ScotRail cancelling services July 2024

[Davester50]

The intercity coach provision in Scotland is experiencing some growth with the emergence of Ember and Flixbus.

Not half.

I think it's heavily bonus based, but they'll take it whilst they can get it.

There were plenty signs around Dundee for a while with the McGills rate of about £15/£16 an hour.

 

[3RDGEN]

Scottish government under fire as it brings back peak rail fares

Decision to end year-long pilot scheme for financial reasons condemned by trade unions and opposition parties

www.theguardian.com

News today that peak rates are tio be re-introduced in Scotland because during the "off peak all day" scheme passengers only increased by 6.8% when 10% was needed for it to be revenue neutral. No account taken of how much usage has been depressed by the recent industrial action though

The report only considered passenger data from the start of the trial in Oct 2023 to 3rd July 2024 so the recent disruption would not have had much affect on the data period, a small effect in late June 24 perhaps.

https://www.transport.gov.scot/publ...al-evaluation-report-august-2024/methodology/ -

"Methodology - The impact on demand has been estimated using the same econometric approach that was used in the TS Interim report that covered the period to mid-May 2024 (ScotRail Peak Fares Removal Pilot - Interim Evaluation Report | Transport Scotland) but applied to data to 3 July 2024."​

 

[Falcon1200]

As I say, it just seems a little blinkered to blame staff who don’t work overtime for the consequences of this choice, and also simultaneously blame those who do work overtime for enabling it, while completely ignoring the role of the employer!

The ballot was not sent out until the first week in August, so had nothing to do with drivers deciding to enjoy their contracted time off.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the blame for the timetable chaos lies squarely with ScotRail senior management, Transport Scotland and ultimately the Scottish government.

Actually, I don't really blame staff, clearly management at all levels are largely responsible for the current situation. But I do not share the view that passengers will simply return to rail as if nothing has happened, and I find it quite astonishing that, on what is already a basket-case railway (which has been proposed for closure in the past, albeit a while ago now), staff are happy to let situations such as this below occur;

The last train from Inverness to Wick today has been cancelled, with ScotRail currently unable to source alternative transport.

In fact with the emergency timetable the last booked Up Far North train is at 8 o'clock - That is, 0802 in the morning from Wick! The X99 bus might; if it is not already, turn out to be the preferred mode of travel on the route. If I was responsible for transport spending in Scotland, and under serious financial pressure, I would be seriously questioning the value-for-money of the 160-odd mile rail line.

 

[Southsider]

Actually, I don't really blame staff, clearly management at all levels are largely responsible for the current situation. But I do not share the view that passengers will simply return to rail as if nothing has happened, and I find it quite astonishing that, on what is already a basket-case railway (which has been proposed for closure in the past, albeit a while ago now), staff are happy to let situations such as this below occur;



In fact with the emergency timetable the last booked Up Far North train is at 8 o'clock - That is, 0802 in the morning from Wick! The X99 bus might; if it is not already, turn out to be the preferred mode of travel on the route. If I was responsible for transport spending in Scotland, and under serious financial pressure, I would be seriously questioning the value-for-money of the 160-odd mile rail line.

I wonder if the future passenger railway in Scotland will consist of the electrified lines (including East Kilbride) and the inter-city routes. It would cut losses, fit the green agenda (decarbonise) and solve the staff shortages!

 

[najaB]

If I was responsible for transport spending in Scotland, and under serious financial pressure, I would be seriously questioning the value-for-money of the 160-odd mile rail line.

The Far North Line isn't likely to close until Dounreay is decommissioned.

 

[swaldman]

In fact with the emergency timetable the last booked Up Far North train is at 8 o'clock - That is, 0802 in the morning from Wick! The X99 bus might; if it is not already, turn out to be the preferred mode of travel on the route. If I was responsible for transport spending in Scotland, and under serious financial pressure, I would be seriously questioning the value-for-money of the 160-odd mile rail line.

