Northern rail service increases in July

[peters]

RTT has been updated this week. I hadn't checked it for a bit. Now it shows an incremental increase. 1tph some times of day and 1 train per 2 hours for the middle. A slight improvement on current levels. I'm more curious as to whether Southport to Alderley Edge will be reinstated, even if only every 2 hours.

I don't know specifically about RTT but if it pulls from the same place as National Rail then for the last 3 or 4 weeks it's been showing only a limited number of the missing Mid-Cheshire services being reinstated from 14th September and a full hourly Alderley Edge to Southport daytime service running from 14th September, albeit with a note that train times from 13th September may be subject to change. If Northern's 'new' hybrid trains aren't going to be available that seems a strange decision at the same time they are unable to reinstate an hourly service on Mid-Cheshire and unable to run any Rose Hill Marple services, the last thing they should be doing is running diesel trains carting around fresh air to Alderley Edge!

 

[yorkie]

RTT, OTT, Traksy, NRE etc all obtain their data from the same source. Differences can occur depending on when the latest data is made available on each site, but the source is the same.

Note that just because a service appears in this data does not necessarily mean it is going to run; it is not at all uncommon for changes to be made subsequently, and sites such as Timetablehistory document this (some booking sites provide itineraries with links to the relevant trains on that site, which is handy when a train company deletes a train without warning and staff deny it happened)

If anyone would like to discuss what timetable changes they'd like to see, please use the following thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...like-to-see-made-in-the-coming-months.207145/

 

[Howardh]

Noticed in September Oxford rd > Bolton > > Blackpool qives us a whopping extra 25 minutes in town, leaving at 23h rather than 2235. better than it is now, of course, but is it set in stone that this will actually happen, or can they still take it off?
Thinking now the December timetable is the best hope of anything eturning to normal. So depressed at it all.

 

[yorkie]

...but is it set in stone that this will actually happen, or can they still take it off?...

As above, unless someone has insider knowledge, you cannot assume it will definitely happen

However if you book a ticket in accordance with a particular itinerary, that itinerary is evidence of a contract. If the train does not run, you would have the choice of either taking an earlier or later train as appropriate; if you took a later train and this resulted in a delay of a qualifying length, you would be entitled to claim delay compensation accordingly.

 

[Howardh]

As above, unless someone has insider knowledge, you cannot assume it will definitely happen

However if you book a ticket in accordance with a particular itinerary, that itinerary is evidence of a contract. If the train does not run, you would have the choice of either taking an earlier or later train as appropriate; if you took a later train and this resulted in a delay of a qualifying length, you would be entitled to claim delay compensation accordingly.

Hard to take a later train when it's the last one!!! Thanks for the advice though!

What happens in thsi senario, I buy an advance ticket for London >Bolton for mid-September, expecting the 2300 to run. (so my train leaves London accordingly, allowing me 20 mins at Piccadilly to connect); then later you find that the 2300 is running 30mins earlier with no later train or bustitution; will Avanti accept a free change of time to get an earlier train back? Or am I just stuffed?

 

[Llandudno]

Hard to take a later train when it's the last one!!! Thanks for the advice though!

What happens in thsi senario, I buy an advance ticket for London >Bolton for mid-September, expecting the 2300 to run. (so my train leaves London accordingly, allowing me 20 mins at Piccadilly to connect); then later you find that the 2300 is running 30mins earlier with no later train or bustitution; will Avanti accept a free change of time to get an earlier train back? Or am I just stuffed?

I would be inclined to take a bus or taxi home from Piccadilly and claim delay repay for the cancelled last train, I think you may be onto a winner as it will be calculated from all the way from London and it will part fund your next trip!

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Hard to take a later train when it's the last one!!! Thanks for the advice though!

What happens in thsi senario, I buy an advance ticket for London >Bolton for mid-September, expecting the 2300 to run. (so my train leaves London accordingly, allowing me 20 mins at Piccadilly to connect); then later you find that the 2300 is running 30mins earlier with no later train or bustitution; will Avanti accept a free change of time to get an earlier train back? Or am I just stuffed?

You have the choice of taking an earlier train from London to make sure you catch the last train actually running out of Manchester (which would not explicitly contractually entitle you to delay compensation), or of taking the booked service off London and then asking for alternative transport to be arranged if your booked service from Manchester doesn't exist.

