McNulty: Train services should be axed to bring down cost of railways

[87015]

I wonder what the subsidy there is on the continent of whom McNumpty is singing their praises? Privatisation has comprehensively been shown not to work, don't renew the franchises and let them come back into State ownership.

Totally agree. It is very sad to see some European countries going down the same road. At least for now abroad the subsidy is largely kept within the industry which is run as a public service - not millions of it dissapearing into the pockets of Stagecoach, First or whatever bucnh of bandits is in charge this week....

Northern made a reported £30m profit last year - what good that money could do if it was re-invested year in, year out. Even if it is not reinvested and just goes back to the DfT in lowering the subsidy it puts the industry in a stronger position with the treasury.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm sure Blaenau would campaign against closure, but most local residents have 'voted with their feet' already. Having no direct rail link would put Blaenau in the same category as Denbigh, Ruthin, Mold, Rhuddlan, Dolgellau etc etc. On that basis it's hard to argue that the raillink has allowed Blaenau to out-perform those other towns!

If it lost its rail link I suspect it would still suffer a decline relative to its status quo as a result.

 

[starrymarkb]

Totally agree. It is very sad to see some European countries going down the same road. At least for now abroad the subsidy is largely kept within the industry which is run as a public service - not millions of it dissapearing into the pockets of Stagecoach, First or whatever bucnh of bandits is in charge this week....

Northern made a reported £30m profit last year - what good that money could do if it was re-invested year in, year out.

You can make privatised services be run as public services. In Germany the Lander can bring in private contractors for regional services on a line or network basis if they are unhappy with the service DB provide. Private company/DB puts in a bid and the best is chosen. Fares are set by the region and go to the regional authority and strict service requirements are imposed.

In Lille the transport system is run by Transpole (owned by Kelios) under a similar set up.

The UK is used as an example of what not to do

 

[NY Yankee]

Railways are not meant to make a profit. They're meant to serve people. Very few rail services actually make a profit. If a route has trains with empty carriages then it should be axed. However, if a route has high ridership then it should stay, regardless of its profitability.

 

[SS4]

Railways are not meant to make a profit. They're meant to serve people. Very few rail services actually make a profit. If a route has trains with empty carriages then it should be axed. However, if a route has high ridership then it should stay, regardless of its profitability.

You'd have to be wary of closure by stealth. A line that is getting 1tph is more likely to be empty than one which gets 6tph because you can't turn up and go.

If only our government would realise that public services were never meant to make profit and so you cannot apply private sector practices to it.

 

[tbtc]

It's quite simple.
The railways have been largely protected from the public sector cuts over the past few years, by the ORR/NR funding formulae and franchise agreements.
The Treasury now wants cuts in the subsidy to the railways over the next control period (CP5 - 2014-19).
Just guessing they want something like 20% cuts in subsidy, where would you cut?

References to McNumpty and DafT are just ignorant. There is a serious problem here.
The target will probably be low-utilisation rural/regional services (with the highest subsidy per passenger-mile).
GW and Northern/TPE will be among the first franchises to have to address this problem as they come up for renewal.

Wise words.

The kneejerk name calling doesn't help anyone here. Rightly or wrongly we are in a time of Government cutbacks. Blame bankers, blame Europe, blame whoever, but here in South Yorkshire we are seeing essential things like fire stations closing due to cutbacks, thousands , libraries closing, crumbling schools not being rebuilt...

...in this economic climate is it wrong to consider that some cutbacks could be made to a railway that costs BILLIONS a year?

Bear in mind that this is a railway that has seen huge investment agreed/ maintained in the last five years whilst vital public services are getting cut (the Governments have found money to electrify hundreds of miles of lines, to build Crossrail, to build HS2, to continue Thameslink) - it's amazing to think how well the railway has fared in terms of investment in times of cuts elsewhere.

For example, Arriva Trains Wales needs a subsidy of 26p per passenger per mile. Since some routes in the populated parts of Wales will be profitable/ break even, that suggests that some passengers on off peak services in rural parts of Wales are costing the taxpayer significantly more just to travel a mile.

At a time when 90% of NHS trusts are having to hold back on hip, knee and cataract operations, it's amazing that the railway hasn't seen big cuts already tbh.

As a example, at Station A if a lightbulb needs replacing it costs a fortune to get fixed!

This is because the fault desk people charge £££ just for handling the fault, then the engineers charge £££ to come out before charging £££ to carry out the work needed and people wonder why the railway in certain areas is so inefficient? :roll:

I remember being told once that a fault because of the way it was faulted ended up costing a small fortune as the fault desk charged for handling the fault as a emergency call out resulting in the engineer charging just for attending the station before returning the following morning to complete the job.

So to answer your question tbtc, any fault not matter how small isn't exactly inexpensive!

