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

[HSTEd]

Much depends on the quality of the bus service. Is it reliable, reasonably priced and integrated with the railway services nearby and either connects well or is relatively frequent? Does it use modern vehicles with decent interiors, next stop information, and contactless pay as you go across modes including capping? Does it have a live next bus indicator at the stop and a protected place to wait and sit down?

Most bus services in England don't have any of that. So fundamentally a shift 'to bus' is going absolutely nowhere. It's really the bare minimum nowadays.

Buses will never be able to achieve railway compatible reliability unless they are on segregated busways, they are ultimately subject to the vagaries of traffic.

 

[AndyMike]

I've not seen much evidence of those empty trains around here - that's on IC, regional and local services. If the railway does make itself irrelevant, it's not for lack of customers who actually want to use it.

The industry needs to concentrate on bread and butter issues - being consistently competitive in price (rather than gimmicky offers that seem designed to catch people out), be relatively comfortable (less scrapping trains when you haven't got enough to replace them with) and turn up when people expect and need them (dependable services that can get you where you need to be and back (less of the strikes, timetable gaps and proper late evening and earlt morning services).

Get the basics right and people will come flooding back.

I think that’s a very fair assessment. None of this is rocket science - or, rather, it shouldn’t be. But where is the impetus from government to actively encourage people out of their cars, or the airlines on longer journeys, and onto the railways? I feel there’s a fundamental lack of ambition, resulting from an overriding view in government that trains are what people travel on only if they can’t drive.

 

[tomuk]

It also wouldn’t be particularly easy for new ROSCOs to enter the market given barriers to entry and the fact that it’s fairly small in the first place.

There are newer ROSCOs then the original three. Rock Rail for example who lease the following:

• Siemens Desiro EMUs in service on Govia Thameslink Railway’s Great Northern routes
• Stadler Flirt EMUs and BMUs entering service on Abellio’s Greater Anglia franchise
• Bombardier Aventra EMUs entering service on FirstGroup and MTR’s South Western franchise
• Hitachi Intercity BMUs for service on Abellio’s East Midlands franchise
• Hitachi Intercity EMUs and BMUs for service on First Group and Trenitalia’s Avanti West Coast franchise

SMBC and Equitix who have financed all the new stock in Wales and did a leaseback deal with TfL of the 345s for Crossrail. Corelink Rail who have financed the new CAF Civities and Aventra for West Midlands Trains

 

[Ken H]

On ROSCOs. They dont just lease trains. They manage the fleets, finance upgrades as well.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that’s a very fair assessment. None of this is rocket science - or, rather, it shouldn’t be. But where is the impetus from government to actively encourage people out of their cars, or the airlines on longer journeys, and onto the railways? I feel there’s a fundamental lack of ambition, resulting from an overriding view in government that trains are what people travel on only if they can’t drive.

I think there is none.

It's as if the government is constantly berating the railway for shooting itself on the foot when it's the one pulling the trigger.

 

[43066]

Your evidence is where?

Evidence of what, payments to ROSCOs are a significant cost and they make higher profits than TOCs (TOCs actually having pretty low profit margins)? Well it’s mentioned in the McNulty report, then there’s the following from Statistia for 2019:

https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20169.jpeg

Showing that leasing and maintenance costs account for 33% of the railway’s overall spend, versus 25% for staffing. So exposing your own statement:

But costs *can* be controlled - the biggest cost on the rail network is going to be staffing

As factually incorrect. I’ll ask again: why is it you ignore leasing costs while moaning about staff costs? Your own bias is all too obvious and it’s impossible to take your postings seriously.

Go and read up on the history of the railways and why they started out in places like Liverpool and Manchester or Stockton & Darlington - it wasn't about moving people.

Thanks for the patronisation, it just so happens I know a fair bit about railway history. It might surprise you to learn the U.K. railway network extends beyond the industrial north. If you think much of the network, particularly in the southeast of England, was created and remains in existence to haul freight as you implied before, I can assure you it is *you* who needs to go and study up.

Ah, the good old recourse from the Left when you don't have an argument - it's all lies in the Mail / Sun /Express. Try harder.

I simply asked specifically which Ts and Cs that poster had in mind? The fact there has been no reply indicates that - just as I suspected - the person doesn’t know the first thing about Ts and Cs and is just on the usual anti staff/anti union crusade.

As for accusing me of being “the left”, that’s utterly laughable to anyone who knows my politics. Again showing a level of naïveté on your part.