You'd arrange such transport yourself and contact the relevant train company to claim back your reasonable costs of doing so, if they refused to help you. You'd also be entitled to claim delay compensation if you were sufficiently delayed. There would no doubt be difficulties (at least initially) in getting the TOC's customer services to recognise that they can't unilaterally vary the contract.

 

[Howardh]

You have the choice of taking an earlier train from London to make sure you catch the last train actually running out of Manchester (which would not explicitly contractually entitle you to delay compensation), or of taking the booked service off London and then asking for alternative transport to be arranged if your booked service from Manchester doesn't exist.

You'd arrange such transport yourself and contact the relevant train company to claim back your reasonable costs of doing so, if they refused to help you. You'd also be entitled to claim delay compensation if you were sufficiently delayed. There would no doubt be difficulties (at least initially) in getting the TOC's customer services to recognise that they can't unilaterally vary the contract.

Would Avanti accept my specific-train ticket (2000) on an ealier train without question if the intended connection was withdrawn?

 

[Trackman]

Noticed in September Oxford rd > Bolton > > Blackpool qives us a whopping extra 25 minutes in town, leaving at 23h rather than 2235. better than it is now, of course, but is it set in stone that this will actually happen, or can they still take it off?
Thinking now the December timetable is the best hope of anything eturning to normal. So depressed at it all.

I've been looking at the new times in September for when the advances are released.
Last train to Bolton from Picc is 2331 calling at Oxford road at 2334.
If it runs or it will happen is a different matter.
I'm not gambling, it's going to be the 20:00 out of Euston or the 21:00 and hope for the 2331.

Realtime Trains - 2N67 2331 Manchester Piccadilly to Blackpool North

Realtime Trains provides live realtime running information for the Great British railway network using open data.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Trackman]

Would Avanti accept my specific-train ticket (2000) on an ealier train without question if the intended connection was withdrawn?

Try twitter, if not challenged at the barrier find the guard straight away.
If challenged at the barrier.. well.. I think you know the rest.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Bridlington to Hull seems to have extras again today which is a good sign.

 

[jonnyfan]

In August's Modern Railway, there's a quote from an unnamed TOC MD stating it may take 2 years or more before a full timetable is re-introduced, such is the backlog of training and delays to recruitment to replace staff that have left.

In terms of Northern, also in August's Modern Railway, they spoke to the MD who talks about Northern having one of the 'lowest driver to spare cover ratios' of all TOCs - a problem which has persisted for years and years, especially in the West. During pre-covid times, if a driver called in sick, 9 out of 10 times that would mean cancellations of all their work. Imagine now, no new qualified drivers for 4 months plus, and the ones that qualified before covid have been unable to do any route learning for over 4 months (the Mid-Cheshire line, for example, is not a core route, new drivers will not sign this route initially), plus retirements, plus higher rates of absence due to sickness or self-isolation, all means it's impossible to run a full service, especially for Northern who have historically had such little flex in train crew numbers.

Personally, it is better to run a reliable service, even with short-comings to frequencies & starting/finishing times than to run a service that will stretch the current staffing levels to a point where the service becomes unreliable with widespread unplanned cancellations. The full timetable already stretched staffing levels, and we know how reliable that is. Unreliability is not going to grow passenger numbers again.

And it may be unpopular, but cutting back services now, where demand is going to be low for the rest of this coming year to catch up on training and recruitment, to get as much train crew to full route knowledge just makes sense. Then come the new year, drivers can drive more routes, which means nearer to the full timetable can be covered reliably, as the passengers come back (hopefully!)

Just my personal opinion on the whole situation

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

In August's Modern Railway, there's a quote from an unnamed TOC MD stating it may take 2 years or more before a full timetable is re-introduced, such is the backlog of training and delays to recruitment to replace staff that have left.

I imagine this will mostly be referring to those TOCs which were already struggling before the pandemic put a spoke in their figurative wheels - i.e. the likes of ex-FNW Northern.

I don't see that it is justifiable to cut timetables right now to catch up on training. The last I heard, the unions are still putting the kibosh on more than one person being in the cab at a time, even though prolonged (and in fact closer) proximity is accepted and even endorsed by the Government in other areas (for example, driving lessons). When they start waking up to the reality of the existential threat that faces parts of the rail industry, and accept what has been kosher elsewhere for quite a while, then we can start talking.

 

[yorksrob]

In August's Modern Railway, there's a quote from an unnamed TOC MD stating it may take 2 years or more before a full timetable is re-introduced, such is the backlog of training and delays to recruitment to replace staff that have left.

