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

[Bald Rick]

Though it's worth noting that rail has a much larger market share of travel in the southeast, both because of the (generally) high frequency and speed of services, as well as because of the extensive network which means that there is a conveniently located station nearby most people.

But mostly because a significant majority of rail travel in the south east is to, from or within inner / central London, for which the alternatives are rather unattractive.

 

[A0wen]

Dunno. The number of connections that suddenly become possible at Farringdon could be pretty transformational.

E.g. from Cambridge, changing at Farringdon will be pretty much the default route for heading to Heathrow, with Canary Wharf a toss-up between Farringdon and Liverpool Street.

People will move around the network much differently as a result.

Question is will it lead to more people doing Cambridge - Heathrow by train though? Or just make the journey easier for existing passengers?

 

[Bald Rick]

Where does that actually happen, though? The south WCML is nothing like that. Only a very few trains are what I'd describe as "packed", and they are easily avoided.

Pre Covid, almost all routes in the high peak at least.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pre Covid, almost all routes in the high peak at least.

Certainly not the south WCML. Maybe we just had it good! There were some specific services that were a problem (one particular one was I believe the highest passengers in excess of capacity in the country) but you could easily avoid them. My record of a seat is very close to 100%, and of a seat of my choice (forward facing priority window) is still pretty high.

There was a serious overcrowding issue on GWR local services when it was just 16x, but that was again, like TPE, because there was insufficient rolling stock and so there were 2 and 3-car services in the peaks when really almost everything should (and could, with more stock) have been at least 6 but ideally 9.

 

[bramling]

Where does that actually happen, though? The south WCML is nothing like that. Only a very few trains are what I'd describe as "packed", and they are easily avoided.

I think you could go round most of the London commuter routes and find this, to a greater or lesser degree. Some of it was reduced by the "high peak" spreading, hence why trains at 0600 or 0845 were starting to become very busy in their own right too. However for many in the south-east, getting a seat at any rate would require at least one of (1) being fortunate enough to have services starting at your station, (2) getting the last few seats at the back of the train which no one else wants because of the extra time to get out of the London terminus, or (3) picking the slowest trains in the timetable and having the commute take longer. And, unlike elsewhere, if unable to get a seat then it could mean standing for quite a while.

There's also that it's all the more inexcusable on TPE, where for about 15 years or so the only constraint was rolling stock. In the SE the infrastructure is full.

Lack of stock has at times been an issue in the SE too. I'm not going to attempt to defend the TPE 185 situation though, as I agree it was inexcusable. However, in the wider "non-south-east", a lot of the issue is that stock genuinely is needed for a small section of one peak journey, and perhaps on a Saturday when everyone wants to do their Christmas shopping.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Question is will it lead to more people doing Cambridge - Heathrow by train though? Or just make the journey easier for existing passengers?

Almost certainly - and consider the flows from the Essex / inner Eastern areas to the airport at the moment. The perils of the M25 - even now at any time are dire......

 

[domcoop7]

Said screams carefully ignoring the source of that investment...

And counter-screams by people implying the source of that investment is London carefully ignoring the fact that whilst headquartering a bank or supermarket in the City means the "tax" is paid by a London company, it doesn't mean the revenues that enable the tax to be paid were generated by Londoners...

 

[Wolfie]

And counter-screams by people implying the source of that investment is London carefully ignoring the fact that whilst headquartering a bank or supermarket in the City means the "tax" is paid by a London company, it doesn't mean the revenues that enable the tax to be paid were generated by Londoners...

Thank you for jumping straight into the trap. I was waiting for that ill-informed rant. You do realise l assume that unlike public transport in other cities TfL gets nothing from central Government. Despite that TfL is paying approx 50% of the cost of Crossrail. Some of that is raised by a levy on London business.
Make no mistake, when l see comments such as yours I'm tempted to vote for any party that tells other parts of the country to do the same and withdraws the insane levels of subsidy on Northern et Al.

 

[NoRoute]

Thank you for jumping straight into the trap. I was waiting for that ill-informed rant. You do realise l assume that unlike public transport in other cities TfL gets nothing from central Government. Despite that TfL is paying approx 50% of the cost of Crossrail. Some of that is raised by a levy on London business.
Make no mistake, when l see comments such as yours I'm tempted to vote for any party that tells other parts of the country to do the same and withdraws the insane levels of subsidy on Northern et Al.

