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

[43066]

What, not ever? Let's come back in 5 years' time and see what's happened.

Perhaps we should mothball Crossrail, or heck, just fill the tunnels with concrete. They're never going to be used and it will just cost money to keep them open.

It does feel like there’s an agenda of some on this (and other) threads to talk down any potential recovery, and make predictions like “commuting is dead” etc. which I’d be willing to bet will look a little silly in five years’ time.

Lots of people will be back two, three or four days per week in due course, which will swell then numbers nicely beyond what we are currently seeing. Plus add to that more off peak travel, general population growth etc.

Meanwhile the hawks will look at the Luton and Cambridge busways and the Gosport unguided busway and will see (despite all the oppribium) what is effectively a railway but with minimal p'way costs, no signalling costs, no ASLEF, no RMT, all vehicles DOO, drivers paid a fraction of train drivers with no route knowledge needed so can be hired and up and running with a few weeks training, vehicles that cost a fraction of the cost of train vehicles and reliable end to end journey times at tube like frequencies with no need for bus replacement when there is engineering works as the buses are self diverting.

And they will proceed accordingly and do to the rail industry what Murdoch did to the print workers.

A case in point… Many of these predictions are the fantasies of their authors (and give an insight into their prejudices) rather than having any grounding in reality.

 

[The Planner]

In the glorious new world TOCs are on management contracts - what services they run or do not run are now essentially immaterial.

And so what if they handed the keys back, the same staff would just turn up to work doing the job they were doing before anyway?

Working for whom? OLR? Doubt there is the resource to do that.

 

[the sniper]

I would imagine that the biggest potential savings will come from widespead DOO and also the introduction of technology that makes more than cursory route knowledge necessary for drivers enabling any driver to drive anywhere.

However even without considering industrial relations that will take years so I think we will, with the end of revenue earning TOCs see a return to keeping within fixed yearly budgets, which means that the only way to balance the books is the way BR did it. Cut staffing hours, reduce offpeak evening and weekend services, defer renewals and leave TSRs in place for months and years, defer resignallings leaving ever more unreliable systems in place, sending stock off lease so short formation running trains etc, in other words kicking off a spiral of decline which will drive passengers away and justify further retrenchment.

Meanwhile the hawks will look at the Luton and Cambridge busways and the Gosport unguided busway and will see (despite all the oppribium) what is effectively a railway but with minimal p'way costs, no signalling costs, no ASLEF, no RMT, all vehicles DOO, drivers paid a fraction of train drivers with no route knowledge needed so can be hired and up and running with a few weeks training, vehicles that cost a fraction of the cost of train vehicles and reliable end to end journey times at tube like frequencies with no need for bus replacement when there is engineering works as the buses are self diverting.

And they will proceed accordingly and do to the rail industry what Murdoch did to the print workers.

I'm amused and somewhat bemused by how route knowledge has seemingly become the flavour of the month on here... particularly on the train of thought of how we can argue/predict the railways should/will be concreted over to defeat the unions.

In the grand scheme of things, it's not a big issue. Even the lowly bus driver needs a degree of route knowledge to carry out their role competently.

 

[21C101]

I'm amused and somewhat bemused by how route knowledge has seemingly become the flavour of the month on here... particularly on the train of thought of how we can argue/predict the railways should/will be concreted over to defeat the unions.

In the grand scheme of things, it's not a big issue. Even the lowly bus driver needs a degree of route knowledge to carry out their role competently.

They don't need a year of training then further weeks of training every time they drive a dufferent model of bus. And they don't get £50-60k for a 35 hour week, nearer £25k for a 45 hour week.

No one is seriousiy going to seriously suggest converting 12 car Thameslink into a guided busway but regional routes with a one or two car train every couple of hours like Castle Cary to Dorchester will look quite tempting.

 

[Goldfish62]

So bad that many trains were bursting at the seams pre-Covid and passenger levels are at 60% to 70% of what they were now, when things still aren't 'normal'. The railways aren't quite as irrelevant as some here would have people believe.

If it were up to some people here the Serpell report would have been dusted off and fully implemented by the end of 2020... and it would have been blamed on the unions. The forum's not so enthusiastic 'enthusiasts' are quite something.

