A new Beeching-style report is needed, to refocus the role of rail

[RT4038]

Of course it isn't, it's business model is based on receiving support from the government to ensure it's costs are covered. The same as the NHS

As I said, describing it as bankrupt is Serpellesque hyperbole, being used to make a point.

Even if making the point that the railway is too expensive to the taxpayer compared to its benefits, why not simply say that?

Dress it up as you like, to suit your conscience and point of view!!!

Was it? The LNR Liverpool through services were stupid, but say the 2018 state of latter day London Midland was pretty decent, and latter day Virgin Trains could be relied upon, too, as could early-days Avanti West Coast however much it might have lacked sparkle. What part of the network did you use that was particularly bad? I found it worked more often than not.

Yes, XC was always rammed, but it was rammed and mostly on time. Which is in many ways quite impressive with a 500+ mile route and so many interactions.

That is not my experience. Constant cancellations, late running, breakdowns, staff shortages at weekends in particular, threats of industrial action, connections missed. Perhaps your reliability threshold is much lower than mine, or you've just grown accustomed to that level?

This depends on whether you consider we should accept that the car continues as the main mode of transport (with a switch to EVs) or we consider that we need to move on from that before the climate emergency gets any worse.

I would not conceive any change which would increase reliance on the workers or management of public transport undertakings in the current (and last 50 years) climate, unless it had to be and as such would represent a pretty major curb on freedom of the individual.

This is gross hyperbole even if you do (as I suspect you do) disagree with it being subsidised.

Even if making the point that the railway is too expensive to the taxpayer compared to its benefits, why not simply say that?

@RT4038 - do you believe the NHS is bankrupt? Or the army? Or National Highways? I think it's useful to know your political perspective here.

My perspective on railway subsidy is per post #174.

I do not believe that the railway is the same as the NHS or the Army. Many Railway staff, and rail protagonists would like it so, to justify the size of the subsidies (particularly to certain activities where the subsidy is grotesque in comparison to the use), but there needs to be a business perspective as it is not the kind of public service that everybody is potentially going to use more or less equally.

Or with the worst social benefits

There will be some of that too.

The railway needn't be rubbish, and making it not rubbish isn't necessarily expensive.

It needn't be either rubbish or necessarily expensive, but there are some difficult decisions, actions and follow through needed to get to that position - which neatly brings us back to the title of the thread!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dress it up as you like, to suit your conscience and point of view!!!

Not really. I prefer sticking to facts or at least non-hyperbolic, factual analysis based opinion. That is, as I said, "the railway costs too much for taxpayers" is a fact-based opinion, whereas suggesting it's bankrupt is hyperbolic and unhelpful to the discussion.

That is not my experience. Constant cancellations, late running, breakdowns, staff shortages at weekends in particular, threats of industrial action, connections missed. Perhaps your reliability threshold is much lower than mine, or you've just grown accustomed to that level?

That is genuinely not my experience of the pre-about-2018 railway. (As I said the through Liverpools on LNR somewhat damaged it in 2019).

I would not conceive any change which would increase reliance on the workers or management of public transport undertakings in the current (and last 50 years) climate, unless it had to be and as such would represent a pretty major curb on freedom of the individual.

So you're anti-public-transport generally, then, or pro-managed-decline.

Opinion in my case too of course, but despite living there my ideal urban future isn't Milton Keynes (and even if it was, you can't apply those concepts to a city not designed and built for the car without flattening them and starting again).

I do not believe that the railway is the same as the NHS or the Army. Many Railway staff, and rail protagonists would like it so, to justify the size of the subsidies (particularly to certain activities where the subsidy is grotesque in comparison to the use), but there needs to be a business perspective as it is not the kind of public service that everybody is potentially going to use more or less equally.

And that's fine, I respect (but disagree with) that opinion. Do you get why talking of it, or indeed any of those, as "bankrupt" is hyperbolic?

It needn't be either rubbish or necessarily expensive, but there are some difficult decisions, actions and follow through needed to get to that position - which neatly brings us back to the title of the thread!

There are, yes, but I'd prefer them to be taken on a positive background of "growing public transport usage as a whole* and improving its economics" rather than a negative one of managing the decline of individual disconnected modes.

That is, yes, you're losing your railway - but this is what you're getting instead - it's cheaper and better!

