Back to the bad old days’: swingeing rail cuts set alarm bells ringing

[irish_rail]

In some quarters it does. Perhaps jealousy has a bearing. Just to get it into perspective ASLE & F has around 20,000 members - not all drivers and not all employed by national rail passenger companies, some may be members of the RMT and a small number not in a union or in TSSA. But let suppose the 20,000 is not too far out in total and each of these were willing to take a £20k p.a. pay cut. This gives a saving of around £400m a large amount but no where near the £4bn quoted.


Guided bus ways cost a fortune to build. The Castle Cary to Dorchester route, which you quoted elsewhere, is likely (based on costs elsewhere) to cost at least £400m. Do you think anyone is likely to invest that sort of money?

20k paycut for drivers will mainly hit the treasury! Most of what we earn at the upper end is gone in tax, so wage cuts isn't gonna help so much. We have had 2 years of pay freezes as it is, meanwhile bills are skyrocketing thanks to those who voted for Brexit, and then in 2019 ensured Boris got in to deliver the worst thing to happen to the UK in living memory.

 

[Wolfie]

And thank goodness. For the time being anyway.

I suspect a serious row between the Courts and Parliament if and when the former strike out great swathes of the anti-judicial review legislation, if it looks anything like is currently forecast, as unlawful. It won't comply with ECHR for a start.

 

[Starmill]

Why would charging all train operators commercial track access charges lead to a competition claim?

(Charging passenger operators full commercial rates would in no way affect the government's financial position, it just means they would have to pay more subsidies to the train operators directly rather than hiding it in the network grant - and good luck trying to win a competition claim on the basis the government is willing to spend too much on public transport).

It may or may not be unlawful to do that - there would likely be a lawful way to implement increased charges and thus decrease freight by rail if that's what you wanted to do for some ridiculous reason.

But your suggestion that white space should be permanently reserved for but entirely unused by passenger services, for perhaps 5, 10, 15 years or even longer, probably would result in unlawful outcomes.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Why would charging all train operators commercial track access charges lead to a competition claim?

(Charging passenger operators full commercial rates would in no way affect the government's financial position, it just means they would have to pay more subsidies to the train operators directly rather than hiding it in the network grant - and good luck trying to win a competition claim on the basis the government is willing to spend too much on public transport).

I don't really think you understand how track access contracts work.

And the government can't just decide how track access contracts work and just go and break the Network Code. Not that the ministers would get involved in that. But if they did, they would get taken to dispute and lose.

 

[Starmill]

I don't really think you understand how track access contracts work.

And the government can't just decide how track access contracts work and just go and break the Network Code. Not that the ministers would get involved in that. But if they did, they would get taken to dispute and lose.

Indeed. Presumably the Secretary of State is just going to shut the bothersome ORR down overnight though...

If the Government want's to be taken seriously about levelling up, it has to maintain the regional railway. Anything else would be politically unacceptable.

To be fair I think they've probably completely blown "levelling up" as an electoral strategy. They are probably going to bin it very soon and rely on the boundary review and Brexit 2.0 to win the next election. It worked fine for them last time.

 

[HSTEd]

It may or may not be unlawful to do that - there would likely be a lawful way to implement increased charges and thus decrease freight by rail if that's what you wanted to do for some ridiculous reason.

Because currently (indirect) subsidies to rail freight consume substantial amounts of money, which the government might not want to pay given the current straitened economic environment.

I'd bet there are far more votes lost in the Blue Wall or elsewhere from cut passenger services than from somewhat increased road traffic on motorways from reduced or eliminated rail freight operations.

 

[21C101]

I suspect a serious row between the Courts and Parliament if and when the former strike out great swathes of the anti-judicial review legislation, if it looks anything like is currently forecast, as unlawful. It won't comply with ECHR for a start.

Parliament can pass a one line act setting aside any court decision they like or changing the law to void it.

Prior to us leaving the EU, Parliament couldn't pass a law setting aside a judicial review that was based on EU law because parliament can't change EU law.

However now we have left EU law does not apply. All the EU rules only have effect by a UK act of parliament giving them effect. Which Parliament can amend whenever they like.

They can also pass a bill of attainder confiscating a persons assets and executing them without a trial. They have not for a couple of centuries (it was last considered after WW2 in regards the top Nazis but rejected in favour of the Nuremburg trials).

Also if the commons did decide to pass a bill of attainder; thanks to the Parliament Act the Lords could not block it.

