"Rail’s growth agenda evaporates as Treasury takes control"

[NotATrainspott]

So this leaves the only other large component of costs to make savings with which is staff. Reducing industry labour costs is without a shadow of a doubt a priority. Unfortunately as the current set of disputes shows it's going to hurt bad.

This is probably going to be the biggest thing. Strikes don't have anywhere near as much power today. Strikes prevent journeys being done, and it used to be that journeys not being done meant work couldn't happen. The pressure to resolve the strike would come from the industries whose workforces depend on rail, and these industries (e.g. banking and high-end services) are very politically powerful. This link is now broken. Even if rail passenger numbers go back up again, these passenger numbers will be softer. People just won't try to travel if the trains don't run.

I can definitely see the Treasury insisting on mass rollouts of DOO (maybe with the Strathclyde model for ticket conductors on some routes) now. Train driving is also probably going to take a big hit. Even without a move to ATO or UTO, there are still ways that technology can reduce the barrier to entry to be a train driver on a route and thus weaken bargaining power.

 

[al78]

I'm not sure I agree with you here. For a government to be 'populist' it would need to enact policies 'in favour of populist opinion'. Corbyn is a left-wing populist and his plan to bring back BR could be considered populist as a renationalised railway rates high in popular opinion. Similarly, Cameron's splurge in railway spending back in the early '10s was certainly long-term and to an extent populist. National infrastructure schemes, to an extent, are inherently populist, and no one was going to disagree with electrifying the WCML.

This plan the Government has for the railways is nowhere near populist. In fact, its plain, old, 'small c' Conservativism. "Watching the pennies" is the inverse of populism and just shows that the Tories' strange vendetta it has had against the railways since the end of the War, bar the Cameron government, is still alive and kicking.

I don't agree that "watching the pennies" is the inverse of populism. Brexit was based on populism, part of which was about the money we give to the EU, hence the big propaganda piece on the side of a bus.

 

[yorksrob]

Cuts are only painful if they're not needed. There's slack to now remove on railways.
Government won't see any significant affect on vote numbers since only a small % use trains - and the majority using cars will probably think it's a good idea anyway.

That's fine, so long as they just cut the slack.

The problem is whether thinking out peak commuter services for example, which can cope with one less train an hour, will raise the sort of money the government envisage !

 

[al78]

I disagree with the definition of populism in use here. To me there's an additional quality necessary to just being "in popular opinion" which is that they make simple answers to complex problems. Usually this is by identifying a problem and then setting up a culprit who becomes a popular target despite ultimately not being responsible - such as the European Union, the "Liberal Elites", or religious or ethnic groups who become targets. Populism is about something more than popular policy.

Spot on. Populism is one of the more extreme examples of appeal to emotion over logic and evidence.

Railways are not an election issue generally. The economy and health tend to be way more important.

And the elderly.

 

[Annetts key]

If you remove only a small number of train services, this will not save very much in terms of infrastructure costs or staff costs.

Especially if the timetable changes put off some of your existing passengers, some of which may now have the option of working from home…

Remember, the majority of the infrastructure maintenance costs are not directly linked to the number of trains that use the line. So cutting services does not do anything good for Network Rail’s income.

 

[Ianno87]

If you remove only a small number of train services, this will not save very much in terms of infrastructure costs or staff costs.

Especially if the timetable changes put off some of your existing passengers, some of which may now have the option of working from home…

Remember, the majority of the infrastructure maintenance costs are not directly linked to the number of trains that use the line. So cutting services does not do anything good for Network Rail’s income.

I think you're only likely to get a proportionate cost reduction if you hit something that generates something of an efficiency along the way.

E.g. I suspect that the withdrawal of Class 365s fit into this box - removal of an entire fleet (essentially a small bespoke sub-fleet for peak hour extra services) and the specific training, maintenance etc costs that go with them.

I suspect there aren't too many other examples along those lines.

 

[Starmill]

If you remove only a small number of train services, this will not save very much in terms of infrastructure costs or staff costs.

Especially if the timetable changes put off some of your existing passengers, some of which may now have the option of working from home…

Remember, the majority of the infrastructure maintenance costs are not directly linked to the number of trains that use the line. So cutting services does not do anything good for Network Rail’s income.

This is why the impetus is to cut cost without cutting service levels, as I feel like I have posted ad infinitum. The trouble is that there's not a particularly constructive attitude to do that in the current industrial relations space. So it will probably result in enormous, damaging disputes.

