Comment piece in Passenger Transport - "The railway risks becoming irrelevant"

[yorksrob]

I certainly think the very high level of Anytime fares is a key part of the problem. But the Government doesn't even have the guts to cut them temporarily (other than Friday PM) and see what happens. Make every day a Saturday until September, say, and see what the summer does.

Indeed. It's certainly worth trying. Alas the treasury/gmt dinosaurs won't countenance it

 

[InOban]

The vast majority of the population outside London hardly ever use the train, unless they are travelling to London. I remember seeing a diagram showing the modal market share for journeys out of East Anglia. Almost everyone going to London used the train. Almost no-one used it to get anywhere else.

Even on a busy route like Leeds to Manchester, I would have thought that all the rail passengers would make little difference to the M62.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm having deja vu with this post......

Quite why the government should subsidise people to go on a jolly with little or no economic benefit is beyond me.

If people want to go visiting places, they should be prepared to pay the going rate. If people want to "improve their mental health" then there are very few places in the UK where you can't in a couple of miles get out into some green space or countryside. That doesn't need huge sums of money being pumped into the rail network as subsidy.

Yes, we'd all be down't mill or up chimney six days a week if you had your way.

 

[TUC]

Rail suffers from the same problem as many other policy areas-that of London-centricness. Too many in London and the South East really don't understand that for many people in the rest of the country rail is just one option and that, especially as soon as it gets to two people travelling together, the car is often still the cheaper option.

 

[yorksrob]

Rail suffers from the same problem as many other policy areas-that of London-centricness. Too many in London and the South East really don't understand that for many people in the rest of the country rail is just one option and that, especially as soon as it gets to two people travelling together, the car is often still the cheaper option.

Funnily enough, I think there's also an opposite problem in that too many policy makers in London think that just because their peak morning train looks "empty", all trains everywhere are, when in areas that were less dependant on peak commuting to begin with, they aren't.

 

[ainsworth74]

The discussion about the affordability of cars can now be found here.

 

[Taunton]

Though it is worth pointing out that "driving a car costs about 50p/mile" is a fallacy used by anti-car campaigners. I don't account my car's fixed costs per journey any more than I work out my rail miles per year and split the cost of my Network Railcard across them. The fixed costs are effectively a membership fee to car ownership paid pretty much regardless of usage levels.

Quite correct. Having a car (and being able to drive) is a fundamental of adult life. You just have it and own it. At our office any job applicant for positions which require visiting customers who can't drive is dismissed out of hand. There are a number of members on here who seem to make a virtue of not having a car, but that seems to be an attribute of rail enthusiasts, and I think even they realise they are an outlier minority. There has however long been this perceived anti-car approach from some, often those with a separate agenda. It's especially apparent against those with a nicer, better car.

Here at Canary Wharf you might have thought we were in the ultimate location for not using a car. But it's not true in our road. The majority of residents, for the majority of journeys, go by car, including to work. Quite practical, efficient journey times. Incidentally, nobody ever uses a bus, which go nowhere useful to any of us, it's DLR or nothing. There's a significanty disparity between going into Zone 1 and going outside, not only in actual usage but also how practical or not public transport is. It's a bit of a walk from our house to the DLR, and then you wait for the train. In contrast the car starts immediately heading for the main destination. It's one, only, set of traffic lights between us here and the M25. I have more than once left our house simultaneously with others, I'm on the M25 and they have not even started yet on the train.

 

[ar10642]

I'm having deja vu with this post......

Quite why the government should subsidise people to go on a jolly with little or no economic benefit is beyond me.

If people want to go visiting places, they should be prepared to pay the going rate. If people want to "improve their mental health" then there are very few places in the UK where you can't in a couple of miles get out into some green space or countryside. That doesn't need huge sums of money being pumped into the rail network as subsidy.

As has been said before, the "going rate" compares very, very badly to the car in the vast majority of cases. So this is basically an argument for shutting the railway down. It's a legitimate view, but what's the point of being in this forum if you think that way?

 

[TUC]

As has been said before, the "going rate" compares very, very badly to the car in the vast majority of cases. So this is basically an argument for shutting the railway down. It's a legitimate view, but what's the point of being in this forum if you think that way?

It isn't an argument for shutting the railway down. It is argument for the railway needing to radically cut its costs and modernise its processes so it can compete in a viable way.

 

[ar10642]

It isn't an argument for shutting the railway down. It is argument for the railway needing to radically cut its costs and modernise its processes so it can compete in a viable way.

It's never going to happen.

Or if it is, the only way is to cut the bits of it that are unprofitable, which is most of it.

