Massive own goal 2 by railway industry

[Metroland]

We have had the £1002 train fare, which nobody has ever bought or needed to buy, and now the fragmented and economically illiterate railway is being shown up once again, playing straight into its critics hands. If the staff aren't on strike, or the Management paying themselves massive bonuses, despite none of them being worth it in economic terms, NR have now decided they are saving money by booking coaches.

Duh? Surely the money spent goes straight into the railway industry? It's rather like saying you are saving carbon by avoiding going on booked public transport.

In BR days, managers simply wrote the tickets. These days we have a magical money go round system where costs are being applied where they weren't before.

'The official said the cost of 200 employees making a 90-mile trip from Reading to Coventry on the train would be an "untenable" £27,000, compared to £2,400 by coach. [Course there is no cost there is probably a lot of empty seats off peak and this could be resolved by simple agreements between the TOC and NR! And why, prey, is there a a need for them all to go from Reading - Coventry?]

He said that a second-class open return for the journey could cost up to £146-a-head by train [The most expensive walk on fare miles above the real cost - although the highest peak fare I can see on that route is £74], whereas a return journey on a bus would cost £12 per person.

As a result the 200 staff will be packed onto buses picking them up outside their Berkshire headquarters on November 20.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...se-coaches-instead-rail-head-tells-staff.html

 

[Old Timer]

THe whole article is simply pathetic.

The problem is that the public, and the Media in particular, still do not understand that there is NO BR anymore, simply a rag bag of all sorts of separate Companies.

The better comparison would be to ask say BAA or any of the other airport operators if their staff fly within the UK.

The answer is pretty much NO.

Every Company has a responsibility to minimise it costs, and this is all that Network Rail are doing, bearing in mind they ARE (allegedly) a not for profit PUBLIC Company. Rather than being criticised the writer should be asking more searching questions about why there are such high ticket prices, but then again the intellectual level of the majority of Media news types would challenge a class of 10 year olds but few others.

This is pretty much a no news story really but illustrates simply the delight the Media take in knocking back the Railways at every opportunity.

Do the really think that NatEX coach staff use coaches for their business travel ???

As far as NR is concerned the use of the Standard Open to compare a coach to a rail journey is also somewhat disingenuous. Were there not cheaper options and what about a group travel arrangement ?

 

[Metroland]

Well done old timer, you clearly didn't understand any of my post at all. How on earth are they minimising costs by sending money OUT of the rail industry by charging each other money for resources that would probably be not used anyway (IE empty off peak seats) and were 'free' before? You are actually creating extra costs, especially as the TOC is charging full fare rather than unit costs or the marginal cost of the slightly extra fuel consumption. These are not 'real' costs these are costs written into the industry IE an accounting exercise, the money of which is circulated around. This accounting exercise is simply a ponzi scheme to extract more money from the tax payer (or increased fares) and increase the costs to the rail industry overall - which is so self defeating they are booking coaches! As I said, I would like to know why the need to all be going on that journey anyway and what justification there is for it.

 

[Greenback]

I assume that NR examined all of the rail ticket options and concluded that a return cost of £12 per person by coach could not be ebaten on the privatised railway! However, knowing NR, I wouldn;t be surprised if they didn't look at all of the options or try and negotiate a better deal than the standard open!

It's of no interst or concern to NR that the money they spend goes out of the railway industry. Having their own budget, out of which they must find big savings now, keeping spending under control will be their prime motivation. As stated, it would have been simple under BR, as the cost and revenue would have been within the same organisation!

 

[GB]

Well done old timer, you clearly didn't understand any of my post at all. How on earth are they minimising costs by sending money OUT of the rail industry by charging each other money for resources that would probably be not used anyway (IE empty off peak seats) and were 'free' before? You are actually creating extra costs, especially as the TOC is charging full fare rather than unit costs or the marginal cost of the slightly extra fuel consumption. As I said, I would like to know why the need to all be going on that journey anyway and what justification there is for it.

Your assuming that costs from NR paying for train tickets are going to go straight back into the industry. Revenue generated from ticket sales and railway investement are not "like for like".

So in that respect it may well be cheaper to buy coach tickets rather than train tickets.

 

[Old Timer]

Well done old timer, you clearly didn't understand any of my post at all. How on earth are they minimising costs by sending money OUT of the rail industry by charging each other money for resources that would probably be not used anyway (IE empty off peak seats) and were 'free' before? You are actually creating extra costs, especially as the TOC is charging full fare rather than unit costs or the marginal cost of the slightly extra fuel consumption. As I said, I would like to know why the need to all be going on that journey anyway and what justification there is for it.

On the contrary I fully understood your post.

Whilst it may be altruistic to keep the money within the Industry, every Company has a responsibility to minimise it costs, in accordance with Company Law which requires those in charge to run the business in the best interests of the shareholders.

