dailymail - One in five train services could be axed as treasury tightens purse strings

[JonathanH]

Absolutely, totally and completely not. Travel must be reduced; that's important to reduce our carbon emissions starkly as will be necessary.

There is enough car travel going on to keep the railway going for as long as it wants without deliberately creating new travel.

This is travel rationning which is very much needed as a response to the Climate Change emergency. I doubt anyone has even given this the serious thought it needs. I would expect something rather more significant than a 20% cut in travel (not just the railway) is needed.

How well are we doing with making working from home carbon free? At the moment, it isn't great - eg more heating over the winter and the cost of data centres to provide the internet.

 

[backontrack]

This is travel rationning which is very much needed as a response to the Climate Change emergency. I doubt anyone has even given this the serious thought it needs. I would expect something rather more significant than a 20% cut in travel (not just the railway) is needed.

How well are we doing with making working from home carbon free? At the moment, it isn't great - eg more heating over the winter and the cost of data centres to provide the internet.

@yorksrob is right - the railway isn't just an alternative to cars, nor should it be treated as only that - but the climate crisis makes it necessary that we look towards moving freight and passenger onto the railways where suitable. Cutting overall travel is important, but car travel should reduce by a greater proportion to rail. (This, by the way, is an important argument against rationalisation.)

(Besides, planes are a bigger problem yet. Domestic flight demand can be largely absorbed by InterCity rail.)

 

[Bald Rick]

If anyone does argue for cutting routes and stations as partof a cost reduction strategy, the cuts envisaged will be far more severe

Routes - that depends on your definition of a route. I’d be surprised if any physical lines of route that have more than a parliamentary service are closed. I can see some ‘service routes’ being removed, ie where there is overlap with other services. I can also see a cull of the Parliamentaries.

Re stations, well that’s a different story. Where stations are very lightly used (in my view, those with fewer than 10 passengers a day in non Covid times), and they either cause a timetabling constraint or cause a disproportionate use of resources, then they should close. This is not ‘the thin end of the wedge’, but some cold hard analysis on socio-economic benefit.

 

[SteveM70]

Indeed. I would also presume if the number of trains in passenger service is reduced it'll be the old trains which get withdrawn earlier than they would otherwise be.

All logic would say that’s the right approach, but the reduction in costs would be disproportionately small

Try closer to 1.5% profit margin for the owning groups..

I’ve asked a few people this question over the years, but never got a proper answer. Yes, the TOCs have a profit margin of around 2% according to most people, but what’s the profit margin of the railway industry as a whole?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely not. Those of us who already do not run cars, do not expect to be "rewarded" for our considerations by being sidelined in favour of services solely aimed at reducing car travel.

But those don't conflict. The places where others drive to are the same places you would want to go by train to.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

I usually treat anything printed by The Daily Mail as sheer fantasy

Biggest selling newspaper in the country

 

[Bletchleyite]

Re stations, well that’s a different story. Where stations are very lightly used (in my view, those with fewer than 10 passengers a day in non Covid times), and they either cause a timetabling constraint or cause a disproportionate use of resources, then they should close. This is not ‘the thin end of the wedge’, but some cold hard analysis on socio-economic benefit.

Probably so, and even the Swiss do that where a particular station is in the way of the Takt working properly. And that is how the UK has tended to see it in the past, too, which is why Altnabreac (which costs next to nothing to serve once in an age when someone sticks their hand out) is still open, but say Weedon Bec[1] on the WCML isn't (despite that it would probably have a reasonable bit of commuter traffic if it was, particularly if it had a decent car park, due to the proximity to an M1 junction).

[1] About the same size as Long Buckby, but losing out due to being on the fast lines.

 

[SteveM70]

Biggest selling newspaper in the country

Third behind Metro and the S*n, or second behind the S*n if you limit it to papers people buy. Still scary that they shift over a million copies a day

 

[Bletchleyite]

For sure death of the office is a misnomer trumped up by journos with nothing better to write about or consultants looking at getting commissions to advise companies how to do it better. The real hit is going to companies downsizing and an element of decentralisng so central London Office market will roll back after many years of expansion. I believe regional office markets might actually benefit here so i see this as largely a reduction in London commuting with its heavy resource demands but it will still need to be managed with peak pricing I suspect.

