2024 Budget impact on Rail

[Bald Rick]

I’m waiting in anticipation for the annual ‘why are there no trains on Christmas Day / Boxing Day‘ thread.
That is the official start of the festive season.

An early kick off to the annual “no trains on Xmas day and Boxing Day threads”….

#copy cat!

(mine is from the Lewes bonfire thread)

 

[Bikeman78]

Whether those prices were abnormally high or not, doesn't make my point any less valid. I'd happily pay another 5p or 10p per litre of fuel if the revenue raised was spent on funding infrastructure projects that would benefit people, whether it's road improvements, rail or whatever.

I would only be happy to spend more on roads if it were used to bring the existing network up to scratch, i.e. repair the surface, repaint all the lines and unblock all the drains. New roads usually move the traffic jam to the next pinch point. E.g. the short new section of dual carriageway in Cardiff Bay has encouraged more people to use Rover Way which is far more congested as a result.

I suppose that all depends, the Cambrian coast has multiple school run trains a day with the vast majority of kids that live outside of the towns with Schools in, I.e Harlech and Tywyn, get there by train. It’s a recognised thing with all the kids having passes and even teachers on board.

It all depends on the logistics of the school and where people need to get to.

The line between Bishop's Stortford and Cambridge has loads of school children. The 0628 from Liverpool Street had a full eight car load on arrival at Cambridge. It was one of the last trains to switch from class 317 to 720. There are also quite a lot of kids using the stations between Cheshunt and Tottenham Hale.

 

[Cowley]

Last call to discuss the 2024 budget impact on rail before we close it due to terminally underfunded thread drift.

 

[Class 170101]

Its sounds to me like either a wait and see policy - ref the Spending review or not a lot of infrastructure for rail.

 

[Bald Rick]

Last call to discuss the 2024 budget impact on rail before we close it due to terminally underfunded thread drift.

If I chip in a tenner will it keep going for another hour?

 

[43066]

#copy cat!

(mine is from the Lewes bonfire thread)

Oops! Great minds…

 

[Nottingham59]

I think the key question on government borrowing to invest is whether they will allow themselves to borrow the full cost of a rail investment, or just the economic value of that investment when complete. To illustrate, take the example of HS2 phase 1 and 2a.

Recent analysis shows that if they built it to Euston and then sold the rights to run the line as a long-term concession, like HS1, then those rights would be worth around £20 bn. But HS2 will have cost around £50 to £60 bn to get to that stage.
So will the 2024 budget rule allow them to borrow an extra £60bn against HS2, or just £20bn?

Building HS2 to Euston and Crewe could pay for itself, analysis finds

Extending high-speed line at both ends would let government charge more for rights to run it, rail leaders say

www.theguardian.com

 

[JonathanH]

So will the 2024 budget rule allow them to borrow an extra £60bn against HS2, or just £20bn?

Would only borrowing £20bn provide a concession worth £20bn, if the project needs £60bn?

 

[Nottingham59]

Would only borrowing £20bn provide a concession worth £20bn, if the project needs £60bn?

No. The "uneconomic" £40bn would have to come out of the usual budget, as it does today.

Compared to say borrowing £1bn to build 10,000 council houses on a green field site, which would be collectively worth £2bn when complete, the economics of railway investment are poor.

 

[Cowley]

If I chip in a tenner will it keep going for another hour?

I’ll pm you my bank details.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’ll pm you my bank details.

Sorry the hour had expired.

 

[Class 170101]

I think the key question on government borrowing to invest is whether they will allow themselves to borrow the full cost of a rail investment, or just the economic value of that investment when complete. To illustrate, take the example of HS2 phase 1 and 2a.

Recent analysis shows that if they built it to Euston and then sold the rights to run the line as a long-term concession, like HS1, then those rights would be worth around £20 bn. But HS2 will have cost around £50 to £60 bn to get to that stage.
So will the 2024 budget rule allow them to borrow an extra £60bn against HS2, or just £20bn?

