Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Yes, but when you take into account such items as NR infrastructure charges, it gets more complicated. We are only seeing one side of the equation here.
The premium isn’t really a premium now because the TOCs are not profit making entities anymore. I’m not sure of the value of these ORR statistics, given the limitations of the data.
Yes, but when you take into account such items as NR infrastructure charges, it gets more complicated. We are only seeing one side of the equation here.
The premium isn’t really a premium now because the TOCs are not profit making entities anymore. I’m not sure of the value of these ORR statistics, given the limitations of the data.
It's true but the same can be levelled at road transport, do they pay the full cost of road infrastructure. It's not really the TOCs fault they're not charged the full track access.
It's true but the same can be levelled at road transport, do they pay the full cost of road infrastructure. It's not really the TOCs fault they're not charged the full track access.
I really don't want to relitigate this again and again, but the reality is that it doesn't matter who's "fault" it is.
Essentially every part of the railway has strongly negative net revenue once costs concealed in the NR budget are factored in.
Losing sight of that reality is likely to result in bad decisions that will further worsen the railway's situation.
(Let's please not do the "does road cover its costs" argument yet again, because we can't even agree on a frame of reference!)
One of the headaches for GBR (TOCs + NR + DfT Rail) will be apportioning the total costs of the railway to whatever units (Regions, Sectors) that emerge.
Very large capital sums were spent on main lines in the privatised period (eg WCRM, GW electrification, Crossrail, and now ETCS and TRU).
NR has borrowed something like £40 billion to deliver all that and more, the interest on which has to be paid.
Then there's HS1 and HS2...
No wonder it is taking time to be set up.
I think BR had its debt wiped out twice in its life when it was recapitalised, but I can't imagine the present government doing the same.
All NR's debt clocked up until c. 2010 was to actual real banks/lenders etc. This means HMG cannot write it off, even if it wanted to. It could take the debt over, ie. make the payments itself...
It's only the 4 years or so up to 2014 where NR was borrowing from the Exchequer. This could, in principle, be written off.
It would be interesting to know the price elasticity for journeys in the north. We see lots of comments saying there's not enough capacity on trains in the north. What would happen if the prices rose to a "market level" (one which allowed the operators to support themselves).
That's before you get into the arguement of is the railway an economic or social good.
All NR's debt clocked up until c. 2010 was to actual real banks/lenders etc. This means HMG cannot write it off, even if it wanted to. It could take the debt over, ie. make the payments itself...
It's only the 4 years or so up to 2014 where NR was borrowing from the Exchequer. This could, in principle, be written off.
Most of the commercial debt is bonds, and almost all of it has a coupon (interest rate) of 1.75% or lower. As it matures, it is effectively repaid by debt from DfT. But, importantly, NR is not taking on any increased debt.
The Elephant in the room is evidently Northern and TP. These serve a region about equal in population to the South East but with distributed centres.
As Bald Rick has unerringly pointed out, 2/3 of passenger travel is in the SE.
Arguably this is because the SR particularly, although disadvantaged by short distances, cultivated its market by regularity, reliability and capacity from the 1920's through electrification. Here the stress was on electric traction with stock very economically rebuilt and infinitely life extended. Even after Nationalisation, BR broadened this with Shenfield, Kent Coast, Bournemouth, KX Suburban and Bedpan. Thatcher's boys (Ridley and Mitchel) almost finished the job allowing NSE to be created.
The North by contrast saw stagnation and decline in parallel with its basic industries; post 1945 it preferred roads with its railways run at a minimal service level, so patronage stagnated while maintenance costs remained high for an aged system. The Euston electrification probably drained more from the region than it fed in and only Merseyrail shone, although its bounds were too tight. The advent of the Pacer, operating between centres that in the SE would have had 8 car sets half hourly, says it all. It may be instructive to see the local results of the NWEP as they emerge from COVID, as they may indicate where Northern railways performance could be.
You know mate I was so impressed with the Harrogate loop line on Sunday. I knew it had gone half hourly between Harrogate/Knaresborough and York on weekdays but was blown away not only it was half-hourly Sunday afternoon/early evening but also how busy the 3-car 158/170s were at the York end.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Very different traincrew agreements to West of the Pennines though.
It would be nice if we could have an hourly Sunday service on the Hallam line too ! We were leapfrogged a few years ago by the Atherton line which went from no Sunday service to hourly !
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The Elephant in the room is evidently Northern and TP. These serve a region about equal in population to the South East but with distributed centres.
As Bald Rick has unerringly pointed out, 2/3 of passenger travel is in the SE.
Arguably this is because the SR particularly, although disadvantaged by short distances, cultivated its market by regularity, reliability and capacity from the 1920's through electrification. Here the stress was on electric traction with stock very economically rebuilt and infinitely life extended. Even after Nationalisation, BR broadened this with Shenfield, Kent Coast, Bournemouth, KX Suburban and Bedpan. Thatcher's boys (Ridley and Mitchel) almost finished the job allowing NSE to be created.