A quick check of the TfL website indicates that is wrong, TfL receives grant funding via the Greater London Authority (GLA), generally and towards Crossrail and the GLA is funded by direct government grant, the Crossrail project being sponsored by GLA and DfT. So it still depends on government funding, only it goes via the GLA.

Transport for London funding

 

[stuu]

I think you could go round most of the London commuter routes and find this, to a greater or lesser degree. Some of it was reduced by the "high peak" spreading, hence why trains at 0600 or 0845 were starting to become very busy in their own right too. However for many in the south-east, getting a seat at any rate would require at least one of (1) being fortunate enough to have services starting at your station, (2) getting the last few seats at the back of the train which no one else wants because of the extra time to get out of the London terminus, or (3) picking the slowest trains in the timetable and having the commute take longer. And, unlike elsewhere, if unable to get a seat then it could mean standing for quite a while.

I used to commute from Harrow and Wealdstone. I would get a seat once or twice a week in the morning, and always in the evening. When I moved to south London, I don't think I ever got a seat in the morning except at Christmas, and occasionally couldn't get on the train.

The worst I can remember seeing regularly was the local service into Paddington. I was coming in from further afield by then, they used to run 2-car 165s which on occasion when passed had people's faces jammed up against the windows like you might expect in a parody of Tokyo or something

 

[domcoop7]

Thank you for jumping straight into the trap. I was waiting for that ill-informed rant. You do realise l assume that unlike public transport in other cities TfL gets nothing from central Government. Despite that TfL is paying approx 50% of the cost of Crossrail. Some of that is raised by a levy on London business.
Make no mistake, when l see comments such as yours I'm tempted to vote for any party that tells other parts of the country to do the same and withdraws the insane levels of subsidy on Northern et Al.

I do, indeed realise that, and have discussed it on other threads (particular on buses), and i know that revenue support was phased out in return for a deal under which a greater amount of business rate retention would be controlled by the GLA / Mayor of London.

Saying that, I don't think I either ranted, nor was I ill-informed. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I was sorely tempted to respond to your point about voting and parties, but have to resist as it probably would have ended up as a rant, and off-topic. What I will say is that one party's manifesto called for "levelling up of all parts of the country", and the other main contender's manifesto did not. I'm sure you know which one got a majority of votes in Greater London.

 

[Wolfie]

I do, indeed realise that, and have discussed it on other threads (particular on buses), and i know that revenue support was phased out in return for a deal under which a greater amount of business rate retention would be controlled by the GLA / Mayor of London.

Saying that, I don't think I either ranted, nor was I ill-informed. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I was sorely tempted to respond to your point about voting and parties, but have to resist as it probably would have ended up as a rant, and off-topic. What I will say is that one party's manifesto called for "levelling up of all parts of the country", and the other main contender's manifesto did not. I'm sure you know which one got a majority of votes in Greater London.

Very measured and l probably do owe you an apology for the words "rant" and, based on the above, "ill-informed". I do indeed apologise for them.

A certain individual, when he was Mayor of London, signed a deal with his own party which was in Government which was actually hugely disadvantageous to London but beneficial to his own career. He was also responsible for the funding arrangements for Crossrail and the palpably inadequate project management structures.

Re your last para you know and l know that the dreaded B word was the determining factor in all too many constituencies.

 

[A0wen]

Almost certainly - and consider the flows from the Essex / inner Eastern areas to the airport at the moment. The perils of the M25 - even now at any time are dire......

If you're inside the M25, I'm not sure you'd use the M25 to get to Heathrow either way - the North Circ / A4 would be more logical or, although it's slow, the Piccadilly line. I think the question still stands, some may change, but I suspect most of X-rail's passengers will be transferrimg from the Met / Circle / H&C / Central lines partly because it will remove the need to change.

 

[Wolfie]

If you're inside the M25, I'm not sure you'd use the M25 to get to Heathrow either way - the North Circ / A4 would be more logical or, although it's slow, the Piccadilly line. I think the question still stands, some may change, but I suspect most of X-rail's passengers will be transferrimg from the Met / Circle / H&C / Central lines partly because it will remove the need to change.