Building HS2 to Euston and Crewe could pay for itself, analysis finds

Extending high-speed line at both ends would let government charge more for rights to run it, rail leaders say

www.theguardian.com

Does that depend on how long the concession is?

20bn for 20yrs potentially could be repeated twice more to equal the 60yr payback period?

 

[mpthomson]

And yet we are paying just over 2/3 of the cost per litre of fuel than we were two years ago. Can't say I've noticed those savings having been passed on to us in terms of produce being that much cheaper on the shelves. Presumably you have?

Other costs have risen significantly during that time period, it's more a case of prices not going up as quickly as they otherwise would have done. Again, it's far more nuanced than people are trying to make it.

 

[notverydeep]

On Boxing Day? There are virtually no trains running across the network, so have you factored that in?

An early kick off to the annual “no trains on Xmas day and Boxing Day threads”….

Up to 24 trains per hour available Boxing Day on our routes!

 

[Indigo Soup]

Solving the school run issues requires better buses rather than better trains anyway.

It actually requires better housing and better schools, so that there's no need to live in one place and send children to school in a different place. Better schools is a vote winner - even if it's difficult to put a value on the financial return on investment. Meaningfully better housing is a vote loser because it inherently means devaluing the assets of the richer parts of society.

 

[corfield]

Seeing as I'm paying 60p a litre less than I was two years ago, I reckon I can afford to absorb a reasonable increase in fuel duty. There's no justification for the continued freeze whatsoever yet successive Chancellors seem to have been scared of motorists and don't want to upset them, whilst the Government simultaneously approves increases in regulated train fares every year. Does that seem fair to you?

Seems entirely fair, fuel tax increased far beyond inflation for many years because it has no link whatsoever with anything real and is purely a political tax which exists on the basis of “what can we get away with taking without excessive political (vote) costs” - as nearly all taxes exist for.

Govt recognised the mass of people were increasingly enraged at the rip off tax levels on fuel and so had to stop taking the proverbial. Throw in base oil price rises and ongoing instability plus the enormous rises in energy costs and something had to, and still has to, give, not least as this is a very regressive tax which disproportionately affects poorer people. Hence why the budget didn’t go for this.

The motorist already via motoring realted taxes contribues far in excess of the cost of providing the roads and so morally is “paying their way” vs the rail passenger who is clearly not.

I also suspect the Govt is wary of raising fuel tax because the daftness of trying to impose road pricing (the sheer cost of doing it not to mention it’d drive us to revolution!) means they need to wean themselves off this (as EV proportions rise) and raise/invent some other new tax to replace it. I may be giving them too much credit though!

Clearly they don't agree. A lot of government capital spending is going up - NHS going up 12% for example, but transport is being cut. I think fuel duty freeze, but rail and bus fares going up also points towards this government not really caring about public transport.

NHS spending is largely revenue rather than capital surely? Financing that off debt is insane, little better than Truss’ tax cut borrowing plan. Hence gilts rising and the IFS comments that basically, this budget doesn’t work.

Transport seems an utter mess cost and management wise (“Smart” motorways, HS2, Electrification, greedy workers) so I can well understand why Govt wouldn’t want to throw any more money into that pit than it absolutely has to. GBR I doubt will offer savings but is presumably the focus of their effort in the near term.

As for bus and rail fares, neither cover their costs so rises seem reasonable.

 

[Krokodil]

fuel tax increased far beyond inflation for many years

Seven years. It has since gone through many periods where it has been frozen in nominal terms (so cut in real terms) or even cut in nominal terms, such that is now half of what it was at the turn of the millennium.

because it has no link whatsoever with anything real and is purely a political tax which exists on the basis of “what can we get away with taking without excessive political (vote) costs” - as nearly all taxes exist for.

The escalator was introduced to combat ballooning pollution and to cut traffic problems because people opposed new road building.

not least as this is a very regressive tax which disproportionately affects poorer people.

Bus fare rises affect the poorest people more.

