Why is the railway so pressed for capacity?

[absolutelymilk]

Or there must be times when commuter trains are stood around at weekend that could be used on leisure based services at weekends. The complicated structure of the industry stops this. Under one bigger company, stock could be utilised more efficiently. Now you could have TOC A train, full and standing, passing sidings full of idle trains belonging to TOC B.

This assumes that the staff of TOC A are trained on the trains of TOC B, while the staff of TOC B will almost certainly not be trained on the routes of TOC A.

 

[The Ham]

This assumes that the staff of TOC A are trained on the trains of TOC B, while the staff of TOC B will almost certainly not be trained on the routes of TOC A.

It also assumes that the rolling stock of both TOCs is suitable.

Let's take for instance SWT and GWR, the latter is most likely to have large leisure demand, yet there are few trains that SWT has that would be much use to them.

Even if the GWR network was electrified and SWT's trains were dual voltage then the SWT's stock may have to travel quite some way before finding a service that it was suited to whilst not impacting on SWT's own leisure routes.

 

[Masbroughlad]

This assumes that the staff of TOC A are trained on the trains of TOC B, while the staff of TOC B will almost certainly not be trained on the routes of TOC A.

It would need some joined up thinking and cooperation. That's not the way of our railway world today.

 

[Class 170101]

With new franchises usually equals new investment but it leads to a feast tyo famine approach.

Look at Anglia. There will be new trains and new services by 2020 / 2021 but after that I doubt there will be (much) new investment as there isn't a lot time to get a return on it.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Cram as many people as you can into insufficient numbers of carriages.

It's all about making as much profit as possible and not about providing a service. Operators should realise that a longer train that is comfortable would attract more custom.

Everything has been cut to the very bare minimum. Rationalised track, not enough rolling stock, too fragmented structures.

Would some strategic reserves of stock help?

Or there must be times when commuter trains are stood around at weekend that could be used on leisure based services at weekends. The complicated structure of the industry stops this. Under one bigger company, stock could be utilised more efficiently. Now you could have TOC A train, full and standing, passing sidings full of idle trains belonging to TOC B.

It's not down to the operators. They don't own their rolling stock, they lease it and are (in the main) bound by the DfT in the services they run and the stock they use.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would need some joined up thinking and cooperation. That's not the way of our railway world today.

You can blame government for that. They introduced the stupid system we have now, and successive governments have meddled around the edges but kept the idea of franchised operators "in competition" with each other.

 

[najaB]

You can blame government for that. They introduced the stupid system we have now, and successive governments have meddled around the edges but kept the idea of franchised operators "in competition" with each other.

Even in a nationalised railway it would be the case that drivers and stock types would be allocated to depots, and both would work certain routes - which wouldn't make it easy to swap either on an ad-hoc, as and when basis.

 

[FQTV]

Even in a nationalised railway it would be the case that drivers and stock types would be allocated to depots, and both would work certain routes - which wouldn't make it easy to swap either on an ad-hoc, as and when basis.

And yet, in 1990, when the wires came down on the ECML at Peterborough, we were sent down the MML instead.

Yes, passenger numbers were lower, yes station usage was lower and lines were less intensively used, but there was still operational flexibility then that could not be replicated now.

It's perhaps a question for others to decide as to whether it's the operating structure or the infrastructure that would prevent it from happening in future, and whether new but incompatible/captive investment is the best route to long term network resilience.

 

[najaB]

And yet, in 1990, when the wires came down on the ECML at Peterborough, we were sent down the MML instead.

And diversions still happen in time of disruption. What was being proposed was units being 'loaned' to run weekend/off-peak services from areas that have high weekday commuter demand.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It's perhaps a question for others to decide as to whether it's the operating structure or the infrastructure that would prevent it from happening in future, and whether new but incompatible/captive investment is the best route to long term network resilience.

Actually I would suggest that the biggest issue is traincrew route knowledge and the need to keep them up to date for certification purposes. It comes down to modern-day safety management. Do we really want to spend money releasing crew from normal duties to keep up to date on a route they don't normally work over just to allow for a diversion that is only needed once every blue moon? Not to mention the management effort that goes with it. Clearing traction and infrastructure for interoperability is a one off cost but maintaining route knowledge is never-ending! And the whole issue is even worse if you throw different traction into the mix...

 

[tbtc]

Which is the government's way of applying austerity measures to the railway given that it dare not cut back things like electrification, Northern Hub, etc. And even these have been subjected to a review (Hendy).

The railway hasn't had "austerity", not in the way that most other public sector funding has experienced austerity.

there must be times when commuter trains are stood around at weekend that could be used on leisure based services at weekends. The complicated structure of the industry stops this. Under one bigger company, stock could be utilised more efficiently. Now you could have TOC A train, full and standing, passing sidings full of idle trains belonging to TOC B.

