2024 Budget impact on Rail

[12LDA28C]

Well I'm not happy to be funding the railway (whilst hardly using it in recent years) at its current level of subsidies and grants through general taxation, giving cheap fares at the point of use. Whether the fares are worth it or not is a subjective view, but it does appear to be an incompetently run, incompetently managed mess where reality has gone out of the window. Will need a political strongman to deal with that - where is an Ernest Marples when we need him?

It's probably fortunate then, that you have no say in how the Government spends your tax pounds as most people believe that the Railway should be treated as a public service that benefits the whole of society, whether you choose to travel by train or not.

Interesting that you make a sweeping generalisation and call the railway 'an incompetently run, incompetently managed mess' and seem to be calling for a Marples-style cull whilst making no mention of an organisation which really is a financial basket case, the NHS which no doubt you are more than happy to be funding in its current hugely inefficient and profligate state, or is that somehow a more acceptable waste of taxpayers' money than the railway?

 

[RT4038]

It's probably fortunate then, that you have no say in how the Government spends your tax pounds

As much say as any other individual

as most people believe that the Railway should be treated as a public service that benefits the whole of society, whether you choose to travel by train or not.

I do not think that 'most people' think that now, and I suspect the number will be getting less as the railways' financially profligate ways take more and more taxpayer funding with little semblance of improvement to service (and less and less relevance to people's lives).

Interesting that you make a sweeping generalisation and call the railway 'an incompetently run, incompetently managed mess' and seem to be calling for a Marples-style cull

No mention of a cull, just that it needs a political strongman to sort the running and managing out. But since you mention it, I suspect a cull is necessary, as much as building some new lines is too. Quid pro quo.

whilst making no mention of an organisation which really is a financial basket case, the NHS which no doubt you are more than happy to be funding in its current hugely inefficient and profligate state, or is that somehow a more acceptable waste of taxpayers' money than the railway?

I think the NHS is an essential public service, and one which I have little complaint with in my fairly long life. No doubt there is inefficiency, which needs to reduced as much as possible, and also rationing of service (for the ballooning costs of far more comprehensive provision than was foreseen at inception) which is seen in some quarters as inefficiency. Whether the current framework of health services is the best for the UK I am unsure, but medical service is definitely essential and by and large self service is not practicable.
I do not have the same view of railways as an essential public service - it is not. Transport is, but not Railways per se - self service is easily available for most journeys. Funnily enough, in my experience, most people who believe it is are connected with the rail industry or are rail enthusiasts in one way or another, who want money poured in to prop up some nostalgic part of it (be it services, infrastructure, working practices etc). Is there a case for some subsidy - undoubtedly. As much as is being poured in now - definitely not, or not for the quality of outputs from that level of subsidy. (In my opinion of course, lest anyone be in doubt).

 

[yorksrob]

Will need a political strongman to deal with that - where is an Ernest Marples when we need him?

I'm not sure a corrupt incompetent will get the service to run any better.

 

[Krokodil]

I have no problem with that ( is that not what airlines do?) as long as the train with 4 peopel on is priced to attract custom.

It's not an airline, it's a railway - a carbon efficient means of transport which receives funding to provide this useful public service. If a train is running with four zillionaires onboard then it isn't doing that and the general public are either flying or in their cars instead, guzzling more fossil fuels in the process.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I'm not sure a corrupt incompetent will get the service to run any better.

IIRC as you say, Marples was a wrong un. Don't need anymore of his type.

 

[Bradford1]

I'm quite surprised according to YouGov, at the bottom of their chart, the public is overall opposed to funding the extending HS2 to Euston at the moment by a margin of 22 points.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm quite surprised according to YouGov, the public is overall opposed to extending HS2 to Euston at the moment

That is the 'we've spent too much on HS2 already, what is wrong with the existing line' and 'I'll never use HS2' group put together.

The point is that HS2 is largely irrelevant to a large proportion of the population who either don't use trains, don't live somewhere on the route or can't see a benefit for them.

 

[PGAT]

I'm quite surprised according to YouGov, at the bottom of their chart, the public is overall opposed to funding the extending HS2 to Euston at the moment by a margin of 22 points.

