Comment piece in Passenger Transport - "The railway risks becoming irrelevant"

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe do as in France where many rural routes are covered by bus or coach (example Roscoff in Brittany which is also a ferry port).

A start would be to properly integrate regional bus services with the railway. Then people might not oppose that quite as much in some places, particularly if it allowed a better service (see the Conwy Valley).

 

[philthetube]

I've yet to see a version of this that doesn't make the service less useful and/or more expensive to use than it already is.

If the unions shut it down for months/years and reduce reliability even further I don't see why anyone would come back to it.

Sadly I think all of the above will happen and the railway will find itself irrelevant in the next few years. Nobody seems to know what we actually want it for. Either make it useful to as many people as possible (my preference) or get rid of it. Cutbacks in services, increased fares and protracted strikes are the worst of both worlds and doesn't make anyone happy.

Unions would not shut the railway down for months, only the government could do that, unions would just massively disrupt the job by working to rule overtime bans and occasional strike days.

The government may eventually get fed up of all this and impose new conditions, on a sign or leave basis, not likely but it was done on the underground in the 70's

Having said that serious consideration has to be given to staff retention, as high staff turnover cannot be afforded, unlike the buses, drivers cannot be trained up in a couple of weeks. Any serious attempt to cut costs through reducing pay may have unforeseen consequences and the unions may not be part of that.

 

[A0]

A start would be to properly integrate regional bus services with the railway. Then people might not oppose that quite as much in some places, particularly if it allowed a better service (see the Conwy Valley).

That's a distraction. The problem is rail closures are regarded as a no-no for purely emotional reasons even where it would make sense like the Conwy Valley.

You don't have bus rail integration across most of rural France. The buses running route like Roscoff are dedicated to that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a distraction. The problem is rail closures are regarded as a no-no for purely emotional reasons even where it would make sense like the Conwy Valley.

In part that is because, apart from maybe 5 companies (two of which have had something to do with the same manager, Alex Hornby, and most of which have to do with Best Impressions, the other one being Lothian), UK bus services are just awful.

You don't have bus rail integration across most of rural France. The buses running route like Roscoff are dedicated to that.

Actually, a lot of SNCF rural routes ARE run with integrated railway buses. Sometimes they even do trains for the peaks and buses during the day.

 

[A0]

Unions would not shut the railway down for months, only the government could do that, unions would just massively disrupt the job by working to rule overtime bans and occasional strike days.

Correct - because a large scale strike = no pay. So it will be disruption rather than a long, months on end strike.

 

[yorksrob]

I think it is little more more nuanced than that though. Not by being achieved at any cost though, and the same bums sitting more often (and making more and more discretionary journeys), are at a discount in the relevance stakes.

More nuanced, but surely the definition of the "same bums" is the commuter traveling every day and paying a discount for it.

More leisure travel will likely attract a wider range of passengers and surely increase the relevance of the railway amongst passengers as a whole !

Wrong. The railways didn't come into existence to shift people around - that was a by product.

Shifting bulk freight was, and remains the railway's main reason for existing. Very few lines were built with passenger as the main demand, particularly outside the cities.

What the railways came into existence for is neither here nor there. I don't even see what the mid-19th century business model of the railway has to do with the relevance of the 21'st century passenger railway.

Right, because the "Southern region" did nothing wrong - apart from recycling time expired rolling stock which lead to unnecessary deaths when such death traps were involved in accidents and has bequeathed to the rail network a prehistoric system of electrification which was dangerously unsafe a century ago.

In any other line of business you'd be condemning such practises, but since it's the rail network it gets a free pass.

Firstly, the Southern region did not operate "death traps". It operated rolling stock that was progressively better constructed than that which it replaced, which meant that Networker was an improvement in safety over an EPB, just as an EPB was an improvement in safety over a wooden bodied SUB.

Your current car is probably more crashworthy than the ford cortina you may have driven in the seventies, but I doubt you'd have considered yourself in mortal danger.

And as for the "pre-historic electrification system that was dangerously unsafe a century ago", this is pure hyperbole. I will remember your post and chuckle to myself, next time I am enjoying magnificently safe and comfortable travel on the Southern Region.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 May 2022 ==

No it doesn't.

