Rail Industry Recovery Group

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps the loss of the "expense account" market might prompt the industry to do something about very expensive walk-on fares that, in the words of the industry "hardly anyone ever buys" and replace them with more flexible fares that people will actually buy.

That was happening anyway as businesses increasingly require the cheapest fare to be selected. My employer has a far stricter ticketing policy than I do personally - they require the use of Advances if available on the trains needed.

 

[Ianno87]

That was happening anyway as businesses increasingly require the cheapest fare to be selected. My employer has a far stricter ticketing policy than I do personally - they require the use of Advances if available on the trains needed.

And I maintain the solution to the "walk up" market is the availability of Advances until departure - purchasable from the ticket machine if necessary.

 

[RT4038]

Another example of modern working practices. The HUGE elephant in the room is that it has always been the TOCs that have been averse to these changes. Staff want more flexible working and the Union has a strong desire for Sundays being inside. For as long as its cheaper and easier to maintain the status quo then there is no incentive to change. All these desired changes will increase costs. I'm stunned the RIRG doesn't see this. Looks real pretty on paper and when making public statements. Just far removed from reality.

I am sure the RIRG are well aware!

However, taking a rule of thumb, each day is about 14% of the week. A 14% cut in train service, resulting in a 14% cut in the number of drivers and guard/conductors duties, on Monday to Saturday, would enable all the Sundays to be put inside the working week without a single extra member of staff. And the cut wouldn't have to be as much as 14% because the number of Sunday duties is a fair percentage less than a weekday. I expect the cut would be about 12%. Achievable in the present circumstance? Yes.

 

[yorksrob]

That was happening anyway as businesses increasingly require the cheapest fare to be selected. My employer has a far stricter ticketing policy than I do personally - they require the use of Advances if available on the trains needed.

That may be true of business in general, however the railway doesn't appear to have responded as yet.

 

[JonathanH]

That may be true of business in general, however the railway doesn't appear to have responded as yet.

What if the railway responded simply by making sure that there are advance fares set at a level which is slightly below the walk up fare? Let's not forget that most users are probably prepared to fix the time of the outward journey (ie the expensive one in the morning peak for business users subject to the restriction cited by 'Bletchleyite').

I note that there is a convergence of advance fares towards the prices of walk up fares in recent times (ie removal of the cheapest tiers), not the opposite. As has been noted elsewhere, LNER are managing to 'sell out' on the East Coast which would appear to be grounds to increase fares to match supply to demand, not reduce them.

 

[TheEdge]

I am sure the RIRG are well aware!

However, taking a rule of thumb, each day is about 14% of the week. A 14% cut in train service, resulting in a 14% cut in the number of drivers and guard/conductors duties, on Monday to Saturday, would enable all the Sundays to be put inside the working week without a single extra member of staff. And the cut wouldn't have to be as much as 14% because the number of Sunday duties is a fair percentage less than a weekday. I expect the cut would be about 12%. Achievable in the present circumstance? Yes.

I get your logic, but what happens when (maybe) travel starts picking up again over the remainder of this year? Your hourly services are now two hourly outside the peak and are horribly overcrowded but you've got no staff to run the trains because there's been a recruitment freeze and a dozen drivers took voluntary redundancy. Then you have a years worth of lag trying to replace those drivers, it's going to be one hell of a balancing act trying and probably need Mystic Meg to predict when to restart training or hiring.

I preface this section with the point that in the current situation I'm against the union's trying to fight for a normal payrise. The RMT is insane making that stand IMHO. However if RIRG (or anyone) wants Sunday in the working week then it's going to be a hard sell without accounting for the extra payment a Sunday under the voluntary system works and adding that to the normal wage. Just working booked Sunday's only can add thousands over the year. So for pretty much every member off staff that would be a significant pay cut if an average is not added to the salary.

 

[Watershed]

However, taking a rule of thumb, each day is about 14% of the week. A 14% cut in train service, resulting in a 14% cut in the number of drivers and guard/conductors duties, on Monday to Saturday, would enable all the Sundays to be put inside the working week without a single extra member of staff. And the cut wouldn't have to be as much as 14% because the number of Sunday duties is a fair percentage less than a weekday. I expect the cut would be about 12%. Achievable in the present circumstance? Yes.

Most operators have already cut their timetable such that the cut in resources is at least 12%. In many cases it is more than that, and I simply don't see it coming back, at least not in the short to medium term.

In that context, for many TOCs you could probably afford to make Sunday part of the working week today.