Quite how NR could justify spending the quoted figure when a cheaper alternative is available would be interesting.

At a time when spending and budgets within NR are under pressure and 1500 staff facing dismissal spending more than is absolutely necessary cannot be justified.

Looking at it another way, those "unused" seats could have been sold off for marginal cost by the TOC. I wonder if THEY would do that ?

 

[Metroland]

Sadly all the evidence proves that creating extra interfaces and costs through agreements similar to this, with associated management does not save money at all. Which is why we have the highest train fares in Europe and most subsidy.

The TOC have simply lost the business and will no doubt go to the government for more subsidy, which increases the tax payer cost overall, further undermining any rail investment - because it all comes from the same pot.

Train services are around 35% full, having 2/3rds of seats empty and creating extra costs by booking extra transport does not save money at all in overall terms and shows the utter madness the way the industry was broken up when everyone wants to make profits and writes in money making agreements, ultimately falling back on the tax payer.

 

[jopsuk]

Given that the coaches they've gone for are chartered- wonder how much a charter train would have cost them?

 

[Greenback]

Yes, it probably increases the cost to UK plc overall. Such is the madness of privatisation as far as I can see!

Where do you get 35% occupancy from. On some of my recent train journeys, there were no seats to be had at all! Here are the details:

24 September Llanelli 0618 - Manchester Piccadilly all seats filled after Cardiff and again after Shrewsbury.
24 September Manchester Piccadilly 1239 - London Euston. 75% full in Standard

26 October Edinbugh Haymarket 1139 to inverness - four seats available on joining, all seats taken on arrival Inverness.
30 October Paddington 0945 to Swansea - fully loaded in Standard on departure, I estimate from walking through the train between Bristol parkway and newport that loading was about 80%.
30 October Swansea 1300 - Milford Haven. No seats on departure, people standing in the aisles, vestibules and toilets!

Hardly a scientific and statistically valid sample I know, but all these trains were what I would call off peak, and were pretty crowded. My daily commute is normally in the peak, as trains are full, more so than they were when I started in 2007.

There seems to be a perception of trains carrying round fresh air, but I don't see it myself when travelling!

 

[Pumbaa]

There seems to be a perception of trains carrying round fresh air, but I don't see it myself when travelling!

The average off-peak loading up here is around 50%, less on the Merseyrail network. At the weekend, my Crewe - Euston LM service was at less than 20% both ways, and the Friday Liv - Stafford service was almost empty post Crewe. The following service from Northampton as far as Watford was again at around 50%.

 

[Metroland]

Where do you get 35% occupancy from.

http://www.atoc-comms.org/admin/userfiles/Looking Forward - Contribution to Railway Strategy.pdf

page 22

Load factor: Intercity 39%
Regional: 31%
London commuting 31%
Overall 33%

The low load factor is why the industry needs subsidy. It's in both its financial and environmental interests to have that load factor as high as possible.

Clearly rural lines and many off peak services are never going to be full, and loads tend to go down further away from London. This is where is differs from commercial airlines or pre-book coach services.

 

[Greenback]

http://www.atoc-comms.org/admin/userfiles/Looking Forward - Contribution to Railway Strategy.pdf

page 22

Load factor: Intercity 39%
Regional: 31%
London commuting 31%
Overall 33%

The low load factor is why the industry needs subsidy. It's in both its financial and environmental interests to have that load factor as high as possible.

Clearly rural lines and many off peak services are never going to be full, and loads tend to go down further away from London. This is where is differs from commercial airlines or pre-book coach services.

An interesting document, even the authors say it is a rough calculation from 2004/2005 figures, which needs more work! At a guess, taking into account lightly loaded very early/very late services and rura lines, I think the real figure would be closer to the 50% Pumbaa mentions in their locality than the 31% in the report.

 

[Metroland]

It's not, its nowhere near 50%. National express East coast is near 44%, that's why it can pay premiums.

http://www.bestfootforward.com/media/upload/report/East_Coast_Line_Report.pdf

Page 6

 

[ukrob]

I bet had they paid the £27k (!) to go by rail, the headlines would have been far more scathing.

Look at it from both sides.

 

[Greenback]

It's not, its nowhere near 50%. National express East coast is near 44%, that's why it can pay premiums.

http://www.bestfootforward.com/media/upload/report/East_Coast_Line_Report.pdf

Page 6

I don't want to be picky, but 44% is nearer 50% than 31%

I think we'll have to agree to disagree! We can never be precise unless someone travels on every single train counting the number of passengers or empty seats after each stop!

 

[Metroland]

We won't have to agree to disgaree, you are wrong. The load factor is derived from ticket sales and people do count the passenger loads. Air bags in the suspension can count loads as do on train staff.