* I've mentioned the Conwy Valley before - a quality Swiss style hourly electric bus service with high quality vehicles, integrated ticketing etc would probably grow usage over the separate oddly-timetabled railway and bus services, even on such a rural line. Particularly if you think of the service as a whole and where people are going.

 

[RT4038]

Not really. I prefer sticking to facts or at least non-hyperbolic, factual analysis based opinion. That is, as I said, "the railway costs too much for taxpayers" is a fact-based opinion, whereas suggesting it's bankrupt is hyperbolic and unhelpful to the discussion.

And that's fine, I respect (but disagree with) that opinion. Do you get why talking of it, or indeed any of those, as "bankrupt" is hyperbolic?

I really don't understand why you are getting so upset with this 'bankrupt' moniker? No, I don't see why it is hyperbolic. The railway industry is being virtually unlimitedly bankrolled by the Taxpayer. But lets not get worked up about it. Other railways have gone bankrupt too - Penn Central, Rock Island, Colombian State amongst others. Any of them could have been supported by the State in the same way and referred to 'the railway costs too much for the taxpayers'.

So you're anti-public-transport generally, then, or pro-managed-decline.

Opinion in my case too of course, but despite living there my ideal urban future isn't Milton Keynes (and even if it was, you can't apply those concepts to a city not designed and built for the car without flattening them and starting again).

I am not anti public transport at all - I am a pragmatist. I understand why and how the candle making industry contracted with the introduction of Electricity. An imperfect comparison I know, but I don't think it matters how nice, cheap and reliable candles are, there is not going to be modal shift and usurping of electric light unless there is some kind of supply calamity. However, there is a niche market for candles. I know how convenient and reliable private cars are. I well know how (our) public transport generally is not. I know the chasm of convenience and lifestyle between having a car and not (yes, I know it can be mitigated against with an acceptance of the lifestyle change).

I would like the public transport offer to improve. I believe that this could be done more efficiently, reliably and less expensively. I think you and I are fairly close in agreement on that. I do think there are difficult decisions and actions to be taken with costs and with the activities that are undertaken. I do think there is an expanded role for railways in some areas of urban and suburban areas (not that we currently do what we have already terribly well.) There are horses for courses though, and as a quid pro quo there are some activities that the railway is not well suited and expensive. From a holistic public transport view, away from the railway leaves a lot to be desired and the funding needs more evenly spreading.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I really don't understand why you are getting so upset with this 'bankrupt' moniker? No, I don't see why it is hyperbolic. The railway industry is being virtually unlimitedly bankrolled by the Taxpayer. But lets not get worked up about it. Other railways have gone bankrupt too - Penn Central, Rock Island, Colombian State amongst others. Any of them could have been supported by the State in the same way and referred to 'the railway costs too much for the taxpayers'.

Yes, policy could have been to subsidise them.

An organisation trading while bankrupt (a criminal offence) is quite different to one trading with an agreed subsidy or even a cost-plus contract (which isn't entirely unusual in bus tendering).

That is why it is grossly hyperbolic.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2022 ==

I would like the public transport offer to improve. I believe that this could be done more efficiently, reliably and less expensively. I think you and I are fairly close in agreement on that. I do think there are difficult decisions and actions to be taken with costs and with the activities that are undertaken. I do think there is an expanded role for railways in some areas of urban and suburban areas (not that we currently do what we have already terribly well.) There are horses for courses though, and as a quid pro quo there are some activities that the railway is not well suited and expensive. From a holistic public transport view, away from the railway leaves a lot to be desired and the funding needs more evenly spreading.

I think we do agree on that, but I don't see why these should really be "difficult decisions" if done the right way (other than if we say somewhere goes from an hourly rail service to nothing at all, I suppose).

But that requires the UK to totally change its culture and regulatory structure of bus operation to permit fully integrated operation. Until it does I oppose any and all rail closures.

 

[RT4038]

Yes, policy could have been to subsidise them.

An organisation trading while bankrupt (a criminal offence) is quite different to one trading with an agreed subsidy or even a cost-plus contract (which isn't entirely unusual in bus tendering).

That is why it is grossly hyperbolic.

This is a bit of overthinking. The railway finances are bankrupt in a general sense [as in 'the Rt. Hon XYZ is morally bankrupt (not a criminal offence!!)'] rather than in any strict legal definition towards its trading position; although the Government is covering them in order to prevent any legal action.