It's hilarious how the blinkered pro rail enthusiasts seem incapable of dealing in facts and prefer to misrepresent the posts of people they don't agree with.

You have continually moaned about the fact that the railway doesn’t make a profit, that swathes of it should be replaced by bus services etc. This is no misrepresentation, your utterances are available up thread if anyone really wants to read them again.

Overall your opinionated, bad tempered postings on this thread reveal a poor understanding of why the railway exists, what its costs are etc. and such an extraordinary level of bias that I simply can’t take them seriously.

 

[miklcct]

Buses will never be able to achieve railway compatible reliability unless they are on segregated busways, they are ultimately subject to the vagaries of traffic.

However, the ability of buses to run into residential areas is a major plus for local travel.

Back to the topic though - the railway is making itself to be irrelevant for local travel. Compare the service between Brighton and Hove. There were 6 tph (1 Portsmouth, 1 Southampton, 2 Worthing, 2 Hove to connect to London - Littlehampton trains) in the past and now only 2 tph on weekdays (Portsmouth / Southampton) and 4 tph on Saturdays (plus 2 Hove).

As that area has a good bus network it's the railway making itself irrelevant for local travel, rather than buses giving up when it can't compete with the reliable railways.

 

[Falcon1200]

But I think Network rail could look at its costs.

Network Rail has been under pressure to reduce its costs since Day 1 of its existence; One of the factors in my retiring in 2016 was increased workload and hours worked due to cost-saving staff reductions in my role. And the RMT is not exactly happy about the latest cost-saving measures being talked about !

Regarding the OP's original quote, I would rephrase it to say 'The Railway risks becoming Even More Irrelevant': None of the neighbours I know ever uses the train because they all have cars, even driving into Glasgow at rush-hour is slow but perfectly achievable, and many of their trips are impossible by train anyway. And the one person I know who did regularly use the train (my son) has been working from home ever since Covid !

 

[coppercapped]

Evidence of what, payments to ROSCOs are a significant cost and they make higher profits than TOCs (TOCs actually having pretty low profit margins)? Well it’s mentioned in the McNulty report, then there’s the following from Statistia for 2019:

https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20169.jpeg

Showing that leasing and maintenance costs account for 33% of the railway’s overall spend

No and No. The numbers show how, on average, the ///TOCs'/// fare income is broken down. It is NOT the railways' overall spend nor even a reflection of the total government funding of the railway business.

So the 33% is the fraction of the TOCs' fare income allocated to leasing and maintenance costs of the rolling stock. The rolling stock may be maintained by the manufacturer or the TOC directly - and this percentage includes staffing costs for this activity for whoever does the work. Infrastructure maintenance costs amount to 17% of the TOCs' costs which also includes wages and salaries but obviously does /not/ include that proportion coming from the direct grants to Network Rail which also counts as Government spending.

The wages, salaries and other employment overheads of the staff directly concerned with train operation make up 25% of the fare income

The TOCs' admin costs amount to 10% of the fare income and also includes the staffing costs which are in addition to the operational costs.

So the total staffing costs of the railway are made up of the wages and salaries and other employment overheads of the train operational staff, the train and infrastructure maintenance staff, Network Rail's operational staff (signallers, timetabling staff and so on), and all the management and back office work which is essential for any type of business to function. These numbers are available but I've other things to do...

On a general note - this is a classic example of a limited data set being extrapolated to support an argument outside its boundaries. It's good polemics but bad economics.

, versus 25% for staffing. So exposing your own statement:



As factually incorrect. I’ll ask again: why is it you ignore leasing costs while moaning about staff costs? Your own bias is all too obvious and it’s impossible to take your postings seriously.



Thanks for the patronisation, it just so happens I know a fair bit about railway history. It might surprise you to learn the U.K. railway network extends beyond the industrial north. If you think much of the network, particularly in the southeast of England, was created and remains in existence to haul freight as you implied before, I can assure you it is *you* who needs to go and study up.



I simply asked specifically which Ts and Cs that poster had in mind? The fact there has been no reply indicates that - just as I suspected - the person doesn’t know the first thing about Ts and Cs and is just on the usual anti staff/anti union crusade.

As for accusing me of being “the left”, that’s utterly laughable to anyone who knows my politics. Again showing a level of naïveté on your part.



You have continually moaned about the fact that the railway doesn’t make a profit, that swathes of it should be replaced by bus services etc. This is no misrepresentation, your utterances are available up thread if anyone really wants to read them again.

