McNulty: Train services should be axed to bring down cost of railways

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,480
Location
Birmingham
Strange how McNumpty has forgotten that European railways are owned by the State while waxing lyrical about them :roll:

Cutting off peak services will push more people onto the road as people like trains where they can get a table, or can sit together.
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
5,652
Location
South Wales
Cant see the governments in scotland or wales being to happy with that or groups campaigning for more or new services such as on the line between Trowbridge & Chippenham.
 

michael769

Established Member
Joined
9 Oct 2005
Messages
2,006
Yeah having loads more rolling stock lying in depots to be used for 2-4 hours a day at peak will be really efficient.
 

Aictos

On Moderation
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
9,333
1.) Get rid of McNulty and his kind who have no experience of what needs to be done.

2.) Overhaul franchise tenders so they're managed on a management contract like London Overground with any profits being used to invest in the railway.

3.) Make much more efficient use of management at all levels and invest more at front line level.

4.) Make fares easy to understand and affordable.
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,393
Location
Between the parallel lines
1.) Get rid of McNulty and his kind who have no experience of what needs to be done.

2.) Overhaul franchise tenders so they're managed on a management contract like London Overground with any profits being used to invest in the railway.

3.) Make much more efficient use of management at all levels and invest more at front line level.

4.) Make fares easy to understand and affordable.
5. Bring back LHCS, with new-generation, efficient locomotives and a system of easier combinations of appropriate types of carriages. Cut back on the numbers of carriages only where verifiable statistics show that one or more carriages of each type are technically empty - and, vice versa, strengthen services and frequencies in areas of significant potential expansion.

6. If staffing must be cut, allow easier processes for volunteers to provide information and carry out basic maintenance at stations. Engage with enthusiasts and the community-spirited, where they are willing to learn to perform these tasks safely.

7. Improve onboard facilities in line with the highest comfort levels affordable, in order to entice customers away from more comfortable cars and planes. Don't give up and resort to providing a level of service that will only appeal to those for whom travel by train is inevitable or for whom any level of comfort "will do".

Simple theories could go a long way, Mr McNumpty...
 

Masboroughlad

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2011
Messages
1,472
Location
Midlands
The man is clueless.

Stop running trains altogether -close everything down, scrap it all. Have zilch, nada, nowt - then the railways would cost us nothing at all.

I dread to think how much his mas has been paid. Fancies himself as a Beeching.

It makes me very angry <(
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,480
Location
Birmingham
He won't be put out to grass of course because his reports are in line with government ideology. Does that make one question the neutrality of said report or am I being paranoid again
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,165
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
Bob Crow, the RMT leader, told MPs: "If a lightbulb on a station needed changing in British Rail days the chairman of the board could ring up and get it changed."
I'd like to know how many people it costs to change a lightbulb, and their hourly rate nowadays Bob...
 

aylesbury

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
622
These people should be made to travel on the overcrowded services he wants to axe.All this comes from the treasury who are totaly against spending the money they steal from us.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,669
Location
Mold, Clwyd
It's quite simple.
The railways have been largely protected from the public sector cuts over the past few years, by the ORR/NR funding formulae and franchise agreements.
The Treasury now wants cuts in the subsidy to the railways over the next control period (CP5 - 2014-19).
Just guessing they want something like 20% cuts in subsidy, where would you cut?

References to McNumpty and DafT are just ignorant. There is a serious problem here.
The target will probably be low-utilisation rural/regional services (with the highest subsidy per passenger-mile).
GW and Northern/TPE will be among the first franchises to have to address this problem as they come up for renewal.
 

Aictos

On Moderation
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
9,333
I'd like to know how many people it costs to change a lightbulb, and their hourly rate nowadays Bob...
As a example, at Station A if a lightbulb needs replacing it costs a fortune to get fixed!