I suspect there aren't too many other examples along those lines.

Final withdrawal of class 313s might be one example. There are as you say not so many, though.

 

[Bald Rick]

Care to elaborate on the very painfully comment? Sometimes your posts appear a little cryptic, maybe deliberately I wonder?

If the revenue doesn't return, the only remaining option is to cut costs. But there's a strong desire to protect the level of service and certainly the safety of the existing operations. Your can't exactly cut the costs of your diesel or electricity, because you just then don't have enough of those. Same goes for things like concrete or rails or signalling components, you just have to pay for them, or not use them.

So this leaves the only other large component of costs to make savings with which is staff. Reducing industry labour costs is without a shadow of a doubt a priority. Unfortunately as the current set of disputes shows it's going to hurt bad.

A decent assessment.

Some of the pain is simply going to be because there are very few railway managers still working in the industry who were managers back in the 80s and 90s when the industry had to very quickly ‘cut its cloth’. And both the contractual and industrial relations environments are very different too.

 

[HSTEd]

Well the river of money was not going to flow forever.

Time to see how this industry can survive with spending restraint, which it hasn't really experienced since privatisation.

The forbidden staffing acronym is now inevitable, and I would expect the rationalisation axe to come out.

It's a pity we've got to the point where the Treasury has the political capital to imposet hese cuts in a way that won't help the railway in the future, but that's what happens when the industry has repeatedly failed to get costs under control on it's own.

 

[Annetts key]

This is why the impetus is to cut cost without cutting service levels, as I feel like I have posted ad infinitum. The trouble is that there's not a particularly constructive attitude to do that in the current industrial relations space. So it will probably result in enormous, damaging disputes.

Well, what happens eventually is anyone’s guess. But the unions and Network Rail are having national level discussions. It’s far to early to tell if these will make any progress.

 

[Starmill]

Well, what happens eventually is anyone’s guess. But the unions and Network Rail are having national level discussions. It’s far to early to tell if these will make any progress.

It might be better off at Network Rail than at TOCs because expectation management has been better. But if trade unions brand the principle of voluntary severance as "outrageous" during a financial crisis, I hate to guess what the RMT view of contract harmonisation or structured pay bands would be.

 

[Class360/1]

This is a rather depressing long read in the Railway Gazette shedding light on why, despite all of the focus on climate change and COP 26 recently, the UK's rail network has been marginalised and was largely ignored in the recent budget in favour of yet another fuel duty freeze, and cutting tax on domestic passenger flights. Under the guise of 'Great British Railways', the Treasury is taking control of the railways, and this article claims that despite the hype and rhetoric, GBR will be micro-managed by the DfT like never before, with the Treasury pulling DfT's strings.

https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/r...rates-as-treasury-takes-control/60218.article

That is depressing. Makes me very concerned about the future of our railways

 

[GRALISTAIR]

That is depressing. Makes me very concerned about the future of our railways

Almost an existential threat. However, I think uproar would result if there were Beeching style closure.

 

[JonathanH]

Almost an existential threat. However, I think uproar would result if there were Beeching style closure.

Yes, although it would be quite difficult to contemplate wholesale closures at the same time as reopening other lines. The cuts need to be more subtle than Beeching style closures.

 

[Annetts key]

It might be better off at Network Rail than at TOCs because expectation management has been better. But if trade unions brand the principle of voluntary severance as "outrageous" during a financial crisis, I hate to guess what the RMT view of contract harmonisation or structured pay bands would be.

The problems with the industry’s current voluntary severance schemes are:

• The offer is being made before the companies have held constructive discussions with the unions.
• How can an organisation let staff go if they are not willing to tell the unions what they want the organisation to look like in the future?
• It’s not a universal scheme, only some groups of staff are eligible for it.
• I don’t know about the TOC scheme, but the NR scheme is not very generous.

Obviously some of the unions are not exactly impressed with this. Hence why the RMT is not in favour of the current scheme.

 

[HSTEd]

• The offer is being made before the companies have held constructive discussions with the unions.
  [*[How can an organisation let staff go if they are not willing to tell the unions what they want the organisation to look like in the future?

It is likely that the measures required will be such that the unions will never accept "meaningful engagement" as having occurred.

The situation is that the measures proposed will involve mashing all the union's red buttons at once.

As an example, if, as seems likely, mass expansion of DOO is proposed, is there any situation where the unions would accept that without massive strikes?

