly any maintenance - very little was done to Ormskirk-Preston during the 90s, for example). Unless something serious happens like subsidence, a barely-used local road just sits there requiring no attention at all.

A rural branch line is more comparable to a rural bus service.

Indeed. And we agree with rural bus services.

It's just that the low maintenance dedicated infrastructure makes the local train service rather more robust in terms of avoiding being withdrawn at the drop of a hat, than the local bus service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. And we agree with rural bus services.

It's just that the low maintenance dedicated infrastructure makes the local train service rather more robust in terms of avoiding being withdrawn at the drop of a hat, than the local bus service.

The other side of that, of course, is that if the funding becomes available, you can have the bus service back up and running within 56 days (possibly less if the Traffic Commissioner agrees it) as if it had never gone away.

That has happened. I seem to recall Lancashire County Council withdrew almost all subsidised services a couple of years ago, but then went on to reinstate some of them.

 

[yorksrob]

You can only reduce costs by so much. The West Highland has RETB signalling, low speeds, is mostly single track and only carries 3 to 6 passenger services a day, depending on which bit you're looking at.

Maintenance costs per passenger carried are astronomical.

It also opens up a very large chunk of difficult to access countryside to public transport. The feature that makes that route expensive, is what also makes it so valuable.

 

[Journeyman]

It also opens up a very large chunk of difficult to access countryside to public transport. The feature that makes that route expensive, is what also makes it so valuable.

Granted - I'm not proposing we close it - I'm just saying that lightly used routes are proportionally much more expensive to maintain and operate per train and/or passenger than much busier routes, and there's not really any answer to that.

 

[yorksrob]

Granted - I'm not proposing we close it - I'm just saying that lightly used routes are proportionally much more expensive to maintain and operate per train and/or passenger than much busier routes, and there's not really any answer to that.

As I've mentioned before, I think the answer is to address industry wide costs.

 

[Journeyman]

As I've mentioned before, I think the answer is to address industry wide costs.

How do you propose doing that in a way that (a) doesn't result in reducing capacity and (b) doesn't incur the wrath of the RMT?

 

[NoRoute]

How do you propose doing that in a way that (a) doesn't result in reducing capacity and (b) doesn't incur the wrath of the RMT?

Generally the best way to drive down costs is to open markets up to competition, not just competition to do the same things at lower cost but also to find alternative ways of doing things, new practices and methods. Abandoning old methods if necessary.

The railways do seem to have a lack of competition for infrastructure provision, with Network Rail maintaining and operating almost the whole network. Why couldn't new projects or even existing routes be opened up to competition, with other organisations or companies bidding to build and maintain the route. Even another public organisation doing it, completely independent of Network Rail, set up to actively compete against it to win new work or take over existing routes.

Take a significant rail route, carve it out from Network Rail, set it up as an independent infrastructure operator with freedom to set it's own standards, it's own procedures and processes, preferably under a new management team. Initially responsible for its home route but free to bid for new projects and to other existing routes.

 

[HSTEd]

As I've mentioned before, I think the answer is to address industry wide costs.

The problem is the industry finds itself in a death spiral.

It cuts modernisation to avoid fights with the union or save money, which leads to more money expended in the long run.
As a result of more money being spent due to lack of modernisation, the budget for modernisation gets cut again

Which is why we are looking at Semaphores indefinitely and signal boxes hanging around until past 2060 (whenever Morpeth has been put back to by now).

I'm afraid there are a great many sacred cows to slaughter, and there is a lot of very expensive modernisation that needs doing if the railway is to survive this century largely intact.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm afraid there are a great many sacred cows to slaughter, and there is a lot of very expensive modernisation that needs doing if the railway is to survive this century largely intact.

If semaphore signalling works, why does it have to be modernised unless there is an operational benefit or cost saving? (Cost saving may be a reason to do it of course - fewer staff needed for your obscure branch line).

 

[yorksrob]

The problem is the industry finds itself in a death spiral.

It cuts modernisation to avoid fights with the union or save money, which leads to more money expended in the long run.
As a result of more money being spent due to lack of modernisation, the budget for modernisation gets cut again

Which is why we are looking at Semaphores indefinitely and signal boxes hanging around until past 2060 (whenever Morpeth has been put back to by now).

I'm afraid there are a great many sacred cows to slaughter, and there is a lot of very expensive modernisation that needs doing if the railway is to survive this century largely intact.