ISTR a SG committee some years ago examining this and concluding that it was worth supporting not for transport reasons, but tourism ones. They reckoned it brought enough additional tourism to the far north to be worth the money (presumably because a lot of tourists will take trains but not buses). Of course, that could always be re-evaluated.

In most other senses the bus is already better, in that it is faster than the train on this route. However, as I said somewhere upthread, trains have tables and one can work on them. However wonderful buses might have become elsewhere, the buses on this route definitely do not. So the train does provide a real benefit that isn't available on a bus.

The Far North Line isn't likely to close until Dounreay is decommissioned.

The line won't, but that probably doesn't mean Scotrail has to run passenger trains on it? (I mean, if the SG gives permission to stop)

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

ISTR a SG committee some years ago examining this and concluding that it was worth supporting not for transport reasons, but tourism ones. They reckoned it brought enough additional tourism to the far north to be worth the money (presumably because a lot of tourists will take trains but not buses). Of course, that could always be re-evaluated.

In most other senses the bus is already better, in that it is faster than the train on this route. However, as I said somewhere upthread, trains have tables and one can work on them. However wonderful buses might have become elsewhere, the buses on this route definitely do not. So the train does provide a real benefit that isn't available on a bus.

The line won't, but that probably doesn't mean Scotrail has to run passenger trains on it? (I mean, if the SG gives permission to stop)

Without wishing to go too much off topic, extending to Skye would justify the Kyle lines existence. Similarly if the Wick trains were able to run over the Dornoch Firth it would make the line busier. These both will cost into the billions though and sadly they’ll remain wants rather than reality.

 

[najaB]

Similarly if the Wick trains were able to run over the Dornoch Firth it would make the line busier. These both will cost into the billions though and sadly they’ll remain wants rather than reality.

I doubt that would cost into the billions, probably a couple hundred million. Roughly following the route of the A9 is about 16km, a single-track 75mph line is probably going to cost something like £10M/km so that's say £175M plus the cost of the bridge, the current Dornorch Bridge cost £13M in 1990, so accounting for inflation that's about £35M.

 

[43066]

find it quite astonishing that, on what is already a basket-case railway (which has been proposed for closure in the past, albeit a while ago now), staff are happy to let situations such as this below occur;

Which staff do you mean? Apologies in advance if I’m teaching you to suck eggs here, but I can’t quite tell from the way you’ve written the above (and other) posts whether you realise that the staff who actually crew the trains have no control over which trains are cancelled. They will simply work their allocated shifts, or be allocated workings if spare/standby etc. If there’s nobody to work the last service from X to Y because there is nobody to crew it, the decision to cancel it will be taken higher up - it’s not a question of the crew, who most likely don’t exist, being happy or otherwise.

As traincrew it certainly isn’t a case of being asked which trains you want to work, and which will be cancelled!

 

[Dryce]

Fairly unfair 'trial' considering the circumstances...

Or perhaps cynically realistic given some of the inconveniences being experienced over the last few year.

It also doesn't help that the off peak fares are not very attractive on some routes - even more so if two or more are travelling and can use the car.

And then there is the issue of the numbers of the population who have free bus travel.

And then there is competition with working from home.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

I doubt that would cost into the billions, probably a couple hundred million. Roughly following the route of the A9 is about 16km, a single-track 75mph line is probably going to cost something like £10M/km so that's say £175M plus the cost of the bridge, the current Dornorch Bridge cost £13M in 1990, so accounting for inflation that's about £35M.

I should’ve made it clearer that was a combined figure. An extension to Skye would cost a lot as the distance is much further, the terrain is probably less forgiving and not to mention a much bigger and more complex bridge is needed. The line would need to run to at least Portree to be viable, but ideally would reach Uig.

 

[Sealink]

Indeed. A £5 seat sold and filled is better than a £35 seat that's empty.

Many many years ago ScotRail (under National Express) offered £5 return fares on the Far North Line, I was on a six carriage train one evening home from Inverness, it was so popular.