 

[Annetts key]

Do you honestly think DOO is a good idea?
On services that call at stations and halts where there are already no staff at all, or it’s only staffed for part of the day, or where there are no ticket barriers, who is going to sell and check tickets?
Who is going to help those passengers with reduced mobility?
Who is going to take care of them in the event of an incident or accident?

Hence is it hardly surprising that the union that most guards are in is against the idea.

I don’t think DOO is the answer.

Maybe a guard on here can give us an idea of how much money they collect from on board ticket sales?

 

[Starmill]

Do you honestly think DOO is a good idea?
On services that call at stations and halts where there are already no staff at all, or it’s only staffed for part of the day, or where there are no ticket barriers, who is going to sell and check tickets?
Who is going to help those passengers with reduced mobility?
Who is going to take care of them in the event of an incident or accident?

Hence is it hardly surprising that the union that most guards are in is against the idea.

I don’t think DOO is the answer.

Maybe a guard on here can give us an idea of how much money they collect from on board ticket sales?

This is not one for the current thread because we've had this debate here again and again and again and again.

It is likely that the measures required will be such that the unions will never accept "meaningful engagement" as having occurred.

The situation is that the measures proposed will involve mashing all the union's red buttons at once.

As an example, if, as seems likely, mass expansion of DOO is proposed, is there any situation where the unions would accept that without massive strikes?

I agree. Indeed I would like to see some practical ideas from RMT and others as to how they might achieve cost reduction, notwithstanding the fact that they're may well be against cost reduction in principle, as frankly that choice is way, way above any of us.

 

[Annetts key]

Purely from a NR perspective, one suggestion is that has already been made by the RMT is that when new technology or new equipment is introduced, rather than having a contract with the equipment manufacturer to maintain the new equipment, the company should investigate if any of their existing maintenance staff can maintain it. If this is possible, it could be cheaper in the medium and long term.

One of the difficulties that NR have, is track access to maintain the infrastructure. As unassisted lookout systems are no longer permitted / are being phased out, NR have moved to trying to get the work done in T3 possessions or in line blocks. But this means paying the night rate of pay or the weekend rate of pay (which costs more) and staff having to wait until they are granted access before they can do any work. Hence we have pointed out to NR that alternatives need to be investigated. Such as planned (timetabled) ‘white’ space in the timetable during less busy parts of the day, so that staff can take a lineblock at a known time.

If work is to be done in T3 possessions or lineblocks, the planning has to be a lot better than now. A lot of work does not get done due to problems with the planning, or due to lineblocks being refused. Hence has to be replanned in.

Other things that are being investigated are using technology to help with the protection of staff on track in lineblocks to improve safety. It may also be possible to use technology so that they can work during the day in between trains. The RMT is involved with this.

It has also been pointed out to NR that more work on signalling equipment, telecommunications equipment or electrical distribution equipment which is trackside, but not on the track could be done during the day without lineblocks, if the lineside vegetation was cleared from the cess. And the cess was kept clear of scrap. Having more suitable access points would also help.

Other ideas may emerge during the current talks.

But there are no quick fixes.

 

[ainsworth74]

Let's leave the DOO there please. The arguments have been has on many many previous occasions and I see no reason to think that anything new has occurred which would lead to the previous arguments been rendered fundamentally flawed. Therefore it seems all we'd be able to achieve is completely derailing this thread into a bitter slanging match between the usual camps.

 

[43096]

Purely from a NR perspective, one suggestion is that has already been made by the RMT is that when new technology or new equipment is introduced, rather than having a contract with the equipment manufacturer to maintain the new equipment, the company should investigate if any of their existing maintenance staff can maintain it. If this is possible, it could be cheaper in the medium and long term.

One of the difficulties that NR have, is track access to maintain the infrastructure. As unassisted lookout systems are no longer permitted / are being phased out, NR have moved to trying to get the work done in T3 possessions or in line blocks. But this means paying the night rate of pay or the weekend rate of pay (which costs more) and staff having to wait until they are granted access before they can do any work. Hence we have pointed out to NR that alternatives need to be investigated. Such as planned (timetabled) ‘white’ space in the timetable during less busy parts of the day, so that staff can take a lineblock at a known time.

If work is to be done in T3 possessions or lineblocks, the planning has to be a lot better than now. A lot of work does not get done due to problems with the planning, or due to lineblocks being refused. Hence has to be replanned in.

Other things that are being investigated are using technology to help with the protection of staff on track in lineblocks to improve safety. It may also be possible to use technology so that they can work during the day in between trains. The RMT is involved with this.