I really do wish people would argue from the point of view of evidence, all this is a massive own goal and plays right into the critics hands.

 

[tbtc]

We have had the £1002 train fare, which nobody has ever bought or needed to buy,

What a strange comment.

There has to be a notional fare between any two stations in the UK, as there may be a passenger who wants to travel between them (can you imagine the reaction if someone was told that there was no fare?).

As Cornwall - Kyle can be done partly by First Class, there has to be a First Class version of this fare (even though the branch lines at both end are standard class only)

As there's a First Class fare on offer, there's bound to be a difference between "turn up and go" and "book in advance" fares.

It's a long long way!

So, bearing that in mind, why do you call this a "massive own goal"? Yes, you can probably fly thousands of miles for £50, if you book long in advance and stick to a specific flight. Whilst you can fly from London to Edinburgh fairly cheaply according to the adverts, they certainly don't tell you the price if you turn up at the airport wanting to travel First Class (business?) on the first flight.

So, yeah, everyone makes a big fuss about the cost of this ticket, despite nobody having bought one, without thinking about the reasons why. I'm sure some people are going to say that the maximum ticket price shouldn't be above £50, or something equally daft, but in the real world things work differently.

Is sending 200 staff by coach another "massive own goal"? Well, if you can get 200 people onto four coaches (sounds realistic) then you're fully filling them, which keeps the cost down. Of course arranging this in advance is going to keep the costs down too. And, of course, coaches are generally going to be cheaper than trains for a number of reasons (they don't need the same infrastructure for a start), which is why they are *generally* a down market mode of travel. I can travel to London on a Megabus for a lot lot less than on a train, but I'd rather take the train.

I'm sure the same critics would be wailing and moaning if Network Rail were spending megabucks on tickets ("...waste of tax payers money..."). They can't win, with such critics around.

PS: Can you imagine the same hysterical reactions if Network Rail had put 200 people on a Voyager (300 seats?) from Reading to Coventry and that had meant regular passengers had to stand/ couldn't get on the train? The same daft tabloid reactionaries would be bleating about how unfair it is that Network Rail staff take priority and regulars miss out... :roll:

 

[Greenback]

Metroland, I will point out some of what i see to be flaws in the evidence.

1. As I have said, the ATOC figures are, as they admit themselves, an estimate and in need of more work.
2. Passenger counts were employed by Richard Beeching and were very selective, allegedly being carried out on a Tuesday in February to the detriment of lines to holiday resorts.
3. There is nothing in the second document to indicate the source of the 44% load factor. The only thing that is stated is that the figures were supplied by National Express.
As in a court, evidence can be presented but it remains the prerogative of the individual to assess that evidence for themselves, to interpret the evidence and to judge for themselves what worth should be placed on it.
4. Ticket figures can be unreliable, as has been shown in the case of season tickets, zonal tickets, rovers and rangers, not to mention fare evasion!

As in court, evidnece can be presented but it remains the prerogative of the individual to assess that evidence fro themselves, to interpet its meaning and decide how much weight should be placed on particular pieces of evidence as against other evidence.
The evidence I have presented is from personal experience and observation, reports of endemic overcrowding that can be read on forums such as this one, correspondence in newspapers and railway magazines, weblogs and speaking to fellow passengers. You are at liberty to disagree with this, but I prefer this evidence to the two documents presented thus far.

Wth the greatest of respect, I don't believe there is a way to accurately confirm the precise loading figure, and it is disingenous to claim that there is any such figure. In respect of your original post, I agree that it is daft to use coaches, but it happens because of the organisation of the industry at the moment. It is yourself that posted a precise figure of train loadings, I asked for more information, you have provided that information but I still don;t see that it is sufficient to state categorically that loadings are any definite figure. My instinct is that it is higher, but I would not presume to say how mcuh the real figure would be!

 

[Metroland]

So you're arguing from instinct? Well good luck to you, I'll remember that one in future, sadly it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

So how about buying a 7 day first class rover for £350 less? Only the rail industry has a ticket that nobody needs to buy and sends it staff by coach by failure to agree internal travel arrangements or prices the cost by the most expensive tickets it can be found, leaving seats empty.

As I said, I very much doubt there was any need to travel at all. It does the industries image no good whatsoever, and this story is now headlines on the BBC and in most papers. People are going to increasingly ask, why subside rail when even the staff can't afford to use it? Paul Witherington, Ryan air, the RAC and Road haulage assoaciation must think its Christmas.

 

[ukrob]

As I said, I very much doubt there was any need to travel at all. It does the industries image no good whatsoever, and this story is now headlines on the BBC and in most papers. People are going to increasable ask, why subside rail when even the staff can't afford to use it?

And I say, again, look at it from both sides.

