Is the railway about to embark on a massive cost cutting exercise?

[HSTEd]

Another example of how investment might cut costs would be new high performance rolling stock.

A 700 (for electrified lines) or 755 (for diesel lines) would be capable of such high acceleration relative to existing units that it may even allow semi fasts to be dispensed with entirely on many lines without unduly impacting anyone.

 

[quantinghome]

While not advocating such closures, the high maintenance costs of certain lightly used lines in wet mountainous regions where expensive engineering work is often needed for repairs, make them vulnerable to permanent closure as a way to reduce long-term expenditure. The examples that I am thinking of are:

• The Settle and Carlisle line
• The Central Wales line
• The Cambrian main line and the Cambrian coast line
• The Conwy valley line
• The Kyle line
• The West Highland routes beyond Helensburgh
• Girvan to Stranraer

Other than the S&C line, they are all outwith England, so the political consequences of closing them will have less effect on the Westminster regime. The number of people affected would be relatively low as these lines serve sparsely populated regions.

We can all list the 'basket case' lines that will never cover anywhere near their operating costs. But how much of the railway's overall costs do these make up? Probably very little.

The basic fact is that passenger railways are not profitable in general and the government shouldn't expect them to be so. The government needs to decide whether the railways should form part of the national transport infrastructure in the long term and plan accordingly.

There seems to be an ideological agenda forming around cuts which the railway should avoid at all costs, because once you start pulling at that thread, it will never end. Instead we should be pushing hard to get people using rail again as quickly as possible, once it is safe to do so. If the government is willing to run schemes like eat out to help out it can do the same for rail - something imaginative like a railcard with no age limit.

 

[Grecian 1998]

It is worth remembering the primary reasons why closures considerably after 1970 and almost entirely after 1973 was that a) they were politically unpopular, often creating considerable local resentment, even from people who never used the lines themselves and b) they never saved as much money as was expected.

There is a tale of Government Minister Richard Crossman making a compelling financial case in the late 1960s to close the Heart of Wales Line, only to be told it passed through seven (I think) marginal constituencies. Funnily enough the proposal was swiftly dropped.

I've also read of BR applying for permission to close the Tarka Line in the 1960s rather than have to renew the numerous river bridges, only to be told that with the Taunton-Barnstaple line closing, there was no chance of the last line in North Devon being closed.

The attempt by BR to close the Settle & Carlisle line in the 1980s is indicative. A long-distance line with virtually no intermediate stations, 2 trains a day and lots of expensive earthworks under the Thatcherite government. Surely a perfect candidate for closure, yet the line was (thankfully, as it is a superb journey) reprieved.

A lot of cutbacks on the railway are not very visible to the public and may not be met with opposition from them (although the unions may be another story). But closing lines? There is a reason little has closed in the last 50 years and virtually nothing in the last 40.

 

[zwk500]

It is worth remembering the primary reasons why closures considerably after 1970 and almost entirely after 1973 was that a) they were politically unpopular, often creating considerable local resentment, even from people who never used the lines themselves and b) they never saved as much money as was expected.

You can add to this with the fact they involve lengthy legal processes, and therefore huge bills for lawyers and such like. It's often cheaper to run 1 train a day indefinitely than to close the line outright.

Lines won't close, although service cuts are a much more realistic proposition.

 

[Philip]

To quote a running joke I have heard in railway circles, "as long as trains keep calling at Glazebrook and Chassen Road Stations and their ticket offices remain open, then we can all rest easy"!

 

[squizzler]

If electric cars really do take off as anticipated, and passenger numbers are slower to recover, the railway could easily find itself in a politically uncomfortable position.

No, I don’t think rail travel will be replaced by electric cars, nor will it be done for by hyper-loop, motorised skateboards, steam powered dirigibles, personal jet packs or whatever next weeks reason will be why this country should not invest in its infrastructure.

