Commuting 'not coming back': Harper

[Meerkat]

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!

Its not an independent study - its commissioned by the rail industry from a commercial organisation that wont make money by giving clients answers they dont like.
I will admit that I don't fully understand this GVA stuff (not sure you do either) but I'm pretty sure it means 'is £40Bn of' rather than 'adds £40Bn to'. Neither is it saying that £1 in subsidy returns £2.50, certainly not for the Treasury.
And you would still need to prove that that £1 for the railway is returning more than spending it on defence or a hospital etc

Concentrating on growing revenue isn't a great idea, and has been the downfall of many a private company.
If growing revenue isnt profitable you are just increasing the cost to the government, in which case you need to prove that you are providing something taxpayers (as a group) want. Making leisure trips easier and/or cheaper for those who could afford full price is a hard sell to taxpayers for example.

In terms of this specific topic commuting into crowded cities is seen as something worth subsidising, but if that drops it doesn't follow that the railway MUST get the same or more subsidy to do something else instead.

 

[BrianW]

Its not an independent study - its commissioned by the rail industry from a commercial organisation that wont make money by giving clients answers they dont like.
I will admit that I don't fully understand this GVA stuff (not sure you do either) but I'm pretty sure it means 'is £40Bn of' rather than 'adds £40Bn to'. Neither is it saying that £1 in subsidy returns £2.50, certainly not for the Treasury.
And you would still need to prove that that £1 for the railway is returning more than spending it on defence or a hospital etc

Concentrating on growing revenue isn't a great idea, and has been the downfall of many a private company.
If growing revenue isnt profitable you are just increasing the cost to the government, in which case you need to prove that you are providing something taxpayers (as a group) want. Making leisure trips easier and/or cheaper for those who could afford full price is a hard sell to taxpayers for example.

In terms of this specific topic commuting into crowded cities is seen as something worth subsidising, but if that drops it doesn't follow that the railway MUST get the same or more subsidy to do something else instead.

I would imagine that with continuing staff shortages there would be much to be said for seeking to 'tailor' future timetables to a reasonable forecast of sustainable staffing. 'Levelling out' of peak 'demand' should enable a reduction in the number of trainsets required. 'Improved' (reduced?!) maintenance should enable less downtime and more availability. In most organisations staff would be the greatest cost and achieving best productivity would be #1 priority.

How close to 'turn up and go' 10-15 min (or better?) frequencies could be attained, maybe with longer trains, something like tube 'then these minutes past each hour'?

I'm picturing something like that for the 'Northern Powerhouse', maybe?

 

[northwichcat]

Being slightly pedantic, the Elizabeth line was 1 in 6 of all 'National' Rail journeys, as it was still exceeded by each of the Central, District, Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly lines. On the basis of numbers of journeys, London Underground exceeds the entire National Rail network, while the of course latter has many more passenger kilometres...

Don't forget without National Rail services going into the London terminal stations, many of those Underground passengers wouldn't have got into London in the first place!

 

[Starmill]

Season tickets offered some of the cheapest travel on the network, though also a slab of revenue.

Cheapest depends an awful lot on how you measure it. From the perspective of the industry, the season ticket holder was the ideal customer, because the money came out of the bond and into the bank accounts of the operators every month in a very predictable manner. The customer was the most loyal and thus would have the ultimate incentive to stick with the company. One credit card transaction fee was paid, and then there were no further fees for card processing or fulfilment for a long time. Most sales were in-house and even if a sale were third party a much lower commission was payable compared to selling for other ticket types. Refunds were also chargeable, so the risk of losing the money in the bond was very low (until lockdowns meant it wasn't, of course). Customers were entitled to very little by way of compensation for delays too, so were even less likely than usual to bother claiming it.

 

[BrianW]

Read Oxford Economics - The economic contribution of rail.

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.

Some may feel that the 'impartiality' and/or 'integrity' of even one of the world's leading consultancies may be 'tainted' by it's work for Phillip Morris regarding tobacco:

Oxford Economics - TobaccoTactics

Background Oxford Economics was founded in 1981. It says it is “a leader in global forecasting and quantitative analysis” with a client base of more than 1,500 corporations, government organisations and universities Oxford Economics has offices across the globe with 400 staff, including 250...

tobaccotactics.org

He who pays the piper ...?

 

[Horizon22]

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.

Plus take into account the full (i.e not just fuel) cost of running a car (plus parking) and the fact a season ticket could be used on a weekend and the difference will look less stark.

