"Rail’s growth agenda evaporates as Treasury takes control"

[Annetts key]

is the figure 82% in the public realm?

No. This is also the reason that I can’t provide any further details on it. As I never thought to ask when the subject (COVID19 update) was being discussed.

 

[Cardiff123]

I'm not sure I agree with you here. For a government to be 'populist' it would need to enact policies 'in favour of populist opinion'. Corbyn is a left-wing populist and his plan to bring back BR could be considered populist as a renationalised railway rates high in popular opinion. Similarly, Cameron's splurge in railway spending back in the early '10s was certainly long-term and to an extent populist. National infrastructure schemes, to an extent, are inherently populist, and no one was going to disagree with electrifying the WCML.

This plan the Government has for the railways is nowhere near populist. In fact, its plain, old, 'small c' Conservativism. "Watching the pennies" is the inverse of populism and just shows that the Tories' strange vendetta it has had against the railways since the end of the War, bar the Cameron government, is still alive and kicking.

The transport policies announced in the budget last week - halving tax on domestic flights, and freezing fuel duty for the 12th year in a row, are populist. These are policies that will be popular with motorists and frequent flyers, but do nothing to tackle the massive elephant in the room - climate change, air pollution and traffic congestion. We are a comparatively small island nation, the perfect size for an electrified, high speed rail network. A sensible government would say, esp. with COP26, let's hike up tax on domestic flights and increase fuel duty to invest in the UK's rail infrastructure, and invest in a long term rolling program of electrification, to encourage people onto a green, electrified, modern railway network, that's future proofed against the effects of climate change and that's fit for the future, as is happening across Europe. A sensible government would introduce incentives to encourage rail travel, eg. cheaper rail fares, promotions to encourage rail travel etc, not continue to promote the most polluting forms of transport on a small island.

Instead, because it's likely to be popular and it's what the public want to hear, driving is being massively subsidised again, domestic flights are being promoted as the cheapest way to travel across Britain, all whilst rail fares will most likely rise again in January.
These policies are populist, easy quick wins, whilst avoiding taking potentially unpopular (in the short term), strategic decisions, that will benefit the country in the long term.

I could also get into how Brexit and the UK Govt's handling of the pandemic are inherently populist, but this thread is not the place for those discussions.

 

[The Ham]

No. This is also the reason that I can’t provide any further details on it. As I never thought to ask when the subject (COVID19 update) was being discussed.

Fair enough.

At a 18% fall puts rail use a little better than 2011/12.

 

[yorksrob]

Fair enough.

At a 18% fall puts rail use a little better than 2011/12.

I hope this figure makes it into the public domain and political discourse fairly soon !

 

[ic31420]

This bit struck me, the Civil Service doesn’t have a reputation for making heroically brave assumptions...

.. yet that seems to be an extremely brave assumption.

Three times today it has been mentioned in my work place that they're having a real fight to get people back in the office. A complete change of attitude from thanking people for staying at home and bending over backward for them. It was said during the summer when the restrictions were relaxed they wanted all but the very most vulnerable back by November. Many have returned some more begrudgingly than others but we still have some entire teams or shifts missing. It's increasingly acknowledged the job is missing out for the over the desk liaison that is absent when working from home. They've done the figures and apparently there is a higher sick rate (not sure if that's covid or not) amongst those at home. To some extent it's the usual suspects refusing to come in. But there is a good 15-20% still off. Notably 3 of our 4 regular train commuters.

It's clear management are running out of patience now and there is an impetus to get people back in or start looking at routes to take it to task.

I would imagine civil service would have access to our figures.

 

[Ianno87]

. They've done the figures and apparently there is a higher sick rate (not sure if that's covid or not) amongst those at home. To some extent it's the usual suspects refusing to come in. But there is a good 15-20% still off. Notably 3 of our 4 regular train commuters.

Wouldn't be surprised if stress is at play. Putting in longer hours at home, fewer breaks, taking more on, less fresh air/exercise/time for "how are you?" conversations.

