Should track access be charged differently?

[Jozhua]

Currently TOCs are charged track acess by length and I believe weight of trains.

This doesn't really make much sense as it incentivises running shorter train lengths and penalises TOCs giving passengers adequate space or even letting them strech out a bit! Doesn't seem to make sense that TPE will be paying more for track acess introducing their new trains, when it will already be costing them in leasing/maintenance.

They surely must have records of the ticket sales for all the different routes/journeys so couldn't they be charged per passenger per mile?

TOCs already have to pay a penalty of leasing costs, fuel, maintenance and potentially extra staffing for longer services, so why continue to penalise them for something that offers a benefit for passengers?

 

[hwl]

Currently TOCs are charged track acess by length and I believe weight of trains.

This doesn't really make much sense as it incentivises running shorter train lengths and penalises TOCs giving passengers adequate space or even letting them strech out a bit! Doesn't seem to make sense that TPE will be paying more for track acess introducing their new trains, when it will already be costing them in leasing/maintenance.

They surely must have records of the ticket sales for all the different routes/journeys so couldn't they be charged per passenger per mile?

TOCs already have to pay a penalty of leasing costs, fuel, maintenance and potentially extra staffing for longer services, so why continue to penalise them for something that offers a benefit for passengers?

The charges are actually far more complicated than that.

NR maintenance costs go up so who is going to fund that? and how?

The access charges are actually fairly insignificant overall: A 9 car full length 345 Crossrail train is only 56.05p per mile (less than a single HST power car at 58p/mile).

Regional DMU cars 6.5*-12.0 p/mile (typically around a quarter of the the average per mile fare of a single passenger on the train)

*Cl172 rewarding low track damage

 

[DarloRich]

Currently TOCs are charged track acess by length and I believe weight of trains.

This doesn't really make much sense as it incentivises running shorter train lengths and penalises TOCs giving passengers adequate space or even letting them strech out a bit! Doesn't seem to make sense that TPE will be paying more for track acess introducing their new trains, when it will already be costing them in leasing/maintenance.

They surely must have records of the ticket sales for all the different routes/journeys so couldn't they be charged per passenger per mile?

TOCs already have to pay a penalty of leasing costs, fuel, maintenance and potentially extra staffing for longer services, so why continue to penalise them for something that offers a benefit for passengers?

i am not sure you quite grasp the concept. It is much more complicated than you present.

 

[sprinterguy]

The variable track usage charge is charged by Network Rail based on axle loading for each vehicle, in order to reflect the amount of wear and tear caused to the permanent way by longer or heavier trains. In 2012/13 (The most recent figure I have to hand), the variable track usage charge accounted for 11% of Network Rail's £6.5 billion income, so it is an essential tool in ensuring that heavily used routes receive the investment required to maintain them at their current standard, and is therefore entirely appropriate.

 

[Jozhua]

The charges are actually far more complicated than that.

NR maintenance costs go up so who is going to fund that? and how?

The access charges are actually fairly insignificant overall: A 9 car full length 345 Crossrail train is only 56.05p per mile (less than single HST power car at 58p/mile).

Regional DMU cars 6.5*-12.0 p/mile (typically around a quarter of the the average per mile fare of a single passenger on the train)

*Cl172 rewarding low track damage

Charging per passenger could potentially allow NR to charge much more without too negatively effecting rural routes?

I've got to admit I'm not a massive expert on it, just wondering if there are better systems for charging TOCs for track access?

 

[hwl]

Charging per passenger could potentially allow NR to charge much more without too negatively effecting rural routes?

I've got to admit I'm not a massive expert on it, just wondering if there are better systems for charging TOCs for track access?

The current system works well.
NR's cost have virtually nothing to do with the number of passengers on a train but the trains themselves so there is no reason to change that.
Rolling stock leasing and maintenance costs (including constructing more stabling /depot space) are the things you need to focus on as regards trains not being longer as they are an order of magnitude higher (each) than the track access charges. (you seem to be ignoring the icebergs and focusing on deck chair rearrangement to keep the Titanic afloat)
The current system also incentives new stock to be track kind to reduce maintenance costs.

 

[hwl]

The variable track usage charge is charged by Network Rail based on axle loading for each vehicle, in order to reflect the amount of wear and tear caused to the permanent way by longer or heavier trains.