A car is obviously more flexible too but the point stands. But if more burden is being placed on the fare payer versus other economies, that’s the way it is.

 

[Envy123]

Plus take into account the full (i.e not just fuel) cost of running a car (plus parking) and the fact a season ticket could be used on a weekend and the difference will look less stark.

A car is obviously more flexible too but the point stands. But if more burden is being placed on the fare payer versus other economies, that’s the way it is.

Not to mention the time savings, especially for longer distance commuters. The door-to-door journey of car + rail + tube+ walk is just under 2 hours each way, usually about 1hr40min. The car journey all the way is easily 3 hours plus.

Time is money after all.

 

[Magdalia]

Read Oxford Economics - The economic contribution of rail.

I will admit that I don't fully understand this GVA stuff (not sure you do either)

I do have some understanding of "this GVA stuff", though it is very rusty.

Life is too short to read the full document thoroughly, but I thought that I should take a look.

GVA is Gross Value Added, a measure of economic activity. It is similar to GDP, but has a different treatment of taxes, particularly VAT.

Oxford Economics will have used GVA not GDP because it is GVA not GDP that has the statistical breakdowns that they need to do the analysis.

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.

In one respect using the 2019 data is quite convenient, because UK GVA was almost exactly £2000bn in 2019, which makes some sums easy!

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

The report says who they are. Just before the contents there are 9 logos, most of which you will recognise, beneath the title "This report has been kindly supported by our industry partners".

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

The £43bn total figure comprises about £12bn GVA of the railway industry itself, together with about £18bn GVA of the railway supply industry, about £1bn of retail GVA at stations, and about £12bn GVA of "induced impacts". The last of these is an estimate of the GVA resulting from employees of the railway, railway supply and railway retail industries spending in the wider economy. For those of you here who work in the rail industry, that's what you spend in the supermarket, the pub etc.

Their estimated "footprint" (their term not mine) of the railway, at £43bn GVA, is thus about 2% of UK GVA.

And the 2.5 multiplier is getting from the £12bn GVA of the railway industry itself to the £43bn GVA once they have added in the other bits. The difference of £31bn is about 2.5 times the £12bn GVA of the railway industry itself.

The report openly admits that there are "additional benefits of rail not captured in this study", including environmental and connectivity impacts.

with every £1 in subsidy returning approx. £2.50

So it doesn't mean that!

And you would still need to prove that that £1 for the railway is returning more than spending it on defence or a hospital etc

It would be possible to attempt a similar analysis for health expenditure or defence expenditure, for example, but I haven't looked for those. I'll resist the temptation to speculate on whether health or defence would have bigger or smaller multipliers than rail.

 

[notverydeep]

Don't forget without National Rail services going into the London terminal stations, many of those Underground passengers wouldn't have got into London in the first place!

I was just trying to tease my National Railway colleagues about who has more passengers...

...but, for the last year for which data is publically available (which dates from 2017), 11.5% of Underground Passengers interchange from National Rail or the DLR in zone 1, with about half of this number interchanging from NR, DLR or Trams in the outer London zones. The data doesn't differentiate between NR, the DLR or Trams.

 

[Ken H]

I do have some understanding of "this GVA stuff", though it is very rusty.

Life is too short to read the full document thoroughly, but I thought that I should take a look.

GVA is Gross Value Added, a measure of economic activity. It is similar to GDP, but has a different treatment of taxes, particularly VAT.

Oxford Economics will have used GVA not GDP because it is GVA not GDP that has the statistical breakdowns that they need to do the analysis.



In one respect using the 2019 data is quite convenient, because UK GVA was almost exactly £2000bn in 2019, which makes some sums easy!




The report says who they are. Just before the contents there are 9 logos, most of which you will recognise, beneath the title "This report has been kindly supported by our industry partners".


The £43bn total figure comprises about £12bn GVA of the railway industry itself, together with about £18bn GVA of the railway supply industry, about £1bn of retail GVA at stations, and about £12bn GVA of "induced impacts". The last of these is an estimate of the GVA resulting from employees of the railway, railway supply and railway retail industries spending in the wider economy. For those of you here who work in the rail industry, that's what you spend in the supermarket, the pub etc.

Their estimated "footprint" (their term not mine) of the railway, at £43bn GVA, is thus about 2% of UK GVA.

And the 2.5 multiplier is getting from the £12bn GVA of the railway industry itself to the £43bn GVA once they have added in the other bits. The difference of £31bn is about 2.5 times the £12bn GVA of the railway industry itself.