I think we do agree on that, but I don't see why these should really be "difficult decisions" if done the right way (other than if we say somewhere goes from an hourly rail service to nothing at all, I suppose).

But that requires the UK to totally change its culture and regulatory structure of bus operation to permit fully integrated operation. Until it does I oppose any and all rail closures.

Difficult decisions as in cost reduction (particularly labour cost/practice reform, but also infrastructure, asset) , route/service reform and Government (in some way or another) taking on funding of bus services. This 'Beeching-style' report needs to cover public transport as a whole.

 

[lachlan]

I really don't understand why you are getting so upset with this 'bankrupt' moniker? No, I don't see why it is hyperbolic. The railway industry is being virtually unlimitedly bankrolled by the Taxpayer. But lets not get worked up about it. Other railways have gone bankrupt too - Penn Central, Rock Island, Colombian State amongst others. Any of them could have been supported by the State in the same way and referred to 'the railway costs too much for the taxpayers'.


I am not anti public transport at all - I am a pragmatist. I understand why and how the candle making industry contracted with the introduction of Electricity. An imperfect comparison I know, but I don't think it matters how nice, cheap and reliable candles are, there is not going to be modal shift and usurping of electric light unless there is some kind of supply calamity. However, there is a niche market for candles. I know how convenient and reliable private cars are. I well know how (our) public transport generally is not. I know the chasm of convenience and lifestyle between having a car and not (yes, I know it can be mitigated against with an acceptance of the lifestyle change).

I would like the public transport offer to improve. I believe that this could be done more efficiently, reliably and less expensively. I think you and I are fairly close in agreement on that. I do think there are difficult decisions and actions to be taken with costs and with the activities that are undertaken. I do think there is an expanded role for railways in some areas of urban and suburban areas (not that we currently do what we have already terribly well.) There are horses for courses though, and as a quid pro quo there are some activities that the railway is not well suited and expensive. From a holistic public transport view, away from the railway leaves a lot to be desired and the funding needs more evenly spreading.

Where your argument falls down is that electricity is accessible to everyone whereas cars are not. Putting aside arguments on congestion, climate change, etc, the railway still fulfills an essential role in transporting people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get about. Cutting back public transport reduces mobility and independence for disabled people and I don't think that is acceptable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is a bit of overthinking. The railway finances are bankrupt in a general sense [as in 'the Rt. Hon XYZ is morally bankrupt (not a criminal offence!!)'] rather than in any strict legal definition towards its trading position; although the Government is covering them in order to prevent any legal action.

No, not as in that.

The railway was bailed out during COVID, just like almost every other business in some form or other, plus individuals in some cases too.

Now, it is not being bailed out. It is operating on totally legitimate and proper cost-plus contracts. This might be expensive, and it might unacceptably transfer revenue risk onto the Treasury (I'd be inclined to agree with both), but there is absolutely nothing improper, legal or moral, about that at all. Thus the use of the word "bankrupt", whether in a formal sense or an informal one, is utterly inappropriate and gross hyperbole, as I said. It is simply inappropriate to use it in this context as it is casting accusations of impropriety that simply are not borne out in any kind of fact.

The railway is expensive, quite possibly too expensive, but there is nothing improper about it whatsoever in this context.

Difficult decisions as in cost reduction (particularly labour cost/practice reform, but also infrastructure, asset) , route/service reform and Government (in some way or another) taking on funding of bus services. This 'Beeching-style' report needs to cover public transport as a whole.

And round back to the topic we go!

I think the UK needs a report on the future of public transport provision, yes, and as a result of it a massive restructure of the entire industry. In my view it should lead to the use of objective criteria like Switzerland does to determine what a given settlement gets, plus the ability for local democracy to override that in a positive sense by way of local taxation and a framework for it to do so. That report should also include, at a high level, what is appropriate uses for cars, what infrastructure should be provided for buses in what context (almost never done well in the UK), and how cycling and walking should be provided for. It would also include how various types of accessibility may/must be handled, and impact upon staffing as a result.

That's much bigger than a Beeching report, though, which was just about rail.

I guess you're right, though, in that some decisions may indeed be difficult. Obviously there's DOO, but also stuff like whether it makes sense, for instance, to help people who don't own cars or are too infirm to drive but live in the countryside to relocate somewhere where they may be better served in preference to providing them a few buses a week to themselves.

