Northern - a catch 22?

[yorksrob]

Where do I get worse and worse from?

32.4p/ mile subsidy to 34.9p/ mile subsidy to 40.7p/ mile subsidy over the last three years that the data covers?

If you want to blame the 2011 - 2013 issue on the recession that started in 2008/2009 (despite the fact that passenger numbers are rising on Northern?) then why are other franchises seemingly requiring less and less subsidy (at the time that Northern require more and more)?

There is sometimes a time lag in the effect that recessions have on employment, Northern routes may have had a back log of required infrastructure investment (which actually seems quite possible given the sort of routes in the Northern area). It's not an easy thing to calculate.

What seems a lot clearer is that it is not remotely sensible from a statistical point of view to take three years of subsidy data, in which we don't even know what proportion of that subsidy went to infrastructure improvement, let alone any sort of more detailed break down of how or where that funding was spent, and come to some sort of apocalyptic conclusion that Northern is getting "worse and worse" or in a "downward spiral" or any other such overblown hyperbole.

 

[Moonshot]

If 50% of the farebox wasnt regulated and the market dictated price, we would see a truer picture of subsidy requirement....

 

[Greybeard33]

I think that any service with under three coaches will struggle to make money - I've wondered in the past whether a fully laden (30m) Pacer would still be unprofitable.

I think there is another Catch 22 here. When a Northern 2-car Pacer (or 1-car 153) becomes crammed enough to potentially generate enough revenue to cover its operating costs, the guard cannot get through the crush to sell the tickets!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is sometimes a time lag in the effect that recessions have on employment, Northern routes may have had a back log of required infrastructure investment (which actually seems quite possible given the sort of routes in the Northern area). It's not an easy thing to calculate.

What seems a lot clearer is that it is not remotely sensible from a statistical point of view to take three years of subsidy data, in which we don't even know what proportion of that subsidy went to infrastructure improvement, let alone any sort of more detailed break down of how or where that funding was spent, and come to some sort of apocalyptic conclusion that Northern is getting "worse and worse" or in a "downward spiral" or any other such overblown hyperbole.

Well, the spreadsheet does show that, over those three years, the Network Grant (which is supposed to cover NR infrastructure investment, as opposed to the day-to-day infrastructure operating costs charged to the TOC) only increased by 8% from 26.9p to 29.1p, while the total train operator subsidy increased by 112% from 5.4p to 11.5p. And Northern passenger miles increased from 1259 million to 1319 million, despite the recession.

 

[fowler9]

Loads of companies which funnel people towards an area which is coming out of recession receive less subsidies than a company that operates loads of secondary routes within an area still massively effected by the recession. Seems quite straightforward to me.

 

[transmanche]

Well, the spreadsheet does show that, over those three years, the Network Grant (which is supposed to cover NR infrastructure investment, as opposed to the day-to-day infrastructure operating costs charged to the TOC) only increased by 8% from 26.9p to 29.1p, while the total train operator subsidy increased by 112% from 5.4p to 11.5p. And Northern passenger miles increased from 1259 million to 1319 million, despite the recession.

Good analysis.

I think that overall, this thread demonstrates that the byzantine way in which railways are funded in this country (with the money merry-go-round seemingly passing back and forth endlessly between DfT, Network Rail and TOCs) is designed so that you can prove almost anything!

I'd love to see a system where capital expenditure was funded by government and reported separately from running costs. (Although in an ideal world, running costs would also be funded by government in the manner of the Highways Agency.) Then it would be a simpler calculation as to how much each TOC would bid to run a franchise, with a 'discount' for the socially-necessary-but-unprofitable services.

But that will never happen...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We are seeing a lot of investment - the problem is that its easy to spot a million pounds spent on building something in the "south" but not easy to spot a million pounds worth of subsidy for unprofitable services in the "north" (and therefore think that the south gets all the money spent on it.

I wonder if someone can quote, for purposes of comparison, the amount of monies that are being spent on the project at Tottenham Hale railway station.