I get your logic, but what happens when (maybe) travel starts picking up again over the remainder of this year? Your hourly services are now two hourly outside the peak and are horribly overcrowded but you've got no staff to run the trains because there's been a recruitment freeze and a dozen drivers took voluntary redundancy. Then you have a years worth of lag trying to replace those drivers, it's going to be one hell of a balancing act trying and probably need Mystic Meg to predict when to restart training or hiring.

I preface this section with the point that in the current situation I'm against the union's trying to fight for a normal payrise. The RMT is insane making that stand IMHO. However if RIRG (or anyone) wants Sunday in the working week then it's going to be a hard sell without accounting for the extra payment a Sunday under the voluntary system works and adding that to the normal wage. Just working booked Sunday's only can add thousands over the year. So for pretty much every member off staff that would be a significant pay cut if an average is not added to the salary.

I completely understand where you're coming from, but in a safety critical, 7 day industry it really should not come down to people volunteering to work their days off. So a reduction in overtime is inevitable.

Of course, the unions would probably seek to tie putting Sunday in the working week to a salary increase. One can only hope that all involved are realistic when it comes to negotiations.

 

[RT4038]

I get your logic, but what happens when (maybe) travel starts picking up again over the remainder of this year? Your hourly services are now two hourly outside the peak and are horribly overcrowded but you've got no staff to run the trains because there's been a recruitment freeze and a dozen drivers took voluntary redundancy. Then you have a years worth of lag trying to replace those drivers, it's going to be one hell of a balancing act trying and probably need Mystic Meg to predict when to restart training or hiring.

I preface this section with the point that in the current situation I'm against the union's trying to fight for a normal payrise. The RMT is insane making that stand IMHO. However if RIRG (or anyone) wants Sunday in the working week then it's going to be a hard sell without accounting for the extra payment a Sunday under the voluntary system works and adding that to the normal wage. Just working booked Sunday's only can add thousands over the year. So for pretty much every member off staff that would be a significant pay cut if an average is not added to the salary.

The railway is broke now, so has to fix the now problems. I expect that the average 12% cut would be higher in areas of traditional heavy peak boosting and less in others. The total number of driver/guard/conductors would be stable but there would be area surpluses and shortages in the short term.

Yes it is going to be a hard sell, but if the current level of service and cost is financially unsustainable, and reduced, then it is either redundancies and the current unsustainable Sunday lotto continuing or everyone taking a haircut. I suppose there is the alternative of redundancies and an increase in the average working week of the remaining staff to take Sundays inside, but this sounds quite expensive? I understand where you are coming from, but I can't see the unit hourly cost of staff being increased that much.

 

[yorksrob]

What if the railway responded simply by making sure that there are advance fares set at a level which is slightly below the walk up fare? Let's not forget that most users are probably prepared to fix the time of the outward journey (ie the expensive one in the morning peak for business users subject to the restriction cited by 'Bletchleyite').

I note that there is a convergence of advance fares towards the prices of walk up fares in recent times (ie removal of the cheapest tiers), not the opposite. As has been noted elsewhere, LNER are managing to 'sell out' on the East Coast which would appear to be grounds to increase fares to match supply to demand, not reduce them.

Two things.

They're "filling" the trains to socially distanced capacities. That's not sustainable.

Also, there's no point in running around empty peak trains in the hope that a ghostly businessman will cough up £300 on his expense account.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And I maintain the solution to the "walk up" market is the availability of Advances until departure - purchasable from the ticket machine if necessary.

Within reason. There does still need to be a "cap" there, whatever the ticket type, otherwise Friday evenings and Sunday afternoons will end up uselessly expensive.

 

[Wolfie]

Its hard to say, the DfT may set ticketless travel targets/ticket checking targets, we really don't know. Now its the DfT revenue I expect them to take a greater interest

Absolutely, with serious penalties for TOCs that fail to meet targets.

 

[Ianno87]

Two things.

They're "filling" the trains to socially distanced capacities. That's not sustainable.

Of course not. But I still think we're in the "too early to say" phase of the level to which business/meeting/long distance travel will return.

Once fully seated capacity is available, use of Advances on peak trains is probably the best way of filling trains in the interim (with more discretionary travel) without doing walk up price cuts that may be damaging to revenue long-term if business travel does recover strongly, or people adapt to longer distance (but less regular) commuting.

Also, there's no point in running around empty peak trains in the hope that a ghostly businessman will cough up £300 on his expense account.

Or her/their expense account.