Depends where you are inside the M25. My ex's family lived in Barnet and they absolutely would use the M25. Similarly a friend who lives in South Croydon (if he couldn't fly out of Gatwick).

 

[A0wen]

Depends where you are inside the M25. My ex's family lived in Barnet and they absolutely would use the M25. Similarly a friend who lives in South Croydon (if he couldn't fly out of Gatwick).

TBF the post from Chief Planner did say Essex / inner Eastern areas which is where I focused my reply on.

Croydon / South London probably *won't* benefit from x- Rail if they are heading to Heathrow, though some parts of SE London might.

 

[JonathanH]

Croydon / South London probably *won't* benefit from x- Rail if they are heading to Heathrow, though some parts of SE London might.

The change at Farringdon will make lots of journeys easier. Croydon to Heathrow via Farringdon is going to be one of the easiest ways to get between those two locations. Croydon to Paddington via Farringdon is already an easier journey than going via Victoria or London Bridge and two underground trains despite cross platform interchanges at Oxford Circus or Baker Street.

 

[yorksrob]

The change at Farringdon will make lots of journeys easier. Croydon to Heathrow via Farringdon is going to be one of the easiest ways to get between those two locations. Croydon to Paddington via Farringdon is already an easier journey than going via Victoria or London Bridge and two underground trains despite cross platform interchanges at Oxford Circus or Baker Street.


Yes, why wouldn't they? The trains are reliable and get them from Brighton to London in a very efficient manner. We really do need to get past this idea that the general public don't like 700s.

Indeed, but they could have been specified with these longer distance passengers in mind more.

 

[A0wen]

The change at Farringdon will make lots of journeys easier. Croydon to Heathrow via Farringdon is going to be one of the easiest ways to get between those two locations. Croydon to Paddington via Farringdon is already an easier journey than going via Victoria or London Bridge and two underground trains despite cross platform interchanges at Oxford Circus or Baker Street.

It's not a game changer - if you look at NR's journey planner for Croydon - Heathrow the times are 1h25 - 1h29, one via Farringdon the other via Blackfriars, both then assume a change to the Heathrow Express at Paddington which takes 20 mins, the stoppers from Paddington to Heathrow take 36 mins, which is what x-rail will replace.

So the only journey time "saving" element is going to be the Farringdon - Paddington section plus connection time.

I doubt the journey will be any quicker - and the alternative is cab / drive in about an hour, which if you have luggage is going to be more attractive.

 

[JonathanH]

It's not a game changer - if you look at NR's journey planner for Croydon - Heathrow the times are 1h25 - 1h29, one via Farringdon the other via Blackfriars, both then assume a change to the Heathrow Express at Paddington which takes 20 mins, the stoppers from Paddington to Heathrow take 36 mins, which is what x-rail will replace.

So the only journey time "saving" element is going to be the Farringdon - Paddington section plus connection time.

I doubt the journey will be any quicker - and tge alternative is cab / drive in about an hour, which if you have luggage is going to be more attractive

Yes, not a game changer but it isn't just about time though.

From Croydon to Heathrow the X26 isn't uncompetitive against the timings you note above but one change at Farringdon on trains which are easy to board still raises the railway option up relative to multiple changes across London.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Then you've got the West London Line - which whilst better used than it was in the early 1980s is far more about connectivity within London than services from north of London to south of London - the hourly service from MK to Croydon certainly hasn't reached Thameslink levels - whereas the London Overground service is somewhat better used.

Additional reasons why passenger numbers on the West London Line have increased is that now there are new stations at Shepherds Bush and West Brompton. Shepherds Bush has become one of the busiest stations on the route.

 

[snowball]

From the Guardian:

‘Back to the bad old days’: swingeing rail cuts set alarm bells ringing

Rail operators surprised by immediacy and scale of cuts demanded by Department for Transport

www.theguardian.com

‘Back to the bad old days’: swingeing rail cuts set alarm bells ringing​

Rail operators surprised by immediacy and scale of cuts demanded by Department for Transport

Train operators have been told to find ways to cut hundreds of millions of pounds from the railway’s operating costs next year, in a move that is likely to result in fewer services and worse stations for passengers.

