Dft cuts - where?

[Metroland]

Health has to be protected. People don't stop getting ill in a recession, and as far as I'm concerned cutting the healthcare budget would be unethical and criminal.

Ideological hogwash. Some doctors are on £400,000 a year and the NHS is over run with over administration, I suspect there are plenty of economies to be made.

You could say cutting any budget is criminal, social housing, or victim support for instance.

As for education, my college course has already been cancelled for next year due to cut backs, which is going to materially affect my well being for years to come.

Now all we need is for the transport budget to be cut, which will make it impossible to get around for me as a non-car driver.

 

[Daimler]

Ahh yes, but the Mk3 only just scored marginally better, IIRC the 222s came top with the Voyagers second hock:

If I recall correctly, it depended on which company the Mk3s operated for - some came higher than others - and some (I think) beat the 221s...

You're definitely right about the 222s, though. The only modern unit I've never travelled on, so I can't really comment...

 

[jon0844]

Railway projects that will transform and improve the railway should continue, as it will help the economy in the long run. Far more important to look beyond the next election.

New rolling stock can in many cases be delayed, without any real impact. When the economy improves, you then have infrastructure ready to take new trains. I'd rather have an upgraded network ready for newer, faster, trains than sit around wondering if these project will ever get underway.

I think the ECML can make do with the trains it has for quite a while, especially the Mk4s, as they offer good passenger comfort and seem pretty reliable. With the new engines, surely HSTs have plenty of life left in them too.

We'd only need to delay the new rolling stock, not cancel it completely.

 

[Daimler]

Railway projects that will transform and improve the railway should continue, as it will help the economy in the long run. Far more important to look beyond the next election.

New rolling stock can in many cases be delayed, without any real impact. When the economy improves, you then have infrastructure ready to take new trains. I'd rather have an upgraded network ready for newer, faster, trains than sit around wondering if these project will ever get underway.

I think the ECML can make do with the trains it has for quite a while, especially the Mk4s, as they offer good passenger comfort and seem pretty reliable. With the new engines, surely HSTs have plenty of life left in them too.

We'd only need to delay the new rolling stock, not cancel it completely.

Indeed, but I think it important that the delay is used to look at the IEP idea and say 'That's rubbish. Let's come up with something better'.

 

[Metroland]

Without doing a proper CBA, I'd plump with MML electrification being far more beneficial.

CBA already been done, GWML comes out higher, it's far busier for a start and there is greater potential for journey time savings.

 

[daccer]

Before they start cutting blindly the new Govt should actually consider what has been achieved in the railways and also the type of railway they want to see going forward. Frankly I am always amazed by the Emperors new clothes approach to govt finances and the railways in particular.

HS2 is always spoken as a given and yet a slowing down of the process would take away some of the short terms pain from 2015 on. In the very short term the comments about sweating assets means I think IEP is a dead duck and frankly good riddance.

With regards to NR and the current control period you would think that the spedning plans in place will largely be honoured. Thameslink will appear in some form - it might take longer or be pruned but hey its still an enhancement. Reading should still go ahead and New St has started. This could be the end of the mega project for awhile though. NR have quite strict economies to find in the next four years so i am not sure how you can enforce even more cuts whilst expecting an MMA of around 93%.

For me the railway is a living organism. it doesnt do well with radical changes and upheaval. Small incremental improvements are the way to go especially in tighter times. The vicious circle of under investment and decline has been broken and now is not the time to go back to a BR ethos. So HST's will go on for longer than planned as will class 91's. Not a problem I am sure that it can be handled. Electrification will be slowed as will re-openings and station improvements - the key is not to stop altogether. If the pace of investment slows then look at alternatives - longer franchises could take up the slack as could some vertical integration on selected lines.

The Tories and Lib Dems have a choice to make about transport - to me every penny cut from railway budgets now will have to be repaid ten fold in the future - rather than cut just slow the processes down.

 

[Metroland]

I think what the government have to be careful of is we don't end up have a dog's breakfast of an infrastructure.

It's all very well saying transport budget are an easy target, but I assume they will be stopping the projected 10 million immigrants that are likely to turn up here over the next 10 years or so, equivalent to building several more Birminghams?

You cannot sustain this sort of population rise without extra infrastructure, and most of them will head to London and the south east and need long commutes into Town.