I imagine it goes something like this. Station member of staff reports lightbulb is out of action. Station manager / TOC head of resources inform Network Rail liason for said station / area. Network Rail liason informs NR Resources, Resources contacts contractor, contractor sends out replacement team. Team need a risk assessment so Health & Safety Rep for station is needed on site.

Of course, that's assuming the lightbulb type is in stock and/or it's within working hours.

I think the going rate is about £100 - 250 to change a strip light bulb in a booking office. (according to the railnews anyway)

Cheers for the answers - I think that there are savings to be made from the inefficient way that these kind of simple problems cannot be resolved easily, there are savings to be made from the ROSCOs, there are a lot of savings that could be made without cutting passenger services. But all those lightbulbs are adding up and costing us a lot of money.

I suppose you could argue that the railway is really efficient as you can buy a open return from Edinburgh to London for the price of replacing a couple of light bulbs?

 

[ainsworth74]

As a start it might be prudent to look at the South, where the number of 8 / 10 car trains carting around fresh air never ceases to amaze me - especially where many similar services in the North are formed of 2 or 3 coaches and the passengers are struggling for air!

This reminds of a point that was quietly raised in a recent DfT document (think it might have been the ticketing consultation) that commuters have some of the lowest fares overall (big lump sum but low per journey cost) yet they cost the most for the railway to cater for in terms of infrastructure and yet that very expensive infrastructure is only used for maybe four or five hours a day.

 

[Zoe]

This reminds of a point that was quietly raised in a recent DfT document (think it might have been the ticketing consultation) that commuters have some of the lowest fares overall (big lump sum but low per journey cost) yet they cost the most for the railway to cater for in terms of infrastructure and yet that very expensive infrastructure is only used for maybe four or five hours a day.

That's the same for most forms of transport though. Roads have to cope with peak time traffic, resulting in capacity not fully used off peak and you can end up with double decker buses running off peak with only a handful of people on them but still needed on the route as they are full and standing at peak times.

 

[michael769]

This reminds of a point that was quietly raised in a recent DfT document (think it might have been the ticketing consultation) that commuters have some of the lowest fares overall (big lump sum but low per journey cost) yet they cost the most for the railway to cater for in terms of infrastructure and yet that very expensive infrastructure is only used for maybe four or five hours a day.

The cost per passenger of a full train will be less than an near empty one. One could make the argument that those who benefit from running a near empty train should meet the proportionately higher per passenger cost of running that service, rather than being subsidised by commuters.

I suspect the DfTs real agenda is that they know that commuters have less alternatives and thus are less likely to leave if they get bilked for more cash - and of course there are so many more commuters that said bilking will raise so much more money....

 

[yorksrob]

The cost per passenger of a full train will be less than an near empty one. One could make the argument that those who benefit from running a near empty train should meet the proportionately higher per passenger cost of running that service, rather than being subsidised by commuters.

I think the point is that commuter patterns in the South East tend to require so many very long trains travelling in the right direction at the right time to meet demand, there is a large contrast with services running in the opposite direction which are far in excess of the capacity required (but necessary just to get the various units in the right place). These commuters are subsidising a large number of empty seats on their own routes and in their own trains.

 

[Clip]

I imagine it goes something like this. Station member of staff reports lightbulb is out of action. Station manager / TOC head of resources inform Network Rail liason for said station / area. Network Rail liason informs NR Resources, Resources contacts contractor, contractor sends out replacement team. Team need a risk assessment so Health & Safety Rep for station is needed on site.

Of course, that's assuming the lightbulb type is in stock and/or it's within working hours.

You imagine or you know?

Just because NR own the stations does not mean that they get the call out for every minor little issue.

I certainly know for the TOC I work for now and the one previously that it would get faulted and then the maintanence team for said TOC would let you know when they would come out and fix the fault. And in the case of lighting they would just pick one up form the wholesalers on the way if they didnt have any in stock.

 

[Michael.Y]

You imagine or you know?

Just because NR own the stations does not mean that they get the call out for every minor little issue.

I certainly know for the TOC I work for now and the one previously that it would get faulted and then the maintanence team for said TOC would let you know when they would come out and fix the fault. And in the case of lighting they would just pick one up form the wholesalers on the way if they didnt have any in stock.

I imagine. And partly satirise.

 

[Greenback]

The most depressing thing of all is that McNulty seems unable to grasp that the structure introduced with privatisation is at least partly responsible for the costs of running the railway. As a result he is unable to see beyond cutting staff or trains as the onyl way to save money and reduce costs.

 

[Chris125]

Its worth watching the TSC evidence this morning - both David Higgins of NR and Tim O'Toole of the RDG put in strong performances, O'Toole in particular being happy to point out where McNumpty was wrong such as all the talk of 'train utilisation' which simply doesnt bear scrutiny.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=10969

Chris

 

[Yew]

Unfortunately, it is quite easy to manipulate statistical analysis to draw the conclusions that the commisioning authority with you to draw.

