Commuting 'not coming back': Harper

[Xavi]

I don't think that has been established at all, and certainly not for marginal subsidy rather than the base system.

Read Oxford Economics - The economic contribution of rail. UK is the oddball in Europe with politicians and ministers not recognising the wider economic benefits, hence the generally higher prices here and nil likelihood of following the German example of a €49/month pass.

employees travel in on the first off peak train to save costs

Very noticeable when I work in London, there’s a surge in desk occupancy from 10am.

days of fleecing commuters

They never were fleeced. Season tickets offered some of the cheapest travel on the network, though also a slab of revenue.

 

[Krokodil]

I imagine pre-covid there was a much higher proportion of annual seasons.

That just shows how many were sold though, rather than the proportions of passengers using each type. The data ought to be adjusted to reflect that you would have to buy 12 monthlies per year instead of one annual.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2023 ==

They never were fleeced. Season tickets offered some of the cheapest travel on the network, though also a slab of revenue.

Correct. Commuters (who by definition are using discounted tickets such as seasons or carnets) weren't fleeced because their fares were regulated. The people who were fleeced were the ones who needed an Anytime ticket which aren't regulated.

 

[Bald Rick]

You haven't been listening to the same announcements that I have then.

Which announcements?

 

[yorksrob]

Which announcements?

From various transport secretaries and transport ministers:

"The taxpayer has put so many millions into running trains during the pandemic when no one was allowed to travel, so suck it up"...

 

[Bald Rick]

From various transport secretaries and transport ministers:

"The taxpayer has put so many millions into running trains during the pandemic when no one was allowed to travel, so suck it up"...

Can you provide an actual quote from a minister, as I’ve never seen that.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

From various transport secretaries and transport ministers:

"The taxpayer has put so many millions into running trains during the pandemic when no one was allowed to travel, so suck it up"...

I believe that was in relation to the pay dispute not day to day costs of running the industry

 

[yorksrob]

Can you provide an actual quote from a minister, as I’ve never seen that.

It's been repeated adnausium, a favourite of Shapps I seem to recall.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2023 ==

I believe that was in relation to the pay dispute not day to day costs of running the industry

The logic is the same, we're still expected to lump it.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's been repeated adnausium, a favourite of Shapps I seem to recall.

So you can’t provide an actual quote.

 

[yorksrob]

So you can’t provide an actual quote.

Grant Shapps – 2022 Statement on June Rail Strikes – UKPOL.CO.UK

www.ukpol.co.uk

"Office workers are working from home more often and the railway has lost around a fifth of its passengers, and also a fifth of its income. The Government kept the railway running when most passengers stayed at home. We kept trains available for key workers and protected the brilliant railway workers who managed the track and ran the trains. So this Government have stepped in. We put our money where our mouth is and we committed £16 billion to support the railways through covid. That is taxpayers’ money, and it is the equivalent of £600 for every household in this country. Put another way, it is the equivalent to £160,000 per rail worker in this country. As a result, the trains continued to operate, the industry survived and not a single railway worker had to be furloughed or lost their job—not one. We stepped up, but the honest truth is that this level of subsidy—which, let us not forget, is not the Government’s money but the taxpayer’s—simply cannot continue forever. If our railways are to thrive, things must change."

There were many other occasions, the theme being the massive subsidy at the time when passengers weren't allowed to travel, being spun as a justification for cuts now.

 

[Bald Rick]

Grant Shapps – 2022 Statement on June Rail Strikes – UKPOL.CO.UK

www.ukpol.co.uk

"Office workers are working from home more often and the railway has lost around a fifth of its passengers, and also a fifth of its income. The Government kept the railway running when most passengers stayed at home. We kept trains available for key workers and protected the brilliant railway workers who managed the track and ran the trains. So this Government have stepped in. We put our money where our mouth is and we committed £16 billion to support the railways through covid. That is taxpayers’ money, and it is the equivalent of £600 for every household in this country. Put another way, it is the equivalent to £160,000 per rail worker in this country. As a result, the trains continued to operate, the industry survived and not a single railway worker had to be furloughed or lost their job—not one. We stepped up, but the honest truth is that this level of subsidy—which, let us not forget, is not the Government’s money but the taxpayer’s—simply cannot continue forever. If our railways are to thrive, things must change."