Overall your opinionated, bad tempered postings on this thread reveal a poor understanding of why the railway exists, what its costs are etc. and such an extraordinary level of bias that I simply can’t take them seriously.

 

[matacaster]

I can't understand why driver training stopped during covid in certain tocs but not others. Can anyone advise - management, unions? Also surely safeguards could have been introduced, such as covid testing driver and instructor before each journey or even to the extent of diving masks and compressed air bottles! It's not particularly obvious what the major risk was, when only 2 people in close proximity involved, that others were able to manage perfectly well with far more interactions. Just virtually ceasing training and having large new fleets unusable was somewhat unbelievable.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

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.

I assume that's A13>A12>M11>M25?

 

[dk1]

I can't understand why driver training stopped during covid in certain tocs but not others. Can anyone advise - management, unions? Also surely safeguards could have been introduced, such as covid testing driver and instructor before each journey or even to the extent of diving masks and compressed air bottles! It's not particularly obvious what the major risk was, when only 2 people in close proximity involved, that others were able to manage perfectly well with far more interactions. Just virtually ceasing training and having large new fleets unusable was somewhat unbelievable.

It’s something that baffles me & I can only assume particular depots couldn’t agree between management/union for a sensible outcome. My TOC was one of two who initially piloted the ‘bubble’ training. Can’t remember who or how the other got on but we absolutely nailed it & ended up passing out a record number of new drivers.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

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

There are many people, some within the industry, who believe the costs of electrification and new stations are higher than should be necessary.

 

[Starmill]

There are many people, some within the industry, who believe the costs of electrification and new stations are higher than should be necessary.

There are also very common complaints about the cost of capital projects in resignalling, and the cost of parts and maintenance for existing signalling. The same goes for the cost of the software for new trains, and the outrageous costs of the "hire by diagram" arrangement under Agility Trains West. In the freight world the cost of connecting new sidings to Network Rail infrastructure is also exorbitant, and the cost of traction electricity can also be outrageously high. Quite a large number of things come in for criticism on costs.

 

[matacaster]

There are many people, some within the industry, who believe the costs of electrification and new stations are higher than should be necessary.

Whilst safety is important on the railways, it should be viewed in the context of other risks in life. If it is taken to the extreme, ie no work can take place on tracks parallel to working tracks, then costs become unsustainable. Quite simply, reducing the chance of deaths or injury is one of diminishin returns - initially cheap quick effective wins, but then increasingly high cost for a small increase in safety. The new stationat low Moor in Bradford cost over £10m I think (could be wrong). It is fantastic, but a completely over the top solution based solely on marketing estimates (guesswork). A few years ago a trial wooden station to test demand was circa £250k. In other countries it is not considered necessary to fence off the railway and they are quite happy to let people cross the tracks. Whilst desirable, the DDA has made everything much more expensive for the rail industry yet comparatively few journeys are made by the disabled.

 

[Starmill]

The new stationat low Moor in Bradford cost over £10m I think (could be wrong).

The new two platform station at Warrington West cost £20.5 million.

 

[Craig1122]

Whilst desirable, the DDA has made everything much more expensive for the rail industry yet comparatively few journeys are made by the disabled.

DDA alterations make travel easier or in some cases possible for a large number of potential customers who aren't necessarily disabled. Elderly and families with buggies etc in particular come to mind so I think it's a little unfair to judge the benefit solely in terms of the people for whom the legislation is written.

That said there are places where making the necessary changes is out of all proportion with any possible commercial benefit. For example a station close to me has recently had a step free bridge added which I would imagine must have cost many years revenue from that station.

I don't think it's unreasonable that if we've decided as a society that we want to do this then that cost is reflected in part of the subsidy where it's commercially uneconomic. While the government have done this in part with the 'Access for all fund' that doesn't cover continued maintenance which will be an increasingly large figure especially where lifts are involved and when they reach the end of their lifespan.

 

[Class 170101]

The new two platform station at Warrington West cost £20.5 million.

I also question why lifts need to be installed when a perfectly capable bridge exists and a cheaper ramp up to it isn't seen as acceptable.

 

[Starmill]

DDA alterations make travel easier or in some cases possible for a large number of potential customers who aren't necessarily disabled.

Indeed, they're first and foremost about equality of access, which is partly why the new Equality Act subsumed the previous Disability Discrimination Act in 2010.

 

[Ken H]

Indeed, they're first and foremost about equality of access, which is partly why the new Equality Act subsumed the previous Disability Discrimination Act in 2010.

