dailymail - One in five train services could be axed as treasury tightens purse strings

[Nicholas Lewis]

Im no fan of the Daily Mail for quality news but this is there article . There's also a similar titled article in Daily telegraph but thats behind a paywall.

Essence is Treasury have reduced amount of subsidy available from 21/22 tax year

A fifth of rail services could be cut next year because Ministers are struggling to control a ballooning multi-billion-pound taxpayer bill.

Whitehall officials are looking at plans that could see rail capacity slashed to around 80 per cent of pre-pandemic service levels.

It is one of the measures under serious consideration following Treasury pressure to reduce the strain on the public purse from propping up the country’s rail network.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak is reported to have approved a modest £2.1 billion to ensure services keep running during the next financial year, constituting less than a quarter of the £9 billion estimated bill for the year to March 2021.

Many TOCs are already below previous timetable plans so may not need as much cutting as the headlines suggest. More concerning would be if traffic levels don't recover to the 75% they expect.

 

[Bensonby]

I’m sure a 20% cut in fares would be very welcome.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seems sensible. This is a massive opportunity to end the "excessively frequent short trains" approach once and for all.

 

[Ken H]

Im no fan of the Daily Mail for quality news but this is there article . There's also a similar titled article in Daily telegraph but thats behind a paywall.

Essence is Treasury have reduced amount of subsidy available from 21/22 tax year



Many TOCs are already below previous timetable plans so may not need as much cutting as the headlines suggest. More concerning would be if traffic levels don't recover to the 75% they expect.

I am afraid its going to be difficult for public transport. The working from home genie wont go back in the bottle. So I think commuter flows could see quite a big drop in traffic. Not only bad news for the railway, but also for many businesses that rely on people being in the office. Business travel will be hit too as companies will seek to use teleconferencing (stuff like Zoom) rather than paying for staff travel. Big savings to be had there.
How public transport reacts to that will be interesting. The traditional season wont be so attractive to someone working from home 1 day a week, so some other product will be needed. Something like 10 days travel for the cost of 9. any 10 days, not necessarily consecutive. You use a day up by using your ticket at a gate.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Entirely predictable.
We now have to wait to see how DfT will manage that with the industry.
20% budget cut doesn't necessarily equal 20% service reduction, because there are HQ costs and some awkward leasing and access contracts to manage.
How, for instance, do you manage a reduction in long-term IEP leasing charges?

 

[DB]

Seems sensible. This is a massive opportunity to end the "excessively frequent short trains" approach once and for all.

But is that what they will do, or will they cut already sparse services on less-used lines?

 

[HSTEd]

Seems sensible. This is a massive opportunity to end the "excessively frequent short trains" approach once and for all.

Given that said approach has been known since the BR era to deliver dramatically increased patronage, I hope not!

Now if we were to embrace the wonders of portion working, things might be different, but we have now got a zoo of incompatible multiple units that renders that impractical

 

[Randomer]

To be honest something along these lines seemed fairly inevitable to me.

I do wonder how much of this will be service related in the short term, or will it be a squeeze on the overhead costs of management contracts now that the treasury is taking on the financial risk not the TOC? Would this be ideal, probably, but it seems unlikely when the profit margins for the operating companies is already so constrained.

Personally I'd think the government would want to look at things like leasing costs and other overheads first but looking at the costs of the IEP project verses the conventionally leased Class 802 I'm not filled with hope.

Seems sensible. This is a massive opportunity to end the "excessively frequent short trains" approach once and for all.

I really hope you are right but unfortunately I can see a scenario where instead of a twice hourly 4 car you end up with an hourly 8 car service which doesn't really solve the problem, it just shifts around the current crowding issues. Now if that hourly service became 12 car then I could see it as a definite benefit but I can't see a scenario where the cost of more rolling stock and infrastructure work becomes palatable compared to trimming service frequencies.

I think service cuts on lightly used lines might be considered but if the Treasury is holding the purse strings and Department for Transport are essentially directing services I can see that being politically unpalatable compared to rolling back some of the increases in services on more heavily used routes. Some of the more obvious ones that come to mind are in devolved administrations so what impact this will have would be a big unknown as well.

 

[peters]

Many TOCs are already below previous timetable plans so may not need as much cutting as the headlines suggest. More concerning would be if traffic levels don't recover to the 75% they expect.