It means not pouring money in like there's no tomorrow and allowing costs to escalate.

Running a half empty DMU around twice an hour should be replaced with an hourly service - which might not be full, but might be 3/4s full and running costs would be ~50% less.

Don't run silly once a day extensions to random destinations.

Maybe do as in France where many rural routes are covered by bus or coach (example Roscoff in Brittany which is also a ferry port).

If you look at most genuinely rural routes in this country (and as you will have noticed, I travel a lot of them) very few run two trains an hour. Most of them, such as the S&C, Cumbrian coast etc have hourly+ services which suit the demand.

The problem is when people use the phrase "rural" to denote anything that's not a heavily used commuter route

 

[wobman]

The vast majority of the trains in use on the national network now are post privatisation. So any claims about "still paying for BR stock" are about an increasingly small minority of units in use - and the next cull of BR era stock is already taking place as the Mk3 EMUs are withdrawn. I would expect all bar the Scotrail HSTs to disappear in the next year or so - driven by a reshuffle caused by the new EMR fleet arriving and the 222s seeking new homes.

Most trains I see and travel on around the North of England are ex BR era built rolling stock, there's still plenty running around the network from that time.

In the next few years things will gladly be changing but not quite yet.

 

[Craig1122]

Some poor understanding of how the economics of running a railway work in this thread. Increasing frequencies has been shown again and again to increase passenger numbers. Often out of proportion to the increase, IE double the service and get more than double the number of passengers.

The reverse is also true so running a longer trains less often is likely to decrease your revenue. However halving the service doesn't come anywhere near halving your outgoings as all the fixed costs remain the same. See also suggestions of reducing speed, journey time is also linked to revenue.

As well as intercity services the South East has historically (at least pre covid) come close to or covered it's costs at times. For the South Western that's been true fairly consistently. So the lesson is that only an intensively used railway is likely to be profitable. Salami slicing services will only lead to a spiral of decline and increasing losses. For more rural areas continued subsidy is likely to be necessary and that's back to an argument that has been rehearsed again and again since Beeching that the overall economic benefit usually makes it worthwhile.

 

[ar10642]

The costs of the railway are the ones that need to be addressed. Peter parker said 'the railway is a track and a train'. OK, a little simplistic but maybe look how much stuff the railway NEEDS rather than nice to have.

What can be dropped that's going to make the sort of difference people seem to want on here?

 

[A0]

Some poor understanding of how the economics of running a railway work in this thread. Increasing frequencies has been shown again and again to increase passenger numbers. Often out of proportion to the increase, IE double the service and get more than double the number of passengers.

I'd like to see the evidence for that and the timeframe - because I'm not sure that's the case.

These figures show the timeframe for journeys doubling is about 20 years https://www.statista.com/statistics...-passenger-journeys-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 May 2022 ==

Most trains I see and travel on around the North of England are ex BR era built rolling stock, there's still plenty running around the network from that time.

In the next few years things will gladly be changing but not quite yet.

Of the TOCs which serve "the North"

TPE's fleet is all post BR, so is Avanti's, Grand Central, Hull Trains and Lumo.

Most of XC's fleet is, same for LNER.

EMR's London fleet is all post BR, though their regional DMU fleet isn't.

Northern is a split - in the Manchester area there are alot of 195s and 331s running around along with some BR era stuff. The NE though doesn't yet seem to have had any new stock from Northern.

 

[wobman]

I'd like to see the evidence for that and the timeframe - because I'm not sure that's the case.

These figures show the timeframe for journeys doubling is about 20 years https://www.statista.com/statistics...-passenger-journeys-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 May 2022 ==



Of the TOCs which serve "the North"

TPE's fleet is all post BR, so is Avanti's, Grand Central, Hull Trains and Lumo.

Most of XC's fleet is, same for LNER.

EMR's London fleet is all post BR, though their regional DMU fleet isn't.

Northern is a split - in the Manchester area there are alot of 195s and 331s running around along with some BR era stuff. The NE though doesn't yet seem to have had any new stock from Northern.