This assumes that the staff of TOC A are trained on the trains of TOC B, while the staff of TOC B will almost certainly not be trained on the routes of TOC A.

It would need some joined up thinking and cooperation. That's not the way of our railway world today.

Easy to bemoan the lack of "joined up thinking", but what's the alternative?

Take the MML as an example. You want to give EMT the flexibility of using XC Voyagers and XC the flexibility of using EMT Meridians? So you need to ensure that Voyagers are cleared to St Pancras and Meridians are cleared to Edinburgh/ Plymouth etc.

That's just a one-off expense, but we may need to take some stock out of service for a few days to ensure that it doesn't hit platforms/ bridges etc (regardless of how similar it may appear to existing stock cleared for that line).

Then you have to ensure that a certain percentage of EMT and XC staff (drivers and guards) spend sufficient time training on the "foreign" stock each year. If a driver costs the company around a thousand pounds a week (including pension contributions and Employer NI conts) then how many driver days do you want to spend to ensure traction knowledge on "foreign" units? Then there's your Guard costs...

Are the various depots going to be okay? e.g. fuelling at Craigentinny for Meridians?

(I've used XC and EMT as an example, since they both operate self powered 125mph units, to avoid arguments about the point of training long distance TOCs on "commuter" units that would be too slow to operate long distance services, or the fact that "commuter" units spare at the weekend are electric whilst "leisure based services" are often to unelectrified places.

With new franchises usually equals new investment but it leads to a feast tyo famine approach.

Look at Anglia. There will be new trains and new services by 2020 / 2021 but after that I doubt there will be (much) new investment as there isn't a lot time to get a return on it.

There won't be much need for new investment once they've got a stock of 100% brand new trains though, will there?

And yet, in 1990, when the wires came down on the ECML at Peterborough, we were sent down the MML instead.

Yes, passenger numbers were lower, yes station usage was lower and lines were less intensively used, but there was still operational flexibility then that could not be replicated now.

It's perhaps a question for others to decide as to whether it's the operating structure or the infrastructure that would prevent it from happening in future, and whether new but incompatible/captive investment is the best route to long term network resilience.

In those days I think the MML had a service every ninety minutes to Nottingham and one every ninety minutes to Sheffield - I could be wrong - I can't remember the "Thameslink" frequencies - certainly a far cry from the days of thirteen/ hour on the line to St Albans or five/ hour as far as Market Harborough or four/ hour as far as East Midlands Parkway.

Plus, in those days, the off peak ECML service would have been about three trains an hour as far as Doncaster (one to Leeds, one to Newcastle, one to Edinburgh)? Now you can have six or seven as far as Doncaster (including Open Access).

There are still ECML diversions nowadays of course - though it obviously tends to be via Lincoln instead - plus Carlisle and occasionally the Durham Coast.

There's then the question of how much you spend and how much spare capacity for diversionary capacity (when we could do with focussing investment on where it will be a benefit fifty two weeks a year).

 

[randyrippley]

Easy to bemoan the lack of "joined up thinking", but what's the alternative?

Take the MML as an example. You want to give EMT the flexibility of using XC Voyagers and XC the flexibility of using EMT Meridians? So you need to ensure that Voyagers are cleared to St Pancras and Meridians are cleared to Edinburgh/ Plymouth etc.

whats wrong there is the absence of real strategic purchasing for the whole rail network. The problem is that EMT and XC obtained different incompatible designs of train, where they would have been better off with the same, interchangeable model. We have a myriad of different designs/classes/subclasses each with their own training requirements. "Joined up thinking" would have restricted this to a handful of national universal designs allowing universal use and standardized staff training across all TOCs

 

[The Ham]

In those days I think the MML had a service every ninety minutes to Nottingham and one every ninety minutes to Sheffield - I could be wrong - I can't remember the "Thameslink" frequencies - certainly a far cry from the days of thirteen/ hour on the line to St Albans or five/ hour as far as Market Harborough or four/ hour as far as East Midlands Parkway.

Plus, in those days, the off peak ECML service would have been about three trains an hour as far as Doncaster (one to Leeds, one to Newcastle, one to Edinburgh)? Now you can have six or seven as far as Doncaster (including Open Access).

There are still ECML diversions nowadays of course - though it obviously tends to be via Lincoln instead - plus Carlisle and occasionally the Durham Coast.

There's then the question of how much you spend and how much spare capacity for diversionary capacity (when we could do with focussing investment on where it will be a benefit fifty two weeks a year).