 

[Wolfie]

I get your logic, but what happens when (maybe) travel starts picking up again over the remainder of this year? Your hourly services are now two hourly outside the peak and are horribly overcrowded but you've got no staff to run the trains because there's been a recruitment freeze and a dozen drivers took voluntary redundancy. Then you have a years worth of lag trying to replace those drivers, it's going to be one hell of a balancing act trying and probably need Mystic Meg to predict when to restart training or hiring.

I preface this section with the point that in the current situation I'm against the union's trying to fight for a normal payrise. The RMT is insane making that stand IMHO. However if RIRG (or anyone) wants Sunday in the working week then it's going to be a hard sell without accounting for the extra payment a Sunday under the voluntary system works and adding that to the normal wage. Just working booked Sunday's only can add thousands over the year. So for pretty much every member off staff that would be a significant pay cut if an average is not added to the salary.

The problem with your second para is that it does very little to cut costs. I fear that rail staff could easily be faced with changes in T&Cs without compensation (including detrimental pension changes), changes in contracts, job losses or all of those. Exactly what has been happening in the public sector since 2010. I suspect that they will find little support to fight either. A Govt with a big majority picking a fight when conditions are optimal for it... Think Thatcher and the NUM.....

 

[Bald Rick]

The railway is more than just Drivers.

Friends, family and colleagues. This affects all of us.

Sorry, yes, I know. I read your post to mean that you were concerned about your job.

This won’t quite affect all of us though - at least not in job security terms. Some jobs in parts of the industry will be secure.

I get your logic, but what happens when (maybe) travel starts picking up again over the remainder of this year?

Most of these changes are unlikely to happen this year, at least those that could affect service levels. And you can be sure that there will be a full assessment of demand levels - indeed that has been happening for months and will continue to do so for months to come. I’d be surprised if any decisions on long term service levels are made before the autumn, ie when the holidays are over and people are back in offices, and a better picture of commuting and business demand can be ascertained.

 

[JonathanH]

They're "filling" the trains to socially distanced capacities. That's not sustainable.

Yes, obviously, but the point is that they are filling trains to those capacities at the fares currently on offer which suggests that actually the fares are matching or even coming below the value that people place on travel.

Presumably there are some people closely analysing experiments with higher fares as to measuring what the market can support. My impression is that advance fares are higher now than they were before March 2020 on some routes (not all).

 

[tiptoptaff]

What seems to be missed here is that for regional TOCs, rather than the London ones, passenger numbers never really dropped to the levels seen in and around London. Our services are vefting busier by the day and some are at pre-pandemic levels.

A service cut just to save money wouldn't work, as the cuts aren't needed here. So that doesn't magically save your day a week to make Sunday a part of it with the same number of crew.

 

[Wolfie]

I am sure the RIRG are well aware!

However, taking a rule of thumb, each day is about 14% of the week. A 14% cut in train service, resulting in a 14% cut in the number of drivers and guard/conductors duties, on Monday to Saturday, would enable all the Sundays to be put inside the working week without a single extra member of staff. And the cut wouldn't have to be as much as 14% because the number of Sunday duties is a fair percentage less than a weekday. I expect the cut would be about 12%. Achievable in the present circumstance? Yes.

Logical and avoids costly redundancies so quite likely to be appealing to the powers that be.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2021 ==

What seems to be missed here is that for regional TOCs, rather than the London ones, passenger numbers never really dropped to the levels seen in and around London. Our services are vefting busier by the day and some are at pre-pandemic levels.

A service cut just to save money wouldn't work, as the cuts aren't needed here. So that doesn't magically save your day a week to make Sunday a part of it with the same number of crew.

The more heavily subsidised areas will likely face pure cuts. DOO seems to be an obvious first measure. Losing lots of guards frees money to employ more drivers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2021 ==

Absolutely but this needs the unions and management to enter into the spirit of change is necessary and the need to move quickly and get on the front foot so govt doesn't start imposing their view of what needs to happen as they are with TfL. The industry hasn't had a big voluntary severance programme for decades so there will be a good level of interest but they need to be careful they don't allow too much experience to seep away too fast. So with a combination of voluntary severance, job retraining and redeployment the industry could transform itself without redundancies but its a very narrow path unions and management will need to tread.

If you really believe that HMG which had provided billions of pounds of additional funding will allow an industry led solution without it having significant input then l am afraid that you really don't understand politicians at all.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course not. But I still think we're in the "too early to say" phase of the level to which business/meeting/long distance travel will return.