Then it should be funded by government, including forward maintenance liability. Separate from railway operating subsidy.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

On ROSCOs. They dont just lease trains. They manage the fleets, finance upgrades as well.

Manufacturers, which are invariably foreign, are increasingly involved in train leasing and maintenance (eg the IEP contact, and all the Pendolino servicing).
There is no basis to go back to UK design/manufacture and owning trains outright.
The industry (worldwide) has moved on from that, and is more like other transport industries.

Having said that, Hitachi are having a few issues with how the IEP contract has turned out.
Being a Rosco is far from being a licence to print money, as it was a decade or two ago (thanks to DfT micro-management).

 

[Bikeman78]

Right, because the "Southern region" did nothing wrong - apart from recycling time expired rolling stock which lead to unnecessary deaths when such death traps were involved in accidents and has bequeathed to the rail network a prehistoric system of electrification which was dangerously unsafe a century ago.

In any other line of business you'd be condemning such practises, but since it's the rail network it gets a free pass.

You've said this a few times. Roads also get a free pass. Try cycling along the new bike lane on Newport Road in Cardiff. Two way bike lane alongside a dual carriageway with no warning on the side roads telling drivers to look both ways. If a risk assessment was actually done, I'd love to meet the numpty that signed it off.

 

[A0wen]

You've said this a few times. Roads also get a free pass. Try cycling along the new bike lane on Newport Road in Cardiff. Two way bike lane alongside a dual carriageway with no warning on the side roads telling drivers to look both ways. If a risk assessment was actually done, I'd love to meet the numpty that signed it off.

That's not a "free pass" - it's incompetence. But since roads are a devolved matter I suggest you take it up with your AM, because it's nowt to do with Westminster. (I'm not surprised at incompetence from either the WA or its Scottish equivalent, they're glorified county councils pretending to be something of International standing).

Being a Rosco is far from being a licence to print money, as it was a decade or two ago (thanks to DfT micro-management).

I'd also argue due to changes in the industry, not necessarily DfT driven. That is the entry into the market of companies like Rock Rail, who have none of the legacies of the original Roscos so can look at how to do things differently - and such challengers can often work on lower overheads due to that lack of legacy.

 

[yorksrob]

Manufacturers, which are invariably foreign, are increasingly involved in train leasing and maintenance (eg the IEP contact, and all the Pendolino servicing).
There is no basis to go back to UK design/manufacture and owning trains outright.
The industry (worldwide) has moved on from that, and is more like other transport industries.

Frankly, that's part of the problem.

 

[jayah]

Network Rail has been under pressure to reduce its costs since Day 1 of its existence; One of the factors in my retiring in 2016 was increased workload and hours worked due to cost-saving staff reductions in my role. And the RMT is not exactly happy about the latest cost-saving measures being talked about !

Regarding the OP's original quote, I would rephrase it to say 'The Railway risks becoming Even More Irrelevant': None of the neighbours I know ever uses the train because they all have cars, even driving into Glasgow at rush-hour is slow but perfectly achievable, and many of their trips are impossible by train anyway. And the one person I know who did regularly use the train (my son) has been working from home ever since Covid !

Sad but true.

If anything it is remarkable the political profile rail has, given that much if not most of the population do not often use trains. In my experience they live out outside cities, with a car always on the drive, or they are outright and often quite vociferous rejectors of rail on cost grounds - and not necessarily because they are short of money.

 

[AlterEgo]

The new two platform station at Warrington West cost £20.5 million.

Really insane cost for a railway station. You can build a football stadium for £3million; Forest Green did about 15 years ago.

 

[jayah]

I don't quite know how they are claiming £3m, but their 2015 plans were to spend £100m on a replacement stadium. But £20.5m for a two platform railway station is bonkers.

 

[stuu]

The new two platform station at Warrington West cost £20.5 million.

I would be very interested to see a breakdown of that £20.5m. I wonder if there is some political nonsense involved in making the figure as large as possible, so it includes all the feasibility studies, the cost of bidding for the funding etc... because clearly a two platform station can't cost that much to build.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Evidence of what, payments to ROSCOs are a significant cost and they make higher profits than TOCs (TOCs actually having pretty low profit margins)? Well it’s mentioned in the McNulty report, then there’s the following from Statistia for 2019:

https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20169.jpeg

Showing that leasing and maintenance costs account for 33% of the railway’s overall spend, versus 25% for staffing. So exposing your own statement:



As factually incorrect. I’ll ask again: why is it you ignore leasing costs while moaning about staff costs? Your own bias is all too obvious and it’s impossible to take your postings seriously.



