Railways lurching out of control?

[contrex]

Unfortunately, I do get the impression that it's almost impossible to point out that some benefit claimants are probably not genuine without someone gratuitously misinterpreting the 'some' as if you'd said 'all' and then taking offence at what is actually their own misinterpretation.

If your 'some' is a small part of the whole, one would want to say 'So what? No society or benefit scheme is perfect; the price of not living in a dictatorship is letting a few slip through the net'. You have already said above that you don't think your 'some' is a large part. And who defines what 'genuine' means? So it's a hypothetical problem. I'd much rather concentrate on some real abuses that can be quantified (PPE anyone?) that arguably have a greater impact on our society's moral and financial well-being.

 

[heathrowrail]

So the government would, what, be forced to give unlimited free money to something that they have absolutely no control over?

No the railway's core route pay for themselves, it's the thinner branch lines that don't and they could receive government subsidy in the same way Bus services and the Newquay airlink does.

 

[HSTEd]

No the railway's core route pay for themselves, it's the thinner branch lines that don't and they could receive government subsidy in the same way Bus services and the Newquay airlink does.

The list of routes that cover their full commercial costs is very small indeed.

And the bus subsidy system has essentially disintegrated over the last two decades.

 

[bramling]

If your 'some' is a small part of the whole, one would want to say 'So what? No society or benefit scheme is perfect; the price of not living in a dictatorship is letting a few slip through the net'. You have already said above that you don't think your 'some' is a large part. And who defines what 'genuine' means? So it's a hypothetical problem. I'd much rather concentrate on some real abuses that can be quantified (PPE anyone?) that arguably have a greater impact on our society's moral and financial well-being.

It doesn’t sit right with me to simply accept that a proportion of people will slip through the net. Why should others subsidise this through the tax they pay? Why should scarce tax revenue be used to subsidise what are effectively fraudsters, when that tax revenue could be used to better effect on something else?

If everyone made the *choice* to sit at home and live off benefits then society simply wouldn’t be able to function. So why should we acquiesce and allow some people to live in this way?

 

[wilbers]

They failed to do this in the 1980s when the car was the future. They'd never get away with it now.

As I said maybe Girvan-Stranraer or a similarly obscure line (Barton-upon-Humber must surely be England's biggest basket case line now?) but not the S&C. And probably not anything in Scotland or Wales as the political situation is very, very different.

Am I being too much of a pedant pointing out that Girvan / Stranraer are in Scotland?

 

[The Ham]

It doesn’t sit right with me to simply accept that a proportion of people will slip through the net. Why should others subsidise this through the tax they pay? Why should scarce tax revenue be used to subsidise what are effectively fraudsters, when that tax revenue could be used to better effect on something else?

If everyone made the *choice* to sit at home and live off benefits then society simply wouldn’t be able to function. So why should we acquiesce and allow some people to live in this way?

The questions hat need to be answered to understand why this happens are:

How many slip through?
How much does that cost?
How much would it cost to monitor (given you'd have to monitor everyone claiming)?

Chances are it's cheaper to let those few through than do anything about it.

Same with the pensioners' winter fuel allowance, it's cheaper just to pay it to everyone than those who really need it.

 

[Bantamzen]

It doesn’t sit right with me to simply accept that a proportion of people will slip through the net. Why should others subsidise this through the tax they pay? Why should scarce tax revenue be used to subsidise what are effectively fraudsters, when that tax revenue could be used to better effect on something else?

If everyone made the *choice* to sit at home and live off benefits then society simply wouldn’t be able to function. So why should we acquiesce and allow some people to live in this way?

Everybody doesn't make that "choice" though, in fact most people wouldn't want to so its a moot point. However where there are systems like benefits in place, there will be chancers. How do you for example guarantee that someone on Universal Credit isn't doing some cash in hand work & not declaring it?

 

[mike57]

From a quick look on Wikipedia, I am amazed the Barton-upon-Humber line survived the Beeching cuts.