 

[yorksrob]

I think there is another Catch 22 here. When a Northern 2-car Pacer (or 1-car 153) becomes crammed enough to potentially generate enough revenue to cover its operating costs, the guard cannot get through the crush to sell the tickets!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well, the spreadsheet does show that, over those three years, the Network Grant (which is supposed to cover NR infrastructure investment, as opposed to the day-to-day infrastructure operating costs charged to the TOC) only increased by 8% from 26.9p to 29.1p, while the total train operator subsidy increased by 112% from 5.4p to 11.5p. And Northern passenger miles increased from 1259 million to 1319 million, despite the recession.

In that case, since Northern aren‘t running twice as many trains as they were three years ago, or aren‘t employing over twice as many staff, and fuel costs haven‘t doubled in that time, it suggests to me that there may be an issue with the franchising system and its contracting framework rather than tje underlying cost of running the railway.

 

[Bantamzen]

I wonder, is it possible that at least some of the difference in subsidy levels is down to the fact the Northern run an ageing fleet of stock and keeping them running is cutting deeply into profits? From a passenger point of view there seems to be little wriggle room for Northern when a unit fails, so I imagine that keeping them in service is a constant headache for them. Is this even an argument for considering investing in new stock rather than hand-me-downs for the next franchise?

As for some of their routes, yes a bit like ScotRail or Arriva Wales they serve some far flung locations with sparse populations but is this really any justification for another Beeching style cull? Take the Esk Valley route to Whitby for example. OK, the bus is probably going to be a quicker run to Middlesbrough than the train. However one has to ask what is Whitby's biggest draw? Well it's obviously tourism, so would we really expect all people travelling by public transport to ram themselves onto the local bus services (currently 1ph from Middlesbrough by the X93 (although there are other longer services) or 2ph from Scarborough by the 93/X93, or the semi frequent Coastliner from Leeds & York), luggage an all? So it may be a loss maker at the moment, but if performs a valuable service for Whitby & the surrounding villages. Perhaps it was better connected to services at Middlesbrough, or perhaps there was even a through service from York it might attract even more patronage. Currently the connection time from the ex-Manchester Airport TPE gives only around 7 or 8 minutes connection which buggers up the job if your service is running late.

Northern have plenty of profit-earning routes, crammed to the hilt with passengers heading for places like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool etc so there must be some way of balancing the profitable routes with the less so. And other major centres given better connections can easily be turned into profitable routes, you only have to look at the number of traffic jams across the North of England to realise there's plenty of potential new custom there. But the sparely populated areas should not be dropped from the rail network, because our transport network should serve people & not shareholders. And if that means continued subsidies, or even heaven forbid some form of re-nationalisation, then so be it in my opinion.

 

[Oscar]

The important question which needs to be asked is why the vast majority of journeys in the North of England (as elsewhere in the country) are made by car. The fact that most of the costs of a car are paid up front means that public transport generally struggles to attract people who own cars, as these people compare the cost of petrol to the cost of a public transport fare. If insurance, taxes and repairs were paid for through additional tax on petrol and were free at point of use, public transport would become a much more attractive option for many people.

In the case of Whitby, we must also consider why so few people travel by public transport. Travelling from Leeds both the bus and train journeys take over 3 hours compared to a car journey of 2 hours and services are infrequent. The Off-Peak Return costs £41.70 and the Bus Day Return £14 (Family Freedom Ticket £30). Few people want to spend over 3 hours on a bus or pay £41.70 for a day out. The quickest connection from Leeds to Whitby is by train to Malton or Scarborough and by bus from there (around 2 h 30 and therefore much closer to the car journey time, hourly connections via Scarborough Monday-Saturday / two hourly on Sundays). Yet unless a passenger uses Transport Direct they are unlikely to be shown this option. If a reasonably priced fare were offered for this train and bus journey for individuals and for groups, it could expand the modal share of public transport. The same point is valid for Middlesbrough to Whitby. Passengers can take a train which goes 4 times a day and takes 1 h 30 or a bus which takes around 1 h 05 and mostly runs hourly. If a railway to Guisborough were reinstated and a high quality bus service ran from there replacing existing bus and rail services, journey time could be brought down to around 1 hour and frequency to every 30 minutes. There would be some existing users who find the train journey relaxing and take the train for this reason, but public transport would have much more potential to attract some of the many people who currently travel by car for whom the perceived relaxation factor of the train is not the main criterion. Some Esk Valley trains are very busy and the usage statistics suggest that the average number of passengers carried per day is in the upper hundreds, but this is still an extremely low number of passengers to justify maintaining rail infrastructure, especially given the relatively low fares the line inevitably attracts. Perhaps the NYMR would be interested in taking over the line as it already has a depot in Grosmont and could attract passengers from a large urban area it has not previously served with easy access and frequent services to the ECML at Darlington. The Esk Valley line is shorter than the Settle-Carlisle line and leads to an important tourist destination so would perhaps be more attractive for a heritage railway. A heritage service could also perhaps better attract passengers who want to get away from roads and cities. It would be able to attract higher fares, run longer trains and make use of volunteers to cover the infrastructure costs. This could help to pay for more passing places and a curve at Battersby so that additional services could be run in the summer. I appreciate that rebuilding the short section of track to Guisborough and possibly investing in the Esk Valley Railway to run a heritage service would be expenses which would cancel out the savings in significantly reducing subsidy for the foreseeable future, but would result in a greatly superior public transport service. It would be interesting to see an estimate of costs.