In terms of Northern, also in August's Modern Railway, they spoke to the MD who talks about Northern having one of the 'lowest driver to spare cover ratios' of all TOCs - a problem which has persisted for years and years, especially in the West. During pre-covid times, if a driver called in sick, 9 out of 10 times that would mean cancellations of all their work. Imagine now, no new qualified drivers for 4 months plus, and the ones that qualified before covid have been unable to do any route learning for over 4 months (the Mid-Cheshire line, for example, is not a core route, new drivers will not sign this route initially), plus retirements, plus higher rates of absence due to sickness or self-isolation, all means it's impossible to run a full service, especially for Northern who have historically had such little flex in train crew numbers.

Personally, it is better to run a reliable service, even with short-comings to frequencies & starting/finishing times than to run a service that will stretch the current staffing levels to a point where the service becomes unreliable with widespread unplanned cancellations. The full timetable already stretched staffing levels, and we know how reliable that is. Unreliability is not going to grow passenger numbers again.

And it may be unpopular, but cutting back services now, where demand is going to be low for the rest of this coming year to catch up on training and recruitment, to get as much train crew to full route knowledge just makes sense. Then come the new year, drivers can drive more routes, which means nearer to the full timetable can be covered reliably, as the passengers come back (hopefully!)

Just my personal opinion on the whole situation

These would be my questions to Northern and the Government:

Two years is an unnacceptable delay. What is the mechanism for this delay. Normal service has been suspended for around four months. Would we normally expect two years worth of new recruits to be trained in four months.

"Northern has one of the lowest driver to spare cover ratios". We've known this since time immemorial. Why has this situation been allowed to persist, and what steps are being taken to rectify the long standing situation.

"Especially in the West" Why can they not put on a workable train service West of Skipton, which is staffed locally and not from the West.

"The mid-cheshire route is not a core route. New drivers will not sign it initially" If the need for drivers is on the mid-cheshire route, why are drivers not being trained on it. Drivers should be trained for where they are needed.

"Short comings to to frequencies & starting/finishing times" A service petering out at six in the afternoon is not a shortcoming, it's a disgrace.

The more I see of Northern, the more I'm convinced that we need a Regional structure of train companies, with branch lines and secondary routes tied in to the main lines, rather than a dogs breakfast of leftover routes that always seem to come off worse than any other compay in any given scenario.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Two years is an unnacceptable delay. What is the mechanism for this delay. Normal service has been suspended for around four months. Would we normally expect two years worth of new recruits to be trained in four months.

I'm sure there are more than enough applicants chomping at the bit to become a driver for Northern, even if the salary is lower than most other TOCs. It's just that the rail industry is extremely selective nowadays; partially for good reason, partially just because it can afford to do so given the applicant to position ratio is often towards 1000:1.

Whilst it might only take 4 months to give new starters basic traction and Rulebook knowledge it takes time (often months or even years) to get in route learning, especially at the depots covering more mileage. For each person you train up you need an instructor, of which there's only so many to go around.

So with the best will in the world you couldn't train up all the required drivers in 4 months to become fully productive. You'd have to have cross-TOC co-operation, between TOCs that have spare drivers and those that need them, for that to even start to become possible.

"Northern has one of the lowest driver to spare cover ratios". We've known this since time immemorial. Why has this situation been allowed to persist, and what steps are being taken to rectify the long standing situation.

Northern takes the joint highest subsidy per passenger mile of all TOCs (when considering Network Rail subsidies). Who's going to be the person that sticks their head above the parapet and convinces the DfT and also the Treasury that the subsidy should be increased even more? You can earn far more votes per £ spent by promising the revival of old Beeching closures (whilst actually only making consultants rich), than you ever could by making Northern reliably deliver the timetable they're supposed to.

"The mid-cheshire route is not a core route. New drivers will not sign it initially" If the need for drivers is on the mid-cheshire route, why are drivers not being trained on it. Drivers should be trained for where they are needed.

You have to start somewhere. I imagine 90% of jobs at Piccadilly depot might require Piccadilly to Stockport route knowledge. Only 5% might require Mid-Cheshire route knowledge. Which are you going to train a newly qualified driver on first? There's your answer.

"Short comings to to frequencies & starting/finishing times" A service petering out at six in the afternoon is not a shortcoming, it's a disgrace.