 

[NoRoute]

Most of the article is pretty obvious stuff, any business which sees a very significant reduction in sales inevitably has to go through a tough process of scrutinising its costs, reviewing what it does, its practices and looking to drive out efficiencies. For businesses it's simply unavoidable, if you don't get your costs down then you go out of business completely, the railways benefit from being somewhat more insulated from financial realities by virtue of the heavy state subsidies but even it has to react to changed circumstances.

Probably the more concerning bit is the idea that this is going to be driven by the Treasury or DfT, when in any industry its the people in operations who know most about where the costs are, which areas have the most inefficiency and where costs could be driven down. Treasury and DfT may set the budgets and the cost saving targets but shouldn't be micromanaging.

 

[Wolfie]

The civil service is filled with departments who know what needs to be done and will try and do it, but whose actions are hobbled by the treasury trying to micro-manage the funding (Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is another one I've come across). I think that there generally needs to be a better "separation of powers" between the treasury and the other Departments that they fund, who are better placed to understand the implications of policy on the ground.

For the railway, even if not a lot is done on enhancing the service for a couple of years, there really needs to be some political push back on the lack of a plan for electrification.

You forgot to add the politicans who push their personal agenda regardless of practicality or cost.

 

[Annetts key]

Most of the article is pretty obvious stuff, any business which sees a very significant reduction in sales inevitably has to go through a tough process of scrutinising its costs, reviewing what it does, its practices and looking to drive out efficiencies. For businesses it's simply unavoidable, if you don't get your costs down then you go out of business completely, the railways benefit from being somewhat more insulated from financial realities by virtue of the heavy state subsidies but even it has to react to changed circumstances.

But the railway has a problem, it’s rather difficult to try to maintain the current service level (with in some places, just the bare minimum numbers of staff or not enough staff) and at the same time reduce costs. Especially as the costs of materials and supplies is going up.

The railway is not immune from staff suffering from COVID19, or from the cost of fuel and electricity increasing.

The quickest way to reduce spending, is to defer renewals and other capital spending. But the current organisations are not set up to do that kind of quick change anymore. An agreed series of programme are underway…

I don’t know if it is officially policy across the board, but Network Rail is being very careful and selective in which vacancies it is advertising. But if you have someone go sick when you are already short of staff, that can result in the job or task having to be cancelled. Thus making for an even less productive system.

 

[Master29]

It will all sort itself out. It always does in my experience.

Absolutely. Financial doom mongering doing the rounds again.

 

[dk1]

Absolutely. Financial doom mongering doing the rounds again.

When doesn’t it?? They seem to love the gloom for some reason.

 

[Bald Rick]

It will all sort itself out. It always does in my experience.

It will indeed sort itself out. Very painfully.

Last month, the Network Rail figure for the number of passengers was 82%.

Fair enough.

At a 18% fall puts rail use a little better than 2011/12.

I hope this figure makes it into the public domain and political discourse fairly soon !

I’d be interested to see where the 82% comes from, because that isn’t in any of the (non public) data I’ve been seeing, and I’ve been seeing lots. Some individual days were in that region - indeed some were higher - but on the whole, passenger numbers have been broadly static for about 5-6 weeks now, and the numbers reported publicly by Government are correct.

 

[MalaiseForever]

Last month, the Network Rail figure for the number of passengers was 82%.

would be interested to see where this figure has come from internally. I have not seen it near that. Briefing on Tuesday showed it being around 2/3s

 

[Peter Mugridge]

would be interested to see where this figure has come from internally. I have not seen it near that. Briefing on Tuesday showed it being around 2/3s

Could it actually be the number of pre-virus trains running rather than passenger numbers?

 

[MalaiseForever]

Could it actually be the number of pre-virus trains running rather than passenger numbers?

ah yeah, this is it. Service numbers are at 82%, passenger numbers are at around 2/3s

 

[tbtc]

You know that leopard/face meme ("I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards EatingPeople's Faces Party")?