The railway seems to me is in a fortunate position of being able to shed a lot of fat without having to cut into muscle or bone. We will have to see what the Williams review brings, but streamlined organisation and better incentives will help drive be down costs without having to go without. Reducing use of consultants seems an obvious win!

 

[gimmea50anyday]

No, I don’t think rail travel will be replaced by electric cars, nor will it be done for by hyper-loop, motorised skateboards, steam powered dirigibles, personal jet packs.......

You forgot to mention flying DeLorians...

 

[squizzler]

You forgot to mention flying DeLorians...

Hoverboards?

 

[fishwomp]

While not advocating such closures, the high maintenance costs of certain lightly used lines in wet mountainous regions where expensive engineering work is often needed for repairs, make them vulnerable to permanent closure as a way to reduce long-term expenditure. The examples that I am thinking of are:

• The Settle and Carlisle line
• The Central Wales line
• The Cambrian main line and the Cambrian coast line
• The Conwy valley line
• The Kyle line
• The West Highland routes beyond Helensburgh
• Girvan to Stranraer

Other than the S&C line, they are all outwith England, so the political consequences of closing them will have less effect on the Westminster regime. The number of people affected would be relatively low as these lines serve sparsely populated regions.

Heck no - given the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly, it is more likely that 6 of those will be electrified than closed! (Ok, electrified is perhaps a bit too strong., But no way will they close!.)

Plus, I don't think anyone would ever imagine trying to close S&C again. This line will be less affected by the COVID fallout - leisure traffic won't see the hit that commuter lines gets, and that line is doing well these days by my experience!

 

[Romsey]

Two news items which may hint at the way things are going.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56198750
Firstly, talk of a reduced train service. Remember that for commuter railways in and around larger conurbations, 15% maybe 20% of the fleet is only used for SX peak hour workings in any one week. The general drift in the more serious media seems to be working from home will be much more common with people attending their base office on average only one or twice per week. ( Unless you work for, I think, Goldman Sachs and they want everyone back in the offices.) Such reductions in travellers will reduce the morning and evening peak service enhancements to strengthening trains instead of additional trains. Not a 20% saving but maybe 10% fewer units required across a commuter service fleet. Splitting and combining trains to reduce stock mileage has to be balanced against extra costs for extra platform staff and drivers. but will still be a saving on the one round trip per day sets of stock. ( No more ECS Northam to Woking for a limited stop train into Waterloo, then ECS to Clapham Yard. Return home as a Waterloo - Basingstoke and ECS to Fratton.)

Once we have reached that state, why have different SX and SO timetables. If there is likely to be more leisure travel, why not keep to the same basic TT for Sundays as well with a later start for overnight engineering works? Maybe 20 years ago some Inter City operators were saying their busiest time was Sunday evenings. Once the pandemic is controlled, that situation might reoccur again pointing to a seven day per week service.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...r-says-weekend-engineering-works-may-soon-end
Once there is a steady seven days per week service with Saturdays and Sundays as busy as weekdays, why undertake engineering works at weekends? From the railway view, from a public service point of view, whatever day with lightest loadings. One factor which will affect which day the works are done is the provision of rail replacement road services. Weekdays will be difficult to supply enough buses as many bus drivers working weekends on overtime have SX day jobs on scheduled services and school contracts.
For small plain line renewals extended weeknight possessions work quite well. From experience 200metres dig, renew and reballast plus an initial tamp up to 40mph was easily done in eight hours.

Whatever brave words are spoken now and have been spoken over the years, major junction renewals will need more than a few overnight blocks, they will still need 52 or 72 hour blockades. The relaying of track with modular components is quick. It's the S&T testing and perhaps reconfiguring a solid state interlocking which takes the time.