It's a disgrace if you are in the 5-10% odd of the population up North that truly relies on the railways. From everyone else's perspective, a properly usable service with good first and last train times is a waste of taxpayers' money. You could get a lot more people behind throwing £50m into the NHS than you could in convincing them to spend the same money on making TOCs reliably staffed.

The more I see of Northern, the more I'm convinced that we need a Regional structure of train companies, with branch lines and secondary routes tied in to the main lines, rather than a dogs breakfast of leftover routes that always seem to come off worse than any other compay in any given scenario.

You can polish a turd reorganise and rebrand the railways as much as you like, but at the end of the day two things are always going to be a blocker to major changes and improvements. Political support and money. Without both you won't get anywhere. Why would a split up version of Northern be able to do more with the resources the current Northern can?

If anything we should be arguing for a return to the situation that existed from the mid-80s until Organising for Quality happened in 1992, with conceptual control and long-term planning for the railways separated from day-to-day operations. You didn't have one TOC with a massive shortage of drivers and another having drivers sitting spare at home because they're not needed. There were difficulties, sure, but by and large they just got on with the job.

It looks like we're going to end up with a model somewhat akin to that again, except this time it's the godawful DfT that's controlling the Sector part, and private contractors operating the Regions part. Which is just about the worst of all worlds...

 

[peters]

"The mid-cheshire route is not a core route. New drivers will not sign it initially" If the need for drivers is on the mid-cheshire route, why are drivers not being trained on it. Drivers should be trained for where they are needed.

And this is what happens what an operator thinks a service is not a core route:

https://twitter.com/Jastfam/status/1155053880071327745

https://twitter.com/andykennett/status/1157830854326050822

https://twitter.com/alaninknutsford/status/1197909895946878978

https://twitter.com/BeenDunOver/status/893799517971197953

https://twitter.com/CllrAMalloy/status/1002839529982750720

(There's many more as well.)

However, don't worry according to Regional Director Chris Jackson he doesn't get as many complaints about the Mid-Cheshire line as other lines, so it must be the passengers' fault for not shouting loud enough when things go wrong.

Their solution to the 15:02 Chester-Manchester being overcrowded (when they reduced capacity on the service from 4 carriages to 2 so that they had enough units to enhance the Buxton line service) was to get Network Rail to paint safety markings on the platform at Greenbank and to send two 'Travel Safe' officers to the station, who have actually removed schoolkids from the train on instruction from the guard so that the train doors can be closed safely.

 

[peters]

Northern takes the joint highest subsidy per passenger mile of all TOCs (when considering Network Rail subsidies).

If Northern don't run a regular service to Manchester from my local station then there's no chance of me travelling on TPE, West Coast or CrossCountry services. Maybe that's why other franchises incorporate both local and Intercity services, as without connecting local services there's a much smaller market for the Intercity services.

You have to start somewhere. I imagine 90% of jobs at Piccadilly depot might require Piccadilly to Stockport route knowledge. Only 5% might require Mid-Cheshire route knowledge. Which are you going to train a newly qualified driver on first? There's your answer.

I've been told Victoria drivers do some of the early and late work and peak time extras due to empty positional movements running via Frodsham or Denton, which falls in to the Victoria drivers' area.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm sure there are more than enough applicants chomping at the bit to become a driver for Northern, even if the salary is lower than most other TOCs. It's just that the rail industry is extremely selective nowadays; partially for good reason, partially just because it can afford to do so given the applicant to position ratio is often towards 1000:1.

Whilst it might only take 4 months to give new starters basic traction and Rulebook knowledge it takes time (often months or even years) to get in route learning, especially at the depots covering more mileage. For each person you train up you need an instructor, of which there's only so many to go around.

So with the best will in the world you couldn't train up all the required drivers in 4 months to become fully productive. You'd have to have cross-TOC co-operation, between TOCs that have spare drivers and those that need them, for that to even start to become possible.


Northern takes the joint highest subsidy per passenger mile of all TOCs (when considering Network Rail subsidies). Who's going to be the person that sticks their head above the parapet and convinces the DfT and also the Treasury that the subsidy should be increased even more? You can earn far more votes per £ spent by promising the revival of old Beeching closures (whilst actually only making consultants rich), than you ever could by making Northern reliably deliver the timetable they're supposed to.


You have to start somewhere. I imagine 90% of jobs at Piccadilly depot might require Piccadilly to Stockport route knowledge. Only 5% might require Mid-Cheshire route knowledge. Which are you going to train a newly qualified driver on first? There's your answer.


