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

[yorksrob]

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

To be fair, that can be a good or a bad thing, depending on what they're pushing.

Graylings fixation on bi-modes has rather set back electrification to an extent, as an example.

 

[Ianno87]

.

Graylings fixation on bi-modes has rather set back electrification to an extent, as an example.

But has massively decabonised Paddington and King's Cross (plus to a lesser extent Cambridge and Norwich) without the capital cost of full electrification.

Electrification in itself is not the output- decarbonisation is.

 

[yorksrob]

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

Yes, it seems to be working more or less at my place of work. Get people used to being in the office again.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2021 ==

But has massively decabonised Paddington and King's Cross (plus to a lesser extent Cambridge and Norwich) without the capital cost of full electrification.

Electrification in itself is not the output- decarbonisation is.

It has, but it's let them off the hook for actually finishing projects.

 

[dk1]

But has massively decabonised Paddington and King's Cross (plus to a lesser extent Cambridge and Norwich) without the capital cost of full electrification.

Electrification in itself is not the output- decarbonisation is.

It’s amazing how dirty & old East Mids 158s come across at Norwich these days.

 

[Ianno87]

It’s amazing how dirty & old East Mids 158s come across at Norwich these days.

They stick out like sore thumbs compared to the super-smart Stadlers. Even more so when it's a 156.

Fleets like the Stadlers are exactly the image that passengers want from the railway.

 

[dk1]

They stick out like sore thumbs compared to the super-smart Stadlers. Even more so when it's a 156.

Fleets like the Stadlers are exactly the image that passengers want from the railway.

Only on diesel briefly before departure. Yes those 156s look truly awful now especially with the ingrained dirt many have.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The last time there was a general service reduction of rail services was in the recession of the early 90s, before the privatisation plan took hold, when a 10% cut was imposed (while large sums were being spent on Channel Tunnel routes and services).
BR did reduce service frequency, but it also rationalised its rolling stock by ditching much elderly and non-standard stock, and rolled out more DOO.
It was when sleeper services were drastically cut, along with portion working which was common previously on some routes.
Once the cuts were achieved, there was then 30 years of expansion, even through recessions, as the 5-year CP and 7-15 year franchise contracts protected the status quo, unlike in other government agencies.
None of that applies today, with short-term contracts being the order of the day, putting more power in DfT hands.
NR also has its enhancement projects authorised separately, not as part of the CP settlement.

 

[dk1]

The last time there was a general service reduction of rail services was in the recession of the early 90s, before the privatisation plan took hold, when a 10% cut was imposed (while large sums were being spent on Channel Tunnel routes and services).
BR did reduce service frequency, but it also rationalised its rolling stock by ditching much elderly and non-standard stock, and rolled out more DOO.
It was when sleeper services were drastically cut, along with portion working which was common previously on some routes.
Once the cuts were achieved, there was then 30 years of expansion, even through recessions, as the 5-year CP and 7-15 year franchise contracts protected the status quo, unlike in other government agencies.
None of that applies today, with short-term contracts being the order of the day, putting more power in DfT hands.
NR also has its enhancement projects authorised separately, not as part of the CP settlement.

I recall morning peak Intercity services from Norwich-Liverpool St where reduced from half-hourly to every 40-45 minutes. Also a DMU was removed from the fleet leading to some local service reductions some of which have never returned. The mainline was flying again with growth & additional services in the mid & late 90s.

 

[NoRoute]

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

During Thatcher and Major's government rail passenger journey numbers were pretty much flat, they started rising in the stats after 1995 and continued rising during Labour's time in government between 1997 and 2010, they have flat-lined from 2015 onward. So I'm not sure how that supports this idea of Thatcher and Major presiding over a golden age of rail travel.

The West Coast Route Modernisation and the construction of HS1 were both completed by the Labour government, that's very substantial investment during their time in office into two of the most major recent railway projects. What did Labour ever do for the railways.....