 

[RT4038]

Where your argument falls down is that electricity is accessible to everyone whereas cars are not. Putting aside arguments on congestion, climate change, etc, the railway still fulfills an essential role in transporting people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get about. Cutting back public transport reduces mobility and independence for disabled people and I don't think that is acceptable.

I know it was an imperfect comparison. You can still buy candles, and there is still public transport. However, the quantity of public transport is not affordable to be maintained at its peak (1950?) level [when virtually everybody used it], when the number of journeys made now is only a tiny fraction of the use then. I don't think anybody is suggesting that public transport should be abandoned altogether, although in some areas it is already pretty thin.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know it was an imperfect comparison. You can still buy candles, and there is still public transport. However, the quantity of public transport is not affordable to be maintained at its peak (1950?) level [when virtually everybody used it], when the number of journeys made now is only a tiny fraction of the use then. I don't think anybody is suggesting that public transport should be abandoned altogether, although in some areas it is already pretty thin.

Public transport is nowhere near at its 1950 level. Bus transport is probably at its nadir, while rail is slightly above the mid-1990s level.

I think in urban areas we need a big shift towards it, including both carrot and stick. London is doing quite well here, other places aren't. In rural areas driving an EV (car club hire is another form of integrated transport, for instance) may be a better bet than a bus or DMU.

It could quite viably be the case that we need more urban public transport - substantially more in some cases (e.g. if Manchester was in Germany it would have a comprehensive U-Bahn, and Bristol would at least have a decent tram network) - but potentially less rural.

That's not to say there couldn't be some urban changes. For instance I struggle to see why splitting 2tph to each Marple station is better than closing Rose Hill and having a bus doing a loop of Marple then connecting with 4tph from Marple (Bridge) station at the same fare as it would be just to travel into Manchester by train from there, which is what you'd likely have in Germany. Nobody is going to walk up that hill by choice, it's horrendous, but a quality bus connection from right outside your house at no extra cost - why wouldn't you?

 

[43066]

That is not my experience. Constant cancellations, late running, breakdowns, staff shortages at weekends in particular, threats of industrial action, connections missed. Perhaps your reliability threshold is much lower than mine, or you've just grown accustomed to that level?

All of the above are currently much worse than usual as a direct result of penny-wise-pound-foolish government medalling. So you appear in favour of the tried and tested approach followed in the bus industry: ie allowing decline and then using this as a justification for further cuts.

I do not believe that the railway is the same as the NHS or the Army. Many Railway staff, and rail protagonists would like it so, to justify the size of the subsidies (particularly to certain activities where the subsidy is grotesque in comparison to the use), but there needs to be a business perspective as it is not the kind of public service that everybody is potentially going to use more or less equally.

Almost no public services are used by everybody “more or less equally”. The railway also generates an income to offset the subsidy received, unlike “pure” public sector pursuits such as the NHS, and that income is currently being suppressed by the government’s own failure to address many of the current issues, or to actively worsen them.

Rail as a mode has external economic benefits far in excess of the subsidy level (which is the whole point). These externalities do indeed benefit everyone, including those who don’t directly use rail, via its contribution to the wider economy. Hence the current wave of industrial disputes which, rather than allowing the industry to resolve in the usual way, the government is choosing to actively exacerbate and prolong, costing the wider economy £1.5bn. Again: penny-wise-pound-foolish in the wider economic sense.

No doubt you’re fully in favour of roads continuing to be subsidised? You sound like someone who is ideologically opposed to any form of subsidy or, perhaps more accurately, you’re a “bus protagonist” who resents the subsidy received by the railway.

This is a bit of overthinking. The railway finances are bankrupt in a general sense [as in 'the Rt. Hon XYZ is morally bankrupt (not a criminal offence!!)'] rather than in any strict legal definition towards its trading position; although the Government is covering them in order to prevent any legal action.

Sorry but this is nonsense and suggests you don’t really understand the language you’re using. To suggest the railway is bankrupt is, as noted above, inaccurate according to the meaning of the word, hyperbolic in the extreme, and revealing of your attitudes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry but this is nonsense and suggests you don’t really understand the language you’re using. To suggest the railway is bankrupt is, as noted above, inaccurate according to the meaning of the word, hyperbolic in the extreme, and revealing of your attitudes.

Indeed. Something costing a bit much (or even way too much) but being funded via a contract is not bankrupt.

I've overspent the past month on the run up to Christmas and taken some money out of my savings to do so. That doesn't make me bankrupt.