Yep, he said that, 9 months ago. Where does it mention that as being a justification for cuts to services?

as a reminder, you said:

If covid spending isn't relevant to this discussion, why do they keep trotting out the money they spent keeping trains running in lockdown as a justification for cuts ?

 

[yorksrob]

Yep, he said that, 9 months ago. Where does it mention that as being a justification for cuts to services?

as a reminder, you said:

Oh, so now you want me to dig out every such quote ? Moving goalposts.

He's talking about subsidy. How can the phrase "this must change" be interpreted in any other way than cuts, given what has happened in the last nine months and is continuing with the withdrawal of capacity.

 

[WAO]

I think that you both may be right in that Govt has not been exactly advertising present and future cuts, so there's no reason to give an up to date justification.

WAO

 

[kristiang85]

They never were fleeced. Season tickets offered some of the cheapest travel on the network, though also a slab of revenue.

Sorry, but £6k a year is never considered value I'm afraid.

 

[Class 170101]

I suspecdt if Rishi Sunak had had his way when he was Chancellor the Exchequer the railways would have been closed and all staff put on furlough. Neither him or Harper have come across as massive fans of the railway (or public transport in general come to that).

Sorry, but £6k a year is never considered value I'm afraid.

Ok, give up your season ticket and buy Anytime tickets every day then notice the difference in price and then say your season ticket is expensive.

 

[Bald Rick]

Oh, so now you want me to dig out every such quote ? Moving goalposts.

No, just one quote where the extra money put into the railway during Covid is used as a reason for cutting services. If you can find one, I’ll shut up.

 

[kristiang85]

Ok, give up your season ticket and buy Anytime tickets every day then notice the difference in price and then say your season ticket is expensive.

I know what you are getting at, but when you take into account terrible reliability, lack of comfort and the fact that despite that your significant annual investment in the railway you don't get discounts anywhere else (apart from the gold card area if you're in that region) it is a terrible deal, given the average wage of a commuter.

And yes I gave up my season ticket as you suggested and use the railways a lot less now as my company understands what poor value it is.

 

[JonathanH]

Sorry, but £6k a year is never considered value I'm afraid.

The challenge would appear to be consideration of what 100 miles of travel, 220 days a year should cost instead of £6,000, and what that would mean for the revenue from shorter journeys.

I note that £6,000 of travel requires about £10,000 of earnings at a marginal tax rate of 42%.

 

[Meerkat]

Read Oxford Economics - The economic contribution of rail

A report by a commercial organisation paid for by the railway industry association!
It doesnt sound feasible to be as good as the sound bite seems - it would be some kind of economic perpetual motion machine and the Treasury would love it.
It applies to the whole system, so that number wouldn’t apply at the margin to throwing money at running more lossmaking services.
Also that concept would hold for most other government capital spending, so you still have to explain to the Treasury why the railway should get the money and not defence, road building, hospitals, schools etc etc.

 

[bramling]

Sorry, but £6k a year is never considered value I'm afraid.

Depends how one defines value. It may *seem* expensive, but equally the average Joe Public will have little idea how much it actually costs to provide a rail service.

 

[XAM2175]

They never were fleeced. Season tickets offered some of the cheapest travel on the network, though also a slab of revenue.

Sorry, but £6k a year is never considered value I'm afraid.

The challenge would appear to be consideration of what 100 miles of travel, 220 days a year should cost instead of £6,000, and what that would mean for the revenue from shorter journeys.

As a point of comparison, in Germany, £3828 buys you a year of unlimited travel across the entire rail network (only excluding open-access operators), and also unlimited travel on metropolitan bus/tram/u-bahn services in over 120 towns and cities.

£6488 gets you the same in first class.