The report openly admits that there are "additional benefits of rail not captured in this study", including environmental and connectivity impacts.



So it doesn't mean that!





It would be possible to attempt a similar analysis for health expenditure or defence expenditure, for example, but I haven't looked for those. I'll resist the temptation to speculate on whether health or defence would have bigger or smaller multipliers than rail.

With that, you have to understand the concept of opportunity cost
If I decide to buy a pint of beer and not 3 packets of biscuits, the biscuit industry has lost out even though the brewing industry gained.
So money spent on the railway by government is money not spent on health, building ships or giving away free beer. And fares income is lost to other things. Bus industry, motor car industry, or I walk and buy mars bars instead.
Equally, if the railway employs an engineeer it is denying that engineer to another industry
Even if you borrow there is a cost - the interest, the inflation...

 

[northwichcat]

I was just trying to tease my National Railway colleagues about who has more passengers...

...but, for the last year for which data is publically available (which dates from 2017), 11.5% of Underground Passengers interchange from National Rail or the DLR in zone 1, with about half of this number interchanging from NR, DLR or Trams in the outer London zones. The data doesn't differentiate between NR, the DLR or Trams.

I average 3-4 London Underground journeys for one return National Rail trip into London.

I also never buy a through ticket from National Rail when using contactless on the Underground is cheaper.

 

[Starmill]

Plus take into account the full (i.e not just fuel) cost of running a car (plus parking)

Fuel and parking (and a tiny amount for wear and tear miles, but this is so small it's not going to change anything) are the only relevant costs to the 81% of people who live in households which have car access though. You can present hypothetical costs, obviously, and that's absolutely something you're 100% entitled to do, but that doesn't mean that anyone will be making any actual decisions about having or not having a car based on your approach. Obviously your approach does add up for those who currently live in a car-free household, but there are few.

 

[Horizon22]

Fuel and parking (and a tiny amount for wear and tear miles, but this is so small it's not going to change anything) are the only relevant costs to the 81% of people who live in households which have car access though. You can present hypothetical costs, obviously, and that's absolutely something you're 100% entitled to do, but that doesn't mean that anyone will be making any actual decisions about having or not having a car based on your approach. Obviously your approach does add up for those who currently live in a car-free household, but there are few.

Insurance, tax, maintenance? The closer you get to a city, the more car-free households you have (the majority in London, for instance). Increasing numbers of young people (under 30) haven't even learnt to drive.

What I'm suggesting is there are a lot of background costs that people with cars have which they don't factor in whereas, at least with your rail fare, it's front and centre and 100% of anything you pay.

 

[Starmill]

Insurance, tax, maintenance?

These along with depreciation and finance are already paid for, or you won't be going anywhere in your car! I've already pointed out that maintenance miles cost money in a variable sense but this link is so weak it changes almost nothing.

The closer you get to a city, the more car-free households you have (the majority in London, for instance). Increasing numbers of young people (under 30) haven't even learnt to drive.

Indeed but these are very small proportions. I am part of that group myself so I understand that rather well. These proportions aren't going to be growing based on current numbers however, because public transport is very expensive and driving is pretty cheap. It would cost me less and be more convenient to learn to drive and buy a car, and use that all the time, and never use public transport. But I don't because I am a very rare exception - you can't expect everyone to do that.

 

[Ken H]

These along with depreciation and finance are already paid for, or you won't be going anywhere in your car! I've already pointed out that maintenance miles cost money in a variable sense but this link is so weak it changes almost nothing.

Indeed but these are very small proportions. I am part of that group myself so I understand that rather well. These proportions aren't going to be growing based on current numbers however, because public transport is very expensive and driving is pretty cheap. It would cost me less and be more convenient to learn to drive and buy a car, and use that all the time, and never use public transport. But I don't because I am a very rare exception - you can't expect everyone to do that.

There are huge swathes of the country where the bus or train just isnt vaible. How about commuting from Pateley Bridge to Leeds, or Settle to Blackburn, Tenbury Wells to Worcester or Kirkby Stephen to - well anywhere. All reasonable car journeys

 

[Peter Sarf]

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 ?

I don't think the government are using the support the railways got during Covid as a justification for cuts. I think they are saying look we have got to react to a loss of need and reminding us how supportive they have been SO FAR by referring to the support provided during the thick of Covid.

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.