 

[zwk500]

Two news items which may hint at the way things are going.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56198750
Firstly, talk of a reduced train service. Remember that for commuter railways in and around larger conurbations, 15% maybe 20% of the fleet is only used for SX peak hour workings in any one week. The general drift in the more serious media seems to be working from home will be much more common with people attending their base office on average only one or twice per week. ( Unless you work for, I think, Goldman Sachs and they want everyone back in the offices.) Such reductions in travellers will reduce the morning and evening peak service enhancements to strengthening trains instead of additional trains. Not a 20% saving but maybe 10% fewer units required across a commuter service fleet. Splitting and combining trains to reduce stock mileage has to be balanced against extra costs for extra platform staff and drivers. but will still be a saving on the one round trip per day sets of stock. ( No more ECS Northam to Woking for a limited stop train into Waterloo, then ECS to Clapham Yard. Return home as a Waterloo - Basingstoke and ECS to Fratton.)

Personally I can see a shift to all-day timetables with peak hour formations strengthened, and in the off-peak sets left in terminal platforms as hot spares.

Once we have reached that state, why have different SX and SO timetables. If there is likely to be more leisure travel, why not keep to the same basic TT for Sundays as well with a later start for overnight engineering works? Maybe 20 years ago some Inter City operators were saying their busiest time was Sunday evenings. Once the pandemic is controlled, that situation might reoccur again pointing to a seven day per week service.

Sunday mornings will still be less intense than any other time, although I agree Sunday evenings could pick up (especially if people don't have to turn their cameras on for monday morning dial-ins...)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...r-says-weekend-engineering-works-may-soon-end
Once there is a steady seven days per week service with Saturdays and Sundays as busy as weekdays, why undertake engineering works at weekends? From the railway view, from a public service point of view, whatever day with lightest loadings. One factor which will affect which day the works are done is the provision of rail replacement road services. Weekdays will be difficult to supply enough buses as many bus drivers working weekends on overtime have SX day jobs on scheduled services and school contracts.
For small plain line renewals extended weeknight possessions work quite well. From experience 200metres dig, renew and reballast plus an initial tamp up to 40mph was easily done in eight hours.

Heavy on staff and prep costs at the moment, but a more fundamental shift in working practices could well see this kind of work become more common.

Whatever brave words are spoken now and have been spoken over the years, major junction renewals will need more than a few overnight blocks, they will still need 52 or 72 hour blockades. The relaying of track with modular components is quick. It's the S&T testing and perhaps reconfiguring a solid state interlocking which takes the time.

Large projects have been moving towards 9-day blockades for a few years now instead of multiple weekend blocks. It's much more cost effective, but until now has had to be concentrated on half-term weeks to suppress the passenger demand enough. With the rise of WFH, these blockades become more viable at different times of the year.

 

[HSTEd]

I expect the reality of attempting to operate a seven day railway would rapidly drive adoptions of technologies that have reduced requirements for possessions, albeit at increased up front costs.

EDIT: To give two examples, more use of slab track and rigid overhead conductor rails.

 

[Llandudno]

A 7 day a week railway would be great, but Sunday working would have to be brought inside the normal working week rather than voluntary overtime that many TOCs rely on.

 

[HSTEd]

A 7 day a week railway would be great, but Sunday working would have to be brought inside the normal working week rather than voluntary overtime that many TOCs rely on.

The current situation probably provides the best opportunity to pursue such a renegotiation with the unions in living memory.

 

[Bald Rick]

Maybe 20 years ago some Inter City operators were saying their busiest time was Sunday evenings. Once the pandemic is controlled, that situation might reoccur again pointing to a seven day per week service

Sunday from mid afternoon still is the busiest time for many long distance routes (COVID excepted).

For small plain line renewals extended weeknight possessions work quite well. From experience 200metres dig, renew and reballast plus an initial tamp up to 40mph was easily done in eight hours.

High output does twice as much in 7hours. 8 hours is just a bit too long for most routes - it means starting at 2130, typically.

EDIT: To give two examples, more use of slab track and rigid overhead conductor rails.

No chance of that. Slab track needs a very, very solid formation, which most of the railway doesn’t have. The spec for the formation on HS2 is very stringent, much more so than anything on the existing railway. Many years ago a young Bald Rick demonstrated that the disruption necessary to install slab track on the existing network (several days closure for any given section) far outweighed the disruption expected from a quick squeeze from a tamper one night a year. That’s before we get to the cost of the stuff.