I do note a surprising apparent enthusiasm from some here at the prospect of slashing the network.

Perhaps they're harking back to the "good old days" of 1970s BR in all its blue and grey (with a layer of grime) glory.

 

[43066]

And they don't get £50-60k for a 35 hour week, nearer £25k for a 45 hour week.

It always comes back to this doesn’t it…

 

[Robertj21a]

Very valid point that numbers haven't bounced back as predicted yet, but the pandemic is hanging around for a lot longer than predicted when those predictions on the bounce back in passenger numbers were first made. However, of all those people I personally know who were working 100% of the time at home at the height of the pandemic, every single one of them now goes to the office a minimum of twice a week.

Against that, people I know are now only expected to be in the office once a fortnight. Their office has been reduced in size and there's no likelihood of many staff in offices in future.

 

[21C101]

It always comes back to this doesn’t it…

Yes. Its as corrosive as the print workers pay and conditions were to their public image before before Shah and Murdoch upended the industry with alternative technology that bypassed them.

Guided and unguided busways are also such alternative technology.

 

[Peterthegreat]

It always comes back to this doesn’t it…

In some quarters it does. Perhaps jealousy has a bearing. Just to get it into perspective ASLE & F has around 20,000 members - not all drivers and not all employed by national rail passenger companies, some may be members of the RMT and a small number not in a union or in TSSA. But let suppose the 20,000 is not too far out in total and each of these were willing to take a £20k p.a. pay cut. This gives a saving of around £400m a large amount but no where near the £4bn quoted.

Yes. Its as corrosive as the print workers pay and conditions were to their public image before before Shah and Murdoch upended the industry with alternative technology that bypassed them.

Guided and unguided busways are also such alternative technology.

Guided bus ways cost a fortune to build. The Castle Cary to Dorchester route, which you quoted elsewhere, is likely (based on costs elsewhere) to cost at least £400m. Do you think anyone is likely to invest that sort of money?

 

[ComUtoR]

nearer £25k for a 45 hour week.

£10.68 an hour.

National living wage 2021 (23yrs+) £8.91
National living wage 2022 (23yrs+) £9.50

 

[Goldfish62]

Against that, people I know are now only expected to be in the office once a fortnight. Their office has been reduced in size and there's no likelihood of many staff in offices in future.

I simply don't see how any organisation can engender a good level of team working with such minimal physical presence. Just my opinion, but they will regret their hasty decision.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, but that is just administrative details. Solve that rather, than run uneconomic services!

They also have a lot of paths that are empty most days. Perhaps some of these could be done more efficiently !

 

[WelshBluebird]

I simply don't see how any organisation can engender a good level of team working with such minimal physical presence. Just my opinion, but they will regret their hasty decision.

There's plenty of successful teams that work fully remote though, even before COVID. Remote work isn't a new idea. Maybe it is to some people and some industries, but in others (especially tech) its been a thing for years and years at both large and small companies.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well, you can reduce that funding gap either by cutting services or growing services and bringing passengers back.

Point of order - growing services won’t reduce the funding gap. Because almost all services lose money, growing services means growing costs whilst not growing revenue to cover it.

Bringing passengers back without adding more services is, however, one solution to this.

Let's come back in 5 years' time and see what's happened.

We don’t have 5 years. Or to put it in Treasury language - the forecasts have been broadly right so far, if anything a little optimistic. But you want to commit £20bn for the next 5 years providing services that the forecasts show are not needed?

 

[43066]

Yes. Its as corrosive as the print workers pay and conditions were to their public image before before Shah and Murdoch upended the industry with alternative technology that bypassed them.

Very revealing choice of words.

I rather suspect the majority of the public, who are happy with their own lot in life, neither know nor particularly care what train drivers get paid. Those who do are perhaps over represented here.

I’d also suggest the endless fixation of some on here on earnings (of one particular grade; in one particular industry) is only “corrosive” to those who have their noses pressed up against the window, so to speak, and are perhaps unhappy with their own pay and conditions.

As for hackneyed comparisons with miners/printers in the 1980s and the “technology can do it cheaper” argument well, when it can, I don’t doubt we will all be replaced. How is that any different to any other job role?! It’s the the obvious enthusiasm some on here have for that day coming that I take issue with.