 

[northwichcat]

There's Pacers on many routes that'll see EMUs (Leeds to Selby, Leeds to Huddersfield, Manchester to Preston, Liverpool to Wigan, Liverpool to Warrington/Manchester)

2 of those services are the ones I said are mainly Pacers. Manchester-Preston sees mainly 150s while Liverpool-Wigan is mainly 156s, as is Liverpool-Manchester Airport.

IIRC its a Northern service that terminates at Stockport and runs light to Newton Heath Monday to Thursday, so the marginal cost of running it in service to Stalybridge is only an extra few minutes - its quite efficient.

I'm afraid that's not the case. The second morning Chester-Stockport service still runs ECS to Newton Heath even on Friday. Another unit arrives about 90 minutes later to do the Stockport-Stalybridge service. If the Chester-Stockport service did run to Stalybridge you'll need a conductor change (Piccadilly ones don't sign Denton and Victoria ones don't sign Altrincham) and it would be a peak service so less likely to attract any passengers.

 

[yorksrob]

In the case of Whitby, we must also consider why so few people travel by public transport. Travelling from Leeds both the bus and train journeys take over 3 hours compared to a car journey of 2 hours and services are infrequent. The Off-Peak Return costs £41.70 and the Bus Day Return £14 (Family Freedom Ticket £30). Few people want to spend over 3 hours on a bus or pay £41.70 for a day out. The quickest connection from Leeds to Whitby is by train to Malton or Scarborough and by bus from there (around 2 h 30 and therefore much closer to the car journey time, hourly connections via Scarborough Monday-Saturday / two hourly on Sundays). Yet unless a passenger uses Transport Direct they are unlikely to be shown this option. If a reasonably priced fare were offered for this train and bus journey for individuals and for groups, it could expand the modal share of public transport. The same point is valid for Middlesbrough to Whitby. Passengers can take a train which goes 4 times a day and takes 1 h 30 or a bus which takes around 1 h 05 and mostly runs hourly. If a railway to Guisborough were reinstated and a high quality bus service ran from there replacing existing bus and rail services, journey time could be brought down to around 1 hour and frequency to every 30 minutes. There would be some existing users who find the train journey relaxing and take the train for this reason, but public transport would have much more potential to attract some of the many people who currently travel by car for whom the perceived relaxation factor of the train is not the main criterion. Some Esk Valley trains are very busy and the usage statistics suggest that the average number of passengers carried per day is in the upper hundreds, but this is still an extremely low number of passengers to justify maintaining rail infrastructure, especially given the relatively low fares the line inevitably attracts. Perhaps the NYMR would be interested in taking over the line as it already has a depot in Grosmont and could attract passengers from a large urban area it has not previously served with easy access and frequent services to the ECML at Darlington. The Esk Valley line is shorter than the Settle-Carlisle line and leads to an important tourist destination so would perhaps be more attractive for a heritage railway. A heritage service could also perhaps better attract passengers who want to get away from roads and cities. It would be able to attract higher fares, run longer trains and make use of volunteers to cover the infrastructure costs. This could help to pay for more passing places and a curve at Battersby so that additional services could be run in the summer. I appreciate that rebuilding the short section of track to Guisborough and possibly investing in the Esk Valley Railway to run a heritage service would be expenses which would cancel out the savings in significantly reducing subsidy for the foreseeable future, but would result in a greatly superior public transport service. It would be interesting to see an estimate of costs.