UK Rail journey statistics

 

[yorksrob]

During Thatcher and Major's government rail passenger journey numbers were pretty much flat, they started rising in the stats after 1995 and continued rising during Labour's time in government between 1997 and 2010, they have flat-lined from 2015 onward. So I'm not sure how that supports this idea of Thatcher and Major presiding over a golden age of rail travel.

The West Coast Route Modernisation and the construction of HS1 were both completed by the Labour government, that's very substantial investment during their time in office into two of the most major recent railway projects. What did Labour ever do for the railways.....

UK Rail journey statistics

There was a pronounced bounce in passenger numbers from about 1983 onwards, when BR was allowed to work is wizardry, however it was still a very commuter led railway and the early 90's recession cut it back again.

Ultimately both colours of government should have carried on electrifying from the 90's, but the structure of the privatised railway made it too difficult.

 

[43096]

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

Railways are not an election issue generally. The economy and health tend to be way more important.

 

[dk1]

Another thing to remember about the 80s was the continued IRA campaign. In London particularly it put off many tourists & day visitors who perceived attacks where imminent with the likes of litter bin removals at stations. There was a huge upturn as this fear abated during the 90s.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I disagree with the definition of populism in use here. To me there's an additional quality necessary to just being "in popular opinion" which is that they make simple answers to complex problems. Usually this is by identifying a problem and then setting up a culprit who becomes a popular target despite ultimately not being responsible - such as the European Union, the "Liberal Elites", or religious or ethnic groups who become targets. Populism is about something more than popular policy.

I think your definition of populism and analysis is correct. However, all the 'targets' you give as examples seem to be targets that populists on the right use often use. So, just to add a bit of balance, other common populist targets are: 'bankers', 'the rich', 'multinationals' or 'directors'. Possibly more relevant to a discussion about railways, the right likes to cite inefficiencies and unions as targets, while the left likes to cite privatisation. In reality of course, all those may well be contributors to the problem, but not to the extent or level of simplicity that populists would tend to proclaim.

 

[Goldfish62]

If national infrastructure schemes are so populist, why is there such a backlash against HS2 with more people talking about "using ££billions for local railways or our NHS"? Partly its poor PR on behalf of HS2, but many people also fail to grasp long-term benefits with expensive initial outlays.

It's also because for the majority of people railways are an irrelevance and they don't consider a huge amount of money should be spent on something they'll never use. Hence the silence regarding the £27bn roads programme. Even if you increased the roads spending 10 fold the opposition would still be nothing like that against HS2. Shame on the Green Party for siding with this opinion.

 

[stj]

Where I live most stations are un-staffed and I see loads of people getting on and off without paying.I wonder how much revenue is lost due to fare evasion across the network?

 

[Robertj21a]

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

Cuts are only painful if they're not needed. There's slack to now remove on railways.
Government won't see any significant affect on vote numbers since only a small % use trains - and the majority using cars will probably think it's a good idea anyway.

 

[The Planner]

Clearly NR are assuming the new hybrid way of working is the future, seen an email where they are giving up a floor of the Birmingham office to save some money.

 

[NoRoute]

There was a pronounced bounce in passenger numbers from about 1983 onwards, when BR was allowed to work is wizardry, however it was still a very commuter led railway and the early 90's recession cut it back again.

If you get railway passenger journey data from the ORR here (ORR Rail Passenger Journey Data) and do a quick plot of journeys since the 1970s, then between 1970 upto the mid 1990s journeys range between 600 and 800 Million each year, with no obvious trend, they rise, they fall, but no steady direction. It's only from the mid 1990s onward where there is a clearly pronounced trend of steady growth, with that growth levelling off in the later half of the 2010s. Picture speaks a thousand words:

 

[yorkie]

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.

People like that wouldn't last long in my job, and I am very grateful not to be surrounded by such people.

If you get railway passenger journey data from the ORR here (ORR Rail Passenger Journey Data) and do a quick plot of journeys since the 1970s, then between 1970 upto the mid 1990s journeys range between 600 and 800 Million each year, with no obvious trend, they rise, they fall, but no steady direction. It's only from the mid 1990s onward where there is a clearly pronounced trend of steady growth, with that growth levelling off in the later half of the 2010s. Picture speaks a thousand words:

View attachment 105249

It could alternatively be interpreted as rising since around 1983, with an interruption during the early 90s recession and a small blip for the 2008 financial crisis.