Conductor bar, similarly, doesn’t do much for maintenance costs. If anything it’s a bit more as there’s more to inspect.

In both cases, their installation is often driven by maintenance being particularly difficult (eg in tunnels), or for gauge clearance (also tunnels) or where exceptionally high levels of reliability are required, it self often caused by difficult access to fix (eg tunnels!)

 

[daodao]

Heck no - given the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly, it is more likely that 6 of those will be electrified than closed! (Ok, electrified is perhaps a bit too strong., But no way will they close!.)

Plus, I don't think anyone would ever imagine trying to close S&C again. This line will be less affected by the COVID fallout - leisure traffic won't see the hit that commuter lines gets, and that line is doing well these days by my experience!

Network Rail is a UK organisation, and if it wishes, it could force the closure of lines for which the maintenance costs are prohibitive, whatever the devolved administrations (which are dependent on Westminster funding) wish to happen. The current Scottish government is mired in controversy, and Westminster has the power to suspend regional assemblies/parliaments if there is evidence of maladministration.

As for the S&C, it currently has 4 passenger trains per day each way and minimal freight. North of Blea Moor, there is just 1 daily freight train to/from Newbiggin Gypsum works and no through freight traffic in practice (although paths exist). The Arcow quarry could continue to be served as a siding from Settle Junction, with trains not needing to run north to reverse, and passenger trains could in theory continue to run to Settle, even if the line from Arcow Quarry to Carlisle was closed. If a cut-off was built from the Little North Western line to the WCML near Carnforth, express bimode passenger trains could be run from Leeds to Glasgow, calling at Oxenholme and Penrith (more useful destinations to serve than Kirkby Stephen and Appleby) as well as Keighley, Skipton, Giggleswick (for Settle), Carlisle and Motherwell. It is a very different situation now for the S&C than when the battle to retain it was fought in the 1980s, as coal traffic and other through freight trains have ceased. The line from Hellifield to Clitheroe Castle cement works is also in effect redundant to requirements.

 

[yorksrob]

Four trains a day is during a pandemic.

It's not relevant to long term discussion of the route.

 

[zwk500]

Network Rail is a UK organisation, and if it wishes, it could force the closure of lines for which the maintenance costs are prohibitive, whatever the devolved administrations (which are dependent on Westminster funding) wish to happen. The current Scottish government is mired in controversy, and Westminster has the power to suspend regional assemblies/parliaments if there is evidence of maladministration.

Network Rail cannot arbitrarily force a line to close. A combination of the ORR and Parliament have to agree to it's closure (with TOCs having a say as well). NR is able to decide what level to maintain routes to, but it has to get agreement from TOCs to permanently change an operating characteristic such as linespeed.

My understanding of the Scottish and Welsh devolution in both political and rail organisation is that the parliamentary part of the closure process is handled by the relevant devolved institution (where it exists). I'm sure Westminster can intervene in some way, but I have no idea of the legal basis and circumstances under which that's allowed.

 

[squizzler]

I don't know why proposing amendments to the railway network is known disparagingly to as 'crayoning'. For everyone who supposedly enjoys drawing new lines there seem to be just as many on this forum who prefer to take Tipp-Ex to lines already on their rail atlases.

 

[Romsey]

Sunday from mid afternoon still is the busiest time for many long distance routes (COVID excepted).




High output does twice as much in 7hours. 8 hours is just a bit too long for most routes - it means starting at 2130, typically.



No chance of that. Slab track needs a very, very solid formation, which most of the railway doesn’t have. The spec for the formation on HS2 is very stringent, much more so than anything on the existing railway. Many years ago a young Bald Rick demonstrated that the disruption necessary to install slab track on the existing network (several days closure for any given section) far outweighed the disruption expected from a quick squeeze from a tamper one night a year. That’s before we get to the cost of the stuff.