 

[yorksrob]

It would make sense to go forward with the ones that will save money, such as ones that remove boxes. But I bet they won't. A fortune would be saved by removing boxes like Rufford, North Llanrwst etc from branch lines so the only staff on the whole thing are driver and guard.

They're less likely to keel over than the more modern electric equivalents.

 

[class ep-09]

In some quarters it does. Perhaps jealousy has a bearing. Just to get it into perspective ASLE & F has around 20,000 members - not all drivers and not all employed by national rail passenger companies, some may be members of the RMT and a small number not in a union or in TSSA. But let suppose the 20,000 is not too far out in total and each of these were willing to take a £20k p.a. pay cut. This gives a saving of around £400m a large amount but no where near the £4bn quoted.


Guided bus ways cost a fortune to build. The Castle Cary to Dorchester route, which you quoted elsewhere, is likely (based on costs elsewhere) to cost at least £400m. Do you think anyone is likely to invest that sort of money?

After such cuts , HMG would have another shortage of drivers to solve .
This time train drivers .

Many would just walk away for another job ( perhaps driving lorries ?) or retire .

That on the top of the existing backlog of training .

 

[infobleep]

I'm unsure if anyone has responded on this point so far, but the trade union is free to spend its own money raised through membership fees and miscellaneous funds pretty much as they wish, such as on offices or campaigns or to disburse through various funds.

A union representative however is elected by their colleagues, often there are two or more, and given time at work to spend on union activities. They're paid by the company in the conventional manner for this. If they were rostered to be working elsewhere at the time, as may be usual, the company will need to arrange suitable cover.

I understand now. Some unions have Branch Secretaries, who I assume are not employed by the companies. It is those I was thinking of. I forgot about those Union Stewards who are members of staff

I am aware of some companies where in addition to have Unions, they also have staff forums and even various network groups for things like disabilties, women etc. etc. and staff are given time to attend those. Do the TOCs have anything like this or is it more just work, union and not working? By work I include training

Local / staff reps are company employees, who are released from their normal duties to conduct union business. Their time is paid for by the company. It is not unknown for these reps to spend more time on union business than paid work.

The unions employ ‘full time reps’, but these are relatively few in number.

Interesting. That isn't the case with the I'm more familiar with, Unison. Staff do work for them but I'm not aware of it being more than their regular duties.

It is probably quite different to the railway unions.

 

[yorksrob]

I do note a surprising apparent enthusiasm from some here at the prospect of slashing the network.

Perhaps they're harking back to the "good old days" of 1970s BR in all its blue and grey (with a layer of grime) glory.

To be fair, the network 'slashing' had slowed down somewhat in the 70's.

 

[the sniper]

They don't need a year of training then further weeks of training every time they drive a dufferent model of bus. And they don't get £50-60k for a 35 hour week, nearer £25k for a 45 hour week.

How often does your average passenger side Driver need to sign a new route or a new type of traction?

 

[43066]

I am aware of some companies where in addition to have Unions, they also have staff forums and even various network groups for things like disabilties, women etc. etc. and staff are given time to attend those. Do the TOCs have anything like this or is it more just work, union and not working? By work I include training

TOCs as a rule aren’t great with this kind of thing historically, albeit it’s slowly changing and there are increasingly “corporate” benefits such as staff welfare organisations, cycle to work schemes etc. Most womens/BAME/LGBT groups still tend to be via the union.

 

[lammergeier]

Point of order - growing services won’t reduce the funding gap. Because almost all services lose money, growing services means growing costs whilst not growing revenue to cover it.

Although strictly true, it's hardly as simple as saying "more services = more costs with wider revenue gaps." You're not taking into account economies of scale or the fact that making a service more regular makes it generally more attractive to a wider customer base. We need to be careful to avoid cutting where it leads to significantly unproductive rostering and asset usage or making the service so unattractive nobody wants to use it.

 

[TravelDream]

As ever, one anecdote does not a trend make. I could name several people who were full time commuters to the office and have no intention of returning again - indeed can’t as they are now permanent work from home. But, even if every commuter returned twice a week, that’s a 60% drop*

Undoubtedly people are going to work more from home in the future, but the figures speak for themselves.