Quite, also now when there is disruption operators will announce that tickets are being accepted on other routes, which given the improved frequencies means that is a viable option when before it may not have been.

 

[najaB]

whats wrong there is the absence of real strategic purchasing for the whole rail network.

As it always has been, and, I suspect, always will.

 

[coppercapped]

whats wrong there is the absence of real strategic purchasing for the whole rail network. The problem is that EMT and XC obtained different incompatible designs of train, where they would have been better off with the same, interchangeable model. We have a myriad of different designs/classes/subclasses each with their own training requirements. "Joined up thinking" would have restricted this to a handful of national universal designs allowing universal use and standardized staff training across all TOCs

Oh dear, this old chestnut again.

Just in the realm of rolling stock, how many 'BR Standard' designs were there?

Mark 1 coaches came in two body lengths and many styles, from doors to each compartment to Brake Composites. Couplings were screw, for the 57ft coaches, and drophead buckeyes for the 64ft stock. They were mounted on BR1 'standard' bogies, some variants of this bogies, then Commonwealth bogies and finally B4 bogies which went through several iterations. The earlier bogies used 3ft 6in wheels and the B4's used 3ft wheels. Earlier coaches were vacuum braked and steam heated and the later ones air-braked and electrically heated.

Ah, we have got an idea to make the trains lighter and more efficient so we'll call into existence the Mark 2 coach which will be the new 'BR standard'...

And so on and so forth.

And the reason for the changes? Things move on - people find better ways to do things or the outside world changes. Nothing anywhere, nothing ever is fixed in aspic. If it is fixed then it is on its way to oblivion.

 

[yorksrob]

To be fair to BR, four marks of rolling stock between 1950 and 1990 doesn't strike me as particularly extravagant, given one would expect some hefty advances in design over such a period.

 

[najaB]

To be fair to BR, four marks of rolling stock between 1950 and 1990 doesn't strike me as particularly extravagant...

That's ignoring the sub-marks and regional variations - many of which were incompatible with each other. And coaches are *much* easier to interwork than MUs.

 

[keith1879]

whats wrong there is the absence of real strategic purchasing for the whole rail network. The problem is that EMT and XC obtained different incompatible designs of train, where they would have been better off with the same, interchangeable model. We have a myriad of different designs/classes/subclasses each with their own training requirements. "Joined up thinking" would have restricted this to a handful of national universal designs allowing universal use and standardized staff training across all TOCs

Any organisation will acquire assets that seem particularly suited to its requirements .....and why not? Why should a TOC and it's passengers have a less than optimal train for 360 days of the year just so that it might fulfil some other purpose on a very occasional basis?

 

[Ianigsy]

My own feeling based on 20 years travelling between Merseyside and Leeds and points in between is as follows:

-The shift to shorter formations running more frequently attracts people to rail because you can advertise a turn up and go service, but reduces the number of paths and increases crewing costs
-A combination of urban traffic congestion, petrol costs and white flight making it more attractive to live 10-20 miles away from work and commute by rail rather than road (either bus or car)
-A funding model which discourages the stock leasing companies and franchise holders from taking a commercial risk on stock
-Reluctance of TOCs to pay the additional track access charges to lengthen trains to match demand when the stock is available (the "having to stand while units are in the sidings" effect probably familiar to many people who've travelled TPE past Ardwick depot at some point!).

 

[najaB]

-Reluctance of TOCs to pay the additional track access charges to lengthen trains to match demand when the stock is available...

I don't know if that is big of a factor as track access charges are literally pennies per mile per vehicle.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

-A funding model which discourages the stock leasing companies and franchise holders from taking a commercial risk on stock

This is easily the most significant factor. At privatisation it was realised that separate ownership of trains with TOCs leasing them was the most effective way of allowing franchises to change hands while keeping trains in place to allow operations to continue more or less unchanged. The model was seen to be that which exists in aviation but failed to recognise that part of that model includes lessors having a variable number of spares not being used by anyone, sometimes for lengthy periods. With only three ROSCOs to begin with there was never any real competition in the train leasing market leading to inflated rates. In fact the government willingly created the situation because it wasn't sure that anyone would be interested otherwise!

The fact the new Greater Anglia franchise will lead to a complete fleet renewal and subsequent glut of trains with no homes may well be a warning shot to the ROSCOs to move on from the relatively easy profit they have enjoyed up to now.

-Reluctance of TOCs to pay the additional track access charges to lengthen trains to match demand when the stock is available (the "having to stand while units are in the sidings" effect probably familiar to many people who've travelled TPE past Ardwick depot at some point!).