BahnCard 100: Pay once and enjoy 1 year unlimited travel

The 100% discount card. Pay once and enjoy unlimited travel by train in Germany. Don't worry about buying a ticket. Just hop on and discover!

www.bahn.com

 

[Xavi]

It applies to the whole system

Indeed it does, the same level of benefits would not be generated with a reduced network.

I have indirectly seen the impact of Treasury decisions throughout my career and long ago concluded that it is run by an ignorant bunch of narrow-minded civil servants. I liken the attitude to the office manager who runs the petty cash tin like it’s his / her own savings.

As a point of comparison, in Germany, £3828 buys you a year of unlimited travel across the entire

My comparison was with other GB fares. As I’ve mentioned, Germany and other nations appreciate the wider economic and social benefits of rail.

 

[slowroad]

Indeed it does, the same level of benefits would not be generated with a reduced network.

I have indirectly seen the impact of Treasury decisions throughout my career and long ago concluded that it is run by an ignorant bunch of narrow-minded civil servants. I liken the attitude to the office manager who runs the petty cash tin like it’s his / her own savings.

My comparison was with other GB fares. As I’ve mentioned, Germany and other nations appreciate the wider economic and social benefits of rail.

And yet rail modal share in the UK compares relatively well, as shown in this report. Ok, below France and Germany, but barely distinguishable from the latter, and higher than many other countries. Fares in the UK are less subsidised than in many other countries but the subsidy is still high, with the four in five people who use trains less than once a week providing heavy support to the - on average - more affluent minority who use trains frequently.

EUR-Lex - 52021DC0005 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

 

[yorksrob]

No, just one quote where the extra money put into the railway during Covid is used as a reason for cutting services. If you can find one, I’ll shut up.

I don't for one minute believe that you're incapable of seeing the link between the Minister saying "things must change" in the context of subsidies, followed by nine months and counting of unrestored services, missing diagrams, unresolved industrial action, fleets withdrawn without replacement and service cuts, so I'll conclude that you're being deliberately obdurate.

 

[Xavi]

And yet rail modal share in the UK compares relatively well, as shown in this report. Ok, below France and Germany, but barely distinguishable from the latter, and higher than many other countries. Fares in the UK are less subsidised than in many other countries but the subsidy is still high, with the four in five people who use trains less than once a week providing heavy support to the - on average - more affluent minority who use trains frequently.

EUR-Lex - 52021DC0005 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

The modal share argument demonstrates the importance of rail to the UK economy. In many cases, despite the relatively high fares, people have no feasible alternative to rail.

 

[Meerkat]

Indeed it does, the same level of benefits would not be generated with a reduced network.

Depends what you cut, and what happened to the money saved.

 

[43066]

I don't think that has been established at all, and certainly not for marginal subsidy rather than the base system.

So, if you don’t accept that the railway makes a net economic contribution, ask yourself; why exactly do you think it’s still operating? Do you think the government keep it running because they like watching trains?

The answer, of course, is that you are once again incorrect. Oxford Economics (one of the world’s leading economic research organisations) appear to disagree with you, and recently concluded that the railway as a whole adds over £40bn to the UK economy, with every £1 in subsidy returning approx. £2.50!

Okay that was based on 2019 figures, but it’s an indication of the concept of why spending money on the railway results in a far larger financial benefit to the wider economy.

Are you suggesting you know better and that their figures are wrong?

East West Rail | New RIA report highlights the economic, environmental and social opportunities that rail delivers to the UK

A recent report commissioned by the Railway Industry Association, carried out by independent researchers at Oxford Economics, features two case studies from East West Rail and details the benefits to passengers, commuters, job seekers and the environment.

eastwestrail.co.uk

The UK’s rail network plays a central role in supporting the economy​

The latest research builds on a report commissioned in September 2021 focussing on the economic contribution made by rail. That report showed that rail supports £43 billion GVA in economic growth, 710,000 jobs, and £14 billion in tax revenue. For every £1 spent on rail, £2.50 of income is generated in the wider economy.