Heritage operations tend to be good at putting in infrastructure cheaply but less good at running an all round public service of the sort that local people and businesses need. Yes, it does cost a lot to run an all year service, but without that
, the operation isn‘t very useful. A question worth asking is why volunteers can put in a loop safely and effectively with little mechanisation so much more cost effectively than the big railway.



F
Just got on the Whitby train and counted a throng of well over thirty people, and thats on a cold Ja
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
nuary morning, even with poor connections from the South and Byzantine fare arrangements. Just imagine how much better usage could be if those were sorted out !

 

[Greybeard33]

I'd love to see a system where capital expenditure was funded by government and reported separately from running costs. (Although in an ideal world, running costs would also be funded by government in the manner of the Highways Agency.) Then it would be a simpler calculation as to how much each TOC would bid to run a franchise, with a 'discount' for the socially-necessary-but-unprofitable services.

But that will never happen...

In theory at least, that is why the DfT now pays the Network Grant direct to Network Rail. This is supposed to fund NR's capital expenditure projects (e.g. electrification, Northern Hub, major renewals) and the Treasury counts it as part of the capital expenditure budget, whereas the subsidies to the TOCs are current spending.

NR's running costs, including routine maintenance, are recovered from the TOCs and FOCs through the fixed and variable track access charges.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just got on the Whitby train and counted a throng of well over thirty people, and thats on a cold January morning, even with poor connections from the South and Byzantine fare arrangements. Just imagine how much better usage could be if those were sorted out !

As one not knowledgeable on the fare arrangements on the services to Whitby, can you be so kind as to inform me what these "Byzantine" fare arrangements are.

 

[Oscar]

It would be interesting to see what conclusions an independent report would draw. It could compare conversion of the Whitby line to heritage operation and integration with bus services from Guisborough with investment in the infrastructure required for an hourly service to Whitby taking one hour. As you say, the heritage rail operation would not serve most people's daily needs which a bus service could do this more effectively, it would serve the needs of tourists instead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As one not knowledgeable on the fare arrangements on the services to Whitby, can you be so kind as to inform me what these "Byzantine" fare arrangements are.

The affordable Off-Peak "Not Via Darlington" fares are only available from York, not Leeds or other stations further south and west. Thus the cheapest through return fare from York is £13.70 but £41.70 from Leeds.

 

[Greybeard33]

In that case, since Northern aren‘t running twice as many trains as they were three years ago, or aren‘t employing over twice as many staff, and fuel costs haven‘t doubled in that time, it suggests to me that there may be an issue with the franchising system and its contracting framework rather than the underlying cost of running the railway.

Even though heavily subsidised, Northern does still get a substantial proportion of its income from farebox revenue and other commercial sources. So a doubling of subsidy does not mean that costs have doubled.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Would the Northern network benefit from some Strathclyde DOO operation on their main commuter routes? It would reduce costs and increase revenue as the ticket person can now worry only about collecting fares instead of having to do guard duties at every station along the route. More rural routes would obviously remain guard-run but my experience of the Strathclyde electrics network seems to suggest it's a workable solution and a definite improvement over full DOO in the SE of England.

 

[47802]

Maybe closure should be considered for a few routes I know such ideas are not popular and politically difficult.

A couple the spring to mind are the Barton on Humber route would seem to me that the main reason for this service existence ie the New Holland ferry disappeared years ago, obviously that wouldnt be popular with Barton users.

Settle Junction to Carnforth, somewhat overshadowed by a the S&C now passengers from West Yorks to Morecambe could use the copy pit route instead possibly even a couple of services could be diverted to Morecambe instead of Blackpool, obviously such as Bentham would loose its service, and such as Skipton a service to Lancashire.

 

[Moonshot]

Maybe closure should be considered for a few routes I know such ideas are not popular and politically difficult.

A couple the spring to mind are the Barton on Humber route would seem to me that the main reason for this service existence ie the New Holland ferry disappeared years ago, obviously that wouldnt be popular with Barton users.

Settle Junction to Carnforth, somewhat overshadowed by a the S&C now passengers from West Yorks to Morecambe could use the copy pit route instead possibly even a couple of services could be diverted to Morecambe instead of Blackpool, obviously such as Bentham would loose its service, and such as Skipton a service to Lancashire.