The motorist already via motoring realted taxes contribues far in excess of the cost of providing the roads and so morally is “paying their way” vs the rail passenger who is clearly not.

Mass car ownership imposes far more costs than just road maintenance.

 

[65477]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I have just had an e-mail from the Museum's Association saying that the NRM's £15m grant towards the current refurbishment is under threat as it is seen as part of the levelling up money which the current government sees as having been unfunded,

 

[corfield]

Seven years. It has since gone through many periods where it has been frozen in nominal terms (so cut in real terms) or even cut in nominal terms, such that is now half of what it was at the turn of the millennium.

The past rises above inflation were blatantly fleecing motorists, which is why having doubled the growth rate in 97 (when otherwise constraining themselves to extant fiscal and tax plans) to get some money to slosh about, New Labour stopped it at the same time they started raising tax elsewhere, not least because of public anger.

The escalator was introduced to combat ballooning pollution and to cut traffic problems because people opposed new road building.

No, it was introduced as a very easy way to gain significant revenue. As all “the best” taxes are. It had nothing to do with roads or the environment other than as spin for extracting tax.

There is zero evidence that the tax affected usage, and indeed, that would be contrary to the purpose which was to tax the activity to raise money.

Bus fare rises affect the poorest people more.

Nope, because so few use busses and what they pay is vastly less than what car owners/users pay. Busses of course like rail also fail to cover their direct costs let alone indirect ones.

Fuel tax is regressive because, like VAT, it is a flat rate regardless of income. We should, from a moral position, be looking to reduce such taxes especially where they so distort the price of something. Else the destination is that the benefits of private vehicles become purely for the well off and we really return to Downton times.

Mass car ownership imposes far more costs than just road maintenance.

And provides a freedom of movement for all unparalleld in human history, a truly massive acheivement. That is why there are so many and why over 3/4 the population have at least one.

 

[12LDA28C]

Govt recognised the mass of people were increasingly enraged at the rip off tax levels on fuel and so had to stop taking the proverbial. Throw in base oil price rises and ongoing instability plus the enormous rises in energy costs and something had to, and still has to, give, not least as this is a very regressive tax which disproportionately affects poorer people. Hence why the budget didn’t go for this.

If you can afford to run a car then I suggest you are not 'poor'. The poorest would rely on public transport and take the bus.

Transport seems an utter mess cost and management wise (“Smart” motorways, HS2, Electrification, greedy workers) so I can well understand why Govt wouldn’t want to throw any more money into that pit than it absolutely has to. GBR I doubt will offer savings but is presumably the focus of their effort in the near term.

Ah, now we're getting down to it. 'Greedy workers' expecting wages to rise in line with inflation you mean? Just another Union-bashing post then. Not very original.

 

[PGAT]

If you can afford to run a car then I suggest you are not 'poor'. The poorest would rely on public transport and take the bus.

Exactly. Car ownership is a luxury but was promoted as a necessity by the motor industry

 

[12LDA28C]

And provides a freedom of movement for all unparalleld in human history, a truly massive acheivement. That is why there are so many and why over 3/4 the population have at least one.

And that's why roads are congested and it takes forever to get anywhere. Hence why we need a decent public transport system to encourage people to use their cars less.

 

[corfield]

If you can afford to run a car then I suggest you are not 'poor'. The poorest would rely on public transport and take the bus.

Factually untrue. Just 1/5 of the poorest fifth of households do not have a car. Four fifths of “the poor” do. So very clearly they do not rely on public transport and the bus. Hence fuel tax is incredibly regressive for the vast majority.

Sorry if the facts are inconvenient for you.

Ah, now we're getting down to it. 'Greedy workers' expecting wages to rise in line with inflation you mean? Just another Union-bashing post then. Not very original.

Workers expecting to be renumerated far in excess of their fellows (and woth no shortage of recruits), including retaining people that technology has proved we don’t need, and well in excess of much more important public sector workers in an industry that provides a poor service increasingly badly whilst being dependent upon public subsidy. That is selfish / greedy, however you cut it. Unions creating cushy numbers for themselves is about as unoriginal as you can get.