Efficiently connecting people and places brings a range of additional benefits and helps to ease congestion elsewhere on the transport network. Moving people efficiently across the country, to and from cities and major transport hubs, contributes to economic growth. As well as the economic benefits from accessibility, those with better public transport links are more likely to have access to services and participate socially.

It certainly isnt trivial in terms of railway spending, and if £2bn is knocking about you still need to justify that the railway can deliver more than Defence, Health, Social Security, Education etc etc.

As above, £2bn spending is a temporary situation post Covid which cannot be avoided, and can only be addressed by growing revenue. Defence, health and the railway aren’t substitutes, last I checked.

Also - if you offered the railway £2bn I imagine they would suggest better things to do with it than a general service subsidy.

I don’t follow. The £2bn relates to the current shortfall in fare income.

Not the wider whole system costs of settling. And settling what - the initial demands of the RMT?

Yes, wider than the costs of settling. So again, you obsess over a £2bn shortfall in railway revenue, but are happy with the dispute being continued and wasting billions in the wider economy. A totally inconsistent and irrational position.

Back to the specific topic, if commuting revenue is not coming back are you proposing this extra £2bn pa forever?

Again, that’s a ludicrous way of looking at it. That £2bn cost is a snapshot of the last annual period, is steadily reducing. The idea is to try and grow revenue from a range of sources. The point you are still (wilfully?) missing is that short term cuts might risk perpetuating the losses.

A report by a commercial organisation paid for by the railway industry association!

So you refuse to believe one of the world’s leading research organisations in the field, yet you seem to lap up everything this government tells you.

It doesnt sound feasible to be as good as the sound bite seems - it would be some kind of economic perpetual motion machine and the Treasury would love it.

I’m very glad you don’t run the public finances in this country! Even this government understands what the multiplier effect is, and why it is beneficial to continue to subsidise rail.

The treasury is controlled by the government, hence they are desperate to make short term savings at the moment, to make pre election tax breaks more palatable. That has nothing whatsoever to do with careful consideration of what will benefit the wider economy, they’re primarily interested in their re-election prospects. Is that really so difficult to grasp?

 

[squizzler]

I don't for one minute believe that you're incapable of seeing the link between the Minister saying "things must change" in the context of subsidies, followed by nine months and counting of unrestored services, missing diagrams, unresolved industrial action, fleets withdrawn without replacement and service cuts, so I'll conclude that you're being deliberately obdurate.

I agree with @Bald Rick that this is something that has not been said, but you are also correct in that there is a "dog whistle" being blown. Those that care to hear it realise that the government are falling back on the trope that supporting public transport - despite its known benefits to society and the environment - is a "subsidy". By contrast writing blank cheques for the bros at Britishvolt to splash on Learjet rides and hookers is an "investment" in our decarbonised future.

 

[43066]

I agree with @Bald Rick that this is something that has not been said, but you are also correct in that there is a "dog whistle" being blown.

We can split hairs about the exact wording used but the meaning of Shapps statement (as noted by @yorksrob in #263) is crystal clear on any ordinary reading.

Ie “We’ve bailed out the industry, now we are looking for cuts”. Also containing the disingenuous implication that the bail out was somehow to “protect” railway staff! Risible stuff.

 

[Minstral25]

I agree with @Bald Rick that this is something that has not been said, but you are also correct in that there is a "dog whistle" being blown. Those that care to hear it realise that the government are falling back on the trope that supporting public transport - despite its known benefits to society and the environment - is a "subsidy". By contrast writing blank cheques for the bros at Britishvolt to splash on Learjet rides and hookers is an "investment" in our decarbonised future.

I think we can split hairs on this issue - it may not have been directly made but the implication is clear in conversations such as this one attached by Shapps



I can also attest that in stakeholder publications it has been used (not directly) as partial justification of cutting services and the reorganisations to cut costs that have happened on Southern and Thameslink services. It appears to be a noose hanging over the railways head.

 

[Envy123]

Well, long-distance commuting from places like Peterborough, Grantham and Newark to London is definitely alive and well. Every day, as well.

But I know that LNER is not a commuter operator and the commutability is due to fast journey times more than anything.