 

[HH]

I imagine it goes something like this. Station member of staff reports lightbulb is out of action. Station manager / TOC head of resources inform Network Rail liason for said station / area. Network Rail liason informs NR Resources, Resources contacts contractor, contractor sends out replacement team. Team need a risk assessment so Health & Safety Rep for station is needed on site.

Of course, that's assuming the lightbulb type is in stock and/or it's within working hours.

Why bother with facts, when you can give prejudice a free reign?

NR have nothing to do with light bulbs, and what really happens is:
1. Member of staff calls property help line
2. Property help line arranges for light bulb to be replaced
3. Contractor sends out properly accredited repair person

That's if it wasn't already replaced as part of preventative maintenance.

 

[Monty]

Railways are not meant to make a profit. They're meant to serve people. Very few rail services actually make a profit. If a route has trains with empty carriages then it should be axed. However, if a route has high ridership then it should stay, regardless of its profitability.

With respect the sole reason railways existed was to make a buck, infact serving the people had nothing to do with it freight is what the railways were truely built for (in the beginning anyway). The vast majority of the worlds network was built with private money and not state funds.

My opinion is that there is nothing inherently wrong in private companies running railways, the problem is this fragmented system we have in this country. Seriously if any of you owned a company that held a rail franchise for a finite amount of time, while having to pay vast sums of money to the state with no guarantee of an extension. You would milk that franchise for every penny it's worth, you would have no motivation whatsoever to invest in rolling stock that is no even your own and you have very little say in it's specification. Infact the only companies who have invested modrately are those with long franchises.

What needs to happen is we need to see a return of British Rail in some form or the complete selling off and let the companies manage the services, the stock and the track. That way companies may actually want to invest in something that is actually theirs.

 

[jon0844]

I think the report is essentially true, but is missing the point. I now travel on the train at off-peak times usually, and many of the trains into London are near empty.

However, if the trains were less frequent then I can see that some people would be put off. It's like when the local bus was going to be curtailed in the evening and weekends. Fine to save money, except that with the last bus at around 7pm, I'd rarely get to use it to come home. Therefore, I'd not take the bus to the station in the morning either - as I'd be stuck. I'd either cycle or more likely drive.

And the problem with all of that stock being needed to run the peak service then sitting idle all day is totally true. But, the Government should be seriously looking at ways to encourage employers to stagger working hours. More flexi-time, more flexible working hours. Even though not everyone could alter from 9-5, many could. Let's get more people on the off peak trains, not cut them!

 

[HSTEd]

Wouldn't it be better to buy a second HOOP train and start work on the Midland Main line electrification project immediately.

Its supposed to have that financial case so should result in a net reduction in subsidy right?

EDIT:
And then buy the Derby works from Bombardier and start constructing a continuous stream of new vehicles to a standard design á la Networker for all operations below 110mph, say 200 or so a year. This should permit a reduction in costs by providing a constant stream of new vehicles which is the most efficient way to use the production capacity available, rather than the stop-start which typifies the current system.

 

[PhilipW]

This article from The Telegraph is worth a read:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...cost-of-railways-says-government-adviser.html

I very rarely agree with Bob Crowe but this time I think his points here are very true.

 

[Oswyntail]

McNulty appears to follow the traditional path of cutting to reduce loss. A far better approach would be to examine the cause of the loss, and address it. For instance, Brigg-Gainsborough has been mentioned, and, quite rightly, it has been pointed out that the local population are probably greatly road users, and so the rail service is not popular. So axe it? Or make it more attractive? I do not know what would do that - but that is the point. Solutions in such cases can only come from .local knowledge, and local initiatives, not a "one size fits all" approach to local lines. This, in turn, needs flexibility and imagination, not just from owners or management, but from the staff on the ground. If the rulebook is the only reason a working innovation cannot be implemented, rewrite the rulebook, just as a business model should be changed.

 

[NSEFAN]

"I believe we have the highest frequency of any railways in Europe," he told the Transport Select Committee at Westminster.

"We have a high frequency, but a low load factor. We are running trains more frequently, but carrying fewer people."

I doubt Sir McNulty has used the rural services in, say, France. It is abysmal, with many lines seeing only a handful of trains per day. As a consequence fewer people use the service. I suspect the only reason it still exists is because it is financially proped up by the French government. I would much rather a regular service be maintained in the UK in order to make sure the trains become an attractive alternative to the car.

As Operation Princess demonstrated, a better service pattern = more attractive service = more custom. This concept also holds true for branchlines, as shown by the Truro-Falmouth branch 2 tph scheme. BR tried removing services to save money on rural lines, and ended up killing a lot of their business.