 

[Ken H]

I don't think that anyone ever claimed that changes in passenger numbers were uniform - it'd be weird if they were uniform - of course there are variances (just like, when passengers numbers were rising each year, they weren't rising by exactly the same percentage nationwide)

I'd also point out that... it's December 2021 now... a number of people were assuming that numbers would bounce back after the first lockdown, or the second lockdown, or maybe after the 2021 summer holidays ended... but things haven't bounced back yet... I keep hearing that people working from home "would like to be back in the office at least two days a week" and all that but... it's getting close to two years since the first restrictions happened ... so if not now then when? If you're excusing the current figures as a "blip" then when will people be back on trains and in offices? January 2022? Next summer? I could buy into the argument that things would be back to "normal" come September 2021, once the restrictions were ended and summer was over



It matters a great deal

1. Commuters are predictable. You'll have slightly fewer on a Friday on some lines and slightly fewer in August, but generally it'll be fairly stable. Whilst there's variation, if the trains have sufficient seats for a typical winter Wednesday then they'll have enough for pretty much every service of the year

2. Leisure traffic is not predictable. How many people will want to go to Edale/ Whitby/ Windermere will vary significantly week to week, be heavily weather dependent, be hard to predict when planning stock availability/staffing rosters? And the stock (and platform lengths etc) required to meet the peaks demand on a handful of warm/dry Bank Holidays will be over the top for over 90% of the year. You might get some large groups (sometimes a one way journey as part of a walking trip) who'll overload your train

3. As pointed out by others, the costs of providing a leisure journey is significantly higher than a typical commuter. For example, a commuter may buy their season ticket once a year and never use a booking office for twelve months. A twelve coach EMU can carry several hundred commuters with only a driver and possibly a second member of staff (but not necessarily one on a "safety critical" wage). Spread those hundreds of passengers over a dozen different branch lines and you've got much higher costs (leisure passengers are more likely to use booking offices for each journey, branch lines obviously have a much higher "cost per seat" than a commuter EMU

4. I'd wager that an amount of the leisure passengers we've had over the past eighteen months have been because of international travel restrictions - i.e. people heading to Blackpool who'd normally have headed to Benidorm - working from home will be "the normal" for a lot of people a lot of the time in future years but I'm not convinced that the demand for trips to the British seaside will be so bouyant once people are able to fly to the Mediterranean instead (I knew a few people who've taken trips to "new" UK destinations in the past year or so who'd normally have flown far away for their holidays - no guarantee that this will be the case if there are no restrictions on international travel)

5. Like it or not (and I don't particularly like it), commuters into London are very "visible" to Government - MPs and senior Civil Servants use those trains themselves - it's hard to suggest cuts to those services. People heading to the seaside are a lot less "visible" in that regard - so it's a lot harder to demand generous settlements from the Treasury, especially when the railway is seen as less economically necessary to the UK economy



...because we see a need to provide kids with education or to provide people with a certain level of healthcare

Whilst we want to provide public transport, if insufficient people are using heavy rail then it's no longer cost effective (so we look at either reducing it or providing public transport by other means)

Providing heavy rail is a means to an end, rather than a goal in itself

Society requires every to be educated to a decent level and taken care of when ill -society doesn't require every village in the UK to have a branchline

There's a huge difference between "we should focus resources on where best appropriate" and "we must pare the railway network back to only a profitable core" - I don't think that anyone is arguing for the railway to be profitable - it's just that different people have different thresholds of where heavy rail is appropriate or a sledgehammer to crack a nut

No. Public transport isnt free at pint of use like NHS, libraries etc. Its on a pay to use basis, and the taxpayer only tops up the ticket revenue. Its makes government view it is a very different light.
Most people interact with much government stuff regularly. but it is a sad fact that huge numbers of people (especially outside the London area) never use a bus or train. They use their cars. So are indifferent to the straits that public transport is in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do note a surprising apparent enthusiasm from some here at the prospect of slashing the network.

Perhaps they're harking back to the "good old days" of 1970s BR in all its blue and grey (with a layer of grime) glory.

I'm very much not. What I would like to see is a less frequent but punctual network of very long trains timetabled to connect properly with one another, and spare paths considered a virtue for resilience. One could say a Takt. Basically on the Swiss model.

 

[Ken H]

It would make sense to go forward with the ones that will save money, such as ones that remove boxes. But I bet they won't. A fortune would be saved by removing boxes like Rufford, North Llanrwst etc from branch lines so the only staff on the whole thing are driver and guard.

Settle Jct or /Hellifield or both, Garsdale, some S&C ones north of Appleby

 

[Starmill]

Parliament can pass a one line act setting aside any court decision they like or changing the law to void it.

Prior to us leaving the EU, Parliament couldn't pass a law setting aside a judicial review that was based on EU law because parliament can't change EU law.

However now we have left EU law does not apply. All the EU rules only have effect by a UK act of parliament giving them effect. Which Parliament can amend whenever they like.

They can also pass a bill of attainder confiscating a persons assets and executing them without a trial. They have not for a couple of centuries (it was last considered after WW2 in regards the top Nazis but rejected in favour of the Nuremburg trials).