The North by contrast saw stagnation and decline in parallel with its basic industries; post 1945 it preferred roads with its railways run at a minimal service level, so patronage stagnated while maintenance costs remained high for an aged system. The Euston electrification probably drained more from the region than it fed in and only Merseyrail shone, although its bounds were too tight. The advent of the Pacer, operating between centres that in the SE would have had 8 car sets half hourly, says it all. It may be instructive to see the local results of the NWEP as they emerge from COVID, as they may indicate where Northern railways performance could be.
I often think that if they'd electrified the main trans-pennine network twenty years ago and ran long rakes of hand me down electric trains, there wouldn't have been the political impetus for NPR etc.
Most of the commercial debt is bonds, and almost all of it has a coupon (interest rate) of 1.75% or lower. As it matures, it is effectively repaid by debt from DfT. But, importantly, NR is not taking on any increased debt.
The North by contrast saw stagnation and decline in parallel with its basic industries; post 1945 it preferred roads with its railways run at a minimal service level, so patronage stagnated while maintenance costs remained high for an aged system. The Euston electrification probably drained more from the region than it fed in and only Merseyrail shone, although its bounds were too tight. The advent of the Pacer, operating between centres that in the SE would have had 8 car sets half hourly, says it all. It may be instructive to see the local results of the NWEP as they emerge from COVID, as they may indicate where Northern railways performance could be.
You need not even look towards NWEP for the North’s potential, have a look at how impactful the electrification of the Airedale and Wharfedale lines or Cross City line as an example for growing passenger usage by creating a London and Southeast style service. It would be great to see a cost and revenue breakdown of those services.
You need not even look towards NWEP for the North’s potential, have a look at how impactful the electrification of the Airedale and Wharfedale lines or Cross City line as an example for growing passenger usage by creating a London and Southeast style service. It would be great to see a cost and revenue breakdown of those services.
Very good example. The Wharfedale line was slated for closure and bus replacement as late as the early eighties, yet electrification and hand-me-down trains, followed by new trains has seen it transformed into a major commuter line.
You need not even look towards NWEP for the North’s potential, have a look at how impactful the electrification of the Airedale and Wharfedale lines or Cross City line as an example for growing passenger usage by creating a London and Southeast style service. It would be great to see a cost and revenue breakdown of those services.
Yes-ish. As a former Cross-City commuter, and regular user of the Wharfedale line, both do have good levels of passengers numbers, especially in comparison to other lines in their respective conurbations. But compared to similar lines in the London commuting belt, they are relatively lightly used.
And fares are rather cheaper too. An Annual Season from Ilkley to Leeds (16 miles, around 30 minutes) is about £1500; Lichfield City to New Street (18 miles, around 40 minutes) is about the same price. Hatfield to London (Kings Cross or Moorgate), is about 18 miles, 25-45 minutes, but £3400. And more passengers than Ilkley + Lichfield City combined.
For the avoidance of doubt, this is not intended to be a ‘south is better than north’ post; it is merely to demonstrate the relative economics of similarly well served electric commuter railways in different parts of the country.
Northern's crews are on lower salaries than any other GB operator, yes. However a Northern driver is less productive than a Southern driver because you can carry a lot more passengers on a 12 car 377 than on a 2 car 195 - both formations require the same number of drivers. Northern also have to pay for guards on all trains, though a good one should earn their keep in revenue protection.
Northern's trains will be more expensive, as it's mostly a diesel fleet, and they operate over a greater proportion of Absolute Block lines which is more labour intensive too.
Northern's crews are on lower salaries than any other GB operator, yes. However a Northern driver is less productive than a Southern driver because you can carry a lot more passengers on a 12 car 377 than on a 2 car 195 - both formations require the same number of drivers. Northern also have to pay for guards on all trains, though a good one should earn their keep in revenue protection.
Northern's trains will be more expensive, as it's mostly a diesel fleet, and they operate over a greater proportion of Absolute Block lines which is more labour intensive too.
The input is the driver hours. The output you choose to measure depends upon what you are trying to achieve when measuring productivity. Hours working a train will include ECS, which might be a necessary task but is still unproductive time in terms of earning revenue. So you could measure train km per driver hour, passenger km per driver hour, or revenue per driver hour. When compiling crew diagrams then yes, hours working a train is a useful measure. When comparing TOCs then the other measures may be appropriate.
The input is the driver hours. The output you choose to measure depends upon what you are trying to achieve when measuring productivity. Hours working a train will include ECS, which might be a necessary task but is still unproductive time in terms of earning revenue. So you could measure train km per driver hour, passenger km per driver hour, or revenue per driver hour. When compiling crew diagrams then yes, hours working a train is a useful measure. When comparing TOCs then the other measures may be appropriate.
While I agree with that, I would not class a driver as being less productive purely based on carrying less passengers as that's entirely out of their control. It would mean a driver working a single 390 for 4 hours being more productive that a driver working a 2 car 172 for 6 hours of driving.
I would not class myself as being less productive when 100% of passengers on a train have tickets, than a conductor who sold a single ticket in the same amount of time. We were both working the same regardless of revenue output.
Makes no difference to me as a train driver if there is one or one thousand passengers behind me or if I am driving for seven hours in a nine hour shift or sitting spare in a messroom doing nothing the entire time. It’s the time out of my own life I am giving to my employer that’s important be that being super productive or less so.
