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

[starrymarkb]

£5000 for a car? You can get a decent older car for about £2-3K.

High rail fares have seen me switch to the Coach for intercity travel. Though for local travel the train is cheaper then the bus..

 

[Zoe]

or London-Edingburgh to conect for Glasgow/Aberdeen/Inverness?

How far do you go with these plans though? You could for example end the current intercity service to the Westcountry at Exeter with people changing there for Torbay/Plymouth/Cornwall but I doubt this would be very popular.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

£5000 for a car? You can get a decent older car for about £2-3K.

You can yes but I was under the impression that the above post was referring to new cars that would include a service package in the price. Even though you do still see quite a few Corsa B/Fiesta Mark IVs around, would you really want to do a long journey in one?

High rail fares have seen me switch to the Coach for intercity travel. Though for local travel the train is cheaper then the bus..

High fares? There are some very cheap fares from Exeter to London if you book in advance and that's exactly what you would be doing if you went by coach.

 

[ainsworth74]

If changing does not discourage passengers perhaps we could break Intercity trains at convenient points?

I was under the impression that changing does in fact discourage passengers and will cause them to be more likely to either drive the entire journey or to drive to a station where there is a direct service. Swear I've read that somewhere or other.

 

[ElveUK]

To be honest I think his job should be axed to save money for the government.

 

[northwichcat]

High fares? There are some very cheap fares from Exeter to London if you book in advance and that's exactly what you would be doing if you went by coach.

XC have significantly reduced the number of Advance fares they do, which affects non-London journeys from around the country including in the South West.

 

[starrymarkb]

I got a high spec 2005 Astra H for £3000, is much more comfortable then the previous 2003 VW Polo and gets a similar MPG. I did take the Polo to East Germany a few years ago, can't say it was the most suitable vehicle but it coped fine with the Autobahns.

I'm not sure the train could match £18 National Express return to Manchester with XCs high fares. I did check the train at the time and advance was around £60-70 return

 

[HSTEd]

I was under the impression that changing does in fact discourage passengers and will cause them to be more likely to either drive the entire journey or to drive to a station where there is a direct service. Swear I've read that somewhere or other.

Indeed, I've seen a study that suggests that someone or other myself, and through trains are popular with locals.
Myself I see electrification and lower cost rolling stock as being critical for the survival of secondary routes in the current climate. (Just think of all those soon to be freed EMUs that politicians would never dare deploy on major routes - Cl314/5s et. al).

There is always slab track to allow higher capacity factors and lower maintenance costs. (Some station slab track in Germany has apparently been in regular use for 20+ years with no non grinder visits).

 

[Zoe]

I got a high spec 2005 Astra H for £3000, is much more comfortable then the previous 2003 VW Polo and gets a similar MPG. I did take the Polo to East Germany a few years ago, can't say it was the most suitable vehicle but it coped fine with the Autobahns.

Was that from a dealer though? If you buy privately it is cheaper but you run the risk of it costing you a lot more in the long term. It also assumes people have £3000 to go and spend on a car, with the current economic climate a lot of people simply haven't and if they do have cars at all will only be the Corsa B/Fiesta Mark IV type cars I was referring to above and these are not very comfortably for long distance journeys so the point here is that I don't think the lack of direct or connecting services will be quite as likely to get people to switch to car as it did previously and that people will still use intercity services. Just look at how busy intercity services have become in the last few years. Back in 2005 I remember trains that had a lot of empty seats, this is quite rare now. This is despite some quite poor connections and lack of direct trains on some routes.

 

[starrymarkb]

Was that from a dealer though? If you buy privately it is cheaper but you run the risk of it costing you a lot more in the long term. It also assumes people have £3000 to go and spend on a car

Was from a main dealer.

Looking on Autotrader you can get an E-Class (1995 built like a tank model) for £600 with a mere 200k miles (they will easily do double that!)

 

[Zoe]

Looking on Autotrader you can get an E-Class (1995 built like a tank model) for £600 with a mere 200k miles (they will easily do double that!)

Yes but how long do you think a 1995 car is going to last before it ends up going to the scrapyard? It's not just a case of mileage, you also have to consider the cost of repairs and the increased fuel consumption of cars this old. I don't think anyone is going to buy a car that is only going to last a year or two when you could avoid the cost by using public transport.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

People keep assuming that cost reduction equals service cuts.
McNulty isn't demanding service cuts, but subsidy cuts.
It's up to NR and the TOCs to find ways of reducing their costs.
Most of it is embedded in track access costs, set by NR and paid by the TOCs.
So the focus is more likely to be on NR maintenance regimes than on train miles.

Another big cost area is train leasing.
Ryanair and Easyjet get their costs down by using only one (or two) aircraft types and they regularly buy new and dump the older planes to keep maintenance costs down.
We might find the ROSCOS will buy new train fleets in order to scrap the older ones, ending up with larger numbers of standardised modern stock.
eg how much do Northern spend on their zoo of different train types?

There are many ways of skinning a cat.