As other have said it survived Beeching because of the ferry, which was then replaced by the bridge in the early 80s. By the time the closure would have been put forwards any rail closures were unacceptable and would have caused major protests, this was the period when BR were attempting to close the Settle - Carlisle.

I worked near Immingham for around a year about 15 years ago, and would commute daily from home over the Humber Bridge. One day a week, I picked a fine day, I would park the car on the north side of the Humber Bridge and cycle the rest of the way and back, using the back roads, which means I got to see close up the area through which the railway passed. Here is a view of Thornton Abbey Station in the distance taken from StreetView which gives a flavour of the area

As can be seen its empty, farms, small villages and not much else. Barton on Humber at the end of the line is a small town of 11,000. I used the train I think twice when the weather turned against me to get back to the south side of the bridge, getting on at Stallingborough and off at Barton. Large quantities of fresh air being moved about...

I have often wondered if routes such as this could be converted to a simple light rail operation. A diesel powered (maybe battery these days) tram train, top speed say 50mph, light weight, with track brakes to give good stopping capability, and run branches like this as 'one vehicle in section', line of sight operation, and minimal or no signalling. Obviously you are not going to string even a trolley wire for miles for an every 2hr service, which what I think the current service is.

On the wider topic, I dont think closing or rationalising a few 'basket case routes' is going to solve the problem that the railways currently have. The current problem is that major population centres need a reliable service linking them with sufficent capacity to cope with daya to day demand. Two operators who seem unable to deliver currently are TPE and Avanti, and this is affecting a large area of the UK. To say they are lurching out of control is a bit of an understatement, The TPE operation has been failing to deliver since May 2018, different year, different excuse, but apart from a period during the strict covid lockdown travelling across the Pennines by train has been fraught. Many of the issues were predictable, posters on here have highlighted a lot of the issues, they were foreseen and should not have happened

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No the railway's core route pay for themselves, it's the thinner branch lines that don't and they could receive government subsidy in the same way Bus services and the Newquay airlink does.

But that's exactly how franchises worked, with specific subsidy routed to the TOCs operating the service.
Currently (post-covid) the entire cost is met by the government, who also take the revenue.
The infrastructure costs are a lot more opaque, and bulk direct grants are involved between DfT and NR, reviewed every 5 years by ORR.
I don't think any part of the railway pays its way at the moment.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think the railway is lurching out of control (even if costs may have been allowed to do so over the past thirty years).

The railway seems to be more and more in a straight jacket as it'e effectively being prevented from running even the service it was running immediately after the pandemic.

 

[contrex]

I think the very notion that the railway is 'lurching out of control' is an emotive, sensationalist and lurid way of expressing an idea that belongs firmly in the headlines of the Daily Mail or Daily Express. Also as a way of deflecting blame from where it truly belongs.

 

[Msq71423]

On the subject of the Barton line, Barrow Haven which has approx 36 users per week has recently had a £1.3m station upgrade completed..



www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-63598199.amp

 

[yorksrob]

With regard to the barton line, I've only ever used it to get to Barton itself - is there any scope for better bus connections and through ticketing to Hull I wonder !

 

[bramling]

With regard to the barton line, I've only ever used it to get to Barton itself - is there any scope for better bus connections and through ticketing to Hull I wonder !

Doubt it, as the main traffic is going to be from the Grimsby end, from where it would be quicker to simply travel by bus all the way to Hull. The branch isn’t exactly quick. It’s amazing it’s still open really.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

With regard to the barton line, I've only ever used it to get to Barton itself - is there any scope for better bus connections and through ticketing to Hull I wonder !

You could argue the problem with the Barton line arises from the short-sightedness in the 1970s of building the Humber Bridge as a road-only bridge: The work really should've been combined with extending the railway into Hull. If that had been done, then the Barton line would today in all likelihood been a fairly busy and much needed line connecting Hull and Grimsby. But as it is, the line stupidly stops a few miles short of where almost everyone is going to want to go, which very predictably means very few people use it.