The Department for Transport seeks to cut spending by 10% after the chancellor Rishi Sunak’s autumn budget.

With the Treasury anxious to limit spending on rail, which increased massively during the pandemic, letters from the DfT’s managing director of passenger services, Peter Wilkinson, have been sent to individual operators setting out the swingeing cuts needed across the industry.

While train operators expected cuts – the Williams-Shapps plan for rail, which was published in May, set out a target of saving £1.5bn over the next five years – the immediacy and scale of the financial demands has come as a surprise. Government sources said there were no finalised decisions, and denied that individual operators were being asked to deliver cuts of 10% or more to expenditure.

Operators have been under direct government contract since the abolition of franchising at the start of the pandemic in March 2020. Under the emergency recovery contracts, they are paid a fixed fee to deliver services with the revenue and cost risk taken by the government.

Even if, as DfT sources suggest, the latest call for savings are a “routine business planning process” to maintain efficiency and reduce the cost to taxpayers, alarm bells are ringing through the industry. While the effects of the pandemic on rail travel patterns and revenue are clear to all, a division has grown between those who believe it is essential to maintain services and lower fares to attract passengers and those who favour cutting costs and maximising current income.

According to figures released by the Office of Rail and Road on Wednesday, the Treasury spent an additional £6.5bn on running the railway in 2020-21, to cover lost revenues as passenger numbers dropped 78% overall.

The shortfall will be substantially less this financial year, with weekly rail demand having risen steadily to about 70% of pre-Covid levels by November – although the discovery of the Omicron variant and the reintroduction of mandatory mask wearing is expected to depress numbers. Provisional DfT figures showed a 10% drop in train travel last Monday, although the impact of storms would have played a part.

In October, train operators announced a voluntary severance programme to try to reduce staff costs. However, further budget constraints could mean mandatory job cuts, with many of the fixed costs in rail, such as rolling stock and track access charges, impossible to reduce quickly.

Operators fear the reputational damage, and financial hit, of managing decline and likely industrial action. Under the new contracts, at least 20% of the potential profit will be linked to performance measures including customer satisfaction. One insider said: “If you’re setting the budget at a point where customers and staff are going to be unhappy, it looks pretty hard to get those fees.”

Forced redundancies would spell certain strike action, with even the scale of voluntary departures – many thousands applying at Network Rail alone – yet to be agreed after months of talks with the unions.

(The quote is about half the length of the article.)

 

[Starmill]

Only a 10% cut in 2022-23 seems on the low end. Perhaps it won't be quite so bad after all.

One thing gave me a wry smile:

the immediacy and scale of the financial demands has come as a surprise.

Perhaps those surprised ought to have been reading this forum!

 

[Sm5]

If you're inside the M25, I'm not sure you'd use the M25 to get to Heathrow either way - the North Circ / A4 would be more logical or, although it's slow, the Piccadilly line. I think the question still stands, some may change, but I suspect most of X-rail's passengers will be transferrimg from the Met / Circle / H&C / Central lines partly because it will remove the need to change.

I live inside the M25, towards Croydon end… Ive never taken North Circular, its way too slow… it’d be 90 minutes plus at least.


Heathrow..

Bus X26 -90 minutes,
Train to central London, Vic- Pad-Hex 90 minutes,
Car 50 minutes, (20 mins of which is reaching the M25)

Rush hour- all bets off for all modes, took me 3 hours via central london once.

Crossrail wont beat the car from SE London, Kent, Surrey, just Thameslink alone to central London is upto 45 minutes, that wont change.

Birmingham..

2h30-2h45 door to door By car, HS2 wont beat that… yes 52 mins from Euston, add on 1hour to get to Euston, plus waiting time, changing times and even then it dumps in Curzon street, not my destination… it’ll be at best the same time, out with 1 train, 1 Tube, 1HS2 + 1 onward connection.. 4 changes is hardly convienient… and if theres two of you, the car wins on cost every time.

Manchester..
car.. 4h30-5hr30 M25/40/6/62..door to door

Train.. 4hr30.. train to vic, tube, Avanti, onward train/tram its a match, but on a motorway journey of 250 miles theres too many vagaries of traffic, plus generally you stop once, the train is a nicer journey,but if theres two of you, the car wins on cost every time, and also if you have luggage.