The office surely won't die, but what will is the idea of you having your own dedicated desk that you go into and sit at every day. People are more likely to plan their time for a couple of days a week of in-person meetings and doing the "actual work" from home.

That would still halve the required commuter capacity if everyone did it. Look at Fridays - they were already seriously quiet - trains that would be full, standing and leaving people behind on a Monday had seats for everyone (often even double seats) on a Friday.

But those stations are so poorly used, and so unfunded as to being not relevant to the debate anyway.

Well, they sort of are - I think as I said on the speculative thread that Sandgrounders would take hourly to Castlefield over 2tph to Vic, but I suspect making that train call at all stations including 3 that nobody uses would damage that argument. That said, making such stations request stops would be a solution.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Another thing to look at is if other services that run on the route already but only stop at some stations could be made into stopping trains. Maybe not a great example but Shrewsbury-Birmingham WMT service could stop at all stops after Wolverhampton, replacing the need the Walsall trains to extend through.
—
I wonder if we will see more portion working too and services splitting/joining which would save on paths and train crew.

Am I out of touch - But Walsall- Wellington services ceased years ago.?

Splitting services en route leads to an increase in train crew , or inefficient utilisatin - the divided train needs human resources to take it forward , ditto detached service portions need something human to dispose of it.

 

[dgl]

I also think that if the Railway is to be seen as a way to go on a holiday or as a replacement for your own personal transport then there needs to be adequate reliable onwards public transport, even better if that is part of the rail fare.
Weymouth is a somewhat good example here for somewhere that could do with improvement, whilst the main bus stops are not that far from the train station if you have heavy bags/luggage then any walk is too much, unfortunately you can't easily serve the Railway Station with buses at the moment which is a shame.

 

[Ianno87]

Absolutely, totally and completely not. Travel must be reduced; that's important to reduce our carbon emissions starkly as will be necessary.

There is enough car travel going on to keep the railway going for as long as it wants without deliberately creating new travel.

If people want to be productive and happy, that requires travel - the greatest human freedom there is in my eyes.

I'm not talking about travel for travels sake, but travelling specifically where it adds value and enriches lives (i.e. not a slavish trip to the office every single day)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Weymouth is a somewhat good example here for somewhere that could do with improvement, whilst the main bus stops are not that far from the train station if you have heavy bags/luggage then any walk is too much, unfortunately you can't easily serve the Railway Station with buses at the moment which is a shame.

Weymouth is an excellent example - it's a pity they didn't build a proper bus station on the old railway station site instead of a load of DIY sheds.

 

[geoffk]

You’re only highlighting part of a route. York-Newcastle consists of two LNER from London, two XC (Bristol & Reading via Birmingham), two TPE (Liverpool & Manchester Airport). Each of which services a different market (apart from the two London) on different parts of their route. If you’re looking at excess, it’s where the end to end journey is say 4 or more tph. That gives plenty of London commuter and Birmingham cross city services.

True, but better connections would maintain all the journey options, as is more common on the continent. Of course this means guaranteed connections (not one train disappearing just as another arrives!) and, if possible, cross-platform interchange, not always straightforward I accept, e.g. at Preston.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not talking about travel for travels sake, but travelling specifically where it adds value and enriches lives (i.e. not a slavish trip to the office every single day)

Certainly - that's quite different from the railway starting a "get back to the office" campaign as someone suggested, though.

 

[Parallel]

Am I out of touch - But Walsall- Wellington services ceased years ago.?

Splitting services en route leads to an increase in train crew , or inefficient utilisatin - the divided train needs human resources to take it forward , ditto detached service portions need something human to dispose of it.

No, I’m saying that the Wolverhampton - Walsall trains could start from Birmingham with the stopping Shrewsbury - Birmingham trains picking up the additional stops at Tipton, Smethwick Rolfe Street etc. As I said, not a great example but just pointing out that if services are cut, other services could pick up some of the stops.

 

[Ianno87]

Certainly - that's quite different from the railway starting a "get back to the office" campaign as someone suggested, though.