Perhaps they oppose the fact that it excludes funding for the station at Euston? Or perhaps the average Joe who hasn’t been to London doesn’t see why a station at Euston would be necessary

 

[JamieL]

Best to ignore polling on issues like this. We all know the Euston extension is essential. The public will appreciate it when it has been built. Same same extension beyond Birmingham.

 

[PGAT]

Best to ignore polling on issues like this. We all know the Euston extension is essential. The public will appreciate it when it has been built. Same same extension beyond Birmingham.

Likewise freezing fuel duty is very popular but is quite irresponsible

 

[Bald Rick]

I don’t think a reduction in revenue changes the case for investment, I think it changes some things from an operational perspective (engineering works should take place midweek and not over Christmas/easter) but we should still be investing in railways as the best way to decarbonise transport

A reduction on revenue very much changes the case for investment. Firstly it reduces benefits, and secondly it reduces the money avaialble to invest at all.

Secondly, the two quietest periods on the railway are 1) Christmas holidays and 2) Easter weekend. And before you say ‘thats because of engineering works’ - it isn’t. It’s the same on the lines that dont have engineering works, and the same on the roads.

Surely this is a reflection of the much reduced train services on offer.

If the industry ran the same amount of train as on a weekday, there would be no capacity issue.

Re Sundays - Many parts of the network, and certainly those that bring in the cash, do run a similar service on a Sunday. The reason we run fewer services on Sunday as a while is largely because of the late start that the vast majority of the population have on a Sunday - there is simply no need for a full morning peak into London on a Sunday morning, nor an 0500 start up. And of course there’s lots of people who go to church and therefore have no need for a train until after communion.

The thing with airlines is that the competition is mostly other airlines, who all do the same thing.

While this is true, on the ECML the main competitor for the routes chosen for the new fare structure is the airlines. All of which have single leg pricing and a simple choice between specific flight or a flexi fare that costs rather more. And it is clear people prefer the train as the market can sustain, on average, higher fares. It is also clear from LNERs loadings and revenue that the new fare system isn’t putting people off.

 

[nanstallon]

You mean the one that spent billions on HS2, EWR and Transpennine upgrade.

Given the horrendous cost and overruns of major rail infrastructure projects it's not surprising governments shy away from new projects.

Quite. The costs of rail projects are so ridiculously out of control, that the money is probably better spent on road improvements. Not that these are particularly cheap, either.

 

[JamieL]

Quite. The costs of rail projects are so ridiculously out of control, that the money is probably better spent on road improvements. Not that these are particularly cheap, either.

Roads are equally expensive. The M74 extension cost over £135million per mile and that was years back when everything was much cheaper. Unfortunately land is expensive, multi-decade projects are subject to changing political whims, public procurement contracts are poorly run due the way the civil service operates, NIMBYS are rampant and eliminating risk is paramount. All push up costs of any procurement.

There are no easy solutions to this conundrum other than to pay up and push ahead. This is why the UK achieves very few major large scale, geographically spread infrastructure projects these days. Viewed in this context, HS2 London to Birmingham is an amazing achievement.

 

[yorksrob]

Roads are equally expensive. The M74 extension cost over £135million per mile and that was years back when everything was much cheaper. Unfortunately land is expensive, multi-decade projects are subject to changing political whims, public procurement contracts are poorly run due the way the civil service operates, NIMBYS are rampant and eliminating risk is paramount. All push up costs of any procurement.

Other than the Tavistock line where the council already owns the land.

Just sayin.....

 

[Bald Rick]

Other than the Tavistock line where the council already owns the land.

Just sayin.....

The expensive bit is not buying the land (whihc, as we know, the local authority do not own all of. The expensive bit is gaining permission to change the land into being used as a railway (or motorway). Usually in most cases this includes obtsinignthe land, but it is the process, not the land purchase itself, thst costs the money.

 

[yorksrob]

Re Sundays - Many parts of the network, and certainly those that bring in the cash, do run a similar service on a Sunday. The reason we run fewer services on Sunday as a while is largely because of the late start that the vast majority of the population have on a Sunday - there is simply no need for a full morning peak into London on a Sunday morning, nor an 0500 start up. And of course there’s lots of people who go to church and therefore have no need for a train until after communion.

The two - hourly service on my local route is unlikely to be so sparse to fit demand.