 

[Ianno87]

.

It could alternatively be interpreted as rising since around 1983, with an interruption during the early 90s recession and a small blip for the 2008 financial crisis.

Essentially yes - the deregulation and growth of the financial industry from the early/mid 1980s onwards, interrupted by the early 1990s recession.

 

[NoRoute]

It could alternatively be interpreted as rising since around 1983, with an interruption during the early 90s recession and a small blip for the 2008 financial crisis.

I don't find it a very convincing interpretation because the early 1980s were themselves recessionary years, so the growth into the mid 1980s was simply recovery from the recession back to prior levels, and growth plateaued in the late 1980s even before the recession arrived.

In the 20 years between 1970 and the 1990 recession arriving passenger numbers have bounced around but gone nowhere. Contrast that with the years from the mid-1990s onward, which display much steadier year on year growth.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't find it a very convincing interpretation because the early 1980s were themselves recessionary years, so the growth into the mid 1980s was simply recovery from the recession back to prior levels, and growth plateaued in the late 1980s even before the recession arrived.

In the 20 years between 1970 and the 1990 recession arriving passenger numbers have bounced around but gone nowhere. Contrast that with the years from the mid-1990s onward, which display much steadier year on year growth.

Also consider that London's population was in decline from WWII until around 1981, as people moved out to New Towns etc.

 

[yorkie]

I don't find it a very convincing interpretation because the early 1980s were themselves recessionary years, so the growth into the mid 1980s was simply recovery from the recession back to prior levels, and growth plateaued in the late 1980s even before the recession arrived.

In the 20 years between 1970 and the 1990 recession arriving passenger numbers have bounced around but gone nowhere. Contrast that with the years from the mid-1990s onward, which display much steadier year on year growth.

However you word it, journeys increased from just over 600m to just over 800m during a 6 year period during the 1980s.

 

[yorksrob]

However you word it, journeys increased from just over 600m to just over 800m during a 6 year period during the 1980s.

Indeed. And one also has to remember that the recovery from about 1983 was from a much larger decline, going back from the 1960's

 

[NoRoute]

However you word it, journeys increased from just over 600m to just over 800m during a 6 year period during the 1980s.

1980: 760 Million journeys
1985: 686 Million journeys
1990: 810 Million journeys
1995: 761 Million journeys

So in 15 years between 1980 and 1995, total journeys have gone down, up, down and back to where they started.

 

[yorkie]

As I said, you can word it however you like, but there is no denying that there was an increase of around 33% in a 6 year period in the 1980s and therefore @yorksrob's statement was correct.

From the data:

1982: 630 million journeys
1988: 822 million journeys

 

[alistairlees]

As I said, you can word it however you like, but there is no denying that there was an increase of around 33% in a 6 year period in the 1980s and therefore @yorksrob's statement was correct.

From the data:

1982: 630 million journeys
1988: 822 million journeys

1982 was a year of strikes. Picking this as a base year from which to extrapolate trends will lead to false conclusions, rather than insights.

 

[yorkie]

OK then 1983 to 1988 saw a lot of growth.

 

[NoRoute]

As I said, you can word it however you like, but there is no denying that there was an increase of around 33% in a 6 year period in the 1980s and therefore @yorksrob's statement was correct.

From the data:

1982: 630 million journeys
1988: 822 million journeys

I don't deny the figures, but I deny they point to a trend of steady growth starting in the early 1980s. They are essentially picking a recessionary low, picking a boom time high and then ignoring the data either side of that period. Journeys were a lot higher in 1980, so 1982 was well below average. Journeys hit 822 M in 1988, but they then fell for the next 6 years and it took another 3 years until they clawed back to 845M in 1997/8. There was a recession in between, but to take nearly a decade to recover is not consistent with an argument that the railways were under going steady growth.

 

[Robertj21a]

More to do with entrepreneurs advertising well, better pricing?