Once fully seated capacity is available, use of Advances on peak trains is probably the best way of filling trains in the interim (with more discretionary travel) without doing walk up price cuts that may be damaging to revenue long-term if business travel does recover strongly, or people adapt to longer distance (but less regular) commuting.

Indeed. But they must be ready to make the shift if the change does happen. And they need to get those bums on seats before the slash'n'burn brigade start mobilising.

Or her/their expense account.

Indeed.

 

[Wolfie]

Starting with the basic premise of equal pay. Which Driver is worth more ? The one that drives multiple traction and multiple routes or one that drives at 100mph ? I'll initially acept the idea of a banding system but you then have to work out a heirachy. Am I worth more as a Metro Driver who carries thousands of passengers a day than a branchline Driver who carries far fewer but may carry out an essential service ? Now chuck in the other simple complication of grouping Drivers and then leveling out their pay. My nearest TOC notoriously pays much higher than mine for pretty much the same work. Do they have years of pay freezes until our pay catches up or do I suddenly have a wedge of cash lumped onto my salary ? This has hapened so there is some scope here but in times where cost is a major concern how do you give one set of people a huge pay rise and others nada ?

Conditions are just as problematic. Where do you set the bar for something as simple as annual leave ? Do you raise others up or bring others down ? Increasing leave will again, increase staffing levels. It also breaks rostering because you need to allow for more staff time off. There are far too many occasions where staff requiring leave has an impact on the service. Which brings me to another issue with something as simple as annual leave. This agreement states about modern working practices. The TOCs tend to use a block leave system. This prevents massive gaps in the roster or specific days where multiple people require leave. Block leave is generally unfair on the staff. It doesn't work in practice and often leads to low morale. I would welcome a change to leave to be more 'modern' but the railways almost requires such a draconian approach to leave because it prioritises the service. For harmonisation. Which TOC runs the best system ? Leave tends to work well with smaller depots and those where there is less link working constraints so some TOCs have less issues.

Harmonisation has failed and there are a few TOCs out there which depots on seperate terms and conditions. They have failed to harmonise for many years, even on a local level. On a national level ? Yikes !

Something also to consider. This new GB Railway doesn't make the network suddenly publically owned or make us one big happy family. The franchise system is still in place in all but name and will continue to be there for many years to come. For some TOCs there is no incentive to harmonise even between their own franchises. How do you dictate terms on a national scale to a seperate group of companies generating different incomes and with different bottom lines and goals ?

Its a laudable goal and some of which I would like to see implemented, especially to address local disparities and to have a more cohesive railway but something that is years and years away.

HMGs approach to harmonisation in the Civil Service may offer some insights. Look at T&Cs across the piece. Select the worst lowest common denominator ones. Put all new entrants on those. Put anyone who changes jobs or gets promoted on those. Offer zero payrise consistently for years to anyone on "unmodernised" terms. Then offer a pittance to buy those terms out.

 

[RT4038]

What seems to be missed here is that for regional TOCs, rather than the London ones, passenger numbers never really dropped to the levels seen in and around London. Our services are vefting busier by the day and some are at pre-pandemic levels.

A service cut just to save money wouldn't work, as the cuts aren't needed here. So that doesn't magically save your day a week to make Sunday a part of it with the same number of crew.

As I suggested, it is likely that the 12% would be an average - some regional areas would see less of a reduction and commuter/long distance possibly more. Everywhere has some possibility of a cut. Increased number of jobs in the regions would be filled from the surplus at the other locations.
I know you won't like it, but it is all quite possible.

 

[Wolfie]

Change comes at a cost. Neither the DfT or the RIRG should expect somethng for nothing.

Frankly that is the sort of attitude that fuels fire and hire. Daring HMG in the current climate would be unwise.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2021 ==

With a blink of an eye an 80 seat conservative majority could easily impose new employment laws. If British Gas can reduce the terms and conditions for its engineers don't think it couldn't happen on the railway. We are not bulletproof.

Sensible. It's awful for workers but right now, particularly in loss making industries, employers hold the whip hand.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2021 ==

This isn't something that should be supported or repeated. It is a disgracefull treatment of employees and an abuse of Employment law. How or why anyone would use this as a arguement to push similar action in another industry is loathesome.

No we aren't bulletproof but neither should anyone just roll over and accept it. Change needs to be meaningful. There needs to be real tangible benefits for all parties and there needs to be a benefit to the end users. Weilding the axe to your employees isnt the way forward and often has negative consequences.