The cost of fixing that today would be astronomical, so that's obviously not going to get done any time soon. Through ticketing and decent, dedicated/guaranteed bus connections might be the next best thing, although I'm not sure that would give much benefit over direct Hull-Grimsby buses?

 

[43066]

Not an expert

Just as I thought.

No I am not, my reply was to the suggestion that a pay rise did not really cost the state much. If it does not cost the state much then surely its not much benefit to the staff getting the pay rise.

It’s a nonsensical suggestion. It will hugely benefit the staff but won’t cost much at all, especially in the context of 600,000 nurses wanting a pay rise.

But when someone wants money from the state they need to have a good excuse.

Bitterness. You must feel positively dreadful about GPs on £100k+ per year seeing fewer and fewer patients. And pensioners. And benefit claimants. And MPs.

A lot of stations have plenty of platform staff from my travels today around SE but the real efficiency isn't the people operating the service and maintaining the rolling stock and infrastructure its the hidden people in back offices where efficiencies lie but that requires a change of mindset and until there is an acceptance that a totally safe railway is nirvana the opportunity won't be realised.

There probably are too many people standing around at ticket gatelines not doing much these days. That would strike me as an easy target for efficiency savings!

 

[yorksrob]

You could argue the problem with the Barton line arises from the short-sightedness in the 1970s of building the Humber Bridge as a road-only bridge: The work really should've been combined with extending the railway into Hull. If that had been done, then the Barton line would today in all likelihood been a fairly busy and much needed line connecting Hull and Grimsby. But as it is, the line stupidly stops a few miles short of where almost everyone is going to want to go, which very predictably means very few people use it.

The cost of fixing that today would be astronomical, so that's obviously not going to get done any time soon. Through ticketing and decent, dedicated/guaranteed bus connections might be the next best thing, although I'm not sure that would give much benefit over direct Hull-Grimsby buses?

I remember listening to an interesting documentary on radio 4 about the planning and conception of the Humber bridge and it was a major outlay even as built. I suspect it would have been a lot more expensive as a road/rail bridge.

To my mind, if some rail funding had been available at the time, keeping York -Hull via Market Weighton open would have been a better bet.

Doubt it, as the main traffic is going to be from the Grimsby end, from where it would be quicker to simply travel by bus all the way to Hull. The branch isn’t exactly quick. It’s amazing it’s still open really.

It's certainly a bit of a curiosity.

I had a friend who lived in Barton for a couple of years and used it then.

 

[bramling]

There probably are too many people standing around at ticket gatelines not doing much these days. That would strike me as an easy target for efficiency savings!

Have to say, the staffing at my local station has snowballed in the last few years, and at certain times there can be a whole crowd on the gateline. I guess the problem is that the alternative is something like Southeastern metro, which people don’t seem to like either.

Everybody doesn't make that "choice" though,

Exactly. Most people who can make the effort. This is why people are then disquieted to find their hard-earned income taken away and given to those people who make a different choice. Given how much of public spending goes on welfare, which I realise also includes pensions, it is pretty important the taxpayer gets value for money.

 

[eldomtom2]

No system is perfect, but the one that we had until 2019 seemed okay

Hmmm, I wonder if certain other things happened that affected the railway since then besides the end of franchising...

You also continue to claim that franchising is better because the companies are accountable - but they're accountable to the government, so this doesn't really change where control lies.

 

[Goldfish62]

Have to say, the staffing at my local station has snowballed in the last few years, and at certain times there can be a whole crowd on the gateline. I guess the problem is that the alternative is something like Southeastern metro, which people don’t seem to like either.

It depends what they're doing. At Waterloo for example SWR have poorly trained agency staff on the gateline who don't seem to be too helpful. Go downstairs to the Underground and while there's usually a gaggle of staff hanging around I've always found them to be very helpful.