Absolutely......a limited cull to severely trim the waste wouldnt be a bad thing, then target investment on where it really will make a difference.

 

[Beveridges]

Main reason for a lot being put off using northern is there is always the possibility of a 142 turning up. It needs to have guaranteed 156s on the services they are suppoesed to be on.

The scrapping of the slow, uncomfortable and bouncy Pacers will increase passenger numbers on its own.

 

[tbtc]

I think there is another Catch 22 here. When a Northern 2-car Pacer (or 1-car 153) becomes crammed enough to potentially generate enough revenue to cover its operating costs, the guard cannot get through the crush to sell the tickets!

This is a problem, with the insistence on the Guard operating the doors/ being responsible for safety on 30/40 metre long trains (though there are 240m long trains around London where the Driver manages those responsibilities), meaning that you can go some distance on Northern without having your ticket checked.

Maybe closure should be considered for a few routes I know such ideas are not popular and politically difficult.

A couple the spring to mind are the Barton on Humber route would seem to me that the main reason for this service existence ie the New Holland ferry disappeared years ago, obviously that wouldnt be popular with Barton users.

Settle Junction to Carnforth, somewhat overshadowed by a the S&C now passengers from West Yorks to Morecambe could use the copy pit route instead possibly even a couple of services could be diverted to Morecambe instead of Blackpool, obviously such as Bentham would loose its service, and such as Skipton a service to Lancashire.

Absolutely......a limited cull to severely trim the waste wouldnt be a bad thing, then target investment on where it really will make a difference.

+1 - there's a lot of routes that Northern run that have lost their passengers, but the trains remain - there must be some relatively profitable services that they operate which makes me wonder whether there are some services that don't even take half their costs through the farebox.

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe closure should be considered for a few routes I know such ideas are not popular and politically difficult.

A couple the spring to mind are the Barton on Humber route would seem to me that the main reason for this service existence ie the New Holland ferry disappeared years ago, obviously that wouldnt be popular with Barton users.

Settle Junction to Carnforth, somewhat overshadowed by a the S&C now passengers from West Yorks to Morecambe could use the copy pit route instead possibly even a couple of services could be diverted to Morecambe instead of Blackpool, obviously such as Bentham would loose its service, and such as Skipton a service to Lancashire.

In that case, expect to find me manning the barricades as I use Skipton - Carnforth regularly (as do a fair few others).

There seemed to be a reasonable number of people on the 153 to Barton.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Absolutely......a limited cull to severely trim the waste wouldnt be a bad thing, then target investment on where it really will make a difference.

Sixty years after the wretched Doctor and we‘re still stuck up the same mental back alley discussing the same actions that failed back then.

Where is your evidence that these routes are even the main culprits ? Greybeard 33 mentioned a 112% increase in operating subsidy to Northern Rail over the past three years. I find it incredible to believe that the day to day operating costs of either of these routes has increased by 112% over the past three years.

 

[Moonshot]

In that case, expect to find me manning the barricades as I use Skipton - Carnforth regularly (as do a fair few others).

There seemed to be a reasonable number of people on the 153 to Barton.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Sixty years after the wretched Doctor and we‘re still stuck up the same mental back alley discussing the same actions that failed back then.

Where is your evidence that these routes are even the main culprits ? Greybeard 33 mentioned a 112% increase in operating subsidy to Northern Rail over the past three years. I find it incredible to believe that the day to day operating costs of either of these routes has increased by 112% over the past three years.

Failed back then???? It was absolutely the right thing to do.

 

[47802]

In that case, expect to find me manning the barricades as I use Skipton - Carnforth regularly (as do a fair few others).

There seemed to be a reasonable number of people on the 153 to Barton.

I expect your probably safe as no current government would have the balls to close any line, however no village, town etc should expect an automatic right to a service and maybe some of the most heavily subsidised need to be culled to place investment and resources elsewhere.

Is that backward thinking well Im not talking about major cuts only perhaps possibly some high subsidy lines serving very moderate populations. One of the problems for carnforth line is that when back in the 70's it had quite a good service, the service on the S&C was very poor, and Copy Pit route had no service at all except for a couple of holiday trains to Blackpool. But with these alternates for long distance passengers it has to rely on more local traffic, and I suspect even day trippers and even holiday trippers to Morecambe are somewhat reduced these days.