Conductor bar, similarly, doesn’t do much for maintenance costs. If anything it’s a bit more as there’s more to inspect.

In both cases, their installation is often driven by maintenance being particularly difficult (eg in tunnels), or for gauge clearance (also tunnels) or where exceptionally high levels of reliability are required, it self often caused by difficult access to fix (eg tunnels!)

I agree that High Output can do reballast much more than a conventional renewal on a clear length of railway. Once there are underbridges, 3rd rails, 3rd rail cables and any number of other problems, it isn't as productive as Steve Fetherstone makes out. ( It think the HOBC team did eventually pay for the rebuilding of an underbridge where they skimmed a course of bricks off the top of an underbridge arch.) Also it only cleans and renews ballast, you still have to go back and replace sleepers and rails if required.
Operationally the length of the HOBC or MOBC trains are a right pain in areas which are signalled and the track layout is built for 8 or 12 car EMU formations. For an early trial in Sussex it only worked every other night, the journey time from and returning to Taunton was so convoluted.

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree that High Output can do reballast much more than a conventional renewal on a clear length of railway. Once there are underbridges, 3rd rails, 3rd rail cables and any number of other problems, it isn't as productive as Steve Fetherstone makes out. ( It think the HOBC team did eventually pay for the rebuilding of an underbridge where they skimmed a course of bricks off the top of an underbridge arch.) Also it only cleans and renews ballast, you still have to go back and replace sleepers and rails if required.
Operationally the length of the HOBC or MOBC trains are a right pain in areas which are signalled and the track layout is built for 8 or 12 car EMU formations. For an early trial in Sussex it only worked every other night, the journey time from and returning to Taunton was so convoluted.

Don’t forget the TRS system, which can also do 400metres a night replacing rail and sleepers with line speed hand back.

Agreed they are long trains and not particularly good at complex areas or with complex structures around them.

Typically, in a 7 hour block the machines are only working for 90 minutes, the rest of the time is prepping the track (removing signalling cables, AWS, TPWS, Electrification bonds) settting up and cutting in the machine which all takes about 2 hours, then 3-4 hours at the end tamping, regulating, Dynamic Track
Stabiliser, cutting out and then reinstalling all the signalling / electrification.

An extra hour on the block nearly doubles shift productivity, but then you start to run out of materials, and also shift length for the operators.

The Southern issue was largely solved with an outstation at Eastleigh.

 

[quantinghome]

As for the S&C, it currently has 4 passenger trains per day each way and minimal freight. North of Blea Moor, there is just 1 daily freight train to/from Newbiggin Gypsum works and no through freight traffic in practice (although paths exist). The Arcow quarry could continue to be served as a siding from Settle Junction, with trains not needing to run north to reverse, and passenger trains could in theory continue to run to Settle, even if the line from Arcow Quarry to Carlisle was closed. If a cut-off was built from the Little North Western line to the WCML near Carnforth, express bimode passenger trains could be run from Leeds to Glasgow, calling at Oxenholme and Penrith (more useful destinations to serve than Kirkby Stephen and Appleby) as well as Keighley, Skipton, Giggleswick (for Settle), Carlisle and Motherwell. It is a very different situation now for the S&C than when the battle to retain it was fought in the 1980s, as coal traffic and other through freight trains have ceased. The line from Hellifield to Clitheroe Castle cement works is also in effect redundant to requirements.

When S-C was proposed for closure it had I believe two trains per day running on it, no through freight and the local stations had been closed. After the threat of closure was lifted there was significant growth:

- Coal traffic for a number of years.
- in normal times 8 passenger trains a day, usually doubled-up class 158s, demonstrating the level of demand.
- local stations have reopened.

The freight has dwindled now, but its coming and going reveals an important point: we just don't know what the future holds and the route will doubtless find new roles in the future, particularly given how it runs parallel to the congested WCML.

I don't believe the route is used to its full potential. There is definitely scope for a direct Leeds-Glasgow service and the tourist angle is not exploited nearly as much as it could be.