If I didn't have savings and had just borrowed it on a credit card or overdraft? Still not bankrupt.

If my parents had given me some money to continue the spending (sort of analogy to willingly given subsidy on a cost plus contract)? Still not bankrupt.

Only if I spent money I didn't have and couldn't service the debt would I be in a position of bankruptcy.

It is hyperbole to push an agenda.

 

[RT4038]

All of the above are currently much worse than usual

Correct. And 'usual' wasn't much good either.

The rest of your post is just trying to ridicule me personally, which is usually the trick when the counter argument is weak. I respect your views, even if I don't agree with or like them, and do not seek to attack you or anyone else personally.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Correct. And 'usual' wasn't much good either.

Wasn't it? Towards the end of Virgin Trains and London Midland's tenure I had plenty of perfectly acceptable journeys and a Delay Repay claim was a rare thing.

What is your local TOC, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[yorksrob]

Wasn't it? Towards the end of Virgin Trains and London Midland's tenure I had plenty of perfectly acceptable journeys and a Delay Repay claim was a rare thing.

What is your local TOC, if you don't mind me asking?

Indeed. After the Hatfield business, I've had many years of very comfortable, reliable InterCity transport.

With the exception of some overcrowded services in the North, the ten years leading up to 2018 were a bit of a golden age of rail.

 

[squizzler]

The issue is that lopping off one part of the network doesn't always bring the cost savings expected (for example National Highways has been given the costs of maintaining historic rail routes, i.e. those from the Beeching report, and the infilling of bridges which has caused complaints) and even if it does it may not result in the passenger numbers being retained on longer distance routes.

This is something generally missed by our Tipp-Ex brigade. There is nothing wrong with going nuts on your own rail atlas with a bottle of correcting fluid, as a fantasy exercise for your own personal enjoyment, but as far as simply obliterating small railways in the real world would "fix the railways" there is an expression: "beware people selling a simple solution to a complex problem".

 

[tbtc]

This thread is illuminating - suggest closing less than 1% of stations and trigger all sorts of reactions (“serpellesque hyperbole” being a favourite, obviously)

But remember, there’s apparently no point in suggesting tiny cuts yet at the same time closing a basket case like the Barton branch (which lost its purpose decades ago when the Humber Bridge replaced the ferry) is taboo because the smallest of reductions in station numbers will automatically lead to Another Beeching… amazing

With the exception of some overcrowded services in the North, the ten years leading up to 2018 were a bit of a golden age of rail.

… And yet you complained and complained about the most minor of things during these years, despite the stability and guarantees of improvements that franchises brought us

Now, we are at the mercy of the DfT with no promise that they won’t cut things at short notice, but at least it ticks the “nationalisation” box I guess, so it’ll keep a certain type of person happy

 

[quantinghome]

@The Ham

Wittering on about reducing car/road use as a way to help railway finances is irrelevant. Rail is not, and cannot become, an effective substitute for most passenger or freight journeys within GB, and is a niche form of transport. It does have a role, but needs to refocus on doing this in a more cost-effective and streamlined manner, which is the premise of this thread.

Of course there are many journeys which aren't suitable for trains. But there are many that ARE potentially suitable which just aren't being tapped at the moment. Intercity journeys involving cities other than London and regional commuter networks being the most obvious markets to go for.

UK rail market share increased from 5% of passenger miles in the mid-80s to over 10% pre-Covid. 20-30% market share should be achievable, in the same ball park as Japan and Switzerland.

The other point to make is that countries which have got comprehensive intercity and commuter railways and high rail market share have somehow achieved this without dismantling, sorry 'streamlining' their rural lines.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2022 ==

This thread is illuminating - suggest closing less than 1% of stations and trigger all sorts of reactions (“serpellesque hyperbole” being a favourite, obviously)

But remember, there’s apparently no point in suggesting tiny cuts yet at the same time closing a basket case like the Barton branch (which lost its purpose decades ago when the Humber Bridge replaced the ferry) is taboo because the smallest of reductions in station numbers will automatically lead to Another Beeching… amazing

Closing down the basket cases is not going to go any way to fixing the railway's finances. They are a footnote, nothing more. If you want to reduce the subsidy the railways receive there are other far bigger issues to address.

 

[43066]

Indeed. Something costing a bit much (or even way too much) but being funded via a contract is not bankrupt.