 

[North-Valiant]

Money spent on benefits hasn't really increased much since 2000.

Money spent on pensions though? Has almost tripled since 1997

 

[Goldfish62]

Money spent on benefits hasn't really increased much since 2000.

Money spent on pensions though? Has almost tripled since 1997

View attachment 124594View attachment 124595

I should think so too.

Inflation has almost doubled costs since 1997. Then there's the triple lock and the much needed introduction of the New State Pension. Plus people are living longer. On the debit side, people are having to wait for longer and longer until receiving their state pensions, which, despite the UK being the sixth richest nation on the planet, are amongst the lowest in Europe.

 

[al78]

It doesn’t sit right with me to simply accept that a proportion of people will slip through the net. Why should others subsidise this through the tax they pay? Why should scarce tax revenue be used to subsidise what are effectively fraudsters, when that tax revenue could be used to better effect on something else?

If everyone made the *choice* to sit at home and live off benefits then society simply wouldn’t be able to function. So why should we acquiesce and allow some people to live in this way?

We accept it because no system is perfect and it is judged the overall quality of life is better if the imperfect system is in place than if it ceases to exist, plus there is the moral argument that a society can be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens.

The "if everyone made the choice to stay at home" is a non-argument. The desire to be a productive member of society and a sense of belonging ensures this will never happen. The ones that game the system are in the minority, same as those who illegally evade tax. You should also bear in mind that removing the benefits system will likely have two unintended consequences: 1) it will cause hardship for those who have fallen on hard times and need a temporary leg-up; 2) those for whom it is a lifestyle choice and can't be bothered to work are not likely to change their ways, they will probably turn to crime which harms everyone.

I should think so too.

Inflation has almost doubled costs since 1997. Then there's the triple lock and the much needed introduction of the New State Pension. Plus people are living longer. On the debit side, people are having to wait for longer and longer until receiving their state pensions, which, despite the UK being the sixth richest nation on the planet, are amongst the lowest in Europe.

If people spend decades voting for low tax governments, what do you expect?

If the UK population collectively chooses to act like Americans, it can't complain when the consequences align with America.

 

[mike57]

the main traffic is going to be from the Grimsby end, from where it would be quicker to simply travel by bus all the way to Hull

There is currently no through bus from Grimsby to Hull. The main service from Hull over the bridge makes for Scunthorpe. The lack of through bus tells me that its not a significant flow

 

[al78]

The questions hat need to be answered to understand why this happens are:

How many slip through?
How much does that cost?
How much would it cost to monitor (given you'd have to monitor everyone claiming)?

Chances are it's cheaper to let those few through than do anything about it.

Same with the pensioners' winter fuel allowance, it's cheaper just to pay it to everyone than those who really need it.

A bit like the chancers who ride trains for free. It is cheaper to accept this will happen to a degree than employ a load more staff to catch them in the act.

I don't think the railway is lurching out of control (even if costs may have been allowed to do so over the past thirty years).

The railway seems to be more and more in a straight jacket as it'e effectively being prevented from running even the service it was running immediately after the pandemic.

In a state of decay.
Starting to come apart at the seams.
In danger of becoming analagous to a Brittania hotel:

 

[tbtc]

As I said maybe Girvan-Stranraer or a similarly obscure line (Barton-upon-Humber must surely be England's biggest basket case line now?) but not the S&C

The S&C may still be the biggest basket case (given the infrastructure costs)

I accept that it’s too high profile to close (which is why the Government’s Operator Of Last Resort has instead been cutting lots of low profile services that don’t attract tourists or serve big cities like Leeds (Doncaster to Scunthorpe/ Hull, Huddersfield to Wakefield/ Castleford, Sheffield to Doncaster, Sheffield to Brigg/ Cleethorpes etc… those cuts seem to have slipped under the radar without much scrutiny)

But even if the S&C loses more money than all of these routes combined, it’s now sacred and cannot be considered for closure

But that's exactly how franchises worked, with specific subsidy routed to the TOCs operating the service.
Currently (post-covid) the entire cost is met by the government, who also take the revenue.
The infrastructure costs are a lot more opaque, and bulk direct grants are involved between DfT and NR, reviewed every 5 years by ORR.
I don't think any part of the railway pays its way at the moment.