I'm the first to criticise the privatised railway, but to be fair, it did manage to get quite a lot of modernisation and renewals underway when the going was good. I'd argue that the few semaphores we have knocking about aren't a massive problem in the scheme of things.

The key thing to avoiding a death spiral is to get the passengers back, and that has more to do with removing the barriers that prevent them from using the train.

 

[zwk500]

If semaphore signalling works, why does it have to be modernised unless there is an operational benefit or cost saving? (Cost saving may be a reason to do it of course - fewer staff needed for your obscure branch line).

Semaphore signalling works in the same way hitting an analogue TV used to. It keeps trains moving, but it's a ridiculously inefficient use of capacity and drives up costs as you not only need enough signallers to cover every 'box but S&T need to maintain an entire (completely outdated) skillset to be able to keep the wires and rods in place. That's before we get on to the operational benefit of being able to see a bigger picture in the ROC.

There's a good reason almost every evolution of signalling around the world has ended up with more track controlled from a single place.

I'd argue that the few semaphores we have knocking about aren't a massive problem in the scheme of things.

Because the driver for signalling replacement has tended to be a need for increased capacity, most Sempahores now left are on the most lightly used lines - Highland Line, S&C, Cumbrian Coast, Welsh Marshes, Heart of Wessex etc. These are lines where passenger revenue is never going to come close to covering costs, so need to get their operating costs under control. The single biggest expense for any business is staff, so it would make a lot of sense for the most staff-intensive form of signalling to be a high priority for replacement.

The key thing to avoiding a death spiral is to get the passengers back, and that has more to do with removing the barriers that prevent them from using the train.

Agreed. But we've come quite far from the thread topic. (Sorry mods!)

 

[HSTEd]

It keeps trains moving, but it's a ridiculously inefficient use of capacity and drives up costs as you not only need enough signallers to cover every 'box but S&T need to maintain an entire (completely outdated) skillset to be able to keep the wires and rods in place.

And the extra driver training requirement.

Ideally in the future there would only be one signalling system, and it would in the driver's cab and would be the same everywhere (wouldn't that be incredible!) but that's what ETCS offers us.

 

[yorksrob]

Semaphore signalling works in the same way hitting an analogue TV used to. It keeps trains moving, but it's a ridiculously inefficient use of capacity and drives up costs as you not only need enough signallers to cover every 'box but S&T need to maintain an entire (completely outdated) skillset to be able to keep the wires and rods in place. That's before we get on to the operational benefit of being able to see a bigger picture in the ROC.

There's a good reason almost every evolution of signalling around the world has ended up with more track controlled from a single place.

Because the driver for signalling replacement has tended to be a need for increased capacity, most Sempahores now left are on the most lightly used lines - Highland Line, S&C, Cumbrian Coast, Welsh Marshes, Heart of Wessex etc. These are lines where passenger revenue is never going to come close to covering costs, so need to get their operating costs under control. The single biggest expense for any business is staff, so it would make a lot of sense for the most staff-intensive form of signalling to be a high priority for replacement.

It all boils down to how the railway and it's funders percieve revenue versus capital costs. If they don't want to splurge a lot of money on an upgrade and don't mind the ongoing cost of employing signallers, semaphore signalling can be kept ticking along for eternity. Alternatively, if you're desperate to reduce revenue costs and don't mind investing to save, you'll resignal.

 

[furnessvale]

But rural local trains require money to operate them (the infrastructure requires hardly any maintenance - very little was done to Ormskirk-Preston during the 90s, for example). Unless something serious happens like subsidence, a barely-used local road just sits there requiring no attention at all.

A rural branch line is more comparable to a rural bus service.

I think you are ignoring the effect of winter frosts.

 

[The Planner]

It all boils down to how the railway and it's funders percieve revenue versus capital costs. If they don't want to splurge a lot of money on an upgrade and don't mind the ongoing cost of employing signallers, semaphore signalling can be kept ticking along for eternity. Alternatively, if you're desperate to reduce revenue costs and don't mind investing to save, you'll resignal.

Think you are mistaking revenue for OpEx vs CapEx.

 

[yorksrob]

Think you are mistaking revenue for OpEx vs CapEx.

Er no !

 

[The Planner]

So you are suggesting in the main that a re-signalling job is done for reducing revenue?

