Realities of railway recovery after 2024

[JonathanH]

Labour have an opportunity to make a huge song and dance about the rail network in their next general election campaign, and from what I’ve heard from people working behind the scenes on Labour’s next general election campaign they’re planning to do exactly that.

An opportunity, maybe, but no money to do anything meaningful.

It all comes down to money, of which there isn't any, and priorities.

I am not wanting to be political here. Just wondering how things could be better without money being found.

 

[Trainbike46]

An opportunity, maybe, but no money to do anything meaningful.

It all comes down to money, of which there isn't any, and priorities.

I am not wanting to be political here. Just wondering how things could be better without money being found.

In some ways, the amount of money available is a political choice (in that the decisions on taxation levels, and borrowing levels are choices made by government) and that's before you look at the political decisions regarding where money is spent. If a future government wanted, more money could be found for the railway.

But, if we're trying to stay within a similar budget, some things to consider would be:
- prioritising investments that reduce OpEx (such as electrification)
- switching away from non-commercial guards, as well as more DOO on some routes
- solving industrial relations mess (the strikes are holding back recovery in passenger income and revenue, this should be resolved asap)

 

[SargeNpton]

I can only suggest that, should all the current franchisees (or managed contracts, whatever) throw in the towel because the profits dry up, then they all come under the operator of last resort. The OLR then gets subsumed into GBR.

With one organisation in charge of all routes, a single long-term national policy on fares/timetables/marketing/rolling stock renewal/route upgrades simplifies the 30 or so current operators pulling in different directions.

 

[JonathanH]

If a future government wanted, more money could be found for the railway.

That means higher taxes that someone has to pay. Which taxes have scope for increases? What funding can be diverted to the railway from elsewhere?

- switching away from non-commercial guards, as well as more DOO on some routes

That triggers industrial relations issues

- solving industrial relations mess (the strikes are holding back recovery in passenger income and revenue, this should be resolved asap)

That needs money

Very difficult

 

[paul1609]

I can only suggest that, should all the current franchisees (or managed contracts, whatever) throw in the towel because the profits dry up, then they all come under the operator of last resort. The OLR then gets subsumed into GBR.

With one organisation in charge of all routes, a single long-term national policy on fares/timetables/marketing/rolling stock renewal/route upgrades simplifies the 30 or so current operators pulling in different directions.

The rumour is that management resources at OLR are severly stretched and no further TOCs will come under its control.

 

[JonathanH]

With one organisation in charge of all routes, a single long-term national policy on fares/timetables/marketing/rolling stock renewal/route upgrades simplifies the 30 or so current operators pulling in different directions.

Removal of duplication through cutting back services. Possibly some marketing of through journeys that can't be done at present. Do different operators really pull in different directions?

 

[HSTEd]

That triggers industrial relations issues

I hesitate to mention anything about industrial relations at all, but given that strikes are likely inevitably anyway, it might be more politically tenable to do DOO now than it has been in a long time.

 

[SargeNpton]

Removal of duplication through cutting back services. Possibly some marketing of through journeys that can't be done at present. Do different operators really pull in different directions?

Do train operators need some 3½ thousand different ticket types, to market their services? I don't see the long-mooted fares simplification coming along until such time that a national policy on fares and ticketing is in place.

 

[Trainbike46]

That means higher taxes that someone has to pay. Which taxes have scope for increases? What funding can be diverted to the railway from elsewhere?

Every decision has trade-offs. Personally, I would move some money from the roads to the railways budget, but I understand others would make different choices. The point being that, for a new government with different priorities, if they wanted to more money for the railway could be found. The question is of course whether they will want to.

That triggers industrial relations issues

The only TOCs with non-commercial guards are Merseyrail and SWR, right?

For Merseyrail, the solution would be to go DOO when the new stock is fully in place, and retrain the current guards to drivers, RPIs or transfer them to other TOCs (Northern/Avanti/TfW/TPE)

For SWR, institute a no new hires rule for the non-commercial guards, and only take on new staff at the commercial guard side, then over time there will only be commercial guards left.

To be honest, I am surprised that non-commercial guards even exist. Specifically on Merseyrail, why does that need 2 members of staff on every train?

That needs money

True, but not solving them also costs money

Very difficult

Fully agreed there!

 

[Bikeman78]

An opportunity, maybe, but no money to do anything meaningful.

It all comes down to money, of which there isn't any, and priorities.

I am not wanting to be political here. Just wondering how things could be better without money being found.

Sometimes I wonder where all our tax revenue is going. The NHS is FUBAR. My dentist basically told me to go away and come back when I have a serious problem. The Police seems to be stretched and understaffed. The roads are falling apart. Markings are worn away. Many drains completely blocked so that roads flood whenever it rains. Newport Road is a series of massive puddles which take hours to drain.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I can only suggest that, should all the current franchisees (or managed contracts, whatever) throw in the towel because the profits dry up, then they all come under the operator of last resort. The OLR then gets subsumed into GBR.