Also if the commons did decide to pass a bill of attainder; thanks to the Parliament Act the Lords could not block it.

All well and good in theory. But by the time any such "nuclear options" are under consideration the reality of the matter is that Parliament just becomes a group of men and women in an old building, and the rest of society is in total collapse.

 

[HSTEd]

Prior to us leaving the EU, Parliament couldn't pass a law setting aside a judicial review that was based on EU law because parliament can't change EU law.

Many constitutional scholars would argue that Parliament still could change EU law at will, as EU law only had effect as a result of the European Communities Act.

However the political cost of such changes were dramatically increased compared to the current situation

 

[Wolfie]

All well and good in theory. But by the time any such "nuclear options" are under consideration the reality of the matter is that Parliament just becomes a group of men and women in an old building, and the rest of society is in total collapse.

Absolutely. Civil insurrection would be well underway. Ministers have come very close to jail time for contempt of Court before now....

It also assumes that all Tory MPs would support such measures. David Davis' litigation against his own Government for example proves the fallacy of that.

 

[21C101]

Absolutely. Civil insurrection would be well underway. Ministers have come very close to jail time for contempt of Court before now....

Depends. I doubt that there would be much insurrection if a capital bill of attainder was passed against the father and stepmother of that six year old kid that was murdered in Solihull. In fact quite the opposite.

 

[Wolfie]

Depends. I doubt that there would be much insurrection if a capital bill of attainder was passed against the father and stepmother of that six year old kid that was murdered in Solihull. In fact quite the opposite.

A rather tenuous example... and if it can be done to them who would be next? I have nothing printable to say about those individuals but the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights protects even them.

 

[21C101]

Many constitutional scholars would argue that Parliament still could change EU law at will, as EU law only had effect as a result of the European Communities Act.

However the political cost of such changes were dramatically increased compared to the current situation

Yes indeed. To change the law would have required repeal of the European Communities act and consequent exit of the Eurpoean Union.

As that has now happened that rather significant hurdle has gone.

A rather tenuous example... and if it can be done to them who would be next?

Indeed. But if a backbencher introduced one on those two individuals, I doubt that any MP voting against it would be very popular with large chunks of the media, or social media.


But the point is that there is nothing to stop them if they want to (unlike the US whose consititutio specifically prohibits bills of attainder).

 

[Wolfie]

Yes indeed. To change the law would have required repeal of the European Communities act and consequent exit of the Eurpoean Union.

As that has now happened that rather significant hurdle has gone.


Indeed. But if a backbencher introduced one on those two individuals, I doubt that any MP voting against it would be very popular with large chunks of the media, or social media.


But the point is that there is nothing to stop them if they want to (unlike the US whose consititutio specifically prohibits bills of attainder).

Which is why we need a written constitution. Otherwise we will go the way of Poland.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes indeed. To change the law would have required repeal of the European Communities act and consequent exit of the Eurpoean Union.

As that has now happened that rather significant hurdle has gone.

I feel we have gone rather off topic and I think we should stop before the mods bring their hammer down upon us.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Access charges are shortly going to disappear, for the ex-franchised operators who pay the vast majority of charges anyway and who run the vast majority of the trains. They have contractual protection for changes in charges anyway so it’s a fairly pointless zero sum game.

Lots of ideas on this thread but the problem is that the economics of the railway have hitherto depended on both business and London commuter revenue not only remaining as is but increasing. Now that cash cow has decreased in size, the revenue gap is considerable and the Treasury are not going to pony up the difference.

That difference isn’t going to be found by relatively small schemes. The current number of trains in the timetable are clearly too many for the money available to run them. So some are going to have to go.

Forget that certain trains may be crowded, forget climate change, the Treasury want their wedge and the DfT is having to dance to their tune.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I'm very much not. What I would like to see is a less frequent but punctual network of very long trains timetabled to connect properly with one another, and spare paths considered a virtue for resilience. One could say a Takt. Basically on the Swiss model.

Spot on and its disappointing that a vision along these lines wasn't part of Williams-Shapps plan.

 

[Starmill]

As that has now happened that rather significant hurdle has gone.

Casting aside our Convention Rights, especially as in the capital punishment case you mention, would probably be an equally invidious intervention.

 

[Bald Rick]

Although strictly true, it's hardly as simple as saying "more services = more costs with wider revenue gaps."

I agree, I pits not that simple.

We need to be careful to avoid cutting where it leads to significantly unproductive rostering and asset usage or making the service so unattractive nobody wants to use it.

I agree.

So reducing services will save a few million on diesel and EC4T costs and reduce other costs but the rest of it is fixed unless you remove staff.

Some rolling stock will go, in my opinion, and not be replaced. Quite a few leases up in the next couple of years.