In many ways l agree. Notable however is your absence of consideration of tangible benefits for taxpayers who currently fund the whole thing. The chances of them wishing to cough up one additional penny piece for increased remuneration for staff on the railway? Zilch l would imagine.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2021 ==

The industry is broke. It has to save money - lots of it and quickly. All changes will have cost savings as a part. Otherwise there will be no point doing them.

Brutal reality.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2021 ==

Where did I even hint or suggest that action such as this should be pushed? Perhaps you'd care to read my post again, properly, and reply again? It is indeed a disgraceful way to treat people but it happens and we - yes we, I am a driver as well as you - may well need to fight it. Bury your head in the sand if you like but it is a very real danger we need to be aware of.

Sensible. I would suggest, as an outsider, that in the current climate picking your battles with care is vital.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2021 ==

How am I burying my head in the sand ? I'm generally somewhere between a pragmatist and a realist. Change is needed and I've been saying that for years. Internally I've pushed for many changes that are flat out ignored because of costs or a pig headed and sometimes arrogance against any form of culture change. This industry has been slowly moving towards self destruction and no amount of political posturing is going to change that. The Unions frustrate their members with their often outdated idealism and political motivation and are contributing to the position we are in today.

I have no wish to fight and those core principles are something we all need to work towards. However, in no way, shape or form do I support any Goverment, Union or Industry Group that constantly goes to war with its staff/members. I firmly belive in workers rights so will do everything in my power to uphold that core principle too. The realist in me just feels that this is going to get very messy and each side will dig their heels in and then fix bayonets.

I am well aware of the dangers. I have been on both sides over my career. As a Manager I have been instructed to use such abuses in employment law and enforced changes in contracts "the hard way". As an employee I also know what its like to be on the recieving end too.

A very useful clarification. You obviously get it in a way that l hadn't previously appreciated. Sometimes life can be crap, can't it?

 

[Bald Rick]

As I suggested, it is likely that the 12% would be an average - some regional areas would see less of a reduction and commuter/long distance possibly more. Everywhere has some possibility of a cut. Increased number of jobs in the regions would be filled from the surplus at the other locations.
I know you won't like it, but it is all quite possible.

To my mind, there’s only three types of service reductions coming:

1) peak services into the big cities, principally London. These trigger particularly high marginal operational costs (trains that might operate 2 services a day). The difficulty will be picking which services go. There is no doubt that the main suburban line into Waterloo will not need 18tph in future, but which 2-4 trains get removed?

2) ‘competing’ services on the same route, often introduced as ORCATS raids. TPE north of Edinburgh being a good example. You might like to suggest your own candidates. My bugbear is the occasional SWR services to Bristol, or the GWR services to Brighton. Both cause a lot of extra cost for negligible benefit.

3) services in area services of maximum track capacity utilisation, where removing one or two services will have a disproportionately good effect on performance. Castlefield corridor is obvious, Birmingham - Wolves and the Cross City similarly, and countless places in the Home Counties.

Clearly, double money if you get 2 out of three, and Bully’s Special Prize for the full house.

 

[Wolfie]

To my mind, there’s only three types of service reductions coming:

1) peak services into the big cities, principally London. These trigger particularly high marginal operational costs (trains that might operate 2 services a day). The difficulty will be picking which services go. There is no doubt that the main suburban line into Waterloo will not need 18tph in future, but which 2-4 trains get removed?

2) ‘competing’ services on the same route, often introduced as ORCATS raids. TPE north of Edinburgh being a good example. You might like to suggest your own candidates. My bugbear is the occasional SWR services to Bristol, or the GWR services to Brighton. Both cause a lot of extra cost for negligible benefit.

3) services in area services of maximum track capacity utilisation, where removing one or two services will have a disproportionately good effect on performance. Castlefield corridor is obvious, Birmingham - Wolves similarly, and countless places in the Home Counties.

Clearly, double money if you get 2 out of three, and Bully’s Special Prize for the full house.

Seems logical. I just hope that if they go down the route suggested in point 3 that consideration is given to either lengthening the remaining services or removing the shortest.

 

[Bald Rick]

Seems logical. I just hope that if they go down the route suggested in point 3 that consideration is given to either lengthening the remaining services or removing the shortest.

That’s a given, assuming the demand is there. If not, it’s just money down the drain.

 

[RPI]

What seems to be missed here is that for regional TOCs, rather than the London ones, passenger numbers never really dropped to the levels seen in and around London. Our services are vefting busier by the day and some are at pre-pandemic levels.

A service cut just to save money wouldn't work, as the cuts aren't needed here. So that doesn't magically save your day a week to make Sunday a part of it with the same number of crew.