Exactly. Car ownership is a luxury but was promoted as a necessity by the motor industry

That’s just weird. A £5000 Swiss watch is a luxury because it does nothing diffferent to a £5 Casio. A car gives point to point, secure and comfortable travel which scales extremely well with size (a group costs the same as an individual) and the ability to easily transport luggage. None of which public transport can compete with. That’s why so many have them!

Unless we all live on top of each other, and the ship of high rise buildings has surely sailed, capsized and is now sinking into the seabed; the inevitable dispersion of residential, commercial and industrial areas (also from a growing population) makes the private vehicle king bar some flows where centralised provision can be beneficial as we see with intercity and commuting.

 

[Mikey C]

Exactly. Car ownership is a luxury but was promoted as a necessity by the motor industry

Running an old car to transport the family around isn't a luxury.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Running an old car to transport the family around isn't a luxury.

In some places it is, in some places it isn't.

A car is not necessary if you live in Greater London. It might be convenient, but it is not necessary.

It very much is if you live in a rural area.

 

[43066]

I think it was you who either brought up or commented upon the 'essential' word to describe the railways, as if that were some kind of justification for the level of subsidy to be poured in. That is not my opinion of the railway.

But it isn’t just my justification, it’s one successive governments have agreed with, and will continue to do so. It might not be your opinion, but that is not a politically mainstream viewpoint.

Frankly you have no idea what I know and don't know. I know you work for the railway, and I would expect as such that you would want to discredit any suggestion that the current costs and working arrangements of railway staff are anything but what is efficient, deserved, if not insufficient. I understand this, but I do not share your view. Be handsomely rewarded by all means, but that should be in exchange for a productivity, flexibility and reliability which is often not currently there.

You’ve said you are a retired transport planner and a former bus conductor, so not someone who has experience or understanding of the railway, and specifically terms and conditions of the front line staff, which you seem to focus on to the exclusion of almost anything else. So it’s a little difficult to see why anyone should take your view of the Ts and Cs of staff seriously.

Maybe when you work there, you take the practices for granted and don't see the wood for the trees? (and this is not intended as a personal attack - I suspect many of us could be accused of this at some point in our lives?)

No, I’m just aware of what the Ts and Cs actually are, and am in a position to compare them with those of other industries. You aren’t in a position to do either.

Does rather depend on which railways you strip out?

This isn’t going to be happening, I’m afraid! The only place people seem to seriously talk about closures is this forum.

Workers expecting to be renumerated far in excess of their fellows (and woth no shortage of recruits), including retaining people that technology has proved we don’t need, and well in excess of much more important public sector workers in an industry that provides a poor service increasingly badly whilst being dependent upon public subsidy. That is selfish / greedy, however you cut it. Unions creating cushy numbers for themselves is about as unoriginal as you can get.

Ah, so you’re just ideologically opposed to unions and people standing up for their pay and Ts and Cs and see that as “greedy”. Very revealing.

None of which public transport can compete with. That’s why so many have them!

This is a false comparison, because public transport isn’t provided everywhere. The UK railway, where provided, is one of the most heavily used in Europe.

Unless we all live on top of each other, and the ship of high rise buildings has surely sailed, capsized and is now sinking into the seabed; the inevitable dispersion of residential, commercial and industrial areas (also from a growing population) makes the private vehicle king bar some flows where centralised provision can be beneficial as we see with intercity and commuting.

Actually the trend is the opposite; urbanisation is increasing.

 

[Mikey C]

In some places it is, in some places it isn't.

A car is not necessary if you live in Greater London. It might be convenient, but it is not necessary.

It very much is if you live in a rural area.

It's not an either or situation. While you might make most of your everyday journeys by public transport in London, taking the family to the seaside, to the west country for the annual holiday or to see the cousins in Leicester will be much cheaper in a car.