In the end, it's business that is going to get us out of the spending hole, and one of the main things business looks at is transport - moving goods and people, and access to Labour. If it's a unfunded expensive mess, and our cities are over run with congestion and there is poor access to labour, it's very likely to set up somewhere else.

I have no particular ideological objection to selling off the trunk road network, or letting private companies have longer franchises IF they want to invest.

 

[87015]

In the end, it's business that is going to get us out of the spending hole, and one of the main things business looks at is transport - moving goods and people, and access to Labour. If it's a unfunded expensive mess, and our cities are over run with congestion and there is poor access to labour, it's very likely to set up somewhere else.

Perhaps the privatised rail business could invest some of the handsome profits its been taking out of the industry since privatisation rather than getting the government to pay for everything?

 

[jon0844]

With the state of our economy, I can't see why many people would want to come here in the next few years.

I am sure other EU member states are doing somewhat better than us now. We've also outsourced so much that China or India is probably where you want to be!

 

[455driver]

With the state of our economy, I can't see why many people would want to come here in the next few years.

except our free council houses and being given more money as benefits than some people can earn in their home countries!

 

[starrymarkb]

Perhaps the privatised rail business could invest some of the handsome profits its been taking out of the industry since privatisation rather than getting the government to pay for everything?

Pretty sure one of the TOCs said that while the turnover is high the actual margins are very low - much lower then most other businesses

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Problem you have there is where are you going to find 125mph diesels... 67s can't do 125mph with a full tank of fuel. The Euro-Loks (Traxx DE/Eurorunner) have similar axle loads.

Unless you reduce the GWML down to a 100/110mph railway...

At which point you may as well start hiring in Deltics and Class 50s. You clearly have a point though.

How much is it going to develop a HST?

 

[WatcherZero]

The Dft cuts:
£359m Local Authority Grants (the stuff that pays for train and bus subsidys and minor station improvements)
£108m (roughly 10%) of Tfl's annual grant
£100m Network Rail funding
£112m 'Direct Savings' Dft administration

Total £679m, the remaining £4m must be rounding or other

Also no new rolling stock orders that arent already signed and sealed in 2010 or 2011. (so no IEP or Thameslink)
No mention of cutting the Regional Funding Allocation which is where most large road/light rail infrastructure improvements are funded from

 

[starrymarkb]

At which point you may as well start hiring in Deltics and Class 50s. You clearly have a point though.

How much is it going to develop a HST?

That is what IEP was, an attempt to develop a new HST. Problem was it was designed by Committee. The UK is the only country still trying to do high speed with diesels.

 

[ukrob]

The Dft cuts:
£359m Local Authority Grants (the stuff that pays for train and bus subsidys and minor station improvements)
£108m (roughly 10%) of Tfl's annual grant
£100m Network Rail funding
£112m 'Direct Savings' Dft administration

Total £679m, the remaining £4m must be rounding or other

Also no new rolling stock orders that arent already signed and sealed in 2010 or 2011. (so no IEP or Thameslink)

It is too early to say no Thameslink because they have kept very quiet about it.

 

[bluenoxid]

The Dft cuts:
£359m Local Authority Grants (the stuff that pays for train and bus subsidys and minor station improvements)
£108m (roughly 10%) of Tfl's annual grant
£100m Network Rail funding
£112m 'Direct Savings' Dft administration

Total £679m, the remaining £4m must be rounding or other

Or you've cocked up your figures

 

[Geezertronic]

There is no need to start replacing the IC225 fleet for 2014 when finances are this tight, the new trains won't be any faster and are unlikely to be any more comfortable and it makes no sense to cancel valuable rail projects so that we can go ahead with pointless ones. It will be better to start looking at an upgrade of the ECML in 2020 to 155mph running which would include new trains, for the mean time keep the Class 91+Mark 4 arrangement.

It's probably more pointless to upgrade the ECML to 155mph than anything else to be honest.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

That is what IEP was, an attempt to develop a new HST. Problem was it was designed by Committee. The UK is the only country still trying to do high speed with diesels.

Thats true, there was a diesel only version wasnt there. Im just wondered if there is any other potential out there to do a diesel only HST, rather than messing about with Bi or new electrified multiple units.

Ive a horrible sinking feeling it would turn out to be a voyager with 8 carriages. I think we have been there before.:roll:

Re IEP, reading about it reminded me of the HS Trident in the late 50s, which was designed according to a very rigid set of specs. Unfortunately by the time it entered service, it was so set in stone that it was was near impossible to stretch. An example of the civil service setting specifications, and an imperfect understanding of what the industry wanted. Its nice to see some things never change.