I take the point that some IC routes might run a near week round service, however these trains have a large proportion of advanced purchase tickets, so they already have a mechanism to control demand.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2024 ==

The expensive bit is not buying the land (whihc, as we know, the local authority do not own all of. The expensive bit is gaining permission to change the land into being used as a railway (or motorway). Usually in most cases this includes obtsinignthe land, but it is the process, not the land purchase itself, thst costs the money.

That's something that can be changed through legislation.

We're told that the Government wants to kick-start economic growth. It's an absurdity that planning permission costs more than the land itself.

 

[RT4038]

IIRC as you say, Marples was a wrong un. Don't need anymore of his type.

Without going back through a boring debate on the individual, Ernest Marples politically initiated the greatest review and modernisation of Britain's railways ever. 60+ years later this needs doing again. The circumstances and issues to be tackled now are not quite the same as before, and therefore I would expect the outcomes not to be quite the same as before. My opinion of course, lest anyone be in any doubt.

 

[yorksrob]

Without going back through a boring debate on the individual, Ernest Marples politically initiated the greatest review and modernisation of Britain's railways ever. 60+ years later this needs doing again. The circumstances and issues to be tackled now are not quite the same as before, and therefore I would expect the outcomes not to be quite the same as before. My opinion of course, lest anyone be in any doubt.

He initiated the greatest calamity for rail passengers ever.

A review that was all about money and cost savings, and not passenger needs.

We do not want/need such an approach again.

 

[RT4038]

We do not want/need such an approach again.

'You' ('I'), not necessarily 'we'

 

[yorksrob]

'You' ('I'), not necessarily 'we'

The country is still living with the repercussions of the disastrous closure programme. We do not need such an approach again.

 

[mpthomson]

There is no segment of society more mollycoddled than the private car owner. Taxes and duties suppressed whilst they fly up everywhere else. If you so much as try and introduce moderate increases in cost there rains down a storm of vitriol like no other. And woe betide you if you try and make life easier for others to their minor detriment. It's almost cult like.

Back to the rail (well light rail)... The news editor of Rail tweeted that the government has pledged to complete the Metro extension to Brierley Hill, but I couldn't see that in any of the documents - can someone point me in the right direction?

Fuel duty increases also affect the hauliers that move the vast majority of the goods that we all buy in shops, including food stuffs. Those duty increases end up being passed on to consumers and are therefore inflationary over and above just the cost of the fuel. It's a much more nuanced calculation than many are trying to make it.

 

[RT4038]

The country is still living with the repercussions of the disastrous closure programme. We do not need such an approach again.

As I said in #137 - the issues to be tackled then and not quite the same as the issues that need tackling now. But issues of the same magnitude are present now. This time it is more organisational, reliability, simplicity and (as usual) finance (for taxpayers) . Railways to do what they do best, do it reliably, and do it within an acceptable budget. Realise that there is interpretation of some of those terms, which the devil will be in the detail.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2024 ==

Fuel duty increases also affect the hauliers that move the vast majority of the goods that we all buy in shops, including food stuffs. Those duty increases end up being passed on to consumers and are therefore inflationary over and above just the cost of the fuel. It's a much more nuanced calculation than many are trying to make it.

The Government could introduce a fuel tax rebate (wholly or partially), as with local bus service operators, for road hauliers if inflation of prices was the main consideration.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The country is still living with the repercussions of the disastrous closure programme. We do not need such an approach again.

There aren't realistically many lines left where closure would be sensible, Beeching got rid of most of them. However there may be some where properly integrated high quality bus services would offer more than rail - the Conwy Valley is often cited for this. Any sensible review would include the possibility of that rather than just leaving it to the market. This sort of change is still slowly going on in places like Switzerland that didn't have a "big bang" Beeching.

New thread as it's a bit OT for now: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-sensible-now-what-form-might-it-take.276362/

 

[squizzler]

I'm glad the budget continued the trend of canning haghway schemes. This goes hand in hand with the reduction of fuel duty. Revenue from petrol is in real-terms decline so why would government want to invest in that area? Nobody wats to grasp the nettle of road pricing. Better to give the motorists a bung to shut up their winging about potholes, perhaps?

The motoring lobby used to be powerful in the UK. Now the motor manufacturing sector is in decline along with the powerful manufacturing unions that used to underpin it. The motoring lobby has lost much of its economic and political relevance and is reduced to wibble about mythical "white van man" and the like.