 

[yorksrob]

So you are suggesting in the main that a re-signalling job is done for reducing revenue?

No. I'm suggesting that the retention of the semaphore signalling we have isn't a massive issue either way.

 

[Tobbes]

If semaphore signalling works, why does it have to be modernised unless there is an operational benefit or cost saving? (Cost saving may be a reason to do it of course - fewer staff needed for your obscure branch line).

Cost savings and capacity, I'd have thoughts. How much semaphore AB working is there on mainlines today?

 

[HSTEd]

No. I'm suggesting that the retention of the semaphore signalling we have isn't a massive issue either way.

It is one of the many things that make up the "system wide costs" that you complain about.

It is representative of the unhealthy attitude to the railway that has helped us get into the mess we were in before coronavirus, and are certainly going to be in after it.

The railway can either modernise itself or it can go extinct, it can't maintain obsolete equipment or working practices by the dozen and say that since each of them is a relatively small issue that there is no issue.
It needs to make serious efforts now, to build the public and political support necessary for the enormously expensive modernisation that will be necessary over the next two decades.

 

[yorksrob]

It is one of the many things that make up the "system wide costs" that you complain about.

It is representative of the unhealthy attitude to the railway that has helped us get into the mess we were in before coronavirus, and are certainly going to be in after it.

The railway can either modernise itself or it can go extinct, it can't maintain obsolete equipment or working practices by the dozen and say that since each of them is a relatively small issue that there is no issue.
It needs to make serious efforts now, to build the public and political support necessary for the enormously expensive modernisation that will be necessary over the next two decades.

Then so be it. Just don't use it as an excuse to cut the route.

 

[zwk500]

Then so be it. Just don't use it as an excuse to cut the route.

Attitudes like that don't really help the discussion. If, after upgrade, operating costs would still be higher than potential revenue, why should the option of cutting the losses not be able to be explored?

I'm not suggesting anything as reductive as x > y, there are all sorts of local and regional complications to consider when examining a business case. But there are some routes where closure as a heavy rail route and alternative uses for the corridor (or even total abandonment) might well be better than retaining a service that doesn't serve people properly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you are ignoring the effect of winter frosts.

Those who frequently drive such roads will be well aware that damage from such things is very often not repaired, and such roads are often little more than dirt tracks as a result.

You get railways like that, but not in the UK.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 May 2021 ==

Cost savings and capacity, I'd have thoughts. How much semaphore AB working is there on mainlines today?

Indeed. What I mean, though, is that there's not some magic deadline at which point all AB (or train staff, or whatever) lines must be upgraded or closed - the systems are archaic but still very safe.

If it makes financial sense to upgrade, by all means do it.

 

[HSTEd]

If it makes financial sense to upgrade, by all means do it.

The problem is "financial sense" depends entirely on what largely arbitrary inputs are put into the business case.

Which is how you can make business cases say whatever you want.

The political cost of ongoing operational subsidies is however dramatically larger than the political cost of capital expenditure.
The cost to society of those ongoing subsidies is also enormously greater, especially as we are likely to face increasing problems sourcing labour for critical industries.

The best railway is likely to be the one that delivers as much service as possible with the fewest personnel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The best railway is likely to be the one that delivers as much service as possible with the fewest personnel.

With the rider that that would be "best value railway", not "best railway", you are probably right. It's amazing how much lighter on staff SBB is than our system, for instance.

 

[yorksrob]

Attitudes like that don't really help the discussion. If, after upgrade, operating costs would still be higher than potential revenue, why should the option of cutting the losses not be able to be explored?

I'm not suggesting anything as reductive as x > y, there are all sorts of local and regional complications to consider when examining a business case. But there are some routes where closure as a heavy rail route and alternative uses for the corridor (or even total abandonment) might well be better than retaining a service that doesn't serve people properly.

It's simply a question of priorities.

In my opinion, the absolute number one priority in any restructuring of the railway industry and its finances, should be maintaining the passenger service to the communities it serves.

Everything else should be an extremely distant second.

 

[Dai Corner]

It's simply a question of priorities.

In my opinion, the absolute number one priority in any restructuring of the railway industry and its finances, should be maintaining the passenger service to the communities it serves.

Everything else should be an extremely distant second.

Even to the extent of maintaining services which hardly anyone uses and only survived because the area happened to have an influential MP in the 1960s instead of introducing or improving more useful ones?