It's a disgrace if you are in the 5-10% odd of the population up North that truly relies on the railways. From everyone else's perspective, a properly usable service with good first and last train times is a waste of taxpayers' money. You could get a lot more people behind throwing £50m into the NHS than you could in convincing them to spend the same money on making TOCs reliably staffed.


You can polish a turd reorganise and rebrand the railways as much as you like, but at the end of the day two things are always going to be a blocker to major changes and improvements. Political support and money. Without both you won't get anywhere. Why would a split up version of Northern be able to do more with the resources the current Northern can?

If anything we should be arguing for a return to the situation that existed from the mid-80s until Organising for Quality happened in 1992, with conceptual control and long-term planning for the railways separated from day-to-day operations. You didn't have one TOC with a massive shortage of drivers and another having drivers sitting spare at home because they're not needed. There were difficulties, sure, but by and large they just got on with the job.

It looks like we're going to end up with a model somewhat akin to that again, except this time it's the godawful DfT that's controlling the Sector part, and private contractors operating the Regions part. Which is just about the worst of all worlds...

If training takes longer than four months, what has happenned to all the people who were beyond four month's training at the time of lockdown ? Northern should have had people at all stages of training when lockdown happened, so the ones that were further along should have less to pick up.

Northern has the highest subsidy precisely because it is a dogs breakfast of less remunerative routes that were lumped together. Does a rural line require more subsidy mile for mile than one in Cornwall for example ? No. The reason why the subsidy is politically problematic for one but not the other is that one is hidden by industry cross subsidy while the other isn't.

The idea that over half the population doesn't use the railway has been de-bunked on other threads. Those occasional users are as likely to need an all day service as the regulars.

I think the business sectors work well in terms of marketing and where you have an effective cross subsidy between them (like in 1980's BR). They won't work if one sector contains all the least profitable routes and has to take a direct subsidy from Government (like the railways in the North today).

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

If Northern don't run a regular service to Manchester from my local station then there's no chance of me travelling on TPE, West Coast or CrossCountry services. Maybe that's why other franchises incorporate both local and Intercity services, as without connecting local services there's a much smaller market for the Intercity services.

In principle I agree, but the Beeching Report, for all its flaws, did end up proving that the network effect is nowhere near as significant as some people think. With car access at record levels most people will railhead quite readily. It's that "unimportant" minority without access to a car that are stuffed when branches are cut or services reduced.

There is also the issue of conflating costs and revenue. Revenue on the railways is currently minimal. Even a doubling or tripling of passenger numbers would still mean a fraction of the usual revenue, so there's little gain to be had by spending what would have to be a massive amount of money on hiring more staff to ensure that services can reliably and consistently run.

 

[AdamWW]

If Northern don't run a regular service to Manchester from my local station then there's no chance of me travelling on TPE, West Coast or CrossCountry services. Maybe that's why other franchises incorporate both local and Intercity services, as without connecting local services there's a much smaller market for the Intercity services.

If I recall correctly, the Northern/TPE split occurred round about the time that local and long distance services were being combined into what's now GWR...

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

If training takes longer than four months, what has happenned to all the people who were beyond four month's training at the time of lockdown ? Northern should have had people at all stages of training when lockdown happened, so the ones that were further along should have less to pick up.

Some training may have lapsed and elements may need to be covered again (and indeed certain drivers would have lost competency due to not driving over certain routes or on certain traction, therefore requiring retraining, which still can't be done). No doubt those already partway along the the training process will need less time, but clearly Northern has a big problem with the number of drivers lost to other TOCs, illness and retirement. It doesn't sound like as if they have nearly enough instructors to replace all those lost drivers in short order.

And as stated, AFAIK you still can't really do training at the moment. So this limbo continues.

Northern has the highest subsidy precisely because it is a dogs breakfast of less remunerative routes that were lumped together. Does a rural line require more subsidy mile for mile than one in Cornwall for example ? No. The reason why the subsidy is politically problematic for one but not the other is that one is hidden by industry cross subsidy while the other isn't.

You're correct that putting together all the highly subsidised lines into one basket isn't necessarily helpful, for multiple reasons. But unless we return to the old pre-Sectors BR setup that's not going to change any time soon. There might be some tinkering around the edges but I can't see there being reintegration of TPE and Northern, for instance. And regardless of the way you cook the books, highly subsidised lines will always have less effort and money put into them, than those turning a "profit". I haven't seen 80x's trundling along the Falmouth branch...