 

[yorksrob]

It isn't an argument for shutting the railway down. It is argument for the railway needing to radically cut its costs and modernise its processes so it can compete in a viable way.

It won't reduce costs of it alienates its potential passenger base.

 

[A0wen]

As has been said before, the "going rate" compares very, very badly to the car in the vast majority of cases. So this is basically an argument for shutting the railway down. It's a legitimate view, but what's the point of being in this forum if you think that way?

Because costs *do* need to be contained. Rail accounts for about 10% of journeys in this country - and if all or a high proportion of those are heavily subsidised for whatever reason then it means alot of people are paying for a minority to travel. And if you're argument is the environmental one, the cleanest journey is one you don't make.

It won't reduce costs of it alienates its potential passenger base.

But growing passenger numbers where those journeys are loss making just compounds the problem - the rail network needs to be growing the "profitable" or at the very least the "viable" journeys, not the ones where people's journeys are heavily subsidised.

 

[ar10642]

Because costs *do* need to be contained. Rail accounts for about 10% of journeys in this country - and if all or a high proportion of those are heavily subsidised for whatever reason then it means alot of people are paying for a minority to travel. And if you're argument is the environmental one, the cleanest journey is one you don't make.

Ok, but there's not a chance in hell that costs are going to be controlled. And journeys won't be "not made", they will be made by car instead. So, again, you are making an argument for the closure of most railways.

 

[HSTEd]

But growing passenger numbers where those journeys are loss making just compounds the problem - the rail network needs to be growing the "profitable" or at the very least the "viable" journeys, not the ones where people's journeys are heavily subsidised.

I'd argue greater total subsidy is probably politically viable if it leads to a lower subsidy per journey.

Let's say (as an illustrative example) the railway costs twice as much but delivers ten times the journeys, is that going to be more or less politically defendable?

We have to cut costs where we can, but we also have to chase volume, because Railway systems are bulk transport systems. Pile it high and sell it cheap.

 

[thealexweb]

Of course it does. It’s feels like UK rail has stopped trying. Why pay double vs cost of driving for two changes…

 

[A0wen]

Ok, but there's not a chance in hell that costs are going to be controlled. And journeys won't be "not made", they will be made by car instead. So, again, you are making an argument for the closure of most railways.

No - some journeys won't be made. Some will be made by bus.

If you don't have a car and you want to go to London for the day and decide the train fare is too much, you might go by coach, you might not bother, you might go somewhere else. It's not as binary as you make it out to be.

But costs *can* be controlled - the biggest cost on the rail network is going to be staffing - so another look at OMO, running 2 tph rather than 3 or 4 reduces the number of crew needed, reducing ticket offices (which is being looked at and TFL have already done this on the Underground), not running the "once a day" extension to some random destination (again some of these have been done e.g. EMR running to Leeds - others which could be looked at include LNER running north of Edinburgh for example), reduce the number of "duplicate" services, reduce on-board catering where it is little used - the list goes on.

We have to cut costs where we can, but we also have to chase volume, because Railway systems are bulk transport systems. Pile it high and sell it cheap.

Turning it the other way, what would be the effect of a 10% rise on all ticket prices ?

If, for example it led to a 2% drop in use but an 8% increase in revenue, that would actually improve the railway network's financial position.

 

[Ken H]

Ok, but there's not a chance in hell that costs are going to be controlled. And journeys won't be "not made", they will be made by car instead. So, again, you are making an argument for the closure of most railways.

The costs of the railway are the ones that need to be addressed. Peter parker said 'the railway is a track and a train'. OK, a little simplistic but maybe look how much stuff the railway NEEDS rather than nice to have.

 

[HSTEd]

Turning it the other way, what would be the effect of a 10% rise on all ticket prices ?

If, for example it led to a 2% drop in use but an 8% increase in revenue, that would actually improve the railway network's financial position.

It would notionally improve the financial position of the railway, sure, but ultimately it would further degrade the political position of the railway by making it more and more a niche subject.

The railway has to remain relevant to the bulk of the population because otherwise the infrastructure spending necessary for it to compete in the future will not be forthcoming.

The railway is almost certainly not going to achieve financial breakeven in the forseeable future, so we must fight the political as well as the economic battle.

That means cutting costs and being seen to cut costs, but also making itself essential to the lives of as much of the population as possible.
It probably means more Merseyrail or Metrolink or Tyne and Wear Metro type systems too.