I've overspent the past month on the run up to Christmas and taken some money out of my savings to do so. That doesn't make me bankrupt.

If I didn't have savings and had just borrowed it on a credit card or overdraft? Still not bankrupt.

If my parents had given me some money to continue the spending (sort of analogy to willingly given subsidy on a cost plus contract)? Still not bankrupt.

Only if I spent money I didn't have and couldn't service the debt would I be in a position of bankruptcy.

It is hyperbole to push an agenda.

Indeed. Otherwise we would need to say the UK government, and perhaps the UK itself, is also “bankrupt” because government spending during Covid has had a fairly dramatic effect on the national debt!

Correct. And 'usual' wasn't much good either.

What do you mean by “not much good”?

You’ll find railway passenger numbers increased year on year from the mid 90s until the start of Covid. Contrast again with the bus industry which is now essentially irrelevant outside London due to the kind of managed decline you appear to advocate above. I would have thought anyone with any interest at all in public transport would rue that decline, rather than appearing to want to see it replicated.

The rest of your post is just trying to ridicule me personally, which is usually the trick when the counter argument is weak. I respect your views, even if I don't agree with or like them, and do not seek to attack you or anyone else personally.

I was not attacking you personally at all. On the contrary, I have tried to counter your earlier statements with reasoned responses that you have then not engaged with (which is your prerogative, of course).

However if you make factually incorrect and misleading statements like “the railway finances are bankrupt in a general sense”, especially when they are part of a clear agenda (as also identified by other posters), you must expect people to rebut them. That’s the nature of a discussion forum, after all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2022 ==

Now, we are at the mercy of the DfT with no promise that they won’t cut things at short notice, but at least it ticks the “nationalisation” box I guess, so it’ll keep a certain type of person happy

Yes, I’m not sure nationalisation in the true sense that most mean it would be a good thing for the railway at all. It’s generally something people favour for ideological reasons, more than anything else.

 

[A0]

Where your argument falls down is that electricity is accessible to everyone whereas cars are not. Putting aside arguments on congestion, climate change, etc, the railway still fulfills an essential role in transporting people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get about. Cutting back public transport reduces mobility and independence for disabled people and I don't think that is acceptable.

Bit in bold - but it doesn't need a rail network to achieve that.

Over 50% of disabled people aged between 17 and 64 *do* hold a driving licence - so a majority of disabled people *aren't* reliant on public transport.

It would probably be cheaper to offer all of those non drivers unlimited free taxis for short journeys and 1 long distance journey a year.

 

[yorksrob]

… And yet you complained and complained about the most minor of things during these years, despite the stability and guarantees of improvements that franchises brought us

Now, we are at the mercy of the DfT with no promise that they won’t cut things at short notice, but at least it ticks the “nationalisation” box I guess, so it’ll keep a certain type of person happy

I did, but then again, I've never seen as much upheaval and as now.

There was a period of stability and growth during sectorisation, then the upheaval of privatisation which lasted roughly until railtrack was put into administration.

Then stability - not a panacea by any means - we had those no growth franchises foisted on us, and inadequate rolling stock in some cases. Those weren't trivial things by the way - if you'd tried to catch the 20:30 Calder valley service from Man Vic on a Saturday during the period, you'd have had an uncomfortable journey.

The current period seems to be one of particularly poor management which goes beyond who owns the thing, but if we are that fixated with costs, we seem to have been left with a lot excessive costs of privatisation with none of the stability.

 

[RT4038]

Indeed. Otherwise we would need to say the UK government, and perhaps the UK itself, is also “bankrupt” because government spending during Covid has had a fairly dramatic effect on the national debt!

Yes, it could. And worrying too.

What do you mean by “not much good”?

In relation to the reliability and convenience of private car transport

You’ll find railway passenger numbers increased year on year from the mid 90s until the start of Covid. Contrast again with the bus industry which is now essentially irrelevant outside London due to the kind of managed decline you appear to advocate above. I would have thought anyone with any interest at all in public transport would rue that decline, rather than appearing to want to see it replicated.

At the same time private car ownership and use has gone up and up too. The railway may well have got its passengers to ride more often, but how much modal shift has it achieved? I have no desire to see public transport decline (or the railways for that matter), but I am pragmatic as to what is likely to be achieved. We can go on pushing for a transport valhalla as much as we like, but unlikely to achieve much while what we do have is so unreliable [worse now, but not brilliant before] and cost inefficient.