It has also been pointed out to NR that more work on signalling equipment, telecommunications equipment or electrical distribution equipment which is trackside, but not on the track could be done during the day without lineblocks, if the lineside vegetation was cleared from the cess. And the cess was kept clear of scrap. Having more suitable access points would also help.

Other ideas may emerge during the current talks.

But there are no quick fixes.

With the reduction in commuting, particularly in the South East, maybe it's time to start looking at Monday and Friday daytime engineering work, as those are the quietest days of the week.

 

[dk1]

Let's leave the DOO there please. The arguments have been has on many many previous occasions and I see no reason to think that anything new has occurred which would lead to the previous arguments been rendered fundamentally flawed. Therefore it seems all we'd be able to achieve is completely derailing this thread into a bitter slanging match between the usual camps.

Agreed. Couldn’t have put it better myself.

 

[The Planner]

With the reduction in commuting, particularly in the South East, maybe it's time to start looking at Monday and Friday daytime engineering work, as those are the quietest days of the week.

Already happening.

 

[Starmill]

Already happening.

Not as if 4 hour blocks in the daytime Monday - Thursday were unheard of even before the pandemic either. I can remember various platform extensions that were done in this manner.

 

[tbtc]

Populism is one of the more extreme examples of appeal to emotion over logic and evidence

...and can be seen on lots of the "nationalisation" threads

if trade unions brand the principle of voluntary severance as "outrageous" during a financial crisis, I hate to guess what the RMT view of contract harmonisation or structured pay bands would be

Agreed

The RMT have had things pretty easy for some time, they've been able to squeeze TOCs (because TOCs had built business cases on a certain revenue over a seven year franchise, so couldn't afford to take month long strikes) - trying to play hardball with the Government won't be as easy

During Thatcher and Major's government rail passenger journey numbers were pretty much flat, they started rising in the stats after 1995 and continued rising during Labour's time in government between 1997 and 2010, they have flat-lined from 2015 onward. So I'm not sure how that supports this idea of Thatcher and Major presiding over a golden age of rail travel

I said "apparent golden age" for a reason

Enthusiast consensus seems to involve believing two things:

1. The golden age of railways was between around 1980 and 1995 (when the state-owned BR were revitalising things/ huge investment in NSE/ sectorisation etc)
2. The Tories hate the railways and have an agenda to close them all (they'd bring in Serpell in a heartbeat if they thought that they could get away with it)

I think that the love for this period (that some people have) is more to do with all of the new liveries (and similar painting at stations etc) plus a dogmatic view that "Nationalisation = Good" rather than any evidence that it worked

And the government pushing painful cuts will find itself assessed at the ballot box. Painfully.

You reckon?

90% of the population rarely/never used trains before the pandemic (and passenger numbers are a third lower than they were two years ago)

Your view of how important you think rail will be to people feels a bit like the threads where people speculate if a provincial by-election will see the Government of the day pledge to spend a billion pounds on

More direct governmental control of the Railway (through GBR) means more direct governmental control of railway finances. Well who'd have thought it!

Whilst I am in favour of GBR and don't think the Franchising system serves any useful purpose, I've no idea why people are surprised that quasi-renationalisation would have consequences. People must have short memories. One of the chief arguments for privatisation in the first place was get railway finances more out of short-term political meddling (with the markets, Railtrack's 'credit card with no limit' and long-term franchises being a proxy for investing where investment would achieve the best returns).

As for Evil Populist Tories Hate Railways and only Comrade Corbyn Would Save Us, I'm just going to say that these populist Tories have committed to ending franchising and taking railways under public sector control with a single organisation whose name (and even logo) is effectively a resurrection of the previous state owned railway services; they've committed to spending £100 billion on HS2; they've supported what are effectively bankrupt train operators through Covid; they're throwing money at Local Authorities for transport projects that will necessarily boost railways; electrification programmes whilst stalled are still ongoing; probably more I've forgotten. It doesn't ring true.

Agreed

I'm fairly neutral on nationalisation v privatisation (I'm more interested in what works than having any fiction with a particular model of ownership)

I just don't know what people (who've been demanding nationalisation during the decade plus of austerity that we've had) expected to happen once the Conservatives took over control of the railways (and the franchise commitments could be ripped up)

Graylings fixation on bi-modes has rather set back electrification to an extent, as an example.

