ChrisC
Established Member
Not forgetting the the continued progress on electrification of the MML north of Wigston through Leicester to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
2024 Budget impact on Rail
- Thread starter Nicholas Lewis
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
You are entitled to your opinion, but I’d suggest this is a niche view and firmly to the right of mainstream. Most people I know certainly regard the railway as essential; it’s key to London and the south east in particular, and that is the economic engine room of the country.
Our railway (where it is provided) is one of the most intensively used in Europe, and continues to enjoy strong passenger growth. It’s clear from social attitude surveys that the public don’t particularly favour the small statism and austerity that has been in vogue for the past few years, and are prepared to pay more tax rather than seeing services made even worse than they have been over the past 15 years or so. Worth remembering we aren’t taxed particularly highly as a population in global terms.
It’s also a little odd to see criticism of the “quality of the outputs” from someone who has also stated that they rarely use the system.
Indeed. Roads need to be improved too, of course, but the idea we need to choose between good quality services is dubious in one of the world’s largest economies. We should be able to afford both decent roads and decent railways (and other areas).
Last edited:
As I've said before, I don't live in London and the South East. Where I live, most people I know would not consider the railway as 'essential' (a nice to have, certainly), and most of their and my journeys made do not involve the railway. Oh no! I'm firmly to the right of mainstream...... discredited immediately.
We'll see for how long that attitude prevails...... That is why a strong review is required of the whole industry, before all the ballooning subsidy just disappears down a rabbit hole.
Rarely used now, because of the quality of the outputs..... Did use it much, much more. No reason to think anything has got better. Just a mess.
If you live in an area where there is no railway provided, it’s unlikely to be directly relevant to you. But where it is provided it’s regarded as essential, and is key in areas that make a significant contribution to the wider economy, so it will be indirectly relevant to anyone who uses any form of public service.
Most of your posts on these subjects (and others) align with a right-of-centre-small- government stance, yes. That is not meant to be an attack; I know plenty of people with similar views, but I’m not sure someone admiring Ernest Marples is representative of the mainstream!
“Ballooning subsidy disappearing down a rabbit hole” is something of a value judgment, seemingly with no acknowledgement of any wider benefits that subsidy is buying. Governments of all flavours since the 1980s have realised the importance of the railway, albeit the last one less than most. Although the longstanding policy of placing more of the cost of the system onto fare payers is certainly continuing with the current government and this budget!
This view appears to be wildly out of step with passenger survey data, and the growing number of those who use the railway.
Last edited:
Just because one does not live in L&SE, does not mean one does not benefit from its high GDP and cross subsidy to most of the poorer UK regions. The railway is key to the Capital's success, with I believe roundly two thirds of journeys by rail. It's true that the standard of rail service is patchy in the rest of the UK; that's partly why Boris (and others) initiated "levelling up" (despised by the selfish right) but that would take generations to make a difference.
The high present subsidy, as shown in the recent MR article is largely because of gradual COVID recovery and spending on HS2 and EWR (which should drop off). My view is that the railway's costs are now higher because too much work is done by outside contract not enough by internal engineering departments - another right wing achievement!
A principled right winger (me?) would aim for a proper, departmental railway with a General Manager (a guiding mind) responsible to a Board including technically competent members rather than just golf club finance, law and afternoon committee people. Such a railway would be accountable at arms length to DfT (private shareholders would just want to leverage and sell on).
Just dreaming,
WAO
The high present subsidy, as shown in the recent MR article is largely because of gradual COVID recovery and spending on HS2 and EWR (which should drop off). My view is that the railway's costs are now higher because too much work is done by outside contract not enough by internal engineering departments - another right wing achievement!
A principled right winger (me?) would aim for a proper, departmental railway with a General Manager (a guiding mind) responsible to a Board including technically competent members rather than just golf club finance, law and afternoon committee people. Such a railway would be accountable at arms length to DfT (private shareholders would just want to leverage and sell on).
Just dreaming,
WAO
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
No, but I expect the new GBR regime to want to raise productivity significantly.
That incudes NR (which Louise Haigh has promised to "abolish") as well as the TOCs.
But there's still no sense of how that will be implemented.
It's the cost of everything, value of nothing approach that Marples epitomised - in the modern context, the running into the ground of the railway during the last Government is a less drastic example of that philosophy.
squizzler
Established Member
I enjoyed that confusion of metaphors too. The reader was is invited to contrast balloons, which are big and round, often colourful, and tend to float upwards, with rabbit burrows that tend to be narrow (hence the shape of ferrets), dark, enclosed, and lead downwards into the ground. Almost poetry.
My signature "tipp-ex is the new crayon" alludes that - despite talk of crayonistas - the rail enthusiast who tries to appear savvy has their rail atlas encrusted with correction fluid as they delete lines and stations in a fantasy of how they would economise the network. All this wibble about the need for a new Marples seems to reinforce that.
Last edited:
Indeed. If certain posters on here had their way (albeit a small number, and by no means the majority) there would be precious little of the railway left!
Actually I live within sight (back bedroom can see the platforms) of a major junction station, 20 minutes walk away. I have a wide range of people that I interact with in the town, and really I do not think the railway is seen as 'essential'. A nice to have, an inconvenience at some times if it is not there, but nothing like the Health service or the Fire Brigade or the Supermarket. Not that I am suggesting that the railway at this location should be closed, but I certainly do not believe it is providing value for money for the subsidy it is getting. I accept that there is a corner of the country where the railway is more entwined in the life of lots of people and would cause much more inconvenience if it wasn't there. Even in that area, once the dense suburbs have been passed through, there is plenty of reliance on private transport for most journeys.