You're not taking into account economies of scale or the fact that making a service more regular makes it generally more attractive to a wider customer base.

I was taking those factors into account.

 

[Xavi]

Access charges are shortly going to disappear, for the ex-franchised operators who pay the vast majority of charges anyway and who run the vast majority of the trains. They have contractual protection for changes in charges anyway so it’s a fairly pointless zero sum game.

Lots of ideas on this thread but the problem is that the economics of the railway have hitherto depended on both business and London commuter revenue not only remaining as is but increasing. Now that cash cow has decreased in size, the revenue gap is considerable and the Treasury are not going to pony up the difference.

That difference isn’t going to be found by relatively small schemes. The current number of trains in the timetable are clearly too many for the money available to run them. So some are going to have to go.

Forget that certain trains may be crowded, forget climate change, the Treasury want their wedge and the DfT is having to dance to their tune.

The fragile basis on which the whole modern London economy is founded - that the country would implode if the keyboards and mice of a service-based economy weren’t in London - has been questionable for over 20 years, and railway finances were configured (costs not required elsewhere jam spread far and wide, think IET / Thameslink fleet configuration and infrastructure) to suggest the fare income from shipping commuters in and out was a ‘cash cow’. It was a problem waiting to happen, just like the wider London economy and housing market.

Regional GDP won’t show the real story as payrolls are still recording thousand of jobs as London even though the workers don’t regularly go near the place. London is where the problem lies, but the rest will pay.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Some rolling stock will go, in my opinion, and not be replaced. Quite a few leases up in the next couple of years.

Clearly anything up for current replacement will go but overall lease costs are increasing as more modern stock comes into use so this will be a deadweight on costs for years to come. So take TPE which ORR nicely told us is now spending 147m on stock leasing charges which is up from £65m in FY2020 accounts due to all the new stock its procured. However, in FY2020 its total costs were £290m and it took £290m through the fare box so broke even but now it would need to find another £80m to just break even well lucky for them its no longer their problem but is DofT.

 

[TPO]

They're not always necessarily easy to reverse. FOCs are more than happy to take up nice faster paths when trains are removed; if they're allowed to keep them for long enough, they can acquire strong rights that would be difficult to overrule to reinstate the lost services.

And why not, there is increased interest at moving freight by rail instead of road, perhaps the railway should move more freight and leave the leisure travellers to their cars.

So... don't give them faster paths?

Just because the paths potentially exist does not require the railway to give them up.

Frieght operators have far more paths than trains they operate - why should passenger operators be any different?

Why should there be a presumption that passenger trains are more important? Given how much online shopping has increased the market for fast, on-delivery why should rail not carry part of that?

TPO

 

[JamesT]

Clearly anything up for current replacement will go but overall lease costs are increasing as more modern stock comes into use so this will be a deadweight on costs for years to come. So take TPE which ORR nicely told us is now spending 147m on stock leasing charges which is up from £65m in FY2020 accounts due to all the new stock its procured. However, in FY2020 its total costs were £290m and it took £290m through the fare box so broke even but now it would need to find another £80m to just break even well lucky for them its no longer their problem but is DofT.

Is that necessarily true across the board? I was under the impression that some franchises have gone for fleet replacement before their current stock gets to end of life due to lower finance cost on newer trains. E.g. SWR are replacing 707s with 701s in part because the leasing costs are lower.

 

[infobleep]

Undoubtedly people are going to work more from home in the future, but the figures speak for themselves.

80% of City workers were back at their desks last week despite Omicron

More London staff were at their desks last week than at any point during the pandemic as the festive party season kicked off (file photo of the City).

www.dailymail.co.uk

When I alighted off a train at Haywards Heath railway station this evening, just after 18:30 and the forecourt was deserted. Where was everyone?

 

[Horizon22]

15% reduction in passenger journeys with 30% rolling stock reductions arriving soon....

But as the report shows this will likely be primarily in London & SE. However the stock may now be surplus to requirements and obviously be electrified will only be of benefit to other areas electrified if it is cascaded.

 

[Xavi]

But as the report shows this will likely be primarily in London & SE. However the stock may now be surplus to requirements and obviously be electrified will only be of benefit to other areas electrified if it is cascaded.

Yep, see the headlines on the pdf.

 

[Andrew1395]

I think the Treasury would be quite content if GBR got back to the number of employees BR had on 31 March 1994. From memory I think that was about 95,000 in total. Take out the people who worked in the freight sectors (at a guess 7,500), and you get a rough number of people required for running the infrastructure and passenger business.

The next thing they will want is an asset assessment. What can be sold, what maintenance regimes reduced.

ultimately the quickest and easiest way to save money is to reduce headcount, saving wages, national insurance and pension contributions.