They scrapped it because the fees they had to pay to Network Rail were too high.

They also did amazing fares to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. I am pretty sure it was £20 return to Glasgow. Hugely popular but NR stymied it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Aug 2024 ==

16-seater minibus is all that can be sourced.
Ticket acceptance on the X99.

The last X99 being 1650. (Later services to towns up to Tain).

 

[driverd]

It also doesn't help that the off peak fares are not very attractive on some routes - even more so if two or more are travelling and can use the car.

This is certainly an area that I think rail needs to compete more actively. Typically 2 adult fares are more expensive than driving and parking for an equivalent journey outside of London. A groupsave style ticket (3/4 for the price of 2) may well be an approach that would be well suited beyond the ex-NSE region.

And then there is the issue of the numbers of the population who have free bus travel.

Honestly, I don't think this really impacts on rail too much, except perhaps on commuter routes. You'll be talking about an insignificantly small number of cost conscious travellers who would see bus as a viable alternative for journeys such as Dundee to Edinburgh, Glasgow to Perth etc.

And then there is competition with working from home.

Certainly a problem, but as most people now work hybrid, the challenge that extends to rail is to drive modal shift and get those hybrid workers to 'train it' 2 days a week rather than drive. If you can get 2.5 times more people using the train 2 days a week, you're taking more revenue than pre-covid users travelling 5 days a week. Arguably, if it's only 2 days per week, train becomes more attractive, simply because you're not dealing with full and standing trains 5 days a week (and with flexible hours being more common, arguably there's new opportunities to manage numbers and get more bums on seats vice standees).

 

[Retorus]

Fairly unfair 'trial' considering the circumstances...

But about the level of honesty and competence you’d expect from this government.

 

[najaB]

I should’ve made it clearer that was a combined figure.

Ah, okay. I read it as each of them costing billions, sorry.

Many many years ago ScotRail (under National Express) offered £5 return fares on the Far North Line, I was on a six carriage train one evening home from Inverness, it was so popular.

They scrapped it because the fees they had to pay to Network Rail were too high.

They also did amazing fares to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. I am pretty sure it was £20 return to Glasgow. Hugely popular but NR stymied it.

I'm not sure that's the reason since the track access charges depend on the type of train, not on how many people are on board.

 

[Davester50]

Honestly, I don't think this really impacts on rail too much, except perhaps on commuter routes. You'll be talking about an insignificantly small number of cost conscious travellers who would see bus as a viable alternative for journeys such as Dundee to Edinburgh, Glasgow to Perth etc.

I honestly don't think you realise the massive expansion of Dundee to Edinburgh and Glasgow buses.
Who wants to pay more than £47.80 return from Dundee to Glasgow (yes yes, split tickets) when an Ember bus is 20 quid return, and just as frequent? Even more so when the young ones have a freebie.

ScotRail really are going to have to watch the competition.
There was an old sign at Haymarket that said "Training beats Coaching". Very debatable these days.

 

[WAB]

They scrapped it because the fees they had to pay to Network Rail were too high.

They also did amazing fares to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. I am pretty sure it was £20 return to Glasgow. Hugely popular but NR stymied it.

Were those fees significantly above and beyond the cost of providing the infrastructure?

 

[Deafdoggie]

Certainly a problem, but as most people now work hybrid, the challenge that extends to rail is to drive modal shift and get those hybrid workers to 'train it' 2 days a week rather than drive. If you can get 2.5 times more people using the train 2 days a week, you're taking more revenue than pre-covid users travelling 5 days a week. Arguably, if it's only 2 days per week, train becomes more attractive, simply because you're not dealing with full and standing trains 5 days a week (and with flexible hours being more common, arguably there's new opportunities to manage numbers and get more bums on seats vice standees).

If you commute 5 days a week, your car mainly sits at work and is an expensive thing to own to just sit somewhere. If you only work 2 days a week, the car is at home more at available for others to use, so it becomes less economic to use the train, and better to use a car. Given the Scottish Government commitment to EVs too, it is considerably cheaper to use an EV.