I invoke the name of Ernest Marples as a politician who tried to grasp the railway financial and modernisation problem. The country needs another politician to do that. Not exactly the same character, just someone with vision and stamina to see it through. The issues then and the available remedies then were not the same as those now. I am not suggesting wholesale culling of railway lines (after all, that was done in 1963) [culling of lines is always raised as the ogre by enthusiasts and railway staff anxious to protect nostalgia and their jobs/working conditions]. As in 1963, the railways are desperately in need of modernisation. There are difficult decisions to be made for the sunlit uplands of the future. There are new lines required. There is electrification and other modernisation required to reduce costs, carbon footprint, improve productivity and reliability.
I am not suggesting that the railways should run without subsidy. There are good reasons to pay some, and some reasons not so good. Either way, the subsidy must represent good value for money, which I don't think it does at present. (my opinion of course, lest anyone think otherwise)
Midland Man
Member
- Joined
- 10 Jun 2017
- Messages
- 24
We would then also need to press for a fuel duty rebate for rail ( and inland waterway freight though this does already exist within ports and hinterland) to try and level the playing field. Duty is only about 10p/ litre for gas oil but every little helps.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
One thing I think is needed is to consider value of transport as a whole, not the railway as an island. Bus services are a key part of the transport network alongside rail, yet are planned entirely separately under different funding regimes, and this makes little sense - bus services are being lopped that cost massively less than, and provide more value than, some railways. The advantage of buses is that getting them back is easier, but that isn't the whole story.
Balloon, as in getting bigger. rabbit hole as in pouring away without discernable effect.
I heard from a TPE driver how their mileage (convenient measure of productivity for a driver) plummeted when "optimised diagramming" came in.
Quite. On the face of it an obvious place to be looking to move subsidy draining away on current expenditure towards investing for the future. However, as you point out, buses mainly exist entirely separately from railways. I suspect that no-one wants to grasp that nettle because of the mess that is 'entitled' home to school transport and how that meshes (or doesn't) with the public bus system. Central Government or any of its agencies doesn't want to get any closer than a barge pole to that drum of worms currently a financially out of control 'statutory responsibility' of Local Government.
This might not involve culling of many lines (as you point out most of that has been done already), but off peak/evening/early morning/weekend days etc on some lines could be replaced by railway sponsored buses, for instance. As practised in many European countries of course.
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 5,146
Cutting off peak services is such a common fallacy though. Once you have a working passenger railway, the actual cost savings of not running those off peak trains are actually pretty small in the grand scheme of things. And paying to run buses is going to eat into that tiny amount of savings pretty quickly, and will potentially push people away from railways too (given the likely slower less comfortable journeys), leading to the same death spiral we often see for bus routes when their off peak services start to get cut.
Was optimised diagramming’ concocted solely to try & demonstrate a few savings & avoid more drastic changes like DOO or other staff cuts that were favoured by DFT at the time of the TPE franchise bidding process? It certainly appears that way.
Last edited:
'Horses for courses', and each individual case would have to be costed, and looked at for practicality. However, I am not necessarily advocating off peak type train services being cut, merely converted to buses (not necessarily middle of the day, but could be early morning or evening) The saving in fuel costs and crewing costs, plus staffing of any signal boxes could be significant. Fairly common practice in continental Europe of course.
Mileage may not be a representative measure, depending on the speed of lines / trains operated under the new diagramming compared to old. However, your post doesn't surprise me in the slightest!
Marples philosophy was slash and burn. He has nothing of value or relevance to offer to today's railway.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
I wouldn't quite go that far, but yes, fuel duty needs to increase.
The old "horses for courses" chestnut. It should remain in the cess-pool of history where it belongs.
If someone wanted to do something about costs, they would stop it costing stupid amounts of money to lease out clapped out rolling stock. The ROSCO system should be dismantled.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Hear, hear. ROSCOs -all they do is take, all they do is take (apologies to Lily Allen!)
Whereas others would say - before you sort out leasing costs, look at all these trains running with less than a bus load of passengers, with two members of staff plus others on railway terms and conditions...... etc etc. All trying to preserve nostalgia/ employment etc
I suggest a review of all of these things.
If you have been paying attention since the budget, then you will be aware that the yield on UK long term government borrowing is above 4%.
Many ROSCO leasing deals were financed in the 2010s when the yield on UK long term government borrowing was below 2%, and, though we don't know the details, ROSCO financing would have been much nearer to 2% than 4%.
Given the need for the UK government to have headroom to borrow for all of the things announced in the budget, the stupidity (your word not mine) is in the suggestion that the government should terminate leasing deals financed at around 2% and instead refinance with borrowing costing more than 4%.
These lightly loaded trains can be found all over the network, often in early mornings/early evenings. They enable people to undertake a full day's activity using the train. Are you seriously suggesting that we restrict the length of the day in which people can use the train ? That really would result in a death spiral.
All new rolling stock should be provided on the basis that the railway owns it outright once the cost of manufacture has been paid down.
Please explain how you propose that the government could finance that.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
By taking repayment loans instead of leases. Though I suppose people baulk at Government debt even where it makes sense!
Agreed. The cost of fuel is the same as four years ago. Since then I think it has been down to one pound per litre and up to two pounds per litre. In that context, a few pence extra tax would hardly be noticeable.
But UK government finances then were not like UK government finances now. There wasn't already a debt mountain as big as one year of GDP.
Looking at the budget on Tuesday, what are you proposing that the government doesn't do in order to use its limited borrowing envelope to finance new trains instead?
And pre-ROSCO financing didn't suffice perfectly well in the past. Look at the 1970s and early 1980s where all new rolling stock had to be HM Treasury approved, and, as a result there was very little new rolling stock.
- Status