That's what this thread feels like - "I never thought that the penny pinching government that has starved other public services of billions of pounds would starve MY favourite public service of funds"

I honestly don't know what the Nationalisation enthusiasts expected would happen when the nationalisation that they've been demanding during the past eleven years of Tory rule happened? Some naive utopia about "proper railway men" running everything with no political interference that sounds more like the Isle of Sodor than any realistic option for something controlled by Westminster

Service cuts, industrial disputes... don't expect January's fare rise to be tiny... but at least those nasty bus companies aren't involved any more, eh?

the Tories' strange vendetta it has had against the railways since the end of the War, bar the Cameron government, is still alive and kicking.

Do the Tories really have a strange vendetta against the railways?

I don't know what metric you're using (I think that more lines closed under Labour than under Tory Governments?) but the apparent golden era of British Rail seems to be the Thatcher/ Major era (as you rightly point out, the Cameron era saw some huge increases in funding/ infrastructure)

I'm left of centre but I'm struggling to think of a Labour government that comes close (since Atlee), but nobody claims that Labour have a strange vendetta

Part of resolving this problem would be fares reform too; less of a "cliff-edge" between say 0929 and 0931 would mean more even demand and ultimately we might get more people actually back on trains during old "peak time" who may not otherwise have travelled (commuters or otherwise)

I'd be in favour of more of a tapered change in fares (rather than the 09:29 being virtually empty and the 09:31 being packed with people on cheap fares) but it's the old problem of wanting simpler fares and also more choice and flexibility

 

[dctraindriver]

It will indeed sort itself out. Very painfully.







I’d be interested to see where the 82% comes from, because that isn’t in any of the (non public) data I’ve been seeing, and I’ve been seeing lots. Some individual days were in that region - indeed some were higher - but on the whole, passenger numbers have been broadly static for about 5-6 weeks now, and the numbers reported publicly by Government are correct.

Care to elaborate on the very painfully comment? Sometimes your posts appear a little cryptic, maybe deliberately I wonder?

 

[yorksrob]

It will indeed sort itself out. Very painfully.

And the government pushing painful cuts will find itself assessed at the ballot box. Painfully.

 

[Starmill]

Care to elaborate on the very painfully comment? Sometimes your posts appear a little cryptic, maybe deliberately I wonder?

If the revenue doesn't return, the only remaining option is to cut costs. But there's a strong desire to protect the level of service and certainly the safety of the existing operations. Your can't exactly cut the costs of your diesel or electricity, because you just then don't have enough of those. Same goes for things like concrete or rails or signalling components, you just have to pay for them, or not use them.

So this leaves the only other large component of costs to make savings with which is staff. Reducing industry labour costs is without a shadow of a doubt a priority. Unfortunately as the current set of disputes shows it's going to hurt bad.

 

[Wolfie]

And the government pushing painful cuts will find itself assessed at the ballot box. Painfully.

There comes a point where you can't keep borrowing (i.e. dumping debt on future generations) and have to cut expenditure, increase taxes or indeed both. Raising taxes is no more popular than making cuts....

 

[domcoop7]

More direct governmental control of the Railway (through GBR) means more direct governmental control of railway finances. Well who'd have thought it!

Whilst I am in favour of GBR and don't think the Franchising system serves any useful purpose, I've no idea why people are surprised that quasi-renationalisation would have consequences. People must have short memories. One of the chief arguments for privatisation in the first place was get railway finances more out of short-term political meddling (with the markets, Railtrack's 'credit card with no limit' and long-term franchises being a proxy for investing where investment would achieve the best returns).

As for Evil Populist Tories Hate Railways and only Comrade Corbyn Would Save Us, I'm just going to say that these populist Tories have committed to ending franchising and taking railways under public sector control with a single organisation whose name (and even logo) is effectively a resurrection of the previous state owned railway services; they've committed to spending £100 billion on HS2; they've supported what are effectively bankrupt train operators through Covid; they're throwing money at Local Authorities for transport projects that will necessarily boost railways; electrification programmes whilst stalled are still ongoing; probably more I've forgotten. It doesn't ring true.