With one organisation in charge of all routes, a single long-term national policy on fares/timetables/marketing/rolling stock renewal/route upgrades simplifies the 30 or so current operators pulling in different directions.

There are no “profits” in the current arrangement to dry up - the 14 DfT TOC “owners” are now just on management fees. It is effectively a more expensive version of OLR as the DfT are now the ones on revenue and cost risk.

 

[JamesT]

Do train operators need some 3½ thousand different ticket types, to market their services? I don't see the long-mooted fares simplification coming along until such time that a national policy on fares and ticketing is in place.

Isn't most of the ticketing system 1994 British Rail stuck in aspic when it was all privatised? Don't the DfT drive most policy already, so could simplify whether the TOCs are there or not?

 

[Kite159]

One small cost saving will be to look at some of those token once/twice a day extensions to services which go over another operators routes.

For example Greater Anglia to Kings Lynn, South Eastern to Ore, LNER to Skipton/Hull/Glasgow, is the cost of maintaining route knowledge for those services worth it when revenue goes to the DfT?

 

[JonathanH]

One small cost saving will be to look at some of those token once/twice a day extensions to services which go over another operators routes.

Yes, but that is cuts.

This thread is effectively about whether anyone would find the money, or extra passengers, to pay for improvements, not make targeted cuts.

I repeat the quote at the start.

Labour have an opportunity to make a huge song and dance about the rail network in their next general election campaign, and from what I’ve heard from people working behind the scenes on Labour’s next general election campaign they’re planning to do exactly that.

In order to make a 'song and dance about the rail network', some money needs to be found yet commitments are going to have to be made about tax, spending elsewhere and loads of other things. The reality is that there is no money to satisfy both the demands of the workers and the passengers for a better railway.

 

[Kite159]

Labour will make a huge song & dance, but will probably provide little details other than "we will set up a committee to look into it"

Or say they will do X, Y & Z, but once into power that promise quietly gets dropped. Similar to 1997, they will provide little details in how they plan to fund to do X, Y & Z.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I can only suggest that, should all the current franchisees (or managed contracts, whatever) throw in the towel because the profits dry up, then they all come under the operator of last resort. The OLR then gets subsumed into GBR.
With one organisation in charge of all routes, a single long-term national policy on fares/timetables/marketing/rolling stock renewal/route upgrades simplifies the 30 or so current operators pulling in different directions.

Nationalisation of that sort is not on the government's agenda (in England at least).
The TOCs are on a management fee so will always get a tiny "profit".
I doubt they are happy with the current setup, but they are not going to "throw in the towel" just yet.
Nationalisation doesn't solve the problem that the railway is insolvent, and the state of the public finances means that cost/revenue must be better matched, or we will be back to a Beeching situation.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The rumour is that management resources at OLR are severly stretched and no further TOCs will come under its control.

There are perfectly capable individuals in the private sector that could come across like Steve White did for SE and continuity was kept in place.

 

[muddythefish]

An opportunity, maybe, but no money to do anything meaningful.

It all comes down to money, of which there isn't any, and priorities.

I am not wanting to be political here. Just wondering how things could be better without money being found.

There is always money available. The government only has to tell the BoE to create it

The government needed £400bn to see the economy through the pandemic - the money didn't come from its savings account, it told the bank to give it the money

Whether it's a new local hospital or NPR or a new aircraft carrier, government spending is a political choice

 

[RobShipway]

I don't think the money for the railways should come from the roads, as there is very little money going into them as is and as mentioned by another poster there are money problems on the roads that certainly over the last few years do not seem to have been solved. The situation certainly locally in east Sussex has got that where a new pedestrian/cycle path is being built which should have completed this Winter time, it will now complete in March 2023. That new pedestrian/cycle path has actually been flooded out over the last few weeks due to the amount of rain that the country has been having.

Anyway, back to the question in hand. I do believe that the higher earners within the UK should be taxed more than they are currently being taxed. If you look at any figures after taxation, the higher earners are getting at least 80% of their salary after national insurance and any other taxes are paid. Whereas those on lower salaries are lucky if they get 70% of their salary.

I believe that taxing the higher earners more so, will not only help pay off the deficit that is owed, but also bring in money to help the UK become a more environmentally friendly country with being able to put in place more electrification than is currently planned and perhaps change in places where 3rd rail electrification exists to be overhead electrification.

Before, the change to electrification there also needs to be better use of rolling stock and that rolling stock to be hybrid in some form whether it is battery/diesel or diesel/electric. A good example of this is 168329 HybridFlex.