Can you explain where in the above quote it says the government/state spent money during Covid and that is why they now want cutbacks ?.

To me it says they kept the railways going during the worst of Covid but long term they need to look at cutbacks as demand has not recovered.

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.

To me its obvious that the government will eventually reign in the subsidies. If the railways have lost 20% of their passengers then roughly 20% of subsidy would go. Very roughly and I believe putting off the worst for as long as possible. If that has been happening for the last nine months then that says to me that the government have been facing their belief that not much more recovery is possible.

The government could be wrong but the state cannot keep forking out for everything we would like. I will be happy if the state spends more than it could in the hope that recovery is still happening. But I think that there are too many people who have smelt the freedom, dont want to commute every day and know it is possible.

One thing the railways need to do to help their own cause is to modernise.

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.

And I think that is the point. To hold the government to account for public spending of all sorts.

Don't forget without National Rail services going into the London terminal stations, many of those Underground passengers wouldn't have got into London in the first place!

I once read that in London more journeys are made by bus than by rail.

Fuel and parking (and a tiny amount for wear and tear miles, but this is so small it's not going to change anything) are the only relevant costs to the 81% of people who live in households which have car access though. You can present hypothetical costs, obviously, and that's absolutely something you're 100% entitled to do, but that doesn't mean that anyone will be making any actual decisions about having or not having a car based on your approach. Obviously your approach does add up for those who currently live in a car-free household, but there are few.

EDIT
Indeed
/Edit

Chalk and cheese
Car luxury.
Train unwanted necessity but less necessary since Covid.

Insurance, tax, maintenance? The closer you get to a city, the more car-free households you have (the majority in London, for instance). Increasing numbers of young people (under 30) haven't even learnt to drive.

What I'm suggesting is there are a lot of background costs that people with cars have which they don't factor in whereas, at least with your rail fare, it's front and centre and 100% of anything you pay.

Yes people will happily forget some costs of the car because they want it for too many things.

 

[Starmill]

Chalk and cheese
Car luxury.
Train unwanted necessity but less necessary since Covid.

I'm sorry what are you saying here?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Mar 2023 ==

Yes people will happily forget som costs of the car because they want it for too many things.

Don't you think it's a little bit self-satisfied to say people will "forget" these costs? You're implying people are too dim to understand the costs.

In reality people understand the costs well, perhaps better than you do, given they separate them into the fixed and variable costs and only look at the variable costs if they already have car access.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I'm sorry what are you saying here?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Mar 2023 ==


Don't you think it's a little bit self-satisfied to say people will "forget" these costs? You're implying people are too dim to understand the costs.

In reality people understand the costs well, perhaps better than you do, given they separate them into the fixed and variable costs and only look at the variable costs if they already have car access.

I am saying the comparison between car and train is coloured by the car owners likely desire for a car whereas the train is, for many, just for commuting. The train is not, for many, associated with a pleasant journey (to work). Cars are associated with family days out, shopping (well is that pleasant !) and longer holidays.

I am not saying car owners are dim and I am not sure where you get "self-satisfied" from.

I am saying car owners are likely to love their car more than they love the train. Most of them are not rail enthusiasts. Their penchant for a car will offset some of the bad economics of a car. There are many who view car ownership almost as a fundamental right (or at least an aspiration). I own a car. I can do the arithmetic but because I accept my car is a luxury to a certain extent I am prepared to ignore a proportion of my motoring costs - the fixed costs (insurance, road tax, recovery & MOT). I don't use my car much. I walk or use public transport but that is a large city allowing me to do that. For my main longer journey I use the coach as rail is too expensive, if I need to take much (or many people) then the petrol can be cheaper than the coach fares. Once someone already owns a car they are going to view an individual car journey as costing not much more than the fuel. So rail (or any other public transport) has to compete with that.

---

Furthermore where Covid comes into effect is the discovery that people can work from home so commuting is less. Worse still Covid has created a desire to avoid commuting in a crowded train (or any other public transport). I for example would rather avoid a crowded bus and I am nervous of crowded trains. I always knew I was more likely to catch a bug in a crowded place and I expect many others did. BUT since Covid and all the precautions people were urged to take it is now a less ignorable fact.

One way to avoid crowded public transport is to retire early or not go back after Furlough. Many have done that. Also I know of two cases of long Covid one where she is slowly getting better, but lost the job and now retirement is looming. The other is fine but trying it on as best as they can, by their own admission, and works from home. That one is young enough to need to keep a career alive. In these cases that is more cause of lost commuters.