In two years' time, if we look back on pre-Covid times and wonder why the hell we ever did a 2 hour commute every day (costing £5k plus) solely to go through emails and make coffee from a different pot, then that would be a good outcome.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True, but better connections would maintain all the journey options, as is more common on the continent. Of course this means guaranteed connections (not one train disappearing just as another arrives!) and, if possible, cross-platform interchange, not always straightforward I accept, e.g. at Preston.

This of course is made easier by having fewer trains, as you have more spare platforms for trains to sit at while waiting mutual connections. I don't actually think Preston is particularly terrible for that, but it does lack footbridge/subway capacity which I created a thread about a while ago, probably still knocking around in the Speculative bit.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I also think that if the Railway is to be seen as a way to go on a holiday or as a replacement for your own personal transport then there needs to be adequate reliable onwards public transport, even better if that is part of the rail fare.
Weymouth is a somewhat good example here for somewhere that could do with improvement, whilst the main bus stops are not that far from the train station if you have heavy bags/luggage then any walk is too much, unfortunately you can't easily serve the Railway Station with buses at the moment which is a shame.

Are there not taxi's available ? (one of my retired staff became a Weymouth cab driver)

 

[Bletchleyite]

In two years' time, if we look back on pre-Covid times and wonder why the hell we ever did a 2 hour commute every day (costing £5k plus) solely to go through emails and make coffee from a different pot, then that would be a good outcome.

As someone who is in the IT industry which largely made the switch away from that sort of working concept about 5-6 years ago, I completely agree. I do miss being in the office once a week for the social contact, it has to be said. However, daily London commuting nearly gave me a breakdown due to the built-up lack of sleep and accompanying stress, and it's not something I would ever consider doing again other than for short periods. I think from the working patterns I've done (which is a fair few), 2 days a week in the office suits me spot on. Daily commuting would only really be on the agenda if the end to end journey time was no more than 40 minutes (and if that 40 minutes was by bicycle or on foot, I'd probably favour it over being at home).

Are there not taxi's available ? (one of my retired staff became a Weymouth cab driver)

There are, but taxis are a solution to the public transport being inadequate for the desired purpose, surely? So it'd be better if it was adequate?

The bus service around Weymouth is (in frequency and quality terms) far, far better than anyone would really expect - I think it helps that Portland (which is a lovely holiday area) has a couple of Council estates with very low car ownership hidden away on it. It's really not somewhere you'd expect to have a better than 4 bus per hour daytime service (I forget what it is off hand) and a last bus after 2300 at all.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

True, but better connections would maintain all the journey options, as is more common on the continent. Of course this means guaranteed connections (not one train disappearing just as another arrives!) and, if possible, cross-platform interchange, not always straightforward I accept, e.g. at Preston.

This is an area that need significantly sorting and the likes of Shapps and other devolved administrations should make that a key tenant of rail travel in the UK. With the TOCs off the stage now is the time to have the ambition to build a Taktfahrplan and let concessions to deliver it.

Its always a pleasure to travel in many European countries with connections built in to the timetable as part of end to end journey planning. Yes its nice to have a through service but not ones that just sap capacity and deliver operating unreliability leading to demands of enhancements when the obvious answer was just better connections.

 

[Dave1987]

I think Ian Walmsley said the most sensible thing that I think the DFT may have reminded the treasury. They need to look very long into the future, probably 2022, as to where rail travel will be and how many people will be expected to travel. As Ian says if you stop services on a line completely, it does not take very long for the line to fall into disrepair. How much would it then cost to get the line operational again to a sufficiently good standard to get passengers traveling again? The costs of running a service with very few passengers may be cheaper than closing it to then payout to repair it in the future plus crew retraining etc etc. One thing the rail industry does need to do is take this opportunity to make trains more comfortable. Get rid of ironing board seats etc and get trains to a good standard.

 

[irish_rail]

I wouldn't cut any routes. Some more pointless stations might be better off closing to allow simplification of service patterns. I mentioned New Lane, Bescar Lane and Hoscar; I'm just not convinced these three serve any purpose whatsoever now[1] - even Berney Arms serves more of a purpose for "walk out, train back" leisure activity. Though you could make such stations request stops, they are unlikely to be requested often.

[1] I suspect they probably came about for farmers to take their produce to by horse-drawn cart to be carried to the markets at Ormskirk and Wigan for sale, and have never really served much of a passenger purpose?