I was not attacking you personally at all. On the contrary, I have tried to counter your earlier statements with reasoned responses that you have then not engaged with (which is your prerogative, of course).

Where would these reasoned responses be? Not the barbed comments of post # 219, surely?

However if you make factually incorrect and misleading statements like “the railway finances are bankrupt in a general sense”, especially when they are part of a clear agenda (as also identified by other posters), you must expect people to rebut them. That’s the nature of a discussion forum, after all.

Unabashed with a clear agenda - for the railways, in fact the whole public transport industry, to be given a good shaking up - improve efficiency, improve coverage, improve integration, no decline, and it not cost the country an arm and a leg* (recognising it is not going to come without some subsidy!).

* Because otherwise it is probably not going to happen at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bit in bold - but it doesn't need a rail network to achieve that.

Over 50% of disabled people aged between 17 and 64 *do* hold a driving licence - so a majority of disabled people *aren't* reliant on public transport.

It would probably be cheaper to offer all of those non drivers unlimited free taxis for short journeys and 1 long distance journey a year.

Are you seriously proposing abolishing the entire rail and bus transport system and giving people who can't drive free taxis instead?

That's just lunacy. Is there a single country in the world that has no form of public transport whatsoever? I bet there isn't, even if it's informally operated matatus/jitneys/minibuses/whatever you call them.

If you did do that, one of those informal systems would quickly develop, whether it was strictly legal or not, e.g. share taxis for long distance trips.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2022 ==

Yes, it could. And worrying too.

Do you have any National Savings? Premium bonds? Even certain types of pension?

Yep, that's national debt. It's not as undesirable as some forms of personal debt. Borrowing for capital spending (e.g. HS2) is a totally normal thing to do, as is a bit of borrowing if you've lost your job and need to tide yourself over until you can start a new one (analogous to COVID). Also don't forget that a lot of that COVID spending was funded from quantitative easing - basically printing money - and because basically everyone was doing it it wasn't the economic disaster it usually is.

What doesn't help is when mid-borrowing you do something mind-numbingly and idiotically stupid that knackers your credit rating so it all costs more, though. Yes, you, Truss and Kwarteng.

 

[RT4038]

Also don't forget that a lot of that COVID spending was funded from quantitative easing - basically printing money - and because basically everyone was doing it it wasn't the economic disaster it usually is.

However, no doubt contributing to inflationary pressures now.

 

[lachlan]

Bit in bold - but it doesn't need a rail network to achieve that.

Over 50% of disabled people aged between 17 and 64 *do* hold a driving licence - so a majority of disabled people *aren't* reliant on public transport.

It would probably be cheaper to offer all of those non drivers unlimited free taxis for short journeys and 1 long distance journey a year.

There are 14.6 million disabled people in the UK so we're still talking multiple millions of people without a drivers license.

Couple of points, one why should non drivers be limited to one long journey per year? Two, the lines folks here often propose for closing tend to be those whose stations have poor road access (far north, settle and Carlisle, west highland, etc)

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps that could be achieved by simplifying the rail network then ?

There's already plentiful evidence that when networks are simple, have simple stopping patterns with sensibly spaced trains that reliability can be very high - London Underground being a case in point.

But when you start to complicate it e.g. with a small branch line handling a couple of people a day entering into the mainline, that's where it starts to create problems. So to give some practical examples (which coincidentally also touch some of your pets) the S&C and Bentham lines should only run to Skipton, not all the way into Leeds where they can cause delays, Marshlink becomes self contained only running between Ashford and Ore etc.

There's a truth to that certainly.

It's just that you have to find a balance between that operational simplicity and the tendency of passengers to prefer a through journey.

To take the example of the Little North Western, I get that there's an argument for splitting more of the services at Lancaster - although I still maintain that there are more through passengers than people on here give them credit for. However, there are a very large number of people who go from East of Skipton towards Lancaster. For people travelling further to the Lake District, you're adding in two changes which might put them off even more.

Now is not the time to be putting off passengers by making them change too many times.

Anyhow, any risk of disruption caused by through journeys pales into insignificance in comparison to all the strikes, lack of staff due to no rest working, overcrowded trains due to too many carriages being withdrawn. Lets not kid ourselves what the real problems are.

 

[A0]

There are 14.6 million disabled people in the UK so we're still talking multiple millions of people without a drivers license.

