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?