 

[muddythefish]

Reading some of the posts on here the idea of a "social" railway for the benefit of all with costs and profits and losses spread across the network has clearly disappeared. Many of the comments are pure outdated neoliberal dogma- if it's not being used by many cut it to the bone or shut it. And if that means you can't travel at all - then stay at home.

 

[Starmill]

Another point that gets lost is that the government won't appreciate being told that inflation is to blame for the cost issues after they have asked for a saving. Cost cuts will be demanded in real terms (i.e. against the 2019 cost base) while revenue growth will be measured in absolute terms.

To put it another way, there is a deep double standard here. To be seen as performing well revenue would need to hit more than 100% of 2019 - something like 107% by now. Wheras costs will need to be 80% - 90% of 2019 levels.

 

[ar10642]

No - some journeys won't be made. Some will be made by bus.

Hardly any will be made by bus. The bus is usually a choice made out of desperation.

If you don't have a car and you want to go to London for the day and decide the train fare is too much, you might go by coach, you might not bother, you might go somewhere else. It's not as binary as you make it out to be.

Almost everyone has access to a car. The journeys will be made by car 95% of the time. Those that don't will have to take taxis because most buses aren't profitable. If we're insisting on public transport being 100% profitable it mostly won't exist, except in large cities.

But costs *can* be controlled - the biggest cost on the rail network is going to be staffing - so another look at OMO, running 2 tph rather than 3 or 4 reduces the number of crew needed, reducing ticket offices (which is being looked at and TFL have already done this on the Underground), not running the "once a day" extension to some random destination (again some of these have been done e.g. EMR running to Leeds - others which could be looked at include LNER running north of Edinburgh for example), reduce the number of "duplicate" services, reduce on-board catering where it is little used - the list goes on.

So service cuts rather than outright closure. But then it becomes even less useful, so less people use it, so less financially viable etc.

Try making staff redundant the unions kick off, strikes etc. no service, lose even more passengers who start using cars and don't come back.

All of this stufff is just Beeching again, didn't work, won't work now.

Turning it the other way, what would be the effect of a 10% rise on all ticket prices ?

If, for example it led to a 2% drop in use but an 8% increase in revenue, that would actually improve the railway network's financial position.

Prices are already ridiculous, why 2%?

Reading some of the posts on here the idea of a "social" railway for the benefit of all with costs and profits and losses spread across the network has clearly disappeared. Many of the comments are pure outdated neoliberal dogma- if it's not being used by many cut it to the bone or shut it. And if that means you can't travel at all - then stay at home.

My argument is the railway will never be profitable, but if we're going to have it it needs to be accessible and useful which means subsidised and not having stupidly high fares.

If making it profitable is the aim you might as well shut it down tomorrow, it will never happen.

 

[Starmill]

I certainly think the very high level of Anytime fares is a key part of the problem. But the Government doesn't even have the guts to cut them temporarily (other than Friday PM) and see what happens. Make every day a Saturday until September, say, and see what the summer does.

Sales on Anytimes in August were always rubbish anyway. But of course, the attitude from Avanti West Coast and the Department is one of why take on this extra risk? We know that we have pricing power and the customer knows we have it too. If we show a bit of skin and relax it only to put it back, and it goes wrong, we'll lose both cash and pricing power. Much, much safer to just keep the peak trains empty in August.

Also, the Friday point you raise isn't even in consequence of the pandemic. It is actually from the weekend closures of London Euston in 2018. They were actually forced by circumstances into trialling the derestriction on Fridays to prevent queues in the station too long for them to manage. They didn't try it out as a revenue exercise but when they found it had a revenue benefit they kept it permanently. Even that didn't change the mindset!

 

[yorksrob]

Because costs *do* need to be contained. Rail accounts for about 10% of journeys in this country - and if all or a high proportion of those are heavily subsidised for whatever reason then it means alot of people are paying for a minority to travel. And if you're argument is the environmental one, the cleanest journey is one you don't make.



But growing passenger numbers where those journeys are loss making just compounds the problem - the rail network needs to be growing the "profitable" or at the very least the "viable" journeys, not the ones where people's journeys are heavily subsidised.

Not at all. If you have a subsidised service, you want to get as many people on it as possible to pay the cost.

No - some journeys won't be made. Some will be made by bus.

If you don't have a car and you want to go to London for the day and decide the train fare is too much, you might go by coach, you might not bother, you might go somewhere else. It's not as binary as you make it out to be.

But costs *can* be controlled - the biggest cost on the rail network is going to be staffing - so another look at OMO, running 2 tph rather than 3 or 4 reduces the number of crew needed, reducing ticket offices (which is being looked at and TFL have already done this on the Underground), not running the "once a day" extension to some random destination (again some of these have been done e.g. EMR running to Leeds - others which could be looked at include LNER running north of Edinburgh for example), reduce the number of "duplicate" services, reduce on-board catering where it is little used - the list goes on.