This is because the fault desk people charge £££ just for handling the fault, then the engineers charge £££ to come out before charging £££ to carry out the work needed and people wonder why the railway in certain areas is so inefficient? :roll:

I remember being told once that a fault because of the way it was faulted ended up costing a small fortune as the fault desk charged for handling the fault as a emergency call out resulting in the engineer charging just for attending the station before returning the following morning to complete the job.

So to answer your question tbtc, any fault not matter how small isn't exactly inexpensive!
 

Michael.Y

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2011
Messages
1,416
I'd like to know how many people it costs to change a lightbulb, and their hourly rate nowadays Bob...
I imagine it goes something like this. Station member of staff reports lightbulb is out of action. Station manager / TOC head of resources inform Network Rail liason for said station / area. Network Rail liason informs NR Resources, Resources contacts contractor, contractor sends out replacement team. Team need a risk assessment so Health & Safety Rep for station is needed on site.

Of course, that's assuming the lightbulb type is in stock and/or it's within working hours.
 

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
The taxpayer's subsidy to the industry has risen from £800 million a year before privatisation to £3.8 million a year now.
I like this quote from the Telegraph. Seems they're all worrying over nothing!
 

exile

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2011
Messages
1,337
There are some services which are very lavish for the number of passengers on hand - examples in Greater Manchester. Of course the argument is that it makes sense to use assets such as trains and tracks as near 24/7 as possible but as energy costs rise I wonder how long that will hold. Is it really "green" to run a 60 ton train with four people aboard?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
24,939
Location
Yorks
References to McNumpty and DafT are just ignorant. There is a serious problem here.
The target will probably be low-utilisation rural/regional services (with the highest subsidy per passenger-mile).
GW and Northern/TPE will be among the first franchises to have to address this problem as they come up for renewal.
I'm sorry, but our railway network has already been cut to the bone - so much so that it is already too small to provide adequate connectivity to many areas.

I deride any suggestion that we should "question the extent of the regional railway network" that we have now.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,516
Location
Central Belt
You can see how reducing a 10 or 12 minute frequency down to 15 minute off peak could be argued as a good thing. But you can your life that won't happen it will be reduction of lines which already have a poor service. Like reducing Grimsby - Lincoln down to 4 trains per day!
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,986
Location
Exeter
There are some services which are very lavish for the number of passengers on hand - examples in Greater Manchester. Of course the argument is that it makes sense to use assets such as trains and tracks as near 24/7 as possible but as energy costs rise I wonder how long that will hold. Is it really "green" to run a 60 ton train with four people aboard?
A very good point. There are some services that to be honest are not relevant any more. Things like the Denton South, Brigg-Gainsborough where the service has been cut back to extremely little and as a result have annual passenger use in double figures. Of course the locals have now made other arrangements so if the service was improved it would struggle to attract passengers back. Maybe it would be worth going through the closure process as a passenger railway or at least the intermediate stops (I understand both see heavy freight use)

High fares are also putting people off both rail and bus for example - it recently cost me £3.25 for a return to go 1.5 miles for an interview on the bus (Car was blocked in by roadworks and buggered if I was going to walk in the pouring rain) - as a result I tend to walk/cycle short distances (up to 2miles) and drive longer ones.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
6,296
I'm sorry, but our railway network has already been cut to the bone - so much so that it is already too small to provide adequate connectivity to many areas.

I deride any suggestion that we should "question the extent of the regional railway network" that we have now.
Yet the thread I started on here - "Stations which should be closed" - has attracted a lot of suggestions!

I would hate to see it close, but it's hard to justify the Blaenau Ffestiniog branch when there's a (commercial i.e. unsubsidised) bus service that is more frequent and quicker! It can't be the only example.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
24,939
Location
Yorks
Yet the thread I started on here - "Stations which should be closed" - has attracted a lot of suggestions!