There is no profitable core to the railway. Cutting lines like the S&C will save a tiny fraction of the subsidy given by the treasury. The solution is to grow, not cut.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is no profitable core to the railway. Cutting lines like the S&C will save a tiny fraction of the subsidy given by the treasury. The solution is to grow, not cut.

With regard to passenger operations, I think that private operation last summer proved my point that in this country we miss tourist revenue from such lines by just using whatever old DMU you can find in the depot rather than coming up with something more appropriate, and I still take the view that First Class on lines like this (and the Scottish scenic routes) would be money for old rope.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is no profitable core to the railway.

There very much is. It’s just not very much.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There very much is. It’s just not very much.

The most extreme Serpell option identified it, didn't it? It was basically truncated versions of the IC mainlines plus a few of the busier commuter runs into London (only).

 

[Bald Rick]

The most extreme Serpell option identified it, didn't it? It was basically truncated versions of the IC mainlines plus a few of the busier commuter runs into London (only).

Yep. It will be different now, but similar in markets. Clearly more would be profitable if costs are reduced.

And, of course, the Government doesn’t look at profit alone (if it did....) It looks at socio-economic benefit as well.

 

[quantinghome]

Yes OK, there is a profitable core but it's not very big and not very profitable. I suspect the vast majority of the railway's losses actually come from medium-use routes with high infrastructure costs.

With regard to passenger operations, I think that private operation last summer proved my point that in this country we miss tourist revenue from such lines by just using whatever old DMU you can find in the depot rather than coming up with something more appropriate, and I still take the view that First Class on lines like this (and the Scottish scenic routes) would be money for old rope.

Absolutely. First class with panoramic coaches would be very attractive. I guess Scotrail has partially solved this with the old 125s to Inverness, but Kyle and West Highland would be crying out for it.

 

[Wolfie]

Network Rail is a UK organisation, and if it wishes, it could force the closure of lines for which the maintenance costs are prohibitive, whatever the devolved administrations (which are dependent on Westminster funding) wish to happen. The current Scottish government is mired in controversy, and Westminster has the power to suspend regional assemblies/parliaments if there is evidence of maladministration.

As for the S&C, it currently has 4 passenger trains per day each way and minimal freight. North of Blea Moor, there is just 1 daily freight train to/from Newbiggin Gypsum works and no through freight traffic in practice (although paths exist). The Arcow quarry could continue to be served as a siding from Settle Junction, with trains not needing to run north to reverse, and passenger trains could in theory continue to run to Settle, even if the line from Arcow Quarry to Carlisle was closed. If a cut-off was built from the Little North Western line to the WCML near Carnforth, express bimode passenger trains could be run from Leeds to Glasgow, calling at Oxenholme and Penrith (more useful destinations to serve than Kirkby Stephen and Appleby) as well as Keighley, Skipton, Giggleswick (for Settle), Carlisle and Motherwell. It is a very different situation now for the S&C than when the battle to retain it was fought in the 1980s, as coal traffic and other through freight trains have ceased. The line from Hellifield to Clitheroe Castle cement works is also in effect redundant to requirements.

Good luck to you with that constitutional attitude. We are heading for a likely car crash when the SNP win a massive majority later this year as it is. Trying to take an England/Westminster knows better approach will merely exacerbate that.
Oh, and all of the arguments that the current Westminster govt uses against Scottish independence are de facto the very same ones that they rejected when it came to BREXIT....

 

[Bald Rick]

I suspect the vast majority of the railway's losses actually come from medium-use routes with high infrastructure costs.

They don’t help, but the worst cases are, of course, lightly used lines with high infrastructure costs.

 

[quantinghome]

They don’t help, but the worst cases are, of course, lightly used lines with high infrastructure costs.

Per mile, of course. But there's not that many 4 train per day type routes. I suspect the vast majority of losses are made on the 1-4tph routes. Basingstoke - Exeter, that sort of thing.