 

[jon0844]

Let's not start making assumptions over if people drive or not, we had a very long discussion on this topic in another thread. It's going to be some time before electric cars fully take over and fuel may become too expensive before then. People with high wages may well be able to afford cars but I doubt many on the average minimum wage job will be able to.

The car industry cannot afford to stop selling cars. Believe me, they'll still sell cars. If prices have to come down, that will happen. I am sure the Government would help too - if only for the greener cars.

You definitely don't drive. If you did, there would be no reason to be too embarrassed to say so. If you couldn't, or have been banned, then I can see why you might want to avoid the question. But, you're right - let's not start that again.

However, the fact you don't drive clearly clouds your view. Electric cars are available today, so there's not going to be this void where you have no petrol or diesel cars and nobody is getting an electric car.

Cars are not only for the rich either, or else Hatfield would have only a handful of cars and you wouldn't see students driving either. People will simply need to choose what car to buy more carefully.

I am not a believer of forcing people off the road and onto public transport. I believe you make public transport enticing enough that people choose to use it. People can then keep their cars for trips where public transport isn't best suited, or not available.

I use buses and trains, but cannot see myself ever giving up the car. I can perhaps see myself getting a more eco-friendly car in the future, but for now I'm happy with what I have as the mileage is low enough to not impact too heavily.

It also assumes people have £3000 to go and spend on a car, with the current economic climate a lot of people simply haven't and if they do have cars at all will only be the Corsa B/Fiesta Mark IV type cars I was referring to above and these are not very comfortably for long distance journeys.

Couldn't someone get a loan if they needed to? Why assume nobody has any money? Yes, there's a recession but it's not true that everyone has suddenly run out of money. If you still have a job, most people have probably not noticed any real difference at all - no pay cut, possibly more pay due to the increased tax allowance.

Yes, things have got more expensive (fuel, bread etc) but we didn't overnight suddenly wind up unable to drive, go on holiday, go out for meals and so on.

I have to assume that someone who needs a car to get to work would be getting paid for that job, and therefore put some money aside for running the car. No car could mean no job otherwise and THEN it's a real problem.

And besides owning some fast cars, as a runaround to save on fuel costs, we also owned an S-reg Fiesta, 1.25 Zetec. It was nimble, comfortable and happily managed to drive at 70+. I'd have gladly driven that to Scotland from London, and can't really think of many cars made in the last ten years that would be deemed too uncomfortable to drive for long distances. Can't comment on the Corsa (always been a bit of a Ford fan myself) but I doubt even Vauxhall could make a bad car these days.

 

[northwichcat]

Looking on Autotrader you can get an E-Class (1995 built like a tank model) for £600 with a mere 200k miles (they will easily do double that!)

So the day it breaks down, needs it's MOT/service how would you going to get to work if there is no alternative train option?

There's a garage near me called 'Station Garage' - yes it's near a station and they advertise the fact that you can drop off your car, get the train to work and then collect your car in the evening.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ryanair and Easyjet get their costs down by using only one (or two) aircraft types and they regularly buy new and dump the older planes to keep maintenance costs down.
We might find the ROSCOS will buy new train fleets in order to scrap the older ones, ending up with larger numbers of standardised modern stock.
eg how much do Northern spend on their zoo of different train types?

But operators like Jet2 continue to use the better of the older planes. Effectively like Northern Rail but an airline not a train operator.

 

[Zoe]

The car industry cannot afford to stop selling cars. Believe me, they'll still sell cars. If prices have to come down, that will happen. I am sure the Government would help too - if only for the greener cars.

I beleive the government want to encourage modal shift to public transport, making cars more affordable is not going to help with this.

You definitely don't drive. If you did, there would be no reason to be too embarrassed to say so. If you couldn't, or have been banned, then I can see why you might want to avoid the question. But, you're right - let's not start that again.

No, you can't assume anything here. The point is that what I do is of no concern to you or this topic.

However, the fact you don't drive clearly clouds your view. Electric cars are available today, so there's not going to be this void where you have no petrol or diesel cars and nobody is getting an electric car.

Again, you can't assume what I do. Yes electric cars are available but it's going to be some time before they fully take over. The range issue and charging times at least have to be resolved or no-one will be able to use cars for long distance journeys and so will switch to rail. Also if everyone went out and bought electric cars now, I'm not sure the grid would cope with the increased demand from people charging.

Cars are not only for the rich either, or else Hatfield would have only a handful of cars and you wouldn't see students driving either. People will simply need to choose what car to buy more carefully.

Yes people do still have cars but it seems that less students are having cars these days than previously as they can't afford them and public transport has improved.

I am not a believer of forcing people off the road and onto public transport. I believe you make public transport enticing enough that people choose to use it. People can then keep their cars for trips where public transport isn't best suited, or not available.

The issue here though is that the car will almost always be more convenient, how are you going to get people to use public transport if they have a car?

Couldn't someone get a loan if they needed to? Why assume nobody has any money? Yes, there's a recession but it's not true that everyone has suddenly run out of money. If you still have a job, most people have probably not noticed any real difference at all - no pay cut, possibly more pay due to the increased tax allowance.

It depends how much they are earning, if you are in a basic minimum wage job you are not going to have much money spare to go spending on things like cars and with the current economic cliamte, getting a loan isn't that easy these days.