And even if say the same amount of subsidy was required for the Bradford to Manchester line compared to the Barton line you would keep the Bradford Manchester line due to the high population and commuter journeys its serves but you might not say the same about the Barton Line.

 

[yorksrob]

Even though heavily subsidised, Northern does still get a substantial proportion of its income from farebox revenue and other commercial sources. So a doubling of subsidy does not mean that costs have doubled.

Exactly, which underlines my point that the day to day efficiency of the operational railway is not the key variable here, so why we seem to be mulling infrastructure cuts is particularly perplexing to me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Failed back then???? It was absolutely the right thing to do.

In spite of the fact that the changes never made anything like the savings that were expected.

 

[Moonshot]

Exactly, which underlines my point that the day to day efficiency of the operational railway is not the key variable here, so why we seem to be mulling infrastructure cuts is particularly perplexing to me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


In spite of the fact that the changes never made anything like the savings that were expected.

And if the network had been left as it was, no doubt todays subsidy would be astronomically higher!!

As i ve said many time, the state needs to be influencing every day lives less and less, be it rail, health or pensions etc...

 

[yorksrob]

I expect your probably safe as no current government would have the balls to close any line, however no village, town etc should expect an automatic right to a service and maybe some of the most heavily subsidised need to be culled to place investment and resources elsewhere.

Is that backward thinking well Im not talking about major cuts only perhaps possibly some high subsidy lines serving very moderate populations. One of the problems for carnforth line is that when back in the 70's it had quite a good service, the service on the S&C was very poor, and Copy Pit route had no service at all except for a couple of holiday trains to Blackpool. But with these alternates for long distance passengers it has to rely on more local traffic, and I suspect even day trippers and even holiday trippers to Morecambe are somewhat reduced these days.

And again I say how do you know this route is the main culprit ? There are few staff, no signalling and the trains are few and far between. Yes it would be politically stupid for a government to contemplate closure, but it is also naive to assume that this route has a high subsidy compared to elsewhere on the Northern network.

 

[47802]

And again I say how do you know this route is the main culprit ? There are few staff, no signalling and the trains are few and far between. Yes it would be politically stupid for a government to contemplate closure, but it is also naive to assume that this route has a high subsidy compared to elsewhere on the Northern network.

It might not have a higher subsidy than many other lines but if you want to concentrate resources you close the routes which would have overall the least impact for the majority of journeys

 

[yorksrob]

And if the network had been left as it was, no doubt todays subsidy would be astronomically higher!!

As i ve said many time, the state needs to be influencing every day lives less and less, be it rail, health or pensions etc...

Oh, the railway needed a bit of shrinkage at the time, but it also needed someone to take a pragmatic approach to what routes brought to the network, what potential there was to reduce costs etc. As I say to every Beeching apologist, just look at the worked examples in "The Reshaping" and compare Thetford to Swaffam with York to Beverley and ask yourself whether closure of both was necessary or even desireable. The difference between the two cases is glaring. One, in any sane or rational world should have been rationalised rather than closed.

 

[Moonshot]

Oh, the railway needed a bit of shrinkage at the time, but it also needed someone to take a pragmatic approach to what routes brought to the network, what potential there was to reduce costs etc. As I say to every Beeching apologist, just look at the worked examples in "The Reshaping" and compare Thetford to Swaffam with York to Beverley and ask yourself whether closure of both was necessary or even desireable. The difference between the two cases is glaring. One, in any sane or rational world should have been rationalised rather than closed.

Which is all very well with 60 years of hindsight.....

Railways have been very fortunate in the last 12 years or so in that they have been recieving significant investment funds from the taxpayer. But I dont see that continuing much after CP5 as these funds become scarcer.

 

[yorksrob]

It might not have a higher subsidy than many other lines but if you want to concentrate resources you close the routes which would have overall the least impact for the majority of journeys

Do we not concentrate resources anyway ? Surely the fact that this route has barely any staff, no signalling and not that many trains, whereas other lines have lots of staff, many trains and copious amounts of very .expensive signalling infrastructure is a sign that resources are already being fairly heavily concentrated already ?