The combination of gradually extended timetable day and reduction in number of maintenance depots requiring ecs moves to allow overnight maintenance is making it more necessary to schedule daytime depot work on a scale not seen previously. Some of those "units in the sidings" are decidedly unavailable for service due to the above. Bottom line is that fleets are stretched and by design!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Agreed.

So what did they do when growth stalled in 1990, income dropped and the budgets had to be met?

That's right, scrap more trains and put up fares!

Interesting. Do you happen to have a source or link that provides more info about that?

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting. Do you happen to have a source or link that provides more info about that?

Chris Green's book on the history of Network South East gives a useful summary.

 

[Dr Hoo]

As the above question is still 'hanging' it is worth mentioning that a quick skim of Modern Railways for 1990 includes stories of how the planned 15% fare increase due in January was pared back to a mere 11% and delayed until February due to political 'interest' although some InterCity seasons did go up by 15%.
A summary of fleet changes includes net withdrawal of quite a few slam door EMUs on Network SouthEast.
Plans for brand new NSE DMUs for Waterloo to Exeter were switched to taking part of the Provincial Class 158 order, further tightening Provincial's stock provision.
As somebody who worked through that era I can confirm that Bald Rick has it exactly right.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Chris Green's book on the history of Network South East gives a useful summary.

Thanks! I shall add that to my (rather long) reading to-do list

 

[The Ham]

It depends on how far you take the industry is "taking" money from the government.

At a HMRC pays moneyto DfT to pay to NR, TOCs, etc. and they pay it back, then the industry costs the country.

However if you then look at the amount of tax that the companies pay (including staff tax deductions) then I am lead to believe that it is broadly balanced.

Following from the above I have found some statistics:

The amount of government support is £4.8bn
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/18842/rail-finance-statistical-release-2014-15.pdf

Net government support to the rail industry totalled £4.8 billion in 2014-15, down 9.3% compared to last year. The government has received a net payment from train operating companies (TOCs) in each of the last five years, receiving £802 million in 2014-15, equivalent to 1.3p for every passenger kilometre travelled.

The amount of tax paid is £4bn
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/18842/rail-finance-statistical-release-2014-15.pdf

The railway and its supply chain now supports 216,000 jobs nationwide and pays up to £4 billion in tax to the public purse, boosting the UK’s productivity by £10 billion a year.

Which is simple terms means that the railways cost the government £800 million per year. However as the £4.8bn of costs includes the £1.1bn for Crossrail then the government would be making a profit from the railways of £300 million if it wasn't paying for Crossrail.

Going forward there is a chance that (even if another rail project takes the £1.1bn per year of funding that Crossrail is currently using) the £800 million per year figure will fall as more passengers use the railways and more new trains are being built in the UK or at the very least more British components are used in their construction.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

To be fair to BR, four marks of rolling stock between 1950 and 1990 doesn't strike me as particularly extravagant, given one would expect some hefty advances in design over such a period.

aothough arguably the differences between the first and last sub types of Mk2 are substantial ...

 

[mrcheek]

havent read the whole thread, but to answer the question at the start:

Because privatisation has been such a success that passenger nubmers have ballooned since it happened, after years of decline under state control of the railway network

 

[yorksrob]

aothough arguably the differences between the first and last sub types of Mk2 are substantial ...

True - they did straddle the move to air-con in particular. Still, it's notable that they managed to incorporate such an update in the same basic body type.

 

[Class 170101]

The combination of gradually extended timetable day and reduction in number of maintenance depots requiring ecs moves to allow overnight maintenance is making it more necessary to schedule daytime depot work on a scale not seen previously. Some of those "units in the sidings" are decidedly unavailable for service due to the above. Bottom line is that fleets are stretched and by design!

Some franchises are actually better having daytime maintenance. Depots in London like Hornsey, Ilford, Old Oak Common are better off maintaining units between the peaks when the capacity isn't needed (the commuters are at work) rather than at night simply because the units overnight are stabled in the 'countryside' where people live.

 

[bramling]

Some franchises are actually better having daytime maintenance. Depots in London like Hornsey, Ilford, Old Oak Common are better off maintaining units between the peaks when the capacity isn't needed (the commuters are at work) rather than at night simply because the units overnight are stabled in the 'countryside' where people live.

Great Northern works rather well on this concept. The outer-suburban units tend to stable at the country end (Peterborough, Cambridge, Letchworth, Kings Lynn), with only a small handful spending the night at Hornsey. Many units then stable between the peaks at Hornsey. During the day a small handful stable at Welwyn, and even less at Cambridge -- the diagrams are arranged so these are normally the last to stable (as late as 1100), and the earliest to come out again (from 1400ish). By contrast many 313s stable at Hornsey overnight - which must give Hornsey a pretty constant flow of work. The whole arrangement must save a lot of ECS mileage.