Plus going to the tip, buying heavy stuff from the shops etc

 

[corfield]

Actually the trend is the opposite; urbanisation is increasing.

Is that not simply because urban areas are growing in size, not density, and swallowing up formerly rural areas in the process. Which reinforces the benefits of the private vehicle and reduces the benefits of public transport die to the time/effort to get to/from stations at either end of the intended journey and for busses, makes their routes even greater “long way rounds” if they are to retain stops in proximity to all the areas.

 

[43066]

Is that not simply because urban areas are growing in size, not density, and swallowing up formerly rural areas in the process. Which reinforces the benefits of the private vehicle and reduces the benefits of public transport die to the time/effort to get to/from stations at either end of the intended journey and for busses, makes their routes even greater “long way rounds” if they are to retain stops in proximity to all the areas.

If cities expand, population density also expands (as they takeover rural areas). A very brief search shows that car use in London - to use one example - has declined as the city has expanded, and indeed that has been the case all over the world.

Urbanisation favours better public transport being provided, not further use of the car.

 

[corfield]

But it isn’t just my justification, it’s one successive governments have agreed with, and will continue to do so. It might not be your opinion, but that is not a politically mainstream viewpoint.



You’ve said you are a retired transport planner and a former bus conductor, so not someone who has experience or understanding of the railway, and specifically terms and conditions of the front line staff, which you seem to focus on to the exclusion of almost anything else. So it’s a little difficult to see why anyone should take your view of the Ts and Cs of staff seriously.



No, I’m just aware of what the Ts and Cs actually are, and am in a position to compare them with those of other industries. You aren’t in a position to do either.



This isn’t going to be happening, I’m afraid! The only place people seem to seriously talk about closures is this forum.



Ah, so you’re just ideologically opposed to unions and people standing up for their pay and Ts and Cs and see that as “greedy”. Very revealing.

Just opposed to greedy and selfish people always feathering their nest at cost to everyone else. What is revealling is the arrogance of union types who despise and continually shout down the “rich” and the “bosses” whilst displaying the exact same character traits. Personally I dislike both for the reason they are no different.

Hypocrisy being another word for the behaviour.

This is a false comparison, because public transport isn’t provided everywhere.

That is only false in that you don’t like the outcome. Very many public transport routes are grossly time consuming, uncomfortable and expensive vs the same journey in a private vehicle. The private vehicle also opens up a multitude of journeys that public transport does not and cannot offer.

Hence why over 3/4 of people have one!

The UK railway, where provided, is one of the most heavily used in Europe.

And?

Many say the roads being so heavily used and that new ones rapidly become the same is an indication people should be priced off / prevented from using them. Is that your intention for the railway? Noting it does seem to do that…

If cities expand, population density also expands (as they takeover rural areas).

I’m not convinced you understand the maths here.

Post war, UK cities and towns reduced in population density but grew much larger.

Attempts at high density residential areas have largely failed and modern development is mostly low density.

Clearly this is still higher density than the rural areas they absorbed - but the resulting urbanisation is extremely spread out.

That is contrary to the advantages and needs of effective public transport which for rail relies on relatively few nodes, and for busses if not likewise, imposes (as we see) long winded and roundabout routes to stop everywhere. Both suffer significantly as the number of stops rises and the need to “travel in to travel out”, vs a point to point travel mode.

Hence why public transport remains such a minority mode of transport.

A very brief search shows that car use in London - to use one example - has declined as the city has expanded, and indeed that has been the case all over the world.

Causation or correlation?

Has car use in London declined as it expanded? Reductions in traffic are a recent phenomenon and in that timeframe London hasn’t expanded.

Urbanisation favours better public transport being provided, not further use of the car.

Not so. As pointed out, urbanisation can be high density which can (noting even in london over half the people have a car), or (lots of) low density which doesn’t.

Since we now develop to the latter, it seems likely the private vehicle will continue to be far more beneficial. Especially as rail stations become ever harder to get to as towns expand radially and/or more stations and stops are needed killing time savings.