80% of City workers were back at their desks last week despite Omicron

More London staff were at their desks last week than at any point during the pandemic as the festive party season kicked off (file photo of the City).

www.dailymail.co.uk

Nearly 80% of City of London workers were back at their desks last week despite rising Omicron cases - the BUSIEST offices have been since March 2020, mobility data reveals​

Meanwhile Apple mobility data for the capital also showed Londoners were bouncing back from the pandemic and heading out.

November and December have seen figures shoot up compared to earlier in the year and last year.

Transit is up 47 per cent, walking surged by 31 per cent while drivers also increased by 15 per cent.

 

[Starmill]

Ultimately how access rights works is how the government states that it works.

Is it? It would probably be unlawful to institutionalise a commercial disadvantage against the Freight Operating Companies in favour of a competing state run enterprise. Now yes, the government could amend the Competition Act (and probably others) but we're doing an awful lot of anti-capitalist heavy lifting if we're going down this route.

The minister can sweep it away virtually with the stroke of a pen if he wants.

The Secretary of State cannot just unilaterally shaft private businesses. Quite rightly...

 

[Wolfie]

Ultimately how access rights works is how the government states that it works.

The minister can sweep it away virtually with the stroke of a pen if he wants.

(Also charging freight operators full commercial rates is a way to reduce costs on the railway without politically unpalatable service cuts to passenger services)

Despite the current Government wishing to change the situation your second para is utterly wrong. Judicial review exists exactly to stop any such behaviour.

 

[Starmill]

Judicial review exists exactly to stop any such behaviour.

And thank goodness. For the time being anyway.

 

[irish_rail]

The flip side of your scenario is something shutting Box (for those not familiar, the route from Paddington to Bristol via Swindon), whereupon the B&H is a major diversionary route. Many, many Bristol services have been diverted via the B&H over the years at very short notice to keep trains moving. West country crews aren't able to assist a great deal with that, as there will never be a great many of them available at Paddington or Bristol, and they are constrained by the need to get them home again before their hours are up.

It's an interesting point; good diagramming needs to strike a balance, avoiding unnecessary route knowledge but also allowing for effective, workable contingencies.

But a great many west country bound trains also divert over Box. Sadly both Plymouth and most Paddington drivers where made to surrender knowledge of Taunton to Bristol which has caused headaches on a number of occasions. Short sighted in the extreme.
It does seem like common sense may be starting to creep in again, and hopefully with it the end of daft decisions like making depots lose key bits ofnroute knowledge, essential to running a robust train service.

 

[Xavi]

15% reduction in passenger journeys with 30% rolling stock reductions arriving soon....

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

From ORR's 2020/21 annual finance report the industry spent £21B last year which was £9.6B NR / £10.6B TOC costs

So TOC breaks down as

£3.6B on staff
£3B on rolling stock leasing charges
£3B other costs
£0.8B on diesel and traction current

So @Bald Rick says they have a £4B gap which suggests they are working to 60-70% of pre covid income as new baseline.

How do they find that going forward is going to be a challenge.

Leasing charges are fixed for many years ahead and any stock thats on short term leases is low cost already so not going to get much there. The report does give some examples of costs for instance LNER pay £333m annually for Azumas, TPE now pay out £146m for their new stock. The report also goes on to note that leasing charges have doubled over the last five years and lets not forget due to all the delays in deliveries and issues getting stock into use this will only go higher.

So reducing services will save a few million on diesel and EC4T costs and reduce other costs but the rest of it is fixed unless you remove staff.

 

[HSTEd]

Is it? It would probably be unlawful to institutionalise a commercial disadvantage against the Freight Operating Companies in favour of a competing state run enterprise. Now yes, the government could amend the Competition Act (and probably others) but we're doing an awful lot of anti-capitalist heavy lifting if we're going down this route.

Why would charging all train operators commercial track access charges lead to a competition claim?

(Charging passenger operators full commercial rates would in no way affect the government's financial position, it just means they would have to pay more subsidies to the train operators directly rather than hiding it in the network grant - and good luck trying to win a competition claim on the basis the government is willing to spend too much on public transport).