RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[northwichcat]

I have yet to see any evidence that Class 455s would need to be modified. The tunnels are already cleared for W6 according to the Merseyside RUS, just not in passenger service.

What about their length? Too long for platforms if doubled up and too little capacity for some services if not doubled up.

 

[northwichcat]

Around London the trains are turning a healthy profit and pay for themselves.

Misleading statement. SWR, Southern and London Underground don't require a subsidy, the other franchises serving London do even Southeastern. Some of the subsided franchises serving London are getting new costly trains.

 

[robertclark125]

I have yet to see any evidence that Class 455s would need to be modified. The tunnels are already cleared for W6 according to the Merseyside RUS, just not in passenger service.

Southern are making their 455s fully PRM compliant and if you are keeping Guards they can assist customers with disabilities.

The Valleys electrification business case indicated a very cheap lease for Class 315s vs new stock, as it is that or the scrapyard. There was also an assumed lifespan of at least another 10 years, which you are welcome to find if they haven't taken it down.

One other thing to remember, the 455s also have an ex 508 trailer in them. There are slight differences in dimensions, but I, personally, can't see any loading gauge difference.

 

[jayah]

Misleading statement. SWR, Southern and London Underground don't require a subsidy, the other franchises serving London do even Southeastern. Some of the subsided franchises serving London are getting new costly trains.

The franchises before Network Grant that are subsidised are London Midland, Northern and TPE. Because of their structure, MerseyRail, Caledonian Sleepers and Scotrail are heavily subsidised but don't appear in the DfT tables. I have seen figures suggesting 65% of MR turnover was subsidy.

I have no idea why Southeastern is subsidised at operator level but it is very much an outlier as all its contemporaries turn in negative operator subsidies.

 

[northwichcat]

The franchises before Network Grant that are subsidised are London Midland, Northern and TPE. Because of their structure, MerseyRail, Caledonian Sleepers and Scotrail are heavily subsidised but don't appear in the DfT tables. I have seen figures suggesting 65% of MR turnover was subsidy.

And Arriva Trains Wales and London Overground (who are also excluded from the table you refer to.) While it's debatable if the 'Network Grant' figures are fair if an operator pays nothing towards track maintenance then they can't possibly be described as 'profitable.' As the South East operators, on average, use longer formations and run more frequent services they put a lot more wear on the track.

 

[hwl]

The franchises before Network Grant that are subsidised are London Midland, Northern and TPE. Because of their structure, MerseyRail, Caledonian Sleepers and Scotrail are heavily subsidised but don't appear in the DfT tables. I have seen figures suggesting 65% of MR turnover was subsidy.

I have no idea why Southeastern is subsidised at operator level but it is very much an outlier as all its contemporaries turn in negative operator subsidies.

HS1 track access costs are about 10 times NR's...
Lots of metro stations aren't gated. SE would have to pay to install them but Dft would get the revenue in reduced subsidy...
Need longer metro services so passengers can get on...

WM out of Euston does cover itself but not the rest
Anglia should break even in a few years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Around London the trains are turning a healthy profit and pay for themselves.

This shows just how poorly you know your facts. Only a very small number of TOCs actually turn a profit (i.e. do not receive any operating subsidy, be that to themselves or Network Rail for their operating area). At one point it was, I think, just East Coast and Thameslink?

 

[hwl]

This shows just how poorly you know your facts. Only a very small number of TOCs actually turn a profit (i.e. do not receive any operating subsidy, be that to themselves or Network Rail for their operating area). At one point it was, I think, just East Coast and Thameslink?

And SWT also covered their Network grant too.
Thameslink was before the works of the London Bridge works but should recover in 2020.

 

[B&I]

People who pay higher fares do. That is how First Class works already.

If the people using MerseyRail value it at £10m p.a let's say that is the farebox, where is the justification for spending £400m of other people's money, when there is a much cheaper solution that doesn't actually deliver much less?

Around London the trains are turning a healthy profit and pay for themselves.