Agreed on all points there

I think the very notion that the railway is 'lurching out of control' is an emotive, sensationalist and lurid way of expressing an idea that belongs firmly in the headlines of the Daily Mail or Daily Express. Also as a way of deflecting blame from where it truly belongs.

Where’s does blame truly belong?

On the subject of the Barton line, Barrow Haven which has approx 36 users per week has recently had a £1.3m station upgrade completed..



www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-63598199.amp

That’s… wow… even at its pre-Covid “high” of about three departing passengers a day, that’s a one-off cost equivalent to over a thousand pounds per return journey… even if you assume that it’ll last for fifty years (with no other expenditure required on the station in the next five decades) that’s over a tenner per return journey just to do this upgrade

Surely there’s got to be a cut-off n point at which you say “It’s not economical to keep this station open”?

You might rely on your car but if (after a “collision”) it’ll cost a lot more to repair it than to buy a replacement then surely you accept it’s no longer viable… yet we keep train stations open even as costs keep ramping up…

With regard to the barton line, I've only ever used it to get to Barton itself - is there any scope for better bus connections and through ticketing to Hull I wonder !

That’s truly damming!

Even @yorksrob isn’t making excuses for the poorly used line , it really seems beyond hope

(Connections are available at Barton with the half hourly 350 bus from Scunthorpe to Hull and this shows on RTT so I’m guessing through fares from Grimsby etc are possible?)

You could argue the problem with the Barton line arises from the short-sightedness in the 1970s of building the Humber Bridge as a road-only bridge: The work really should've been combined with extending the railway into Hull. If that had been done, then the Barton line would today in all likelihood been a fairly busy and much needed line connecting Hull and Grimsby. But as it is, the line stupidly stops a few miles short of where almost everyone is going to want to go, which very predictably means very few people use it.

The cost of fixing that today would be astronomical, so that's obviously not going to get done any time soon. Through ticketing and decent, dedicated/guaranteed bus connections might be the next best thing, although I'm not sure that would give much benefit over direct Hull-Grimsby buses?

Interesting to speculate at what services/ frequency we might have seen if a rail link had been included as part of the bridge - given that even at the railway ‘s pre- Covid “high” there was only one train per hour from Scunthorpe to Grimsby/ Cleethorpes… If it was Doncaster to Hull trains running that way then would that be at the expense of existing services via Selby/ Goole?

Hmmm, I wonder if certain other things happened that affected the railway since then besides the end of franchising...

You also continue to claim that franchising is better because the companies are accountable - but they're accountable to the government, so this doesn't really change where control lies.

Absolutely, passenger numbers dropped off a cliff when the first wave of covid happened, and clearly the TOC contracts weren’t written with any contingency for how to deal with government-enforced lockdown

But I remain convinced that the franchises we had in 2019 were “less bad” than the current situation (where, instead of checking out lottery numbers or football results each evening, we are refreshing websites to see which trains the Government-controlled franchises will attempt to run)

I’ve no problem with the government being ultimately in control (I’m not demanding a fully subsidy free railway, someone needs to write the cheques to sustain a reasonable level of services - which doesn’t necessarily mean propping up every basket case route), but a “seven” year franchise duration meant that there was accountability, there were guarantees, there was a medium-to-long-term strategy.

What have we got now though? Too much Government control, no vision for the future, no security (and nobody able to stand up to the whims of the Government, since the firms contracted to run trains are effectively “silenced” by the contracts that they’ve had to sign)

 

[al78]

But some of these care homes seem to go bust so work that one out. They are very very expensive easily £1,000 per month so I am puzzled.