That doesn't necessarily mean the routes without 100% of their planned services are the ones which should remain short, while some others retain 100% of their services. With Northern it seems the Manchester area is affected the most due to a shortage of trained drivers. If the service reductions are instead done based on passenger numbers or revenue it may well be the routes in Cumbria that suffer instead.

20% budget cut doesn't necessarily equal 20% service reduction, because there are HQ costs and some awkward leasing and access contracts to manage.
How, for instance, do you manage a reduction in long-term IEP leasing charges?

Indeed. I would also presume if the number of trains in passenger service is reduced it'll be the old trains which get withdrawn earlier than they would otherwise be.

 

[Ianno87]

I hope this isn't done in too blinkered a way- there are plenty of examples where frequency drives demand, so reducing frequency is a false economy.

For example, reducing Cross-country to hourly services of doubled-up Voyagers makes more sense than reducing Manchester suburban routes from half-hourly to hourly.

Indeed. I would also presume if the number of trains in passenger service is reduced it'll be the old trains which get withdrawn earlier than they would otherwise be.

In GWR's example, you might see a cascade of IETs that ultimately displace the Castle HSTs (for example)

 

[peters]

The working from home genie wont go back in the bottle. So I think commuter flows could see quite a big drop in traffic.

Could that not mean London peak time services going down from 12 carriages, right the way down to just 4 carriages and remaining at that length all day?

Seems sensible. This is a massive opportunity to end the "excessively frequent short trains" approach once and for all.

Which routes are you thinking of? North TransPennine was the obvious example but there's now a lot of 5-6 carriage services, rather than 2-4 like it used to be.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Please, where do trains run excessively frequently?

 

[RailWonderer]

As a frequent turn up and go traveller, I much prefer the half hourly shorter train idea to having a longer hourly train. Provided the same number of coaches per hour ran, capacity would not an issue, only now you may have to plan your day around the transport and wait longer in draughty stations. If I had to do that too often I'd drive instead.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

What's the betting that the "Fresh Air Express" services to airports will survive whilst less prestigious services like Huddersfield to Sheffield get slashed to bi-hourly, I wonder?

 

[Mathew S]

Seems sensible. This is a massive opportunity to end the "excessively frequent short trains" approach once and for all.

That's what people want, though... in my experience anyway. If we're going to get people back out of their cars and onto trains - the train has to be a convenient way to travel. And once an hour, or even half-hour, just is not convenient enough to compete with the car.

 

[randyrippley]

Surely that 20% will closely correspond to the cessation of profits/dividends paid by the TOCs to their shareholders.......with franchises ending, those payments will reduce

 

[Ianno87]

What's the betting that the "Fresh Air Express" services to airports will survive whilst less prestigious services like Huddersfield to Sheffield get slashed to bi-hourly, I wonder?

Airport services have been reduced already. I presume they won't be brought back in any great hurry, e.g.

Airport-Cleethorpes starting at Piccadilly
Gatwick Express de-facto suspended
Stansted Express reduced to half hourly
Birmingham-Stansted only serving Stansted early and late trains
Etc

All of which should be restored once there is (of "if" there us) a commercial case to do so.

Surely that 20% will closely correspond to the cessation of profits/dividends paid by the TOCs to their shareholders.......with franchises ending, those payments will reduce

Try closer to 1.5% profit margin for the owning groups...

 

[Rail Ranger]

The problem with frequent passenger services is that it leaves few if any paths for freight during the daytime. One of the benefits of the initial Covid lockdown and its reduction in passenger services was that freight services achieved much quicker end-to-end journey times because they weren't stuck in loops all over the place.

 

[DB]

That's what people want, though... in my experience anyway. If we're going to get people back out of their cars and onto trains - the train has to be a convenient way to travel. And once an hour, or even half-hour, just is not convenient enough to compete with the car.

They want reaonably frequent, sure - but due to the way the ticket sales are allocated it has been in the interests of operators to run more, shorter trains which reduce reliability overall and clog up the network - e.g. three short trains an hour could in many cases be replaced by two longer trains an hour without losing passengers.

 

[squizzler]

I am for reducing services at the current time to cater for vastly reduced demand. We can deal with passenger travel demand when it returns.

I am not going to be drawn to pontificate what the train service of the future ought to look like, as I have no more idea than the next person. Middle of winter during a pandemic is probably the worse possible time to decide sit down and predict future demand. Shades of the Beeching report whose travel survey was apparently done on a weekday in mid winter and thus made no account for seasonal or weekend travel.

 

[stj]

Maybe there will have to be large fare reductions to try to get new passengers if existing commuters dont return.Cant keep running empty trains.