Well I see plenty of
153's EMR / TFW
150's Northern / TFW
156's Northern / EMR
158's EMR/ TFW
168's Chiltern
170s WMT / XC / TFW / EMR
507 Merseyrail
319 Northern
321 WMT

Then there's the Locos used by the FOCs

There's probably plenty more other units from the BR era around, but there's still plenty running around that I regularly see.

 

[Craig1122]

I'd like to see the evidence for that and the timeframe - because I'm not sure that's the case.

These figures show the timeframe for journeys doubling is about 20 years https://www.statista.com/statistics...-passenger-journeys-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 May 2022 ==

Norwich to Sheringham has tripled over the last 20 years. Not got figures to hand but as I recall most of the growth was concentrated in the couple of years after the service increased from two hourly to hourly.

Hounslow loop services were increased from half hourly to every 15 minutes, within a could of years usage at most stations along the route had tripled.

It's a while back so I can't reference it but I recall someone who was fairly senior at both BR and then the department for transport saying that Network South East did research and found that increasing rail frequency/capacity stimulates demand in much the same way as building new roads.

It's not really surprising. There are plenty of reasons for travel where you can't fix your times so naturally increased frequency will reduce waiting time and so become more attractive. I'd go as far as suggesting that part of the reason passenger numbers haven't recovered is because services have been reduced. And of course the longer that goes on the more likely people won't return.

 

[yorksrob]

o as far as suggesting that part of the reason passenger numbers haven't recovered is because services have been reduced. And of course the longer that goes on the more likely people won't return.

If agree, that's definitely depressing the recovery.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I'd argue greater total subsidy is probably politically viable if it leads to a lower subsidy per journey.

Agreed.

Let's say (as an illustrative example) the railway costs twice as much but delivers ten times the journeys, is that going to be more or less politically defendable?

Much more politically defensible IMHO

We have to cut costs where we can, but we also have to chase volume, because Railway systems are bulk transport systems. Pile it high and sell it cheap.

Very true. Commuters, King Coal, container traffic from the ports

 

[A0]

Well I see plenty of
153's EMR / TFW
150's Northern / TFW
156's Northern / EMR
158's EMR/ TFW
168's Chiltern
170s WMT / XC / TFW / EMR
507 Merseyrail
319 Northern
321 WMT

Then there's the Locos used by the FOCs

There's probably plenty more other units from the BR era around, but there's still plenty running around that I regularly see.

168s and 170s were post privatisation.

WMT doesn't have 321s, it has 323s - but not for much longer.

 

[miklcct]

But it's also 50% less useful, so why would I bother with it, especially with today's sky high fares, and not just drive instead?

How much money is not doing that going to save? I suspect hardly anything.

That is just a closure.

If an hourly bus replaces a two-hourly train, and the bus actually runs into the village / town centre while the train station is located further out, it's a service enhancement with less cost.

 

[gazzaa2]

To some extent they are, and to some extent they’re not. These “busy trains” are not evenly allocated. So it will be very busy on a weekend between 0930-1200 but quieter from then until 1500 or so.

Also in some areas, capacity (i.e services) have been cut. So even though you have less passengers you’ve still got 1.7 trains worth of people trying to get on 1 train, not 2 (as a crude example). That or things like what used to be a 4-car is now a 2-car or what was once a 12-car is now an 8. Weekend allocations are, despite many requests from staff on the ground, often woefully inadequate at many TOCs

Just like it always was then.

 

[Ken H]

What can be dropped that's going to make the sort of difference people seem to want on here?

Well roger ford goes on about boiling frogs with railway finances. How about not binning serviceable trains but making them last longer. But I think Network rail could look at its costs.

 

[al78]

Why would they use public transport? Most people don't use public transport unless one of the following applies:
- They cannot drive or do not have access to a car
- They are going to central London

- They choose to be car free (maybe for environmental reasons and because they can travel to where they need to go without a car).

 

[ar10642]

If an hourly bus replaces a two-hourly train, and the bus actually runs into the village / town centre while the train station is located further out, it's a service enhancement with less cost.