Personally, rather than close stations, I'd look at the ridiculous crewing inefficiency we see on UK railways in comparison to abroad.
I've used this example and I'll use it again as it is local to me, but there are many many others with much bigger savings. Why does Plymouth need seperatw traincrew depots for Croscountry and GWR? By pooling resources, there is a lot of fat that could be trimmed. Both clerical and in staff on the ground. I just think its daft that when a train needs taking to Laira depot, but its an 802 and GWR havent a driver to spare, but XC have yet he cannot touch it.
Ridiculous and inefficient. And one of the problems with privatisation that could be remedied now rather than cutting stations or services...

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is an area that need significantly sorting and the likes of Shapps and other devolved administrations should make that a key tenant of rail travel in the UK. With the TOCs off the stage now is the time to have the ambition to build a Taktfahrplan and let concessions to deliver it.

Yes, yes, yes

One thing that a Takt does is makes lower frequencies less noticeable. If you go to a typical German region (there isn't yet a national Takt though one is in the works) and board a 2-hourly RegionalExpress, you'll find you don't need to do much waiting around until you reach your destination, because it's all set up to connect.

I wouldn't suggest going down to 2-hourly on any routes that aren't already that low, really, but the principle still applies to hourly.

One thing the rail industry does need to do is take this opportunity to make trains more comfortable. Get rid of ironing board seats etc and get trains to a good standard.

That's rather subjective (as is my own seating preference, cough, Grammer ), but what will be appreciated by leisure passengers is more tables and more legroom, because your family or small group can socialise in a way they can't in a car or two rows of airline seating. Much as we whine on here about 195s because of ironing boards and window alignment, they're actually very popular because of the nearly-all-tables layout.

And any orders for 3+2-seated stock that can be changed (i.e. it's not too late) should be.

 

[daodao]

The DfT could dig out the Serpell report and implement it.

 

[Ianno87]

Personally, rather than close stations, I'd look at the ridiculous crewing inefficiency we see on UK railways in comparison to abroad.
I've used this example and I'll use it again as it is local to me, but there are many many others with much bigger savings. Why does Plymouth need seperatw traincrew depots for Croscountry and GWR? By pooling resources, there is a lot of fat that could be trimmed. Both clerical and in staff on the ground. I just think its daft that when a train needs taking to Laira depot, but its an 802 and GWR havent a driver to spare, but XC have yet he cannot touch it.
Ridiculous and inefficient. And one of the problems with privatisation that could be remedied now rather than cutting stations or services...

But in that example it is efficient in that you don't have the costs of keeping XC crews trained on GWR's fleet / routes and vice-versa.

And things like Admin staff (roster clerks, driver managers etc) are roughly proportional to headcount anyway - you need the same number no matter how your are organisationally split.

I do seem to recall that when TfL rail split off Greater Anglia on the Liverpool St - Shenfield route, a few extra drivers were required overall due to slight loss of productivity in splitting up crew diagrams, but it wasn't more than a small handful extra.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The DfT could dig out the Serpell report and implement it.

That's just a bit more than 20%!

 

[daodao]

That's just a bit more than 20%!

I agree that Serpell options A & B were more radical. However, the cuts proposed under Serpell option C (all 3 variants) envisaged a <20% cut in annual passenger mileage, albeit lightly used rural routes would still be pruned significantly.

 

[DB]

That's rather subjective (as is my own seating preference, cough, Grammer ), but what will be appreciated by leisure passengers is more tables and more legroom, because your family or small group can socialise in a way they can't in a car or two rows of airline seating. Much as we whine on here about 195s because of ironing boards and window alignment, they're actually very popular because of the nearly-all-tables layout.

As Northern has shown, even ironing boards can be perfectly tolerable if they have decent cushions on them - the reason why ironing boards have got their reputation is because of all the padding-free versions installed on recent trains. A small change like actually putting padding on them would make a significant difference to perceptions.

 

[Llama]

Above me there's a driver manager. Above him there's a lead driver manager. Above him is an area lead driver manager. Above him is an operations delivery manager. Above him is the area head of trains and stations. Above him is the area director. Above him is the managing director.

Just saying.