 

[Irascible]

The transport policies announced in the budget last week - halving tax on domestic flights, and freezing fuel duty for the 12th year in a row, are populist. These are policies that will be popular with motorists and frequent flyers, but do nothing to tackle the massive elephant in the room - climate change, air pollution and traffic congestion. We are a comparatively small island nation, the perfect size for an electrified, high speed rail network. A sensible government would say, esp. with COP26, let's hike up tax on domestic flights and increase fuel duty to invest in the UK's rail infrastructure, and invest in a long term rolling program of electrification, to encourage people onto a green, electrified, modern railway network, that's future proofed against the effects of climate change and that's fit for the future, as is happening across Europe. A sensible government would introduce incentives to encourage rail travel, eg. cheaper rail fares, promotions to encourage rail travel etc, not continue to promote the most polluting forms of transport on a small island.

Instead, because it's likely to be popular and it's what the public want to hear, driving is being massively subsidised again, domestic flights are being promoted as the cheapest way to travel across Britain, all whilst rail fares will most likely rise again in January.
These policies are populist, easy quick wins, whilst avoiding taking potentially unpopular (in the short term), strategic decisions, that will benefit the country in the long term.

I could also get into how Brexit and the UK Govt's handling of the pandemic are inherently populist, but this thread is not the place for those discussions.

I'm not defending the govt, but there is also the view that knobbling one form of transport now to pay for another which won't be available for years, if not decades, will hurt regional economies & end up taking money to prop up the area that was originally meant for the transport upgrade. We also have a problem in that electricity usage is rising fast & our reliable clean generation of it isn't, so even mass electrification isn't going to do the environment much good when the extra demand is satisfied from fossil fuels in the first place. In absolute terms as a percentage of the nation's pollution output how big a contributor are internal airline routes?

Maybe if they could reverse decades of govts of both colours meddling in nationalised institutions then all those spare middle managers might fill the hole in the lorry driver market

 

[43066]

I'm just going to say that these populist Tories have committed to ending franchising and taking railways under public sector control with a single organisation whose name (and even logo) is effectively a resurrection of the previous state owned railway services; they've committed to spending £100 billion on HS2; they've supported what are effectively bankrupt train operators through Covid;

Despite the cynical branding GBR isn’t going to be the same kind of animal as BR, which was an enormous organ of the state and the last thing the current administration would want to recreate. GBR is going to be more like a heavily souped up NR which will outsource many functions to private sector companies who will be running the service as concessionaires with recruitment etc. left to them (as per Arriva Rail London currently). There’s a fair bit of uncertainty still around exactly what shape it’s going to take AIUI.

HS2 is essentially a vanity project. So much money has already been spent that it would be more embarrassing for a (short term, populist) government to cancel it than to simply plough on snd take credit for creating jobs, “building for the future” etc. The sunk costs fallacy is irrelevant to the current administration who also won’t be worrying about what will happen in a few years when the costs snowball out of all control and a final decision has to be taken on the second stage.

 

[dctraindriver]

If the revenue doesn't return, the only remaining option is to cut costs. But there's a strong desire to protect the level of service and certainly the safety of the existing operations. Your can't exactly cut the costs of your diesel or electricity, because you just then don't have enough of those. Same goes for things like concrete or rails or signalling components, you just have to pay for them, or not use them.

So this leaves the only other large component of costs to make savings with which is staff. Reducing industry labour costs is without a shadow of a doubt a priority. Unfortunately as the current set of disputes shows it's going to hurt bad.

Thank you for explaining.

 

[tomuk]

I'm not defending the govt, but there is also the view that knobbling one form of transport now to pay for another which won't be available for years, if not decades, will hurt regional economies & end up taking money to prop up the area that was originally meant for the transport upgrade. We also have a problem in that electricity usage is rising fast & our reliable clean generation of it isn't, so even mass electrification isn't going to do the environment much good when the extra demand is satisfied from fossil fuels in the first place. In absolute terms as a percentage of the nation's pollution output how big a contributor are internal airline routes?

Maybe if they could reverse decades of govts of both colours meddling in nationalised institutions then all those spare middle managers might fill the hole in the lorry driver market

Electricity usage in the UK has actually fallen over the last 20 years by about 40,000 Gwh. It isn't rising fast. Renewable Generation capacity is set to double by 2030 to 80 GW it has grown at over 20% a year since being 1.4 GW in 2020. Last year renewables generated 43.1% of our electricity beating fossil fuel generation.