So... close lines and replace with more frequent buses is the answer to how we get people back on the railways?

People will just drive.

 

[Starmill]

So... close lines and replace with more frequent buses is the answer to how we get people back on the railways?

People will just drive.

Much depends on the quality of the bus service. Is it reliable, reasonably priced and integrated with the railway services nearby and either connects well or is relatively frequent? Does it use modern vehicles with decent interiors, next stop information, and contactless pay as you go across modes including capping? Does it have a live next bus indicator at the stop and a protected place to wait and sit down?

Most bus services in England don't have any of that. So fundamentally a shift 'to bus' is going absolutely nowhere. It's really the bare minimum nowadays.

 

[al78]

Not where I live it doesn’t.

I notice your location is London. London is a special case and not representitive of the rest of the UK. Driving in London is slow, stressful, expensive and unpleasant, and has a superb dense public transport network. Other major cities and less dense urban areas are much easier to drive into and out of, and aren't as well served by bus and rail. People living in rural areas will drive if they are able. There is a reason why there was so much opposition to the congestion charging proposal in Greater Manchester: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manchester_congestion_charge

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 May 2022 ==

Why are trains so busy then?

From my limited once a week experience of commuting from Horsham to Farringdon, I'd say the trains are quieter than I would expect, particularly on the return journey in the evening rush hour. There are a fair few who board at London Bridge but not very many standing, and many of them get off at East Croydon. When I used to travel to Victoria and come home in the evening pre-pandemic, the train as far as East Croydon was way more rammed full.

 

[miklcct]

Most bus services in England don't have any of that. So fundamentally a shift 'to bus' is going absolutely nowhere. It's really the bare minimum nowadays.

There are some buses which are designed to connect with railways. However, these are mostly tourist-oriented routes.

 

[ar10642]

Much depends on the quality of the bus service. Is it reliable, reasonably priced and integrated with the railway services nearby and either connects well or is relatively frequent? Does it use modern vehicles with decent interiors, next stop information, and contactless pay as you go across modes including capping? Does it have a live next bus indicator at the stop and a protected place to wait and sit down?

Most bus services in England don't have any of that. So fundamentally a shift 'to bus' is going absolutely nowhere. It's really the bare minimum nowadays.

Bus services are bad where I am. The hourly service that stops at 6 and doesn't run on Sunday is usually a dirty clapped out single decker of about 2005 vintage and looks like it's second hand from somewhere else. It does take contactless cards and has live GPS tracking on a phone app but that's about it.

I would have thought to get people back on the railways we'd need a reliable, frequent service at a price people thought was reasonable, but what do I know? Apparently we should be halving the service, closing lines and increasing ticket prices to make it "pay" instead.

 

[yorksrob]

Much depends on the quality of the bus service. Is it reliable, reasonably priced and integrated with the railway services nearby and either connects well or is relatively frequent? Does it use modern vehicles with decent interiors, next stop information, and contactless pay as you go across modes including capping? Does it have a live next bus indicator at the stop and a protected place to wait and sit down?

Most bus services in England don't have any of that. So fundamentally a shift 'to bus' is going absolutely nowhere. It's really the bare minimum nowadays.

Also they take ages and end up getting caught in the traffic (I say this as a regular bus user. I'm happy to use it for journeys of a certain length, but not longer).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 May 2022 ==

Anyhoo- going back to the OP, I've not experienced any evidence that buses are any more relevant than the railways.

They're holding their own, but no more than rail.

 

[RT4038]

I would have thought to get people back on the railways we'd need a reliable, frequent service at a price people thought was reasonable, but what do I know?

If you can do that without using more public subsidy (as in 2019 levels) then this is probably acceptable. The problem is, they can't. I don't think there is much public appetite to pay more subsidy to the railways.

 

[Starmill]

Turning it the other way, what would be the effect of a 10% rise on all ticket prices ?

If, for example it led to a 2% drop in use but an 8% increase in revenue, that would actually improve the railway network's financial position.