Couple of points, one why should non drivers be limited to one long journey per year? Two, the lines folks here often propose for closing tend to be those whose stations have poor road access (far north, settle and Carlisle, west highland, etc)

Try rereading what I posted. They wouldn't be limited to 1 long distance journey - I said 1 free long distance journey a year by taxi. Beyond that they'd pay, but since they currently pay train fares it's not like they travel for free now.

 

[The Ham]

I know it was an imperfect comparison. You can still buy candles, and there is still public transport. However, the quantity of public transport is not affordable to be maintained at its peak (1950?) level [when virtually everybody used it], when the number of journeys made now is only a tiny fraction of the use then. I don't think anybody is suggesting that public transport should be abandoned altogether, although in some areas it is already pretty thin.

Public transport is nowhere near at its 1950 level. Bus transport is probably at its nadir, while rail is slightly above the mid-1990s level

2019 there was 1.8bn passenger movements on the rail network, 80% of that is just shy of 1.4bn (last quarter shows 359 million, which is continued forwards would be just over 1.4bn), 1.35 billion is what the railways carried in 2010/11.

Whilst the last 12 months is lower than this, it's still at 1.27 billion this is still comparable to the mid 20th century peak (1946) and higher than anything seen in the 50's and 60's. It's also comparable with the numbers seen in 2009/10.

1997 the level was 0.8 billion, so the last twelve months is now than 50% higher than this - hardly only slightly higher. Yes the 12 months to September 2021 saw lower passenger numbers at 649 million (however it does show whilst the return hasn't been overnight there's been significant return and so far it appears to be ongoing with a definite upwards tend - only 1 or the last 6 quarters saw a fall from the previous one and that was fairly small). However that's still only a fall of about 20% from the 1997 level when there were significant barriers to travel, lock downs, etc. limiting the ability of people to use trains.

If we're going to discuss if a report is needed now, why wasn't one needed around 2009 (spoiler that's the year that HS2 was announced) as we've got comparable passenger numbers?

Whilst bus usage had fallen from it's peak of 13bn trips a year, it was about 5bn pre Covid and even 2020/21 it was nearly 1.8bn (even that would be 1/7th the peak, so whilst a small fraction probably not a tiny fraction, even though it was an outlier). However in the last 12 months bus usage is now about 3.4bn trips (or sightly better than 1/4 the number at the peak - a quarter certainly isn't a tiny fraction).

That's after a major pandemic and 12 years of subsidy cuts to bus services.

Bus data is for the quarter March to June 22, whilst rail is July to September 22 - with significant rail growth between those two quarters (which may or may not be reflected in the bus data when released).

 

[RT4038]

Wasn't it? Towards the end of Virgin Trains and London Midland's tenure I had plenty of perfectly acceptable journeys and a Delay Repay claim was a rare thing.

What is your local TOC, if you don't mind me asking?

The same as you! Also I have had plenty of perfectly acceptable journeys, and plenty not so good. Real lack of consistency, and certainly a far worse ratio than private car journeys (not all of which have gone smoothly, but many more of them)

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, no doubt contributing to inflationary pressures now.

Unlikely to make much difference because, as I said, every country did the same. If we did more of it it would.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2022 ==

The same as you! Also I have had plenty of perfectly acceptable journeys, and plenty not so good. Real lack of consistency, and certainly a far worse ratio than private car journeys (not all of which have gone smoothly, but many more of them)

I guess I'm lucky and you're not, then. LNR and LM before it have always had issues with sloppiness, e.g. minor delays into and out of Euston in the peaks (I've not had much of a chance to see if the new timetable avoids that) but nothing consequential, and the policy which existed for years prior to the Liverpool nonsense of "run everything as booked even if it's seriously late so peak capacity is maintained" made a lot of sense. And latter day Virgin Trains was fine. Sure, not everyone liked talking bogs and I'd never buy an Anytime Return from Euston to Manchester, but overall the service was doing the job and was largely punctual and reliable, which is impressive given how congested the south WCML is (hence pretty much the whole point of HS2! )

 

[lachlan]

Try rereading what I posted. They wouldn't be limited to 1 long distance journey - I said 1 free long distance journey a year by taxi. Beyond that they'd pay, but since they currently pay train fares it's not like they travel for free now.

I read your post and answered it. Now try answering my point properly instead of deflecting.