 

[SF-02]

They can start by confirming that the bus rapid transit schemes here and back home never see the light of day

Yep the one in Bristol is a dog's dinner and a very expensive one at that. I'll be glad to see that gone, though I would like the money spent on existing rail services instead.

Cutting crossrail back from Abbey Wood would be a disgrace really. Better transport links have been promised to outer SE London and Kent for decades alongside government encouragement to build thousands of homes year after year which has resulted in a very large population and yet no transport upgrades. This dates back to the plans for the Jubilee line to serve Thamesmead in the early 70s. The plans were dropped and the line curtailed to Charing Cross. When the line was finally extended 20 years later the plans were altered and the line re-routed north of the river to Stratford. At least 2 river crossings have been in advanced planning and scrapped as well in that time. The most recent being the Thames Gateway bridge that was cancelled 2 years ago. It was to be tolled for cars and would have paid for itself, as well as including 2 dedicated transport lanes across it.

It's one short tunnel to open up a huge swath of people to the benefits of crossrail and scrapping it would be nonsensical. I'm glad i don't live there anymore as plans for the area always gets chopped, but feel for those that do. Much of the area has become so deprived because of very poor links into central London.

The new East London Line and the high speed southeastern service are of almost no use to those in outer SE London and much of Kent. The new DLR line at Woolwich is packed already. There is huge pent up demand.

 

[Old Timer]

That is what IEP was, an attempt to develop a new HST. Problem was it was designed by Committee. The UK is the only country still trying to do high speed with diesels.

I suggest that the relatively short distances between major connurbations in the UK do noes not lend itself to the efficient use of HS electric services as elsewhere in Europe.

The distances really do make the case for diesel as against electric very marginal given the recent developments in the efficiency of diesel engines.

Given that diesel does not require the considerable infrastructure costs that electrification does, and not forgetting that Network Rail have destroyed the market for skilled OHL staff in the UK, I would suggest that HS diesel is probably the way forward in the short term.

We are no longer a financial or industrial super-power and we shoud forget past glories and cut our cloth to meet our financial predicament.

 

[Zoe]

I would suggest that HS diesel is probably the way forward in the short term.

What about climate change though?

 

[142094]

Well since they have cancelled the 3rd Heathrow runway, hopefully this should see a corresponding shift towards a new HS electric line in the very near future. That is, unless they decide to cut it to save money.

 

[me123]

Ideological hogwash. Some doctors are on £400,000 a year and the NHS is over run with over administration, I suspect there are plenty of economies to be made.

I didn't say that the NHS couldn't use money better. On the contrary, I did actually say that all staff should take a pay freeze. I also should have said that the executive types should get a pay cut, and the admin/red tape/whatever could easily be streamlined. Contrary to what's said in the Daily Mail, the admin is needed to an extent. There are cases when employing admin staff ensures that doctors spend more time treating their patients, for example. But there is far too much of it in the wrong places, and it's eating up far too much money.

Health should be protected, but the money directed more towards front-line services in hospitals, health centres, and GP clinics. Protect the healthcare budget and cut the admin budget, and you could then see more money going to patient care, simply by making significant cutbacks "behind the scenes". And this didn't need a recession; it would be an easy to free up extra money at any time.

And as for FE/HE cutbacks, I don't know if you've seen anything affecting the University of Glasgow FBLS cutbacks. Well, it could well affect my training, but is more likely to impact on the training of the future doctors in the years below me.

But this is all an aside. The point I was making was that you can't cut front line health services, you can't cut defence spending in the middle of a war (with the obvious exception of Trident which they've chosen not to do), there's only limited education and policing cuts that can realistically be made, so it's areas like transport that are going to get the chop. And, as has been shown, things like subsidies are going to be the first to go, then it will be scaling back on big projects which will eat up a lot of money in the short term. You've seen GARL go in Glasgow. What will happen to Crossrail or Thameslink? I doubt they'll be cancelled, but cutbacks will need to be made somewhere, and the figures for these projects make GARL look cheap.

And I think that the world's going to have to accept that, where cuts are needed, there are some things that need money more than others. And, personally, I think that educating children, treating patients and keeping our streets safe are considerably more important than a new rail link through London, no matter how desirable.