Absolutely, take the "Devon metro" for example, even during lockdown the trains carried a fair few passengers, now they seem busier than pre pandemic, and the service is half hourly/ 4cars now, during 2019 it was hourly to Paignton with mostly 2 cars, today leaving Dawlish Warren at around 10:30 i had a 4 car 150 with very few empty seats.

 

[Wolfie]

That’s a given, assuming the demand is there. If not, it’s just money down the drain.

True.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

If you really believe that HMG which had provided billions of pounds of additional funding will allow an industry led solution without it having significant input then l am afraid that you really don't understand politicians at all.

the point being if the industry collectively shows its able to make the changes the politicians will back off. The reality is management will be aggressive unions will kick back and then they will will whinge that the politicians decide the outcome. So my point is the unions and management showing they can work together to come up with a solutions is the way forward.

So ASLEF are most forward looking and have been most sensible over last decade, TSSA are living in the past and RMT are under new leadership.

 

[Class 170101]

To my mind, there’s only three types of service reductions coming:

1) peak services into the big cities, principally London. These trigger particularly high marginal operational costs (trains that might operate 2 services a day). The difficulty will be picking which services go. There is no doubt that the main suburban line into Waterloo will not need 18tph in future, but which 2-4 trains get removed?

2) ‘competing’ services on the same route, often introduced as ORCATS raids. TPE north of Edinburgh being a good example. You might like to suggest your own candidates. My bugbear is the occasional SWR services to Bristol, or the GWR services to Brighton. Both cause a lot of extra cost for negligible benefit.

3) services in area services of maximum track capacity utilisation, where removing one or two services will have a disproportionately good effect on performance. Castlefield corridor is obvious, Birmingham - Wolves and the Cross City similarly, and countless places in the Home Counties.

Clearly, double money if you get 2 out of three, and Bully’s Special Prize for the full house.

In terms of 3) I'd go for Manchester and Birmingham reducing to Half Hourly
For 2) I think you have picked a bad example there. Huddersfield having a direct Edinburgh service and Leeds twice an hour seem a better choice to me than an extra London service, whether First Group or the extra London to Newcastle service. Also looks rather bad in terms of levelling up the north. A better example might be Kings Lynn to Liverpool Street which only exist because historically Kings Lynn was served by Liverpool Street and not from Kings Cross.
For 1) I think you might have a longer but flatter morning peak. The evening peak had been going that way for years evening before March 2020 some services were busy leaving London 15:00ish to 20:00 on weekdays.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

To my mind, there’s only three types of service reductions coming:

1) peak services into the big cities, principally London. These trigger particularly high marginal operational costs (trains that might operate 2 services a day). The difficulty will be picking which services go. There is no doubt that the main suburban line into Waterloo will not need 18tph in future, but which 2-4 trains get removed?

2) ‘competing’ services on the same route, often introduced as ORCATS raids. TPE north of Edinburgh being a good example. You might like to suggest your own candidates. My bugbear is the occasional SWR services to Bristol, or the GWR services to Brighton. Both cause a lot of extra cost for negligible benefit.

3) services in area services of maximum track capacity utilisation, where removing one or two services will have a disproportionately good effect on performance. Castlefield corridor is obvious, Birmingham - Wolves and the Cross City similarly, and countless places in the Home Counties.

Clearly, double money if you get 2 out of three, and Bully’s Special Prize for the full house.

1. you need to lose complete diagrams to save the resourcing costs so just knock out the marginal diagrams - yeah might be a few whingers but the industry needs to stiffen up.
2. These are absolute no brainers and time for prevarication is in the past. TPE North of Newcastle is an obvious examples but there are dozens more. Railway is in survival mode but without a guiding mind why should any TOC offer up its service to be culled.
3. Should be naturally solved by action of 1 & 2 if it isn't I would suggest there is an underlying capacity constraint that needs solving. Off the top of my head I can't think of anywhere that needs a solution. Lets be honest Castleford was a self inflicted by the industry chasing Manchester Airport traffic due to the underlying Franchising situation now thats gone services can be matched to actual demand.

 

[Ianno87]

In terms of 3) I'd go for Manchester and Birmingham reducing to Half Hourly

Although I'd argue that these wouldn't have a "disproportionate" benefit on performance. Whilst the WCML is highly utilised, it's not that highly utilised, especially as these services are built structurally into the timetable.

For Avanti, I'd expect a thinned out peak service (e.g..no "Pullmans" in the morning, and no xx33/57 departures in the evening)