Can you imagine the headlines if they went by rail and paid £27k? Is that a good use of our money when there was a £2400 option available?

 

[Metroland]

If its that expensive I wouldn't go at all.

 

[Greenback]

So you're arguing from instinct? Well good luck to you, I'll remember that one in future, sadly it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

So how about buying a 7 day first class rover for £350 less? Only the rail industry has a ticket that nobody needs to buy and sends it staff by coach by failure to agree internal travel arrangements or prices the cost by the most expensive tickets it can be found, leaving seats empty.

As I said, I very much doubt there was any need to travel at all. It does the industries image no good whatsoever, and this story is now headlines on the BBC and in most papers. People are going to increasable ask, why subside rail when even the staff can't afford to use it?

No, I am not arguing from instinct, I am disputing your figure based on the evidence I have listed! My instinct is that the figure would be higher, but I have no way of knowing what it really is!

We don't know either what ticket research NR did that led them to decide to use coaches. Nor do we know why 200 staff need to travel. It's your opinion that it is unjustified etc, which you are quite entitled to hold, but you cannot force everyone to agree. Looked at another way, it adds weight to the argument that rail fares are too expensive, and stories like this could prompt the governemnt to do something about it!

 

[ukrob]

If its that expensive I wouldn't go at all.

Everyone who has email notifications to this thread can see what you posted before you edited it, as can the mods I'm sure.

I always suspected you didn't like your view being challenged.

Anyway, I'm not sure what your current reply has to do with anything. Nor have you answered the question.

 

[Metroland]

NR should have thought of the bad publicity? The Government do something about it? Yes, stop putting any money in at all and make everyone go by coach and spend the money on hospitals.

 

[Greenback]

Metroland, no hard feelings, I am not going to post any more on this subject. This is primarily because I have spent far, far too much time on here in the last few days, and I have got things to do! But it's also because I see no pint on quibbling over something that is impossible to prove and probably of very little consequence in the great scheme of things!

 

[Toots]

I don't want to be picky, but 44% is nearer 50% than 31%

I think we'll have to agree to disagree! We can never be precise unless someone travels on every single train counting the number of passengers or empty seats after each stop!

And to tie this in with another thread,if every person travelling paid their fare.There are thousands and thousands who either deliberately or simply without being asked,do not pay their fare,so there is a double negative of less revenue whilst giving distorted passenger numbers travelling.Bringing it back to this thread,if these fares were collected the overall price should come down enabling such journeys to be made on trains rather than buses.

 

[Metroland]

Everyone who has email notifications to this thread can see what you posted before you edited it, as can the mods I'm sure.

I always suspected you didn't like your view being challenged.

Anyway, I'm not sure what your current reply has to do with anything. Nor have you answered the question.

You told me to look at it from both sides. I am, I see it from the public's point of view. If you cannot see that its extremely bad publicity then more fool you. It's not that I don't like my view being challenged, but I cannot debate with people argue from the point of view of 'instinct' and cannot see from joe publics view the railway is a continuous joke - this is why such decision making is an own goal. It's only the autistic and railway management can't see it.

 

[Toots]

We won't have to agree to disgaree, you are wrong. The load factor is derived from ticket sales and people do count the passenger loads. Air bags in the suspension can count loads as do on train staff.

I really do wish people would argue from the point of view of evidence, all this is a massive own goal and plays right into the critics hands, and wiser more seasoned enthusiasts know exactly who I am talking about. I wonder if anyone can guess.

Thats odd,I recieved a letter from Lord Adonis's department saying exactly the opposite.I was making a seperate point about fare evasion and missed ticket sales affecting diagrams and planning for loadings because obviously,no ticket sale,no recorded passenger,but in the letter it says ticket sales are unconnected with the count for passenger load numbers.
So I was arguing from your standpoint and was roundly shot down,write yourself and see......

 

[Metroland]

As I said, passenger numbers are counted by on train staff and modern trains have airbags that record loads - even on the underground. This is why TOCs have a fair idea of ticket evasion and want to install barriers - even if enthusiasts are against it! But the loads aren't much higher. There are many documents about which show load factors on all sorts of services and lines. Ticket evasion is thought to cost £200 million and the passenger rail income is in the order of £5 billion.

 

[ukrob]

You told me to look at it from both sides. I am, I see it from the public's point of view. If you cannot see that its extremely bad publicity then more fool you. It's not that I don't like my view being challenged, but I cannot debate with people argue from the point of view of 'instinct' and cannot see from joe publics view the railway is a continuous joke - this is why such decision making is an own goal. It's only the autistic and railway management can't see it.

You miss my point.

BOTH viewpoints are from the public's point of view, but you refuse to acknowledge one.

I too am withdrawing from this thread, there is no point debating with someone who believes their opinion is fact, then insults people who disagree before quickly editing the post.