The idea that over half the population doesn't use the railway has been de-bunked on other threads. Those occasional users are as likely to need an all day service as the regulars.

Let's be clear: only a minority of the population is truly reliant on rail. A much bigger proportion will use rail where is it presents an attractive alternative to driving or other forms of transport. Poor timetables will simply be a bit of an inconvenience, and hence keep away, the latter. The former will be screwed, but not many people will care because not enough people will be affected for it to "matter".

I think the business sectors work well in terms of marketing and where you have an effective cross subsidy between them (like in 1980's BR). They won't work if one sector contains all the least profitable routes and has to take a direct subsidy from Government (like the railways in the North today).

I don't necessarily think that's the case, but let's not get any further off topic (unless you want to start a new thread on that subject).

Do I think the situation is abysmal and unacceptable? Yes. Do I think anything is going to happen anytime soon about it? No.

 

[AdamWW]

Let's be clear: only a minority of the population is truly reliant on rail. A much bigger proportion will use rail where is it presents an attractive alternative to driving or other forms of transport. Poor timetables will simply be a bit of an inconvenience, and hence keep away, the latter. The former will be screwed, but not many people will care because not enough people will be affected for it to "matter".

And few if any of those are the ones making the decisions.

 

[peters]

In principle I agree, but the Beeching Report, for all its flaws, did end up proving that the network effect is nowhere near as significant as some people think. With car access at record levels most people will railhead quite readily. It's that "unimportant" minority without access to a car that are stuffed when branches are cut or services reduced.

There is also the issue of conflating costs and revenue. Revenue on the railways is currently minimal. Even a doubling or tripling of passenger numbers would still mean a fraction of the usual revenue, so there's little gain to be had by spending what would have to be a massive amount of money on hiring more staff to ensure that services can reliably and consistently run.

The Beeching Report was not written when the roads and city centres were anywhere near as congested as there are today. Maybe the findings of the Beeching Report are still true for the West Country but for the areas around Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham & Wolverhampton saying its findings are out-dated might be a understatement. I did watch a program Ian Hislop did on what effect the Beeching cuts had once and I do remember it being mentioned that everywhere that was losing their station had a local bus service instead. Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to all places Northern have reduced the train service to e.g. Plumley has no bus services, we need to catch a train to at least the next station in either direction before we can catch a bus.

Network Rail have recently done some track replacement work around the Knutsford area. The Highways Agency recently built a new A556 link road between the M6 and M56 junctions near Knutsford. I'm sure Network Rail took in to account the freight usage as well as passenger usage when deciding to do the track replacement work and I'm sure the Highways Agency weren't just thinking about cars going between the M6 and M56 but considered there were a lot of lorries as well. That's the thing quoting subsides for passenger franchises ignores - some rail routes would be well used freight routes even if there were no passenger trains and some roads would be well used by lorries even if everyone stopped driving cars. I don't know exactly how Network Rail get their money but do GWR, for instance, fund 100% of track work if they run passenger services on a Cornish branch line which no-one else uses or do they just pay a toll charge proportional to the size of the train used? If it's the latter or something similar then it's a flawed system and what you've said about passenger subsides is just a figure used for political purposes.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The Beeching Report was not written when the roads and city centres were anywhere near as congested as there are today. Maybe the findings of the Beeching Report are still true for the West Country but for the areas around Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham & Wolverhampton saying its findings are out-dated might be a understatement. I did watch a program Ian Hislop did on what effect the Beeching cuts had once and I do remember it being mentioned that everywhere that was losing their station had a local bus service instead. Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to all places Northern have reduced the train service to e.g. Plumley has no bus services, we need to catch a train to at least the next station in either direction before we can catch a bus.

There is a massive difference between small villages and conurbations with poor rail services. One could very well justify a rail service, even if not of the traditional heavy rail type (c.f. Midland Metro), the other is going to need a massive amount of subsidy no matter how high a percentage of the people who live there use it.

With the benefit of hindsight, no-one can seriously suggest that the Beeching cuts didn't go too far. However, some lines were closed for justifiable reasons, and wouldn't be reopened even if you could do it for the same amount it cost to build it back in the 19th Century.