Turning it the other way, what would be the effect of a 10% rise on all ticket prices ?

If, for example it led to a 2% drop in use but an 8% increase in revenue, that would actually improve the railway network's financial position.

The first costs that need to be moved are the artificial costs introduced as part of the privatisation fiasco, such as leasing costs on trains that have been paid for several times over.

 

[A0wen]

Not at all. If you have a subsidised service, you want to get as many people on it as possible to pay the cost.

But *NOT* by reducing fares wholesale - you want as many paying as much as possible.

So if you have 150 passengers paying £ 5, you get the same revenue if you only have 75 passengers paying £ 10.

And if, as you keep claiming, the trains are full and standing, that actually suggests there *is* the demand and actually you *don't* need to cut the prices and can probably go the other way.

The first costs that need to be moved are the artificial costs introduced as part of the privatisation fiasco, such as leasing costs on trains that have been paid for several times over.

Your evidence that they have " been paid for several times over" is where ? (I'll wait).

 

[TUC]

It's never going to happen.

Or if it is, the only way is to cut the bits of it that are unprofitable, which is most of it.

It doesn't have to invole removing unprofitable parts. If anything, the problem with many different parts of the public sector (the BBC for example) is that they assume that saving money involves not doing certain things rather than doing everything in the most cost-effective way possible. The latter is what needs to happen.

 

[yorksrob]

But *NOT* by reducing fares wholesale - you want as many paying as much as possible.

So if you have 150 passengers paying £ 5, you get the same revenue if you only have 75 passengers paying £ 10.

And if, as you keep claiming, the trains are full and standing, that actually suggests there *is* the demand and actually you *don't* need to cut the prices and can probably go the other way.



Your evidence that they have " been paid for several times over" is where ? (I'll wait).

But if the railway has 150 passengers, it is more relevant to society and the economy as a whole than if it has 75, and is therefore less susceptible to the whims of anti-rail policy makers.

 

[ainsworth74]

Your evidence that they have " been paid for several times over" is where ? (I'll wait).

I'm not entirely convinced the leasing fees that say XC are paying for their HSTs are still paying back the original purchase cost that BR made in the 1970s and 80s for them...

 

[yorksrob]

But *NOT* by reducing fares wholesale - you want as many paying as much as possible.

So if you have 150 passengers paying £ 5, you get the same revenue if you only have 75 passengers paying £ 10.

And if, as you keep claiming, the trains are full and standing, that actually suggests there *is* the demand and actually you *don't* need to cut the prices and can probably go the other way.



Your evidence that they have " been paid for several times over" is where ? (I'll wait).

I'm claiming that many of the trains are busy. That's not necessarily the same as full and standing. Also many routes such as TPE are running fewer services than pre Pandemic, which should be the benchmark.

I'm not entirely convinced the leasing fees that say XC are paying for their HSTs are still paying back the original purchase cost that BR made in the 1970s and 80s for them...

Indeed, the cost of a lot of that stock had already been paid down by the time it was sold off.

 

[ar10642]

It doesn't have to invole removing unprofitable parts. If anything, the problem with many different parts of the public sector (the BBC for example) is that they assume that saving money involves not doing certain things rather than doing everything in the most cost-effective way possible. The latter is what needs to happen.

Right, so what are you going to do? Cut wages or staff? Good luck with that, the unions will shut down the whole thing for months. Cut back services? We've got enough of that already (see Scotrail). Cut infrastructure costs? Maybe we could do that but the last time we tried cutting corners on infrastructure in the Railtrack era trains started derailing. Raise ticket costs even further? They're pretty ridiculous already.

I don't see where these big savings are coming from.

 

[43066]

Because costs *do* need to be contained. Rail accounts for about 10% of journeys in this country - and if all or a high proportion of those are heavily subsidised for whatever reason then it means alot of people are paying for a minority to travel. And if you're argument is the environmental one, the cleanest journey is one you don't make.

Someone else who apparently thinks the railway is meant to be a commercial business. As for people paying for it well, yes, in the way people pay for other services they don’t personally use. In any case the burden has been transferred more and more onto fare payers as a matter of government policy for years now.

I'm not entirely convinced the leasing fees that say XC are paying for their HSTs are still paying back the original purchase cost that BR made in the 1970s and 80s for them...

It’s notable that the people who moan about costs only seem to care about staffing costs…