I know that you probably intended to suggest a rise in the real prices of 10%, but it is worth noting that RPI in May was 11.1%. That level would put next year's regulated fares rise at 12%. This might go up a little further by July so we could very easily be looking at a rise for 2023 in regulated fares of 13 - 14%. If RPI continues on the track it has been on since last March it could be a 15% rise. Certainly 10% in cash terms seems a low estimate.

Of course, government may well interfere and limit the rise to flat RPI this year, taking just one percentage point out of the sting.

 

[ar10642]

If you can do that without using more public subsidy (as in 2019 levels) then this is probably acceptable. The problem is, they can't. I don't think there is much public appetite to pay more subsidy to the railways.

Sounds like the railway does indeed risk becoming irrelevant then.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Another point that gets lost is that the government won't appreciate being told that inflation is to blame for the cost issues after they have asked for a saving. Cost cuts will be demanded in real terms (i.e. against the 2019 cost base) while revenue growth will be measured in absolute terms.

To put it another way, there is a deep double standard here. To be seen as performing well revenue would need to hit more than 100% of 2019 - something like 107% by now. Wheras costs will need to be 80% - 90% of 2019 levels.

Ah yes the yoke of continually driving down costs. That can be effective but one day the limit is reached or exceeded.

Hardly any will be made by bus. The bus is usually a choice made out of desperation.

Almost everyone has access to a car. The journeys will be made by car 95% of the time. Those that don't will have to take taxis because most buses aren't profitable. If we're insisting on public transport being 100% profitable it mostly won't exist, except in large cities.


So service cuts rather than outright closure. But then it becomes even less useful, so less people use it, so less financially viable etc.

Try making staff redundant the unions kick off, strikes etc. no service, lose even more passengers who start using cars and don't come back.

All of this stufff is just Beeching again, didn't work, won't work now.



Prices are already ridiculous, why 2%?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 May 2022 ==



My argument is the railway will never be profitable, but if we're going to have it it needs to be accessible and useful which means subsidised and not having stupidly high fares.

If making it profitable is the aim you might as well shut it down tomorrow, it will never happen.

My bold. Certain parts are profitable. But we have to decide if we want to subsidise loss making routes/services for ecological benefit and the benefit of those that have no access to a car.

Not at all. If you have a subsidised service, you want to get as many people on it as possible to pay the cost.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 May 2022 ==



The first costs that need to be moved are the artificial costs introduced as part of the privatisation fiasco, such as leasing costs on trains that have been paid for several times over.

But if the ROSCOs are really ripping us off then new Rolling Stock Leasing companies will spring up and compete. I don't like it but that is how it works. I would personally prefer the railways to OWN the trains they use as that would be cheaper.

It doesn't have to invole removing unprofitable parts. If anything, the problem with many different parts of the public sector (the BBC for example) is that they assume that saving money involves not doing certain things rather than doing everything in the most cost-effective way possible. The latter is what needs to happen.

Yes. Do what we do better.

Really you ought to have a railway where the likelihood of writing off the stock after ten years is likely to be prevented (through cascades etc). Certainly such a practice would be highly wasteful in terms of resources and something to be avoided.

I don't know how quickly the government borrowing rate would allow train build to be paid off, but anything less than permanent leasing would be s bonus.

More government interference. Reminds me that the railways are privatised but the government does not see it that way, But the state is paying for the privilege.

Building a train entails a considerable amount of expense, resources and carbon. We should not be expending such resources frivolously. Additionally, if you spend your resources replacing trains every ten years, there will likely be little scope for strengthening services and increasing capacity.

Forty years is a perfectly reasonable length of life for most railway vehicles, as illustrated by the Southern Region over many decades.

More importantly, as a passenger, why would I want money spent frivolously replacing rolling stock every ten years that isn't life expired, when the money would be far better spent keeping my fares down ?

I agree mostly. To me one of the strengths of the railways is we made rolling stock last. Instead we are sleep walking into the throwaway culture. But I think the railways should own the railway trains.

I never said it would, but the railway has no right to exist, nor a blank cheque. Making it as useful to as many people as possible has to be a goal, but not at any cost. The costs have to be sorted out first, and if that means cutbacks in services and protracted strikes to build a strong foundation then perhaps this has to be gone through first. Similar things have happened in many other industries before.