So, in your view, commuter railways in a provincal city are comparable to first class, i.e. entirely optional ?

What's your basis for saying that the Merseyrail farebox revenue is £10 m p.a. ?

If you want to see other railway franchises turning London-type profits, maybe there needs to be some London-type investment to attract people out of their cars, and maybe some decentralisation, so other places can enjoy London-style numbers of jobs

 

[jayah]

This shows just how poorly you know your facts. Only a very small number of TOCs actually turn a profit (i.e. do not receive any operating subsidy, be that to themselves or Network Rail for their operating area). At one point it was, I think, just East Coast and Thameslink?

Network Rail's cost base is not relevant in a debate about funding for new trains. All of the regional operators around London are profitable (except SET and Overground) and all of them outside London are not, including Wales and Scotland are very heavily subsidised.

 

[jayah]

So, in your view, commuter railways in a provincal city are comparable to first class, i.e. entirely optional ?

What's your basis for saying that the Merseyrail farebox revenue is £10 m p.a. ?

If you want to see other railway franchises turning London-type profits, maybe there needs to be some London-type investment to attract people out of their cars, and maybe some decentralisation, so other places can enjoy London-style numbers of jobs

I haven't asserted that actually is their fare box revenue as I have clearly indicated.

But given the extent to which Scotrail, Northern and Arriva Wales are subsidised, it is very debateable why the taxpayer should be spending so much on brand new trains.

 

[hwl]

What's your basis for saying that the Merseyrail farebox revenue is £10 m p.a. ?

If you want to see other railway franchises turning London-type profits, maybe there needs to be some London-type investment to attract people out of their cars, and maybe some decentralisation, so other places can enjoy London-style numbers of jobs

The faresbox should be arround £65-70m given other numbers but then the Merseyrail staff cost is just under £60m (pre Stadler Maintenance staff transfer)

All the stuff that is easy to decentralise has already gone and you won't find the private sector queuing up as they want/need a large talent pool and are reliant on employees other halves having a liquid jobs market too. My wife's firm wouldn't move out to anywhere in the UK outside London they would just move jobs out of the UK as they have already been doing. They tired the cheaper decentralised thing in the States and got their fingers burnt and had to un-decentralise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I haven't asserted that actually is their fare box revenue as I have clearly indicated.

But given the extent to which Scotrail, Northern and Arriva Wales are subsidised, it is very debateable why the taxpayer should be spending so much on brand new trains.

What is the relevance of Scotrail, Northern and Arriva Trains Wales to Merseyrail?

 

[hwl]

DfT subsidy vs premium data for FY2015/16
Green = Premium paid to DfT, the right hand column is interesting one and it includes the network grant -note there are only 2 TOCs in that are green in that column

 

[jayah]

The faresbox should be arround £65-70m given other numbers but then the Merseyrail staff cost is just under £60m (pre Stadler Maintenance staff transfer)

All the stuff that is easy to decentralise has already gone and you won't find the private sector queuing up as they want/need a large talent pool and are reliant on employees other halves having a liquid jobs market too. My wife's firm wouldn't move out to anywhere in the UK outside London they would just move jobs out of the UK as they have already been doing. They tired the cheaper decentralised thing in the States and got their fingers burnt and had to un-decentralise.

I would interested where £65m came from although it is abundantly clear that the economics of railways in London and elsewhere are completely different, hopefully answering the question why shouldn't we have what they have.

If you can't tempt people out if their cars for peppercorn fares, new trains are unlikely to make much difference, except to the Council Tax, which may have the opposite effect.

If devolution meant public spending being raised locally as well as being spent locally then there would surely be no new trains!

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

But given the extent to which Scotrail, Northern and Arriva Wales are subsidised, it is very debateable why the taxpayer should be spending so much on brand new trains.