If we want to go back to the bad old days of managed decline, then we should by all means follow McNulty's advice. :roll:

 

[ivanhoe]

This is an important statement by McNulty. Nobody wants to see cuts but the railways by and large have been immune from Government cuts. This is the opening salvo in what could be a defining period for the railways. The next round of franchises will tell us more of Government thinking. I do fear for significant parts of Northern Rail.

 

[HSTEd]

The reason for massively escalating costs is that everything is contracted out now and petty cash is long since a thing of the past.
The contracts are mostly written to cause enormous expense to the taxpayer at every opportunity possible and the civil service is incredibly naive when they are written, effectively having rings run around them by the contractors.

To many people believe that idea that private sector companies exist to provide a service and not to make money by any and all means at their disposal.

 

[anthony263]

Wouldn't it be better to buy a second HOOP train and start work on the Midland Main line electrification project immediately.
QUOTE]

The 2nd HOOP train if ordered now could easily get to work on the Cardiff Valley Lines and get it finished before 2019 and then quickly get to work on the midland mainline.

Some services on the Cardiff Valley lines are nearly empty off peak such as those leaving Cardiff heading up towards Rhymney however they are pack on their way back into Cardiff so it would be a big no no to cut them.

Besides I would to hope the WG would look to reduce costs without cuttting services. I would like to hope the Wales franchise will require less subsidy when it is re-let

 

[HSTEd]

The 2nd HOOP train if ordered now could easily get to work on the Cardiff Valley Lines and get it finished before 2019 and then quickly get to work on the midland mainline.

The objective is to save money, thus the Midland Main Line has to come first as it is the one with the positive business case.
Pacer replacement will have to wait in the current economic climate (by granting an exception as I believe the secretary of state for transport can do if he/she wishes).

 

[Johnnie2Sheds]

NO politician wants railways, even though some pretend to be "right on" about them. If people can turn up, pay for the ticket and use the service only when they need it that wont raise any money for them to **** up the wall on wars/EU etc. They want you to buy road transport. So they can tax and insure you to the hilt and sting you for credit on buying the damn thing. Think about it, how much do you pay to sit in traffic jams every year?. Most of us are stupid enough to go along with it. The Oil companies and Financial institutions who run this and most other countries put in place muppets like the aforementoned, to drip feed the public with propaganda. Not just about railways, but I guess that is quite a bugbear with the "green" thing going round at the moment, too many people might object to closures. They would like to bulldoze the lot, then we would HAVE to buy a car.

If they can close the ex-Great Central from passenger surveys done on Sunday morning, nothing is safe. They will use any trick to make their case.

You know what? We will all sit and watch them AGAIN

Ford Zodiac anyone?

 

[northwichcat]

GW and Northern/TPE will be among the first franchises to have to address this problem as they come up for renewal.

The number of off-peak Manchester Airport express services is very high compared to European countries but on the whole off-peak services in the North are low compared to European countries. Also European countries don't tend to use trains as small as 142s and 153s except on very high frequency services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is an important statement by McNulty. Nobody wants to see cuts but the railways by and large have been immune from Government cuts.

Really? There was me thinking that when the Coalition got in they looked at how many extra carriages the previous government had proposed, laughed and immediately reduced them.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Its worth watching the TSC evidence this morning - both David Higgins of NR and Tim O'Toole of the RDG put in strong performances, O'Toole in particular being happy to point out where McNumpty was wrong such as all the talk of 'train utilisation' which simply doesnt bear scrutiny.
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=10969
Chris

Should be mandatory viewing.
All sides of the issue explored in a very open way.
You have to hope Messrs Higgins and O'Toole can find relatively painless ways to reduce the costs.

Did David Higgins just announce electrification of the Paisley Canal line?
This was in the context of reducing electrification project costs by using neutral sections under bridges on a low speed line, rather than having to raise them.
"By December" was mentioned. Not sure what this means.

 

[SS4]

And the problem with all of that stock being needed to run the peak service then sitting idle all day is totally true. But, the Government should be seriously looking at ways to encourage employers to stagger working hours. More flexi-time, more flexible working hours. Even though not everyone could alter from 9-5, many could. Let's get more people on the off peak trains, not cut them!

That would be the sensible solution although TOCs would lose a portion of revenue from the Anytime service. Either that or petition the government to decrease off-peak hours. I really don't think there are that many jobs which would require 9-5 or even fixed hours, I'd go as far as to say that flexi-time isn't more widespread is because many of the companies that could implement it would rather not either through inertia or ignorance.

Flexi-time is one of the things I'd like to see more of, especially on a Monday to Friday and it's not like an employer can't demand core hours anyway. I also reckon it would make employees happier and more motivated knowing they can leave an hour early for the dentist or use it to supplement their holiday.

I very rarely agree with Bob Crowe but this time I think his points here are very true.

Who? Are you getting confused with Bob Crow?