 

[JonathanH]

The government needed £400bn to see the economy through the pandemic - the money didn't come from its savings account, it told the bank to give it the money

Yes, but that means it is less likely to do it again, not more likely.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, but that means it is less likely to do it again, not more likely.

But it wouldn't take £400bn to get the railway going to a position where it would be able to grow numbers.

Admittedly, by forcing the industry to scrap so much rolling stock, the DfT is making a future recovery much more expensive, but there's no accounting for stupidity

 

[JamesT]

There is always money available. The government only has to tell the BoE to create it

The government needed £400bn to see the economy through the pandemic - the money didn't come from its savings account, it told the bank to give it the money

Whether it's a new local hospital or NPR or a new aircraft carrier, government spending is a political choice

Though all these choices have consequences. Injecting £400bn into the economy is part of the reason why we currently have high inflation.

 

[A0]

Anyway, back to the question in hand. I do believe that the higher earners within the UK should be taxed more than they are currently being taxed.

The problem is that with income tax - the biggest revenue source - the Top 1% are paying 30% of its revenues, but 42% of adults pay *no* income tax whatsoever. https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-income-tax-revenues-institute-fiscal-studies

The issue is the 'personal allowance' at £12k is much higher than, say, Sweden where it is about £4k.

We need to broaden the tax base, not keep ramping up taxes on mid or high earners. The 'high' rate of 40% (which also has NI added onto that for most people) starts at £50k - that kind of salary means head and deputy heads in schools are paying it, so are GPs and even train drivers (median salary £60k).

This incessant 'tax the rich' narrative is tiresome, it's basically saying somebody else should pay. Well, to be blunt, if you called for Covid lockdowns, if you called for longer or more severe lockdowns, if you demanded a bigger or more generous furlough bill, if you called for free Covid testing, if youbsaid all these actions, which hit the economy were "worth it", well, here's the bill - now put *your* hands in *your* pockets and contribute more towards it. You got what you wanted, now you get the bill.

 

[baz962]

I don't think the money for the railways should come from the roads, as there is very little money going into them as is and as mentioned by another poster there are money problems on the roads that certainly over the last few years do not seem to have been solved. The situation certainly locally in east Sussex has got that where a new pedestrian/cycle path is being built which should have completed this Winter time, it will now complete in March 2023. That new pedestrian/cycle path has actually been flooded out over the last few weeks due to the amount of rain that the country has been having.

Anyway, back to the question in hand. I do believe that the higher earners within the UK should be taxed more than they are currently being taxed. If you look at any figures after taxation, the higher earners are getting at least 80% of their salary after national insurance and any other taxes are paid. Whereas those on lower salaries are lucky if they get 70% of their salary.

I believe that taxing the higher earners more so, will not only help pay off the deficit that is owed, but also bring in money to help the UK become a more environmentally friendly country with being able to put in place more electrification than is currently planned and perhaps change in places where 3rd rail electrification exists to be overhead electrification.

Before, the change to electrification there also needs to be better use of rolling stock and that rolling stock to be hybrid in some form whether it is battery/diesel or diesel/electric. A good example of this is 168329 HybridFlex.

You are a bit wrong on the tax front. Someone on £20,000 for example takes home just over £17,500 or 87% of their income. Someone on £200,000 takes around £115,000 or 57%.

 

[Bald Rick]

If you look at any figures after taxation, the higher earners are getting at least 80% of their salary after national insurance and any other taxes are paid.

How have you worked that out?

 

[SargeNpton]

Isn't most of the ticketing system 1994 British Rail stuck in aspic when it was all privatised? Don't the DfT drive most policy already, so could simplify whether the TOCs are there or not?

The regulated fares are certainly stuck in aspic. However, that has not prevented thousands of TOC-specific fares types being created over the last couple of decades (and are still being created).

 

[yorksrob]

The regulated fares are certainly stuck in aspic. However, that has not prevented thousands of TOC-specific fares types being created over the last couple of decades (and are still being created).

And a good few better value fares being deleted in some instances.

 

[JonathanH]

How have you worked that out?

I think it is based on income after income tax but not national insurance has been applied.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

How have you worked that out?

They haven't UK income tax system is regressive the more you earn the more you pay.

ie upto £12750 you pay no tax or NI ie keep 100% of your earnings after that its on a declining curve such that at a 100k 33.7% of your income is taken from you especially if your PAYE.

perhaps they meant all things being equally ie same house, energy, food costs then the more you earn the more likely you will have disposable income but thats where tax allowance and the benefit system kicks in to help neutralise some of that deficit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They haven't UK income tax system is regressive the more you earn the more you pay.

Point of order, that is a progressive tax system. A regressive one is one like National Insurance where, in some form, people who earn more pay a lower percentage due to it having a cap.