I think economics will eventually "encourage" many back to work. The home energy costs are certainly focusing my mind !. Time might also lure commuters back to public transport. But how long will it take ?. I think too long to keep the railways as they are.

I think time will never undo working from home - that is bound to go on to a greater or lesser extent. And good on them if its a better quality of life.

My big fear is that, after the suspected cutbacks, the railways will sooner rather than later have less capacity than is desirable as commuting picks up - if it does. Problem is the railways have invariably been over crowded so to have surplus capacity is an anathema !. I think capacity will only increase again once passengers are left behind and refunding their tickets - or just not buying them. Have we ever increased train capacity just because a few passengers have to stand - no. It follows that some (government, DfT ?) will view stifled growth in carryings as only an issue once people are left on the platform or roads are badly affected. Of course the holes left by TPE (or their masters) might just be an example of that.

But while ridership is below its 2019 peak the railways are in danger of cut backs.

 

[Starmill]

Once someone already owns a car they are going to view an individual journey as costing not much more than the fuel.

Indeed. Which is, of course, precisely what I said. So I'm unclear what the point of your interjection was given nobody has been claiming people in general are enthusiastic about public transport journeys. By definition they are unlikely to be.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Indeed. Which is, of course, precisely what I said. So I'm unclear what the point of your interjection was given nobody has been claiming people in general are enthusiastic about public transport journeys. By definition they are unlikely to be.

Ah ha, I see, confusion. I was reinforcing your point when I talked about chalk and cheese, but looking back I was not very clear. I will edit that post to make it better.

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

You can of course conclude what you like.

However it remains a fact that no minister has ever “trotted out” an argument that “the money they spent keeping trains running in lockdown“ is “a justification for cuts”.

why do they keep trotting out the money they spent keeping trains running in lockdown as a justification for cuts ?

What is true is that the extra financial support for the railway that is required now is one that Government wants to reduce. A significant majority of this reduction has been / will be achieved without changes to service levels. However, some has been / will be achieved through specific changes to services, and AIUI it is being done both through service reductions of very (net) unremunerative services, and the introduction of new services that will be financially positive.

 

[Krokodil]

I am saying the comparison between car and train is coloured by the car owners likely desire for a car whereas the train is, for many, just for commuting. The train is not, for many, associated with a pleasant journey. Cars are associated with family days out, shopping (well is that pleasant ?) and longer holidays.

I am not saying car owners are dim and I am not sure where you get "self-satisfied" from.

I am saying car owners are likely to love their car more than they love the train. Most of them are not rail enthusiasts. Their penchant for a car will offset some of the bad economics of a car. I own a car. I can do the arithmetic but because I accept it is a luxury to a certain extent I am prepared to ignore a proportion of my motoring costs - the fixed costs (insurance, road tax, recovery & MOT). Once someone already owns a car they are going to view an individual car journey as costing not much more than the fuel. So rail has to compete with that.

Motorists sink a considerable amount of money into the fixed costs of that car - it's more of a liability than an asset, especially in view of the depreciation. So for those who consider a car a utility (those who drive for pleasure can probably be considered a lost cause as far as the railway is concerned) they will want to get as much use out of it as possible, often even when journeys would be cheaper/quicker by another means.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Mar 2023 ==

What is true is that the extra financial support for the railway that is required now is one that Government wants to reduce.

Isn't it strange that public transport funding in this country is considered a subsidy to be reduced, compared with other countries where it is considered to be a social good.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Motorists sink a considerable amount of money into the fixed costs of that car - it's more of a liability than an asset, especially in view of the depreciation. So for those who consider a car a utility (those who drive for pleasure can probably be considered a lost cause as far as the railway is concerned) they will want to get as much use out of it as possible, often even when journeys would be cheaper/quicker by another means.

I agree. I suspect the number who are a lost cause is quite big. Sometimes, because their car is a given, they will only compare the fuel costs of their car with the cost of the alternative train journey. But, your right, there will be those who will factor in other costs (depreciation etc) but then reconcile that by thinking using the train would undermine the justification for the car - "I have paid for it so I might as well use it".

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn't it strange that public transport funding in this country is considered a subsidy to be reduced, compared with other countries where it is considered to be a social good.

I didn’t use the word subsidy.

But, in any event (and to use just one example), NS in the Netherlands are doing exactly the same as here.

 

[43066]

However it remains a fact that no minister has ever “trotted out” an argument that “the money they spent keeping trains running in lockdown“ is “a justification for cuts”.