Coming back to the point, most of the branch lines that closed simply were not sustainable and still wouldn't be so today. It would be a political choice, not an economically justifiable decision, to reopen such lines - see, for example, Wisbech.

There are very few parts of the country that aren't within a reasonable rail-heading distance of a station. I think that kinda tells you everything you need to know about how this country's approach to public transport tends to end up working out.

Network Rail have recently done some track replacement work around the Knutsford area. The Highways Agency recently built a new A556 link road between the M6 and M56 junctions near Knutsford. I'm sure Network Rail took in to account the freight usage as well as passenger usage when deciding to do the track replacement work and I'm sure the Highways Agency weren't just thinking about cars going between the M6 and M56 but considered there were a lot of lorries as well. That's the thing quoting subsides for passenger franchises ignores - some rail routes would be well used freight routes even if there were no passenger trains and some roads would be well used by lorries even if everyone stopped driving cars. I don't know exactly how Network Rail get their money but do GWR, for instance, fund 100% of track work if they run passenger services on a Cornish branch line which no-one else uses or do they just pay a toll charge proportional to the size of the train used? If it's the latter or something similar then it's a flawed system and what you've said about passenger subsides is just a figure used for political purposes.

Track charging is a fiendishly complicated subject that has changed many times over the years. In essence, passenger TOCs and other companies with fixed-term access agreements pay a fixed "track access" charge which contributes to the cost of keeping open the pieces of the network they run over. All train operators then pay a "track usage" fee per mile based on trains that are actually run, which is intended to cover the variable costs NR incurs through the train operating.

All sounds hunky dory, but in fact even the comparitively dear fixed access charges rarely cover the cost of maintaining routes, especially not the cost of renewals. So when calculating true passenger subsidy you can't just go off the amount that the franchises pay the government or vice versa (as it used to be). You have to include an apportionment of the rather sizeable grants paid to Network Rail by the DfT each year.

So the answer your question, GWR pay a contribution towards 100% of the costs of maintaining a route like the Falmouth branch as they are its only regular user. No doubt the true costs of maintaining the route are far more than this. It's not at all a political argument to point out that such routes are heavily subsidised by virtue of the fixed track access charges being less than the cost of maintenance.

Again coming back onto the topic, it's no surprise that Northern are the joint highest subsidised TOC. They are the only permanent operator over significant portions of track with low passenger usage such as the Cumbrian Coast line. Passenger revenue is barely going to cover the cost of operating the train, let alone maintaining the infrastructure.

Relating to this to the timetable fiasco, you would have to subsidise such operations even more to get back to a reliable and normal timetable; as I said, that it's going to be difficult to justify. It's difficult to sell a headline of "£50m spent on making 5% more trains actually run".

 

[northernchris]

Is there a reason why training is still on hold? 2 years is a long time to run a reduced service, and if it were still Arriva running things I suspect the backlash would be far greater

 

[peters]

There is a massive difference between small villages and conurbations with poor rail services. One could very well justify a rail service, even if not of the traditional heavy rail type (c.f. Midland Metro), the other is going to need a massive amount of subsidy no matter how high a percentage of the people who live there use it.

My point was that things have changed since the Beeching report. Beeching could say those affected by the cuts without access to a car will be able to use a bus instead but Northern cannot as a lot of places have seen their bus services axed in the last 10 years, never mind since the Beeching report.

Plumley usually has an excellent service for a village of its size but it only gets that service because the adjacent station gets over a half a million journeys made each year and the line needs to remain because of the freight going to the chemical works in the village in the opposite direction. It's probably better value for money for the tax payer to subside a train than a bus. With the train it provides a way of getting to Manchester which gets there in time for a 8am start in the office, something which a bus is never going to be able to offer, plus the pensioners have to pay a train fare rather than the tax payer paying on their behalf like with the buses.

With the benefit of hindsight, no-one can seriously suggest that the Beeching cuts didn't go too far.

People do frequently say Beeching recommended closure of the wrong lines/stations and with hindsight line/station x would have remained open and line/station y would have closed.

Beeching also didn't allow for some routes in to Manchester being closed to train services for Metrolink conversion which meant one route in his report ended up getting its passenger trains reinstated albeit without the reopening of two stations on the line.

 

[Greybeard33]

RTT, OTT, Traksy, NRE etc all obtain their data from the same source. Differences can occur depending on when the latest data is made available on each site, but the source is the same.

Note that just because a service appears in this data does not necessarily mean it is going to run; it is not at all uncommon for changes to be made subsequently....