The input is the driver hours. The output you choose to measure depends upon what you are trying to achieve when measuring productivity. Hours working a train will include ECS, which might be a necessary task but is still unproductive time in terms of earning revenue. So you could measure train km per driver hour, passenger km per driver hour, or revenue per driver hour. When compiling crew diagrams then yes, hours working a train is a useful measure. When comparing TOCs then the other measures may be appropriate.
But surely in this context the “useful effort” is simply time spent working trains, as opposed to other activities such as breaks, or travelling pass.
It seems odd to imagine that a driver becomes more or less productive as the length of the trains they’re driving varies, or even as the number of passengers on board a train varies throughout its journey.
It all depends whether you're looking at operational productivity or financial productivity, and how much relevance you believe the latter has in terms of a public service.
I think both definitions are right in their own way.
A mate who spent years in senior management once pointed out to me that on for example most local services no matter how well you do your job as a driver or guard in a business sense you literally lose money for the railway simply by turning up for work as agreed.
On Intercity services if the Government hadn't tied you into a stupid train leasing contract you should actually make money.
In my own Freight experience, 'Drivers productive hours' was a Key Performance Indicator that could discourage positive change.
There were examples by which, by streamlining terminal working, improving the schedule and increasing speed one driver could work a greater distance before running out of hours. This might be considered to improve their productivity but the KPI was only improved if the re-scheduling produced an increase in time spent driving. It might well not.
The same regressive effect might occur with Passenger turns as some of the above apply.
As an aside, when calculations were ordered in the flexible rostering dispute shunt loco drivers always improved the overall productivity; their duties were usually shown as (say) 14.00 - 22.00 W.A.R.(Work as required) - 8 hours. 100% Productive
As an aside, when calculations were ordered in the flexible rostering dispute shunt loco drivers always improved the overall productivity; their duties were usually shown as (say) 14.00 - 22.00 W.A.R.(Work as required) - 8 hours. 100% Productive
Don't quite see how that can be the case. A PNB is still required in that length of diagram whether its work as required or has work content within it? So 100% productive is surely impossible?
It seems odd to imagine that a driver becomes more or less productive as the length of the trains they’re driving varies, or even as the number of passengers on board a train varies throughout its journey.
On an individual level the driver's input is the same no matter how long their train (though it could be argued that a DOO driver is more productive than one working with a guard, as they're doing two jobs).
When taking a broader view, the railway gets more output from the 390 driver's input than from a 195 driver's equal input (OK, it's not quite equal as the 195 driver is paid less). When trying to solve the problem of (for example) XC, the fact that they operate short diesel trains at frequent intervals (and therefore have poor passengertaff ratios, not to mention things like fuel consumption and diesel engine maintenance) needs to be considered. XC as a whole is unproductive, whereas a TOC running long trains which are well-loaded all day (such as the other intercity TOCs) are productive by comparison.
In Northern's case, there does need to be a recognition that it is worthwhile running unproductive services for social reasons, and also that the way to grow ridership and revenue (to improve productivity) is to invest in staff, rolling stock and infrastructure to provide a reliable and usable service. This relies on the Treasury being willing to spend money for predicted future gain, something it is very reluctant to do. Ireland has done so though, and very successfully.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
To provide another example, the other night I worked a train into town which was badly timed (departs 53 minutes after the previous train, 10 minutes before the following one, too early for some connections, too late for the others). As a result of the poor timing there were no passengers. Would you say that was a productive use of resources, to take a train of fresh air?
If it was retimed to be more convenient for passengers such that there actually were any, would it be more productive in your eyes?
The "time working trains" metric for both scenarios would be the same. But I know what felt unproductive the other evening.
Well I suppose the two extremes would be a driver driving a light engine, and a driver driving a 400m long crush loaded HS2 train with potentially thousands of people aboard.
In terms of "driving duties", both are equally productive, but in terms of transporting people, one is obviously far more productive than the other.
But surely in this context the “useful effort” is simply time spent working trains, as opposed to other activities such as breaks, or travelling pass.
It seems odd to imagine that a driver becomes more or less productive as the length of the trains they’re driving varies, or even as the number of passengers on board a train varies throughout its journey.
Indeed. If we could minimise the amount of passengers who travel on our railway (and generally cause delays) to nearer zero, we could maximise the productivity of drivers to new levels
Don't quite see how that can be the case. A PNB is still required in that length of diagram whether its work as required or has work content within it? So 100% productive is surely impossible?
That's exactly how they were written; producing the conflict between what 'work as required' actually was - very unlikely to actually be anything approaching 8 hours continuous, leaving time for the P.N.B. - and how it was to be interpreted*.
Think of a station shunter in the daytime; just the occasional attach or detach.
*from what I remember there were also strict rules about how the different elements of a driver programme were to be regarded (productive/unproductive). These rules were I think the result of consultation with the Union.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
taff ratios, not to mention things like fuel consumption and diesel engine maintenance) needs to be considered. XC as a whole is unproductive, whereas a TOC running long trains which are well-loaded all day (such as the other intercity TOCs) are productive by comparison. 