Thanks for the patronisation, it just so happens I know a fair bit about railway history. It might surprise you to learn the U.K. railway network extends beyond the industrial north. If you think much of the network, particularly in the southeast of England, was created and remains in existence to haul freight as you implied before, I can assure you it is *you* who needs to go and study up.



I simply asked specifically which Ts and Cs that poster had in mind? The fact there has been no reply indicates that - just as I suspected - the person doesn’t know the first thing about Ts and Cs and is just on the usual anti staff/anti union crusade.

As for accusing me of being “the left”, that’s utterly laughable to anyone who knows my politics. Again showing a level of naïveté on your part.



You have continually moaned about the fact that the railway doesn’t make a profit, that swathes of it should be replaced by bus services etc. This is no misrepresentation, your utterances are available up thread if anyone really wants to read them again.

Overall your opinionated, bad tempered postings on this thread reveal a poor understanding of why the railway exists, what its costs are etc. and such an extraordinary level of bias that I simply can’t take them seriously.

One thing to keep an eye on in life is not to believe something is a rip off just because it is a large proportion of the costs.

I can't understand why driver training stopped during covid in certain tocs but not others. Can anyone advise - management, unions? Also surely safeguards could have been introduced, such as covid testing driver and instructor before each journey or even to the extent of diving masks and compressed air bottles! It's not particularly obvious what the major risk was, when only 2 people in close proximity involved, that others were able to manage perfectly well with far more interactions. Just virtually ceasing training and having large new fleets unusable was somewhat unbelievable.

I think in the early stages of the Covid pandemic companies did not know exactly what to do. It was a big upheaval and change of priorities. There seemed to be cases of being over cautious and also other cases of being under cautious. Also depends when a company addressed the issues. So if a company made plans and got agreement early on (or much later on in the period of confusion) they might not have been making suc strict arrangements. But if the company concerned was making decisions during the period when fears were at their highest then their rules and procedures would be more onerous.

Whilst safety is important on the railways, it should be viewed in the context of other risks in life. If it is taken to the extreme, ie no work can take place on tracks parallel to working tracks, then costs become unsustainable. Quite simply, reducing the chance of deaths or injury is one of diminishin returns - initially cheap quick effective wins, but then increasingly high cost for a small increase in safety. The new stationat low Moor in Bradford cost over £10m I think (could be wrong). It is fantastic, but a completely over the top solution based solely on marketing estimates (guesswork). A few years ago a trial wooden station to test demand was circa £250k. In other countries it is not considered necessary to fence off the railway and they are quite happy to let people cross the tracks. Whilst desirable, the DDA has made everything much more expensive for the rail industry yet comparatively few journeys are made by the disabled.

I do wonder if the railways go over the top on safety. Just because it can be safer does not mean it is worth the cost. I look at the roads where there are far more deaths and injuries and have to ask should more money be spent there.

The cost of a footbridge at a little used crossing over a railway seems more acceptable than a footbridge in a city over a busy junction.

The pollution caused by roads is possibly a silent killer of an unimaginable scale. Look at how unleaded petrol was phased out. Look at how diesel for road vehicles has gone from encouraged to discouraged.

I also question why lifts need to be installed when a perfectly capable bridge exists and a cheaper ramp up to it isn't seen as acceptable.

Worse still I assume there are maintenance costs assocated with lifts that are higher than a low tech ramp.

 

[Bikeman78]

I do wonder if the railways go over the top on safety. Just because it can be safer does not mean it is worth the cost. I look at the roads where there are far more deaths and injuries and have to ask should more money be spent there.

The cost of a footbridge at a little used crossing over a railway seems more acceptable than a footbridge in a city over a busy junction.

The pollution caused by roads is possibly a silent killer of an unimaginable scale. Look at how unleaded petrol was phased out. Look at how diesel for road vehicles has gone from encouraged to discouraged.

This is a good point. There are plenty of road junctions that would benefit from a bridge or subway but little appetite to spend the money. The farce of the Cardiff bike lane which has actually made matters worse in my opinion.

If you look at the railways of Europe, many are unfenced. If the fence isn't there, then nothing needs to be spent to maintain it. Also the railway doesn't need to worry about being prosecuted if someone gains access to the track as happens in the UK. All this adds cost to the operation. This is just one example. There must be many others.