ISTR a SG committee some years ago examining this and concluding that it was worth supporting not for transport reasons, but tourism ones. They reckoned it brought enough additional tourism to the far north to be worth the money (presumably because a lot of tourists will take trains but not buses). Of course, that could always be re-evaluated.

In most other senses the bus is already better, in that it is faster than the train on this route. However, as I said somewhere upthread, trains have tables and one can work on them. However wonderful buses might have become elsewhere, the buses on this route definitely do not. So the train does provide a real benefit that isn't available on a bus.



The line won't, but that probably doesn't mean Scotrail has to run passenger trains on it? (I mean, if the SG gives permission to stop)

It is, of course, tourists who are most put off by disruption. They are choosing to travel by train, but don't have to. They are most likely to choose not to travel by train too. With large windows, guaranteed seat, seats matching windows, forward facing in most cases, modern buses and coaches, and considerably cheaper, Scotrail really don't help themselves.

Other than sentimental, I can't see a reason for keeping The Far North Line open to passengers. It doesn't make any economic sense. With budget constraints it is an easy win to close it to passengers. I'm not saying it will happen, but I can't believe there isn't an accountant looking at it.

 

[Falcon1200]

As traincrew it certainly isn’t a case of being asked which trains you want to work, and which will be cancelled!

I agree! And it does seem strange that the only southbound Wick/Thurso trains running under the Emergency Timetable yesterday were the 0618 and 0802; However today's timetable looks slightly better, perhaps as a result of the Scottish School holidays having ended.

I too doubt that the Far North Line will actually close, or go freight-only, but it is long - 160 miles! Yet can only justify a handful of trains per day. It is, after all, just one means of transport, and there are others which provide a partly, at least, comparable service at lower cost.

 

[Sealink]

Were those fees significantly above and beyond the cost of providing the infrastructure?

Presumably, I just remember ScotRail at the time saying they could not repeat it.

They did not put extra services on, just extra carriages on existing services. I also can't recall if this was before or after the split of a four carriage train at Georgemas ended.
If it was before, then it was two extra carriages. If it was after, it was four extra carriages.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2024 ==

Ah, okay. I read it as each of them costing billions, sorry.

I'm not sure that's the reason since the track access charges depend on the type of train, not on how many people are on board.

At the time it was the extra carriages incurring costs. Well that's what they said at the time.

 

[Dryce]

Honestly, I don't think this really impacts on rail too much, except perhaps on commuter routes. You'll be talking about an insignificantly small number of cost conscious travellers who would see bus as a viable alternative for journeys such as Dundee to Edinburgh, Glasgow to Perth etc.

On routes north of the central belt such as Edinburgh or Glasgow to Dundee, Aberdeen, and Inverness the buses compete directly with the train.

The train does have an advantage for intermediate stops en-route. So Stirling to Aberdeen is less convenient on the bus than say Glasgow or Edinburgh to Aberdeen.

But the buses are typically a lot cheaper for those paying their own fare - and only a booking fee those with bus passes. They are frequent. And reasonably fast. As more sections of the A9 between Perth and Inverness are dualled the buses to Inverness gain further.

 

[GLC]

Other than sentimental, I can't see a reason for keeping The Far North Line open to passengers. It doesn't make any economic sense. With budget constraints it is an easy win to close it to passengers. I'm not saying it will happen, but I can't believe there isn't an accountant looking at it.

I’m sure I’ve read someone on here (possibly @Bald Rick) explain how, the savings generated by closing a long branch line like the Far North Line are actually pretty minimal, because the line has low maintenance requirements anyway. RETB means there is less signalling to worry about, it’s effectively all single line, with a relatively low line speed and limited service means only a few units are required. It's old data, but Scotrail themselves said here https://www.scotrail.co.uk/sites/de...rail_route_by_route_key_metric_assessment.pdf

North Electrics has largest cost base of all service groups and generates the larges loss. Average journey length is short compared to service length. Whilst seat utilisation per journey isreasonable seat miles utilisation is very low meaning there are large parts of each journey with few passengers. Core service level is 2tph all day on each leg of the network (4tph between
Edinburgh – Bathgate and Airdrie) resulting in an 8tph frequency through the central Glasgow corridor. Most services operate 6-carriages all day due to lack of locations to efficiently split /combine units in the shoulder peaks. There is significant overprovision of capacity in the central Glasgow corridor and between Edinburgh and Airdrie in the off peak.