And that is the wake up call.

But leasing costs are significant, and ROSCOs have certainly made arguably excessive profits for years - another legacy of privatisation. I just find it a little strange that you’re very quick to jump on staff costs appear wiling to defend ROSCOs.



This is just factually incorrect.



Specifically which Ts and Cs? I suspect you have no real knowledge or understanding of either Ts and Cs or productivity and are just parroting something you’ve read in the Daily Mail.

The three ROSCOs were investigated by a government body a few years ago which concluded the ROSCOs were not overly greedy. I still think the railways should own the stock they operate - I don't like leasing generally.

A start would be to properly integrate regional bus services with the railway. Then people might not oppose that quite as much in some places, particularly if it allowed a better service (see the Conwy Valley).

That would be making better use of the resources available but, instead, integration seems to be ignored in the UK.

Unions would not shut the railway down for months, only the government could do that, unions would just massively disrupt the job by working to rule overtime bans and occasional strike days.

The government may eventually get fed up of all this and impose new conditions, on a sign or leave basis, not likely but it was done on the underground in the 70's

Having said that serious consideration has to be given to staff retention, as high staff turnover cannot be afforded, unlike the buses, drivers cannot be trained up in a couple of weeks. Any serious attempt to cut costs through reducing pay may have unforeseen consequences and the unions may not be part of that.

I have a nagging feeling that train drivers are paid so well because they are hard to get (recruit and train) - supply vs demand. Either that or the TOCs are another employer in the UK that prefers to poach trained staff rather then bother to train any themselves. Guards on the other hand.....?.

Some poor understanding of how the economics of running a railway work in this thread. Increasing frequencies has been shown again and again to increase passenger numbers. Often out of proportion to the increase, IE double the service and get more than double the number of passengers.

The reverse is also true so running a longer trains less often is likely to decrease your revenue. However halving the service doesn't come anywhere near halving your outgoings as all the fixed costs remain the same. See also suggestions of reducing speed, journey time is also linked to revenue.

As well as intercity services the South East has historically (at least pre covid) come close to or covered it's costs at times. For the South Western that's been true fairly consistently. So the lesson is that only an intensively used railway is likely to be profitable. Salami slicing services will only lead to a spiral of decline and increasing losses. For more rural areas continued subsidy is likely to be necessary and that's back to an argument that has been rehearsed again and again since Beeching that the overall economic benefit usually makes it worthwhile.

Yes. The TfL formula has meant that a sleepy North London Line is now frequent, with longer trains and basically overcrowded as a result !.

 

[43066]

But if the ROSCOs are really ripping us off then new Rolling Stock Leasing companies will spring up and compete. I don't like it but that is how it works. I would personally prefer the railways to OWN the trains they use as that would be cheaper.

Certainly they’re extracting a fair bit of cash from the industry. It also wouldn’t be particularly easy for new ROSCOs to enter the market given barriers to entry and the fact that it’s fairly small in the first place.

The three ROSCOs were investigated by a government body a few years ago which concluded the ROSCOs were not overly greedy. I still think the railways should own the stock they operate - I don't like leasing generally.

Make no mistake the financial institutions involved in the asset leasing business are making a great deal of money from it. Whether they’re exactly “ripping off” the industry is another question but, from memory, leasing costs account for a similar proportion of the railway’s overall budget as staff costs.

Despite this leasing costs receive little to no scrutiny on here from those who claim to be concerned about costs, but spend most of their time attacking staff Ts and Cs (whether real or imagined) and criticising unions. I suspect that’s yet more evidence of the resentment towards staff which I’m afraid permeates this forum.

I have a nagging feeling that train drivers are paid so well because they are hard to get (recruit and train) - supply vs demand. Either that or the TOCs are another employer in the UK that prefers to poach trained staff rather then bother to train any themselves. Guards on the other hand.....?.

Certainly there’s a big element of training length/cost underpinning driver pay, yes.

Guards have a completely different skill set but there’s no getting away from the fact that their training period is considerably shorter than that of drivers, and they’re a lot easier (and cheaper) to replace.