Aviation contributes to 6.4% of UK CO2 emissions domestic flights 0.4%

 

[Irascible]

Electricity usage in the UK has actually fallen over the last 20 years by about 40,000 Gwh. It isn't rising fast. Renewable Generation capacity is set to double by 2030 to 80 GW it has grown at over 20% a year since being 1.4 GW in 2020. Last year renewables generated 43.1% of our electricity beating fossil fuel generation.

Aviation contributes to 6.4% of UK CO2 emissions domestic flights 0.4%

I may have been absent-mindedly thinking about global figures if I'm reading the govt data table right then electricity demand is about what it was in the mid 90s ( and roughly static since 2014 ), but supply efficiency has gone up roughly 12%. I have seen patches of days when our wind/solar contribution has been barely above 10-15% though, so we still need to build more nuclear plants if we really want to stop completely burning fuels. Given we've mandated that people switch away from fossil fuelled vehicles then we also roughly know what extra electricity demand there'll be ( albeit we don't know how efficient electric HGVs are really going to be, etc ). We should ( opinion ) also start relying less on shipping in and start producing more locally too, so that would be an increase in domestic demand.

Domestic air is an easy target ( and for travel between some cities a good one ), but concentrating on that now vs say, trying to get everyone to use smaller lighter cars, and less van use, seems to be more about politics than effective gains. I mean, yes we can do both but until there's practical replacements for the journeys domestic air is really good at then perhaps leave those routes alone so they can keep indirectly funding their replacements.

 

[Annetts key]

ah yeah, this is it. Service numbers are at 82%, passenger numbers are at around 2/3s

Ah, apologies for the confusion. Either the person briefing was not clear, or I misunderstood. Most likely the later. It being train service level actually makes more sense given the group that was being briefed.

But on real trains (as opposed to tickets sales), as I said, some in the “non-commuter time”, part of the day are busy or very busy.

There are still lots of commuters working from home. It’s likely that more will return next year, assuming that after the winter, COVID19 levels will have fallen further, and the news and media have lost interest in talking about the subject.

There comes a point where you can't keep borrowing (i.e. dumping debt on future generations) and have to cut expenditure, increase taxes or indeed both. Raising taxes is no more popular than making cuts....

This is one of the things that I find most annoying.

Yes, the amount of money people have does make a difference. Hence how much you tax people is very relevant.

However, often the Conservative party (for example) make a big fuss about being a low taxation party, but are actually responsible for increasing the overall level of taxation. Or being not significantly different from the opposition parties. The Conservatives often raise taxes that disproportionately affect most workers, especially the lower paid (but often not all those at the very bottom).

Really, politicians and governments should be far more honest and crystal clear on what taxes they are proposing/introducing/changing and on the resulting overall tax figure.

I don’t think small raises where the increase is seen as fair based on a persons ability to pay, for a specific project or area of government funding is in itself unpopular.

Also, it’s really hard to reduce government borrowing when the country has had a large debt for many decades. The more important issue is can we service the borrowing. At the moment, the answer is yes. So there is no immediate problem. The current cost of government borrowing is cheap compared to historical average figures.

Typically, countries don’t pay off their debts as such anyway. Instead they let inflation reduce the effective value of the debt.

I'm not defending the govt, but there is also the view that knobbling one form of transport now to pay for another which won't be available for years, if not decades, will hurt regional economies & end up taking money to prop up the area that was originally meant for the transport upgrade. We also have a problem in that electricity usage is rising fast & our reliable clean generation of it isn't, so even mass electrification isn't going to do the environment much good when the extra demand is satisfied from fossil fuels in the first place. In absolute terms as a percentage of the nation's pollution output how big a contributor are internal airline routes?

Maybe if they could reverse decades of govts of both colours meddling in nationalised institutions then all those spare middle managers might fill the hole in the lorry driver market

There is a difference here though. I can understand not raising the level of tax on road vehicle petrol and diesel. But why cut the tax on aviation?