Given the tone of not just this post but many other of your posts, and in many other threads, it is quite clear that you believe railways should aim to run at a profit in almost every situation with little regard for the wider social benefits. One of the great pleasures of going to Liverpool is the relative lack of traffic congestion. And local rail services are typically well used. Perhaps you would prefer public policy to be to avoid spending anything above the minimum on railways until such time as the local road networks reach gridlock. It does make me wonder why you choose to be a member of a railway forum in the first place.

 

[Goldfish62]

Maybe I've missed something, but why are we discussing using cascaded stock from down south when the new trains are in build?

 

[northwichcat]

But given the extent to which Scotrail, Northern and Arriva Wales are subsidised, it is very debateable why the taxpayer should be spending so much on brand new trains.

The discussion has been done to death before.

Why should West Country or East Midlands local services be treated differently because they have been put in franchises with profitable Intercity services, whereas in other parts of the country the local services have been kept separate from the Intercity services?

Why should we be encouraging passengers to drive to stations with Intercity services over catching a connecting local service? (That's what could happen if the subsided franchises only get cast offs.)

London gets a huge amount of tax payers money spent subsiding bus services, in other parts of the country very little is spent subsiding bus services. So isn't it fair that other parts of the country get subsided rail services in lieu of subsided bus services?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Northern wouldn't look anywhere near as bad had TPE not been artificially separated from it, a move that in my eyes never made any sense whatsoever.

 

[northwichcat]

Maybe I've missed something, but why are we discussing using cascaded stock from down south when the new trains are in build?

One poster has hijacked the thread with his "subsided franchises must never get new trains" view.

 

[northwichcat]

Northern wouldn't look anywhere near as bad had TPE not been artificially separated from it, a move that in my eyes never made any sense whatsoever.

Indeed. And imagine combining East Coast, TPE (minus the Manchester Airport to Scotland services), former RRNE services with Northern and Great Northern to create a franchise equivalent to GWR. Would that stop people complaining about how heavily subsided some local routes in the North East are?

 

[jayah]

One poster has hijacked the thread with his "subsided franchises must never get new trains" view.

It was actually because it was suggested the operator needed to remove the Guards in order to pay for the new trains, although removing the guards actually pays for only about 30-40% of the resulting deficit.

 

[northwichcat]

It was actually because it was suggested the operator needed to remove the Guards in order to pay for the new trains, although removing the guards actually pays for only about 30-40% of the resulting deficit.

You're not making sense. If removing the guards paid for 200% of the 'deficit' then you could argue it's not necessary, if it's 30-40% then it's a significant amount of the 'deficit' even if removing the guards alone doesn't pay for the new trains. If you were told you were at risk of redundancy due to a £100,000 annual shortage in income in the business, would your argument be that you don't earn £100,000 so making you redundant can't be part of the solution?

Also you've not explained how your class 455 proposal will meet the requirement of being able to extend Merseyrail services beyond the end of the third rail. We know the 769 Flex project has been neither be delivered on time or on budget, in fact it's been suggested the 769 conversion might end up costing almost as much as new build.

 

[B&I]

I haven't asserted that actually is their fare box revenue as I have clearly indicated.

But given the extent to which Scotrail, Northern and Arriva Wales are subsidised, it is very debateable why the taxpayer should be spending so much on brand new trains.

So, you haven't a clue what their revenue is, making your comments based on it meaningless. Thank you.

Are you as upset about Southeastern receiving any new trains ?

 

[B&I]

The faresbox should be arround £65-70m given other numbers but then the Merseyrail staff cost is just under £60m (pre Stadler Maintenance staff transfer)

All the stuff that is easy to decentralise has already gone and you won't find the private sector queuing up as they want/need a large talent pool and are reliant on employees other halves having a liquid jobs market too. My wife's firm wouldn't move out to anywhere in the UK outside London they would just move jobs out of the UK as they have already been doing. They tired the cheaper decentralised thing in the States and got their fingers burnt and had to un-decentralise.