 

[geoffk]

Please, where do trains run excessively frequently?

York - Newcastle (six an hour)
Newcastle - Edinburgh (four an hour)
Leeds - Manchester (five an hour)
That's fast trains, based on the pre-Covid timetable

 

[Ianno87]

York - Newcastle (six an hour)
Newcastle - Edinburgh (four an hour)
Leeds - Manchester (five an hour)
That's fast trains, based on the pre-Covid timetable

But listing routes like that is meaningless unless you can be sure that the railway cost/revenue deficit would be net reduced with a less frequent service. I.e do each of the 6 services between York and Newcastle generate more revenue than the marginal cost of running them?


We *should* have frequent services where there is a commercial case to do so.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I am afraid its going to be difficult for public transport. The working from home genie wont go back in the bottle. So I think commuter flows could see quite a big drop in traffic. Not only bad news for the railway, but also for many businesses that rely on people being in the office. Business travel will be hit too as companies will seek to use teleconferencing (stuff like Zoom) rather than paying for staff travel. Big savings to be had there.
How public transport reacts to that will be interesting. The traditional season wont be so attractive to someone working from home 1 day a week, so some other product will be needed. Something like 10 days travel for the cost of 9. any 10 days, not necessarily consecutive. You use a day up by using your ticket at a gate.

Peak hour commuting resources have always been the expensive part of the operation so the ability to eliminate any diagrams that involve a single journey of stock/crews will liberate reasonable savings as well as releasing resources to either bolster other services or eliminate older stock. So you could see Southern dropping some of there rush hour peak services and that releases enough stock to eliminate 313's for instance (not that I hope that happens).

I would also expect the likes of W.Coast to downsize its first class offering considerably which was already significantly underused at many times of the day in favour of more second class that they can sell at cheap prices. LNER/GWR Azumas already have reduced FC.

Ticketing is something that will definitely need to be addressed and this has just accelerated the issue that was arising pre Covid over season ticket sales. The govt will also need to recognise that Cities generate wealth and that with the environmental issues we face they can't abandon public transport so some level of subsidy will be needed.
Finally with TOC competition no longer necessary eliminating duplicate and overlapping routes is an easy win.

 

[peters]

Leeds - Manchester (five an hour)

Is that an excessive frequency? It's not a Leeds to Manchester shuttle every 10 minutes, those are long distance services which all go along the key Leeds to Manchester corridor.

London to Milton Keynes seems a ridiculously excessive frequency, if you don't consider those trains continue to other major cities like Manchester and Birmingham

 

[Purple Orange]

York - Newcastle (six an hour)
Newcastle - Edinburgh (four an hour)
Leeds - Manchester (five an hour)
That's fast trains, based on the pre-Covid timetable

You’re only highlighting part of a route. York-Newcastle consists of two LNER from London, two XC (Bristol & Reading via Birmingham), two TPE (Liverpool & Manchester Airport). Each of which services a different market (apart from the two London) on different parts of their route. If you’re looking at excess, it’s where the end to end journey is say 4 or more tph. That gives plenty of London commuter and Birmingham cross city services.

 

[peters]

Peak hour commuting resources have always been the expensive part of the operation so the ability to eliminate any diagrams that involve a single journey of stock/crews will liberate reasonable savings as well as releasing resources to either bolster other services or eliminate older stock.

Yet we're frequently told the trains running the peak time extras can't continue in service all day as there's maintenance programs to take into consideration as well.

 

[Whistler40145]

Im no fan of the Daily Mail for quality news but this is there article . There's also a similar titled article in Daily telegraph but thats behind a paywall.

Essence is Treasury have reduced amount of subsidy available from 21/22 tax year



Many TOCs are already below previous timetable plans so may not need as much cutting as the headlines suggest. More concerning would be if traffic levels don't recover to the 75% they expect.

I usually treat anything printed by The Daily Mail as sheer fantasy

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Try closer to 1.5% profit margin for the owning groups...

And First/MTR will cough up £50 million to terminate their SWR franchise.
TPE will have cost FG over £100 million by the end.
Trains also don't run themselves, a TOC management team costs money whoever provides it, public or private sector.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which routes are you thinking of? North TransPennine was the obvious example but there's now a lot of 5-6 carriage services, rather than 2-4 like it used to be.

The Mon-Fri south WCML timetable could certainly stand a bit of thinning and standardisation absent many of the commuters, with more 8 and 12-car formations where extra capacity is needed.