(Of course, I will declare at this point that being a medical student means I'm slightly biased in favour of health funding, but I do think that the public also want to see health protected for obvious reasons).

 

[Metroland]

Well that's your opinion, but when push comes to shove we need to generate money for the economy.

The biggest sector by far, in terms of adding GVA to the economy in order to pay for health, eduction and policing, is financial services, and where are they mostly located? Oh yes, in London and the South East, where the infrastructure is creaking.

So while cutting a couple of rail links might seem like fair cop, is a huge deal to the international business that is located there that pays billions in tax, that needs to get it's workers in and out.

Nevertheless, cutting transport, which by the way has just about the smallest budget it not going to get you any where near the cuts required. You can cut Cross rail, Thameslink, and close the entire rural rail network down (which won't help people get to work to earn money and pay for these things), but it'll still be a drop in the ocean, it'll save a couple of billion at most out of a spending budget of £671 billion

Where is the money spent? In the last budget

Debt interest: £28bn
Public order and safety: £35bn
Housing and environment: £29bn
Industry, Agriculture, employment: £20bn
Defence: £38bn
Education: £88bn
Transport: £23 billion
Health: £119 billion
Personal and social services: £31bn
Welfare: £189 bn

Looking at those figures, I'd be cutting welfare before cutting infrastructure business needs to keep the economy going.

 

[WatcherZero]

Though more than half of Welfare is public pensions and incapacity benefits, not the dole or work programs.

 

[Metroland]

Or housing benefit, because property prices are very expensive compared to salary in this country.

This is exactly why all departments should be looked at, and pay freezes that are anything to do with the public sector be mandatory for the foreseeable future.

There is a further £893 billion to cut, we've managed to cut 1/148th of the total so far, which has cost between 50,000 and 100,000 jobs and 10,000 universities places.

 

[ailsa]

That is what IEP was, an attempt to develop a new HST. Problem was it was designed by Committee. The UK is the only country still trying to do high speed with diesels.

Forgive me if I am wrong but I have heard it is the power cars, rather than the coaches that are becoming 'tired' on the HSTs.

Given that the originals have lasted so long, would it not be possible to build new power cars to a similar design as the originals, and run them for another 30 years? Or has the capability to do that been lost?

As for my personal opinion, if there are cash-strapped times ahead for the railway, we need extra passenger capacity even at the expense of journey times. Motoring is getting expensive.

 

[HITMAN]

It's probably more pointless to upgrade the ECML to 155mph than anything else to be honest.

At the moment we don't have the money for it, but as that corridor probably won't get a high speed rail link it would be very useful in increasing the distance from which people can commute to London from and hence relieving housing pressure in the south east

 

[Old Timer]

What about climate change though?

You have to take the whole equation into account, especially bearing in mind the costs of electricity generation, and the inefficiencies that arise from non-nuclear means.

People are also overlooking the fact that with power stations required to close in the next 5 to 10 years, there will already be a greater demand that capacity which will eventually result in power cuts. That is the reality after Labour continually kicked this issue into the long grass until it is now someone else's problem and leaving another Governmnet to pick up the inevitable criticism for the power cuts.

Even if we immediately started a whole series of new power stations today, we cannot bring them on-stream in time to avoid power cuts.

This needs to be borne in mind when wholesale electrification is discussed.

We really are boxed into a very nasty corner, and it is only now that people are starting to realise just how little room there is for manouveur.

You may recall I was roundly chastised when I tried to point out how bad things were last year.

 

[Metroland]

But the same situation applies with oil and gas supplies, as least with electrification ultimately you are not dependent on foreign petroleum.

The energy electricity requirement even if the whole of the network were electrified is tiny, and during power restrictions certain infrastructure, including railways, are prioritised.

Yes the world has changed, and I've been going on about it for years on these forums, people will one day grasp just how much debt we're in, just how uncompetitive we are compared to Asia, and just what an energy crunch we face, and the dishonesty of politicians for not confronting some of these matters. Civilisation ends when lights go out, and the transport system no longer works.

While you could argue that the Labour party kicked energy issues into the long grass, in the end it's up to the private sector to deliver. There have been vast numbers of energy white papers, and I suspect the whole reason why it's such a difficult area is there is no magic bullet, and anyone that says any different is a liar. People go on about nuclear power, but the reality is no nuclear power station exists in the world without public subsidy, the ones we have got are going to cost ~ £90bn to decommission.