I can't help but feel the rail industry has missed a huge open goal with these recent events

 

[43066]

I too doubt that the Far North Line will actually close, or go freight-only, but it is long - 160 miles! Yet can only justify a handful of trains per day. It is, after all, just one means of transport, and there are others which provide a partly, at least, comparable service at lower cost.

It would be politically damaging for them to close it, and for a relatively tiny saving.

Although the only place I’ve ever seen proposals to close lines is on this forum, so I too am confident it won’t be happening .

 

[Bald Rick]

I’m sure I’ve read someone on here (possibly @Bald Rick) explain how, the savings generated by closing a long branch line like the Far North Line are actually pretty minimal,

Not me, I don’t think.

Some branch lines cost an absoljte fortune to run. I’m aware of one where the annual industry marginal operating cost is well in excess of £100m, and the total revenue (not marginal revenue) is somewhat less than 10% of that. Not in Scotland, though.

 

[snookertam]

I’m sure I’ve read someone on here (possibly @Bald Rick) explain how, the savings generated by closing a long branch line like the Far North Line are actually pretty minimal, because the line has low maintenance requirements anyway. RETB means there is less signalling to worry about, it’s effectively all single line, with a relatively low line speed and limited service means only a few units are required. It's old data, but Scotrail themselves said here https://www.scotrail.co.uk/sites/de...rail_route_by_route_key_metric_assessment.pdf

I can't help but feel the rail industry has missed a huge open goal with these recent events

This is off topic, but that’s a fascinating point about the North Electrics. Basically lack of available infrastructure (to be able to detach and stable units off peak) causes it to be such a loss making route. Yet there’s little alternative because it likely plays a considerable role in avoiding increased car use (and congestion) in Glasgow.

Ultimately the railway in Scotland will always be a loss maker. The question is how much of a loss is the government willing to tolerate?

 

[sh24]

Not me, I don’t think.

Some branch lines cost an absoljte fortune to run. I’m aware of one where the annual industry marginal operating cost is well in excess of £100m, and the total revenue (not marginal revenue) is somewhat less than 10% of that. Not in Scotland, though.

That is a frightening set of numbers. £90m p.a. buys a lot of rail replacement bus services...

 

[Falcon1200]

It would be politically damaging for them to close it, and for a relatively tiny saving.

I agree, the political repercussions would be huge, however I'm not sure the savings would be tiny; The line may not have huge maintenance costs (despite being over 150 miles long) but neither does it generate huge revenue.

Governments have to make difficult decisions, eventually, whether they want to or not, on where to spend what money they have.

 

[geoffk]

I doubt that would cost into the billions, probably a couple hundred million. Roughly following the route of the A9 is about 16km, a single-track 75mph line is probably going to cost something like £10M/km so that's say £175M plus the cost of the bridge, the current Dornoch Bridge cost £13M in 1990, so accounting for inflation that's about £35M.

I recall that a shared road/rail bridge was mooted at the time the A9 bridge was being designed. I don't know of any design work was done but remember that there was discussion about the future of the line through Lairg.

 

[Iamanoob]

ASLEF have withdrawn its ballot for industrial action and are now a referendum to vote on the pay offer with a closing date of 25/09. Other unions will be doing the same.

 

[northscots]

ASLEF have withdrawn its ballot for industrial action and are now a referendum to vote on the pay offer with a closing date of 25/09. Other unions will be doing the same.

RMT aren't withdrawing their ballot, it's already been completed.