Grayling's bi-mode response seems to be a fairly pragmatic way of diverting attention from Network Rail's failure to electrify the GWML on budget/ on time/ all the way to Oxford and Bristol - he extolled the benefits of bi-mode trains because bi-modes turned out to be the saviour of the electrification problems (thank the lord that we didn't go for full electrics like the suggestions for 390s - we'd still be polluting Paddington today if that had been the case)

It’s amazing how dirty & old East Mids 158s come across at Norwich these days

Interesting to hear - it's fascinating how that kind of thing happens and what was once acceptable now seems dirty and old (e.g. I remember my reaction when I was unhappy that an old "high floor' bus was on my local route a few years ago, it made me realise how the more modern "low floor" ones had gone from being a novelty to the expectation) - maybe one day I'll have that kind of reaction at Sheffield Midland when I see one of the few remaining diesel trains through the station - this might take another twenty years or more to happen though!

 

[yorksrob]

...and can be seen on lots of the "nationalisation" threads



Agreed

The RMT have had things pretty easy for some time, they've been able to squeeze TOCs (because TOCs had built business cases on a certain revenue over a seven year franchise, so couldn't afford to take month long strikes) - trying to play hardball with the Government won't be as easy




I said "apparent golden age" for a reason

Enthusiast consensus seems to involve believing two things:

1. The golden age of railways was between around 1980 and 1995 (when the state-owned BR were revitalising things/ huge investment in NSE/ sectorisation etc)
2. The Tories hate the railways and have an agenda to close them all (they'd bring in Serpell in a heartbeat if they thought that they could get away with it)

I think that the love for this period (that some people have) is more to do with all of the new liveries (and similar painting at stations etc) plus a dogmatic view that "Nationalisation = Good" rather than any evidence that it worked



You reckon?

90% of the population rarely/never used trains before the pandemic (and passenger numbers are a third lower than they were two years ago)

Your view of how important you think rail will be to people feels a bit like the threads where people speculate if a provincial by-election will see the Government of the day pledge to spend a billion pounds on



Agreed

I'm fairly neutral on nationalisation v privatisation (I'm more interested in what works than having any fiction with a particular model of ownership)

I just don't know what people (who've been demanding nationalisation during the decade plus of austerity that we've had) expected to happen once the Conservatives took over control of the railways (and the franchise commitments could be ripped up)



Grayling's bi-mode response seems to be a fairly pragmatic way of diverting attention from Network Rail's failure to electrify the GWML on budget/ on time/ all the way to Oxford and Bristol - he extolled the benefits of bi-mode trains because bi-modes turned out to be the saviour of the electrification problems (thank the lord that we didn't go for full electrics like the suggestions for 390s - we'd still be polluting Paddington today if that had been the case)



Interesting to hear - it's fascinating how that kind of thing happens and what was once acceptable now seems dirty and old (e.g. I remember my reaction when I was unhappy that an old "high floor' bus was on my local route a few years ago, it made me realise how the more modern "low floor" ones had gone from being a novelty to the expectation) - maybe one day I'll have that kind of reaction at Sheffield Midland when I see one of the few remaining diesel trains through the station - this might take another twenty years or more to happen though!

This 90% figure that you quote is a figment.

Just because not everyone commutes everyday, doesn't mean that they'd be willing to see the station that they use every so often, close.

 

[David Bullock]

This 90% figure that you quote is a figment.

Just because not everyone commutes everyday, doesn't mean that they'd be willing to see the station that they use every so often, close.

Rail has 10ish percent share as a mode of transport, that is to say that 10pc of all journeys are made by rail, not that 10pc of people in general use rail. It’s an important distinction to make but easy to misinterpret

 

[yorksrob]

Rail has 10ish percent share as a mode of transport, that is to say that 10pc of all journeys are made by rail, not that 10pc of people in general use rail. It’s an important distinction to make but easy to misinterpret

Absolutely.

 

[daodao]

it's time to start looking at Monday and Friday daytime engineering work

Working on lines Monday-Friday 0930-1530 would have the advantages of:

• lesser disruption to working people or schoolchildren who use trains for commuting or leisure
• reduced staff costs because these are not "antisocial hours" attracting premium rates
• daytime nearly all of the year (except late afternoon in Scotland in midwinter), so safer and no need for artificial lighting

 

[dctraindriver]

A decent assessment.

Some of the pain is simply going to be because there are very few railway managers still working in the industry who were managers back in the 80s and 90s when the industry had to very quickly ‘cut its cloth’. And both the contractual and industrial relations environments are very different too.

Thanks for explaining, and yes I can understand your concerns.