 

[The Planner]

I'm glad the budget continued the trend of canning haghway schemes. This goes hand in hand with the reduction of fuel duty. Revenue from petrol is in real-terms decline so why would government want to invest in that area? Nobody wats to grasp the nettle of road pricing. Better to give the motorists a bung to shut up their winging about potholes, perhaps?

The motoring lobby used to be powerful in the UK. Now the motor manufacturing sector is in decline along with the powerful manufacturing unions that used to underpin it. The motoring lobby has lost much of its economic and political relevance and is reduced to wibble about mythical "white van man" and the like.

Google says the UK still sold 1.903 million new cars in 2023, with the expected sale of new and used cars in 2024 to be 9.14 million. Unless cars in numbers, be it ICE or electric, decline, why would you not invest in road improvements?

 

[Krokodil]

'You' ('I'), not necessarily 'we'

I don't think that there is anyone around that would repeat the approach of 1963 verbatim. Not even you.

 

[squizzler]

Reduced fuel duty does not get passed onto motorists. Evidence suggests that lower fuel duty simply leaves money on the table that fuel vendors pocket themselves. Motoring clubs were complaining after the 5p cut a year or so back that the prices they were paying had not reduced.

So for those of us concerned over price signals that lower fuel duty might give, we can take some solace that in practice there is unlikely to be any.

Google says the UK still sold 1.903 million new cars in 2023, with the expected sale of new and used cars in 2024 to be 9.14 million. Unless cars in numbers, be it ICE or electric, decline, why would you not invest in road improvements?

How is it an investment? Fuel duty and other financial benefits from motoring are declining in real terms. When something is generating less revenue year upon year, nobody invests, managed decline becomes the order of the day.

Most reporters get car figures from the appropriate organisation not google, and I find it unlikely that 9.14 million cars will be sold this year. SMMT shows only half the cars are produced in the UK as in the late 2010s - and only half that needed for domestic demand. Manufacture is IMO more important for working out the economic return than registrations (which are also down). Because we are a net importer of cars, our car purchasing represents a negative balance of trade and ideally we would reduce sales by half to match our production.

 

[Krokodil]

Google says the UK still sold 1.903 million new cars in 2023, with the expected sale of new and used cars in 2024 to be 9.14 million. Unless cars in numbers, be it ICE or electric, decline, why would you not invest in road improvements?

A very small net increase once scrapping of older cars has been accounted for. Something like 1%. As ICE cars are progressively forced out of urban areas they won't be replaced 1-for-1 by electric, not everyone can afford that. There will be more one-car families and more going car-free.

By all means keep maintaining the infrastructure and make some changes to pinch points - the A55 roundabouts at Penmaenmawr and Llanfairfechan are pollution hotspots for example and could do with grade separation. Road megaprojects are history though.

 

[Mikey C]

I'm glad the budget continued the trend of canning haghway schemes. This goes hand in hand with the reduction of fuel duty. Revenue from petrol is in real-terms decline so why would government want to invest in that area? Nobody wats to grasp the nettle of road pricing. Better to give the motorists a bung to shut up their winging about potholes, perhaps?

The motoring lobby used to be powerful in the UK. Now the motor manufacturing sector is in decline along with the powerful manufacturing unions that used to underpin it. The motoring lobby has lost much of its economic and political relevance and is reduced to wibble about mythical "white van man" and the like.

Cancelling highway schemes while also freezing fuel duty is a nonsense, and typical short political termism which explains why this country's transport infrastructure is so inadequate.

 

[Tezza1978]

The ides that we need a "cull" of spending on railways/railway routes is simply laughable. We have a growing population, rail travel is close to pre COVID levels too. Yes road improvements are needed /will be made but realistically only bypasses/ capacity improvements to junctions etc. New smart motorways are dead in the water for safety reasons. Zero chance any major motorway widening schemes or new motorways would be approved by either Labour - or the Tories frankly - given the costs involved/legal cases/environmental concerns/Nimbys.

Schemes like NPR and improvements to the East Coast Main Line, as well as the "Crewe to Manchester connector" are clearly needed - along with rail improvements/electrification in the West Country, Wales and Scotland too of course.