I would hate to see it close, but it's hard to justify the Blaenau Ffestiniog branch when there's a (commercial i.e. unsubsidised) bus service that is more frequent and quicker! It can't be the only example.
Indeed, but the question is, does the bus service, unsubsidised or not, provide an adequate alternative to the railway - particularly for passengers travelling from further afield. Would the passengers who travel from the wider network, be prepared to change to the bus for the final part of the journey, and would Blaenau suffer economically as a result. I strongly suspect thet the answer to the first part of the question would be "some, but by no means all" and the second part undoubtedly "yes".
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
6,296
Indeed, but the question is, does the bus service, unsubsidised or not, provide an adequate alternative to the railway - particularly for passengers travelling from further afield. Would the passengers who travel from the wider network, be prepared to change to the bus for the final part of the journey, and would Blaenau suffer economically as a result. I strongly suspect thet the answer to the first part of the question would be "some, but by no means all" and the second part undoubtedly "yes".
I'm sure Blaenau would campaign against closure, but most local residents have 'voted with their feet' already. Having no direct rail link would put Blaenau in the same category as Denbigh, Ruthin, Mold, Rhuddlan, Dolgellau etc etc. On that basis it's hard to argue that the raillink has allowed Blaenau to out-perform those other towns!
 

Solent&Wessex

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2009
Messages
2,373
It's quite simple.
The railways have been largely protected from the public sector cuts over the past few years, by the ORR/NR funding formulae and franchise agreements.
The Treasury now wants cuts in the subsidy to the railways over the next control period (CP5 - 2014-19).
Just guessing they want something like 20% cuts in subsidy, where would you cut?

References to McNumpty and DafT are just ignorant. There is a serious problem here.
The target will probably be low-utilisation rural/regional services (with the highest subsidy per passenger-mile).
GW and Northern/TPE will be among the first franchises to have to address this problem as they come up for renewal.
Whilst I agree that the industry needs to save money, I fail to see why all the savings should come from the reduction in staff and / or train services. Whilst the subsidy paid to Northern & TPE is not inconsiderable, it should be pointed out that the levels of patronage pretty much everywhere across those networks are far higher than when the franchises were let. As someone who travels on TPE trains across the network at all times of the day or night, I can assure you that the problem is not how to do away with the surplus supply of trains, but how to cope with the excessive passenger volumes - in particular at off peak times where trains are often more overcrowded than in the supposed "peak hours". The same applies for what are perceived underutilised rural lines. Many, the Whitby line for example, struggle to cope with demand for much of the year. What is needed here is extra capacity, not less.

As a start it might be prudent to look at the South, where the number of 8 / 10 car trains carting around fresh air never ceases to amaze me - especially where many similar services in the North are formed of 2 or 3 coaches and the passengers are struggling for air!

Also important, and seemingly being overlooked, is the issue of revenue protection - which needs to improve considerably in many places - to ensure that those people travelling on DOO trains, or doing short hops, or travelling in the evenings, actually pay for their journey. The threats of penalty fares and / or prosecution seem not to be working very well. Why look to save money, when you can't even collect all the money which is due to you?

Finally I can see no reason why many of the franchises need to be so heavily subsidised - especially in view of the aforementioned increases in patronage. Management contracts and longer franchises might solve some of this, whilst also retaining the level of service desired.

There are many ways to stop the industry wasting money, without the need to withdraw staff or train services. Big profits for the franchise holders would be a start.

 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,480
Location
Birmingham
It's quite simple.
The railways have been largely protected from the public sector cuts over the past few years, by the ORR/NR funding formulae and franchise agreements.
The Treasury now wants cuts in the subsidy to the railways over the next control period (CP5 - 2014-19).
Just guessing they want something like 20% cuts in subsidy, where would you cut?

References to McNumpty and DafT are just ignorant. There is a serious problem here.
The target will probably be low-utilisation rural/regional services (with the highest subsidy per passenger-mile).
GW and Northern/TPE will be among the first franchises to have to address this problem as they come up for renewal.
I wonder what the subsidy there is on the continent of whom McNumpty is singing their praises? Privatisation has comprehensively been shown not to work, don't renew the franchises and let them come back into State ownership.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top