But remember the statement from Shapps that @yorksrob cited earlier (quoted again below) was made in mid 2022:

£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."

It very clearly references the support provided throughout the early stages of the pandemic and the lockdowns, no furlough, and (in mid 2022 remember) states that “things must change”, so makes a clear reference to future subsidy.

I’m not sure how you can really argue that this doesn’t equate support provided through the early stages of Covid with the supposed need to make cuts now? To me that’s exactly what it’s doing - there’s no mention of passenger numbers bouncing back etc. it’s all about focussing on the support provided throughout the pandemic.

(IIRC the “£600 per household” was also a disingenuous figure, because it was gross rather than net spending and didn’t take account of the fact a fair bit of that expenditure came back to the public purse in terms of tax revenues etc.)

I must say - disregarding the union stuff we have disagreed on - I’m surprised someone as passionate about the railway as you clearly are is quite so keen to defend the current government’s approach, because we all know they are not doing our industry any favours, to put it mildly.

 

[Peter Sarf]

But remember the statement from Shapps that @yorksrob cited earlier (quoted again below) was made in mid 2022:

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.

It very clearly references the support provided throughout the early stages of the pandemic and the lockdowns, no furlough, and (in mid 2022 remember) states that “things must change”, so makes a clear reference to future subsidy.

I’m not sure how you can really argue that this doesn’t equate support provided through the early stages of Covid with the supposed need to make cuts now? To me that’s exactly what it’s doing - there’s no mention of passenger numbers bouncing back etc. it’s all about focussing on the support provided throughout the pandemic.

(IIRC the “£600 per household” was also a disingenuous figure, because it was gross rather than net spending and didn’t take account of the fact a fair bit of that expenditure came back to the public purse in terms of tax revenues etc.)

I must say I’m surprised you are quite so keen to defend the current government, because we all know they are not doing our industry any favours, to put it mildly.

Let me explain.

Your bold, my underline.

That statement does not say that because of the support the railways got (past tense) during Covid that they are going to make cut backs. It says the railways were supported but despite that support passenger carryings have not recovered fully. Sadly the passenger carryings still are not high enough to justify the support that the railways currently get - that is after Covid not during the Covid lockdowns etc. So the current support cannot go on.

The only connection with past support (in the thick of Covid) is that anyone who thinks the government are being unfair now is being asked to consider the not inconsiderable support the railways did get during the worst of the Covid. But the money spent then is not the reason for cutbacks now.

 

[43066]

It says the railways were supported but despite that support passenger carryings have not recovered fully and no longer justify the support that the railways currently get in the aftermath of Covid. So the current support cannot go on.

Well okay, but notice how, in the text you’ve underlined, he refers to this (ie present) level of subsidy, so ignoring the fact that support was already reducing when he made the speech.

It’s a cleverly written speech. He is creating a link between support already provided with the present (falsely, as it had already started to reduce when he made the speech, so was not current support - although that’s what he wants you to think!), and then using that as an argument to make future cuts.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Well okay, but notice how, in the text you’ve underlined, he refers to this (ie present) level of subsidy, so ignoring the fact that support was already reducing when he made the speech.

It’s a cleverly written speach. He is creating a link between support already provided with the present (falsely, as it had already started to reduce when he made the speech), and then using that as an argument to make future cuts.

Well. If "this" means the same level of subsidy is continuing now as was being given during the thick of Covid then the railways are are very very deeply in the mire. I very much doubt that whatever extra financial support the railway needs now to run all its services is anything like as much as was required back in the thick of Covid !.

 

[43066]

Well. If "this" means the same level of subsidy is continuing now as was being given during the thick of Covid then the railways are are very very deeply in the mire.

But that’s the point - it wasn’t - the support required in June 2022 clearly wasn’t what was required in early 2020!

I dearly hope that whatever the railway needs now to run all its services is nothing like what was required back in the thick of Covid !.

Yes, and that’s exactly the reaction the speech was deliberately written to produce.

 

[Peter Sarf]

But that’s the point - it wasn’t - the support required in June 2022 clearly wasn’t what was required in early 2020!



Yes, and that’s exactly the reaction the speech was deliberately written to produce.

I doubt if many people read into it that current support matched the support in the thick of Covid. Common sense says it is less now. I would go more for a badly constructed sentence than it really being meant as same subsidy level. But it would be interesting to see if other statements have corrected or reinforced that error.