I'm sorry, but that's tripe. Since 2010, the number of civil service jobs in London has increased. There is no reason whatsoever why even the most specialised employers could not re-locate to any of the major urban areas in Britain, and expect prospective employees to follow them. Or else how do you explain why other European countries generally feature a range of cities, much smaller than London, but many as economically successful ? The 'need' to concentrate all economic growth in London is a self-sustaining myth which is doing this country untold damage

 

[hwl]

I'm sorry, but that's tripe. Since 2010, the number of civil service jobs in London has increased. There is no reason whatsoever why even the most specialised employers could not re-locate to any of the major urban areas in Britain, and expect prospective employees to follow them. Or else how do you explain why other European countries generally feature a range of cities, much smaller than London, but many as economically successful ? The 'need' to concentrate all economic growth in London is a self-sustaining myth which is doinf this country untold damage

I was mainly talking about the private sector but:
The bonfire of the Quangos in 2010-12 lead to a large number of quango staff becoming civil servants (again) when some Quangos were reincorporated into Departments, there were at least 6-7 adsorbed into DfT for example, so that need to be taken account of when you use those numbers. At that time there was also some restaffing of National Statistics to London after the failed Newport move when lots of the staff didn't move and they couldn't recruit locally.

The current global trend suggest otherwise with large city agglomeration correlating with higher growth rates (taking account of population change effects). This isn't a London vs the rest of UK issue, it is UK vs the rest of the world issue. Take my wife firm for example they move jobs out of London by deskilling the work and getting it done in Mumbai and Warsaw (the later now becoming more popular as they can't get enough good staff in Mumbai)
In many more specialised sectors it is quite common to have employees whose partners also have jobs in a (different) specialised sector hence the chances of both partners moving is slim (see Nat Stats problems). People also want employment options with more than 1 firm hence Leeds and Manchester doing well in accountancy and law jobs due to the multitude of firms. Many employees also don't trust firms to change their mind again in few years and don't want to be left stranded.

 

[Goldfish62]

One poster has hijacked the thread with his "subsided franchises must never get new trains" view.

Right, got you.

 

[jayah]

So, you haven't a clue what their revenue is, making your comments based on it meaningless. Thank you.

Are you as upset about Southeastern receiving any new trains ?

They are certainly heavily subsidised to a degree not comparable in London and can't fund these new trains without cutting jobs and leaning harder on the taxpayer.

Keeping up with the Jones' isn't a sensible way to spend other people's money.

 

[B&I]

They are certainly heavily subsidised to a degree not comparable in London and can't fund these new trains without cutting jobs and leaning harder on the taxpayer.

Keeping up with the Jones' isn't a sensible way to spend other people's money.

Getting back to the question I actually asked, what are your views on unprofitable Southeastern getting new trains ?

 

[B&I]

I was mainly talking about the private sector but:
The bonfire of the Quangos in 2010-12 lead to a large number of quango staff becoming civil servants (again) when some Quangos were reincorporated into Departments, there were at least 6-7 adsorbed into DfT for example, so that need to be taken account of when you use those numbers. At that time there was also some restaffing of National Statistics to London after the failed Newport move when lots of the staff didn't move and they couldn't recruit locally.

The current global trend suggest otherwise with large city agglomeration correlating with higher growth rates (taking account of population change effects). This isn't a London vs the rest of UK issue, it is UK vs the rest of the world issue. Take my wife firm for example they move jobs out of London by deskilling the work and getting it done in Mumbai and Warsaw (the later now becoming more popular as they can't get enough good staff in Mumbai)
In many more specialised sectors it is quite common to have employees whose partners also have jobs in a (different) specialised sector hence the chances of both partners moving is slim (see Nat Stats problems). People also want employment options with more than 1 firm hence Leeds and Manchester doing well in accountancy and law jobs due to the multitude of firms. Many employees also don't trust firms to change their mind again in few years and don't want to be left stranded.

A firm which is prepared to move to Warsaw or Mumbai could have no logical objection to bwing based in any large urban area in Britain.

As for the rest, it's chicken and egg. If we actually moved some.jobs out of London, people would no longer feel a compulsion to work there.