The output of VAMPIRE hence very complicated...

In 2012/13 (The most recent figure I have to hand), the variable track usage charge accounted for 11% of Network Rail's £6.5 billion income, so it is an essential tool in ensuring that heavily used routes receive the investment required to maintain them at their current standard, and is therefore entirely appropriate.

Agreed.

 

[Roast Veg]

It could also be argued that TOCs are incentivised to run more and longer trains on any route where the demand is there, as the more passengers they can get on the bigger the margin between operational cost and ticket revenue the mroe they earn. You can see form some of the figures posted that it doesn't take too many passengers to make the money back.

 

[talltim]

I’m sure the FOCs would like to be charged based on passenger numbers...

 

[hooverboy]

It could also be argued that TOCs are incentivised to run more and longer trains on any route where the demand is there, as the more passengers they can get on the bigger the margin between operational cost and ticket revenue the mroe they earn. You can see form some of the figures posted that it doesn't take too many passengers to make the money back.

that sort of works on a really intensively used route, but not on a rural line...the scenic country routes are very difficult to gauge, especially for coastal resorts.they can range from almost totally empty to completely busting because of nice bank holiday weather/staycations/special events etc.The trick with these is best capacity for lowest running cost. which isn't easy seeing as the routes are slow and each driver+conductor set is nearly £100kpa in wages alone...before operations/fuel/leasing and maintenance.

routes are only generally intensively used about 6 hours each day though...3 hours each way rush hour.the rest of the time they are below 50% capacity, and ToC's will be very mindful of the cost of carting around fresh air, hence the short-forms.

Optimal running for a ToC is about 70% capacity off peak and 100% peak.The latter ought to be around 90% to cope with seasonal demand and oddities like special events slapping the extra 10% on from time to time.
Shuffling units around to completely adjust for extra demand is not always an option

 

[squizzler]

I recall an attempt to instigate a similar discussion a little while back. My positioned aligned with that of this thread's OP: that track access should be a congestion charge as much as an upkeep charge.

I understand SNCF go too far the other way which is why French trains are long but infrequent.

 

[Indigo Soup]

This doesn't really make much sense as it incentivises running shorter train lengths and penalises TOCs giving passengers adequate space or even letting them strech out a bit!

Whilst this does seem to be a problem, I don't think that track access charges are the right way to address it. Some sort of farebox-based approach seems most logical to me, although that's definitely a matter for another thread.

 

[Meerkat]

Not saying it makes it worthwhile but Network Rail getting a cut of the farebox might incentivise them to be more passenger aware.

 

[tbtc]

There seems to be a misunderstanding about what the point of the charges are.

There are many costs to a TOC and many revenue streams for Network Rail, but this specific charge is intended to reflect the marginal cost of running each train over the track - that means that longer trains cost more (as they "damage" the track more than shorter trains) and that trains with unevenly distributed weight cost more (as something like an HST with heavy power cars will "damage" the track more than an EMU/DMU with relatively evenly distributed weight). I say "damage" in invested commas to reflect all wear/tear.

It's not about penalising TOCs - in the grand scheme of things, the cost of the track access charges for a doubled up unit are pretty marginal when compared to the additional leasing costs (of the second unit), the additional fuel costs (of the second unit) and the additional ticket revenue generated by it. In the OP's example, a 5x26m 802 will be heavier than a 3x23m 185, so it seems perfectly reasonable that TPE pay more for the cost of transporting hundreds of extra seats around per day. It's a bit like replacing your "hatchback" with a "people carrier" to accommodate a growing family and then complaining that the additional fuel bill "penalises" you.

It's a bit of a blunt instrument but there's probably no better way of doing it. Infrastructure needs paying for - the more it gets used, the sooner it generally needs replaced.

Some infrastructure is designed to last for a certain number of years, some infrastructure is designed to last for a certain amount of usage, some infrastructure is designed to last for a certain mixture of the two (to pluck numbers from thin air, you might get something that will last for ten years or a million carriages running over it, or a sliding scale between the two).

If you don't like that, how should Network Rail's costs be allocated? Divide the entire NR costs for each line over the number of trains that use that infrastructure? That's going to close a few lines (like the millions of pounds we seem to spend rebuilding the Conwy Valley flood defences every few months)!