Why are care home fees so expensive? : A guide to Elderly Care

www.medic8.com

"Q5. Why are care home fees so expensive?

A5. This is due to the fact that they provide 24 hour personal care, and in some cases, nursing care as well. Plus there is the cost of accommodation, provision of meals, laundry and social activities. Every resident is an individual with individual needs which can include special diets, minor medical needs etc and this have to be taken into account. Many care homes arrange for visits from a hairdresser and/or a physiotherapist. They may also have a visiting GP or other healthcare professional. They may arrange trips out for the residents or concerts, bingo, card evenings etc."

I think it’s abundantly clear this government isn’t the slightest bit concerned about people in need.

They are if those people belong to voting blocks that are capable of swinging elections (e.g. pensioners).

The issue with pensioners is the broadbrush approach. I don't think many would object to pensioners in poverty getting an increase in their benefit in line with inflation. There's a graph now that says 1 in 4 pensioners are millionaires. So that's about 3 million pensioners with this increase in benefits that cost 3billion quid that do not need it.

If you add the £600 every pensioner is getting then thats another 2 billion

5 billion given to millionaires !! 3 billion of that every single year

Is that millionaires as in money to spend or milliionaires as in assets like a home that happens to have massively increased in price over the last 50 years? Suggesting people downsize to release equity if they are struggling financially is likely to provoke some emotive reactions even if there is some logic to the suggestion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What have we got now though? Too much Government control, no vision for the future, no security (and nobody able to stand up to the whims of the Government, since the firms contracted to run trains are effectively “silenced” by the contracts that they’ve had to sign)

Certainly agreed here. We either need to get GBR in place now, or we need to issue some 5 year traditional franchises (just with higher subsidy) and let TOC managers have some freedom, and plan for GBR in 5 years.

DaFT managing everything directly is a path to disaster.

Meanwhile we should consider going for a "fewer, longer trains" approach but with some integrative thought involved - that is, make things connect where feasible, looking at specific flows that people are known to use. And on very infrequent branches consider fewer round trips but spend time considering what those round trips are for and how they should be timed. In the North West, the mid-1990s timetable probably indicates about where we should start other than the busiest routes which justify more (e.g. Manchester-Blackpool fast at 1tph would be inadequate now).

I don't want to see any route or station closures, because they'll never come back in better times, and the UK simply can't integrate buses properly. Once we've learnt to do the latter like the Swiss do to get real benefit we can revisit. The UK needs a joined-up approach to public transport, both regional and national, but before it has is a bad time to permanently get rid of infrastructure.

 

[Evelynm]

And yet many are closing or reducing their patient loading.

Yes because they can't get staff, and why is that? Oh yes, 40000 were sacked because they wouldn't get the jab.

 

[bramling]

Why are care home fees so expensive? : A guide to Elderly Care

www.medic8.com

"Q5. Why are care home fees so expensive?

A5. This is due to the fact that they provide 24 hour personal care, and in some cases, nursing care as well. Plus there is the cost of accommodation, provision of meals, laundry and social activities. Every resident is an individual with individual needs which can include special diets, minor medical needs etc and this have to be taken into account. Many care homes arrange for visits from a hairdresser and/or a physiotherapist. They may also have a visiting GP or other healthcare professional. They may arrange trips out for the residents or concerts, bingo, card evenings etc."



They are if those people belong to voting blocks that are capable of swinging elections (e.g. pensioners).



Is that millionaires as in money to spend or milliionaires as in assets like a home that happens to have massively increased in price over the last 50 years? Suggesting people downsize to release equity if they are struggling financially is likely to provoke some emotive reactions even if there is some logic to the suggestion.

The other problem is that most people take the view that they have “paid in to” their state pension, as if there’s a little box somewhere with a ribbon round it bearing their name.

On top of that there’s the age-old issue that political parties are frit of upsetting the grey vote.