The price of refined oil products (like petrol and diesel) has been rising due to global demand, so consumers are already paying more. The tax intake from the sales of road vehicle petrol and diesel will therefore be going up anyway. So not increasing the tax level is understandable.

Yes, the cost of aviation fuel is also likely to be rising. But aviation is not taxed very heavily anyway, so cutting taxes on internal flights makes absolutely no sense on any level to me. Especially when the government claims to have a ‘green’ agenda…

I may have been absent-mindedly thinking about global figures if I'm reading the govt data table right then electricity demand is about what it was in the mid 90s ( and roughly static since 2014 ), but supply efficiency has gone up roughly 12%. I have seen patches of days when our wind/solar contribution has been barely above 10-15% though, so we still need to build more nuclear plants if we really want to stop completely burning fuels. Given we've mandated that people switch away from fossil fuelled vehicles then we also roughly know what extra electricity demand there'll be ( albeit we don't know how efficient electric HGVs are really going to be, etc ). We should ( opinion ) also start relying less on shipping in and start producing more locally too, so that would be an increase in domestic demand.

The U.K. electricity network uses multiple and various sources. As said earlier, wind is now a major part of that. When the conditions are right, wind is the largest source of electricity generation. When this happens, all or nearly all the coal stations shut down and the level of output from the CCGT (gas) is reduced substantially. Just like now for example (see images).

Now obviously right now, there is less demand because it’s nighttime.

But when there is substantially less wind, the CCGT stations become the most significant source of electricity generation.

Thus, overall, wind power is reducing our average carbon dioxide emissions for electricity generation.

The trend has been falling for the level of demand. This is unlikely to continue. But the capacity from wind continues to increase.

At the moment, in this country, a lot of heating is done by gas. As we shift away from gas for heating and cooking, and as we have more electric vehicles, it’s possible that the overall demand for electricity will increase. The question is ‘by how much’?

Super insulating homes and buildings, if done, using ground source heat pumps or other efficient heating systems, alongside continuing the move to more energy efficient electrical appliances and LED lighting may well mean that the demand for electricity will not rise as quickly or as much as people may expect.

In terms of the amount of energy (electricity) required for charging electric cars, it’s expected that most will be recharged during the night when electricity demand is lowest. And of course, electric vehicles are extremely efficient compared to petrol or diesel internal combustion engine vehicles.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Electricity usage in the UK has actually fallen over the last 20 years by about 40,000 Gwh. It isn't rising fast. Renewable Generation capacity is set to double by 2030 to 80 GW it has grown at over 20% a year since being 1.4 GW in 2020. Last year renewables generated 43.1% of our electricity beating fossil fuel generation.

If you look at the "Last Year" graphs on Gridwatch, Renewables generated about 34% of the total demand, on average (roughly 10GW of 30GW).
Wind is often the major component of this, but it is a very variable source, this year we have had several extended spells of windless days.
Solar is fickle in our climate, and produces power mostly when we need it least (summer days), and is feeble in winter.
The interconnectors are fine and growing quickly, but they are supposed to work both ways (ie UK powering Europe/Ireland at times).

 

[yorksrob]

Three times today it has been mentioned in my work place that they're having a real fight to get people back in the office. A complete change of attitude from thanking people for staying at home and bending over backward for them. It was said during the summer when the restrictions were relaxed they wanted all but the very most vulnerable back by November. Many have returned some more begrudgingly than others but we still have some entire teams or shifts missing. It's increasingly acknowledged the job is missing out for the over the desk liaison that is absent when working from home. They've done the figures and apparently there is a higher sick rate (not sure if that's covid or not) amongst those at home. To some extent it's the usual suspects refusing to come in. But there is a good 15-20% still off. Notably 3 of our 4 regular train commuters.

It's clear management are running out of patience now and there is an impetus to get people back in or start looking at routes to take it to task.

I would imagine civil service would have access to our figures.

Have they tried a hybrid method of working, or are they expecting everyone all in five days a week in one go ?

 

[Ianno87]

Have they tried a hybrid method of working, or are they expecting everyone all in five days a week in one go ?

Hybrid working is definitely the way to go in my book.