It seems highly likely that the September timetable information for the Northern Chester - Leeds sevices is not yet the finished article. RTT shows 2-hourly arrivals at Chester from Leeds, but hourly departures from Chester to Leeds!
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...4/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=NT
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...4/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=NT
I suppose it is theoretically possible that every westbound train is formed of two units that split at Chester to form two subsequent eastbound services, but highly implausible.

 

[yorksrob]

There is a massive difference between small villages and conurbations with poor rail services. One could very well justify a rail service, even if not of the traditional heavy rail type (c.f. Midland Metro), the other is going to need a massive amount of subsidy no matter how high a percentage of the people who live there use it.

With the benefit of hindsight, no-one can seriously suggest that the Beeching cuts didn't go too far. However, some lines were closed for justifiable reasons, and wouldn't be reopened even if you could do it for the same amount it cost to build it back in the 19th Century.

Coming back to the point, most of the branch lines that closed simply were not sustainable and still wouldn't be so today. It would be a political choice, not an economically justifiable decision, to reopen such lines - see, for example, Wisbech.

There are very few parts of the country that aren't within a reasonable rail-heading distance of a station. I think that kinda tells you everything you need to know about how this country's approach to public transport tends to end up working out.


Track charging is a fiendishly complicated subject that has changed many times over the years. In essence, passenger TOCs and other companies with fixed-term access agreements pay a fixed "track access" charge which contributes to the cost of keeping open the pieces of the network they run over. All train operators then pay a "track usage" fee per mile based on trains that are actually run, which is intended to cover the variable costs NR incurs through the train operating.

All sounds hunky dory, but in fact even the comparitively dear fixed access charges rarely cover the cost of maintaining routes, especially not the cost of renewals. So when calculating true passenger subsidy you can't just go off the amount that the franchises pay the government or vice versa (as it used to be). You have to include an apportionment of the rather sizeable grants paid to Network Rail by the DfT each year.

So the answer your question, GWR pay a contribution towards 100% of the costs of maintaining a route like the Falmouth branch as they are its only regular user. No doubt the true costs of maintaining the route are far more than this. It's not at all a political argument to point out that such routes are heavily subsidised by virtue of the fixed track access charges being less than the cost of maintenance.

Again coming back onto the topic, it's no surprise that Northern are the joint highest subsidised TOC. They are the only permanent operator over significant portions of track with low passenger usage such as the Cumbrian Coast line. Passenger revenue is barely going to cover the cost of operating the train, let alone maintaining the infrastructure.

Relating to this to the timetable fiasco, you would have to subsidise such operations even more to get back to a reliable and normal timetable; as I said, that it's going to be difficult to justify. It's difficult to sell a headline of "£50m spent on making 5% more trains actually run".

I'm not at all convinced by your finaal point that it would cost "50 - 60" million more to run a workable timetable on those routes without a workable service.

I strongly suspect that its a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Rural routes are being deliberately neglected to provide a marginally better service on inter-urban routes that could do as well with a somewhat less frequent service.

That neglect is unjustifiable.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I'm not at all convinced by your finaal point that it would cost "50 - 60" million more to run a workable timetable on those routes without a workable service.

I strongly suspect that its a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Rural routes are being deliberately neglected to provide a marginally better service on inter-urban routes that could do as well with a somewhat less frequent service.

That neglect is unjustifiable.

It depends what exactly the money was deemed to cover (just training costs or also increased ongoing staff wages?), but £50m wouldn't even go that far if split between all the TOCs that are chronically understaffed (i.e. most of them).

 

[Killingworth]

The intended service patterns for services from 14th September were released to stakeholders earlier today together with backgound explanations and statistics. They are worded slightly differently for West and Central Regions and East and North Regions. The following are just two relevant sentences from the West and Central Regions.

"The fact that we have several drivers who are scheduled to leave the business during the current calendar year either due to retirement or because they are scheduled to join other businesses in the rail industry only adds to the complexity of this resource situation."

"It is paramount that any changes we are proposing are both deliverable and resilient to ensure we provide a service our customers can rely on."

I'd accept a resilient service that is delivered and around which I can plan. Having the situation we had only too recently where trains failed to turn up, sometimes leaving folks to wait 2 or 3 hours in the hope that the next might arrive, certainly was unacceptable.

We may stamp our feet and gnarl our teeth, but they can't conjure up further trained staff overnight.