HS2.. 3h30 estimated, in theory sounds better, but if theres two of you, the car wins on cost every time, and also if you have luggage.

 

[squizzler]

Another Chicken Little piece about rail cuts.

The Guardian piece linked says rail use is back up to 70% pre-pandemic, and the rise in petrol price is likely to nix motoring as a practical alternative. AS for Christian Wolmar, I find him an interesting author, have read most of his books and own a few, but his Alter-ego "Mystic Wolmar" is an affront to astrologers and fortune tellers because their predictions on rail matters would almost certainly be more accurate.

Mind you I'll let that pass since he has been one of the few voices of sense on driverless motor cars.

 

[Bletchleyite]

the hourly service from MK to Croydon certainly hasn't reached Thameslink levels - whereas the London Overground service is somewhat better used.

Lack of paths. At a higher frequency (say 2 or 3tph) it would be busier.

 

[The Ham]

The problem with cuts to the railways is that it's going to harm everyone.

In the Union Connectivity Report it says:


If we have rail use fall then that's only going to make road congestion worse than its going to mean longer journey times for everyone.

That in turn is going to mean that for those buses which currently run that their costs increase as they get stuck in more congestion and either frequencies reduce or costs increase (as more buses are needed to run the same level of service). That's going to mean get people willing to use buses as well as rail.

A few my cycle but with busier levels of traffic not that many.

As such those who had been able to use public transport now start using cars. Which means cuts to rail and more congestion for the buses to get through.

As public transport reduces it increases the gap between rich and poor. Which also pushes a greater share of taxes onto the wealthy as fewer are able to travel for work and so the poorest are more likely to be reliant on benefits rather than earning a little and so not claiming the maximum and/or paying some taxes.

 

[Sm5]

The problem with cuts to the railways is that it's going to harm everyone.

In the Union Connectivity Report it says:
View attachment 106527

If we have rail use fall then that's only going to make road congestion worse than its going to mean longer journey times for everyone.

That in turn is going to mean that for those buses which currently run that their costs increase as they get stuck in more congestion and either frequencies reduce or costs increase (as more buses are needed to run the same level of service). That's going to mean get people willing to use buses as well as rail.

A few my cycle but with busier levels of traffic not that many.

As such those who had been able to use public transport now start using cars. Which means cuts to rail and more congestion for the buses to get through.

As public transport reduces it increases the gap between rich and poor. Which also pushes a greater share of taxes onto the wealthy as fewer are able to travel for work and so the poorest are more likely to be reliant on benefits rather than earning a little and so not claiming the maximum and/or paying some taxes.

30% drop in rail use leads to 50% increase in road use, depicting a car, not a bus.
you can tell its union propoganda.

The 30% drop is split between those going by car, and those going by Meet,Zoom, Chime etc.

If you cut rail, and numbers drop further! The sp,it will continue between those who say its easier to work from home, with zero emissions, and those using other forms of transport.

The whole reason for cuts is the business has destroyed its core customer base, and theyve already gone elsewhere, so now costs need to be reduced to reflect it.

 

[squizzler]

30% drop in rail use leads to 50% increase in road use, depicting a car, not a bus.
you can tell its union propoganda.

It might be from something called the union Connectivity report but I think you might be thinking of the wrong sort of union...

 

[Sm5]

It might be from something called the union Connectivity report but I think you might be thinking of the wrong sort of union...

Fair enough, but my main point stands…

 

[The Ham]

30% drop in rail use leads to 50% increase in road use, depicting a car, not a bus.
you can tell its union propoganda.

The 30% drop is split between those going by car, and those going by Meet,Zoom, Chime etc.

If you cut rail, and numbers drop further! The sp,it will continue between those who say its easier to work from home, with zero emissions, and those using other forms of transport.

The whole reason for cuts is the business has destroyed its core customer base, and theyve already gone elsewhere, so now costs need to be reduced to reflect it.

There's been a 10% increase in car use in the last decade, over that timeframe rail use had been growing.

That 51% growth rate between 2015 and 2050 isn't linked to the current 30% fall in rail use (which is only reversing rail travel back to about 2010).