I have to assume that someone who needs a car to get to work would be getting paid for that job, and therefore put some money aside for running the car. No car could mean no job otherwise and THEN it's a real problem.

Well you'd only take a job that you were able to get to but with the current situation people are having to take significant pay cuts just to get a job at all and if they end up with a minimum wage job then I doubt they will be able to afford a car.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Cutting 'off peak' services to save money.
To me that does not make sense.
Commuter services are very expensive to run. TOC's lease a huge number of trains that are only used for a short time each day. During the off peak, these trains, which as they are already 'paid for' - thereby running them off peak should cost a fraction, just fuel/ power and a driver and NR access. Not put more in sidings!
Network rail has a similar situation - a very hefty infrastructure required for a few hours a day. Imo access costs should be reduced for off peak trains.

Cheaper and better off peak services should be seen as an area to develop significant growth, (and profits) rather than cutting services.

 

[starrymarkb]

The issue here though is that the car will almost always be more convenient, how are you going to get people to use public transport if they have a car?

Simple, rather then forcibly making the car worse then bad public transport look at how people can be enticed. For example with the journey to Manchester the coach beat the car on cost hands down. The train was similar in price to the car but took longer and being XC Voyagers had less comfort so in the absence of the coach I'd have probably driven.

To use a bus analogy maybe McNaulty needs to think like Stagecoach (who innovate and take risks to encourage growth) and less like First (no-risks, cut anything that doesn't make enough money)

 

[Ferret]

Most of it is embedded in track access costs, set by NR and paid by the TOCs.
So the focus is more likely to be on NR maintenance regimes than on train miles.

Another big cost area is train leasing.
Ryanair and Easyjet get their costs down by using only one (or two) aircraft types and they regularly buy new and dump the older planes to keep maintenance costs down.
We might find the ROSCOS will buy new train fleets in order to scrap the older ones, ending up with larger numbers of standardised modern stock.
eg how much do Northern spend on their zoo of different train types?

There are many ways of skinning a cat.

I agree entirely with what you've said in this part of your post. The problem is that McNumbnut is obsessed with cutting staff and services. Meanwhile, he ignores the outageous cost of train leasing, and other costs, including strangely enough the vast sums of money spent on consultancy. Why do we have a whole bunch of graduates enrolled in management trainee positions within TOCs who have completed the very same Transport Management type of degree that these consultants who work for the likes of Faber Maunsell have sat?! And why do we automatically think that the opinion of somebody who has read a textbook aka somebody's opinion from cover to cover holds sway?!

Like the post I've quoted says - there are many ways to skin a cat, but in this case cutting staffing costs is the start of a downward spiral. The railway would do well to ignore this cretin and put him out to pasture permanently.

 

[Zoe]

Simple, rather then forcibly making the car worse then bad public transport look at how people can be enticed. For example with the journey to Manchester the coach beat the car on cost hands down. The train was similar in price to the car but took longer and being XC Voyagers had less comfort so in the absence of the coach I'd have probably driven.

The coach wins on cost yes but has to be booked in advance and doesn't take you from door to door with all your luggage. People will pay more than the coach fare for the convenience of the car so the cost of driving has to be much higher to leave people with no option but to use public transport. Public transport does seem much busier these days but this hasn't emptied the motorways of cars.

If car, coach and train all cost the same then I expect most people would choose the car as it's much more convenient so unless some legilstaion is introduced to restrict the use of the private car then the only way to get people to use public transport more is to increase the cost of the private car.

 

[northwichcat]

People will pay more than the coach fare for the convenience of the car so the cost of driving has to be much higher to leave people with no option but to use public transport.

I would say on a long journey people opt for the convenience of the coach/train over the car. The coach/train doesn't need to find a parking space in a busy city and on a long journey they change drivers opposed to taking long breaks (changing drivers is sometimes possible with a car journey but not always.)

 

[tbtc]

I'd be interested to know which branches have so few passengers they could fit their passengers into a taxi. Aside from ones which have been deliberately run down to be of very little use to the area (such as the Brigg line) all of the branches I've used have been very well patronised. Yet I just get the feeling this will mean nothing to McNulty and his ilk.

I said that there were branches where "it’d be cheaper to put everyone in a taxi" than to run a train - a big difference.

Look at the line from Girvan to Stranraer where the daily demand is about enough to fill one 153 a day in total (but spread over several two coach trains a day). Is that efficient use of resources (when other lines are crying out for stock)?

People keep assuming that cost reduction equals service cuts.
McNulty isn't demanding service cuts, but subsidy cuts.
It's up to NR and the TOCs to find ways of reducing their costs.
Most of it is embedded in track access costs, set by NR and paid by the TOCs.
So the focus is more likely to be on NR maintenance regimes than on train miles.

Another big cost area is train leasing.
Ryanair and Easyjet get their costs down by using only one (or two) aircraft types and they regularly buy new and dump the older planes to keep maintenance costs down.
We might find the ROSCOS will buy new train fleets in order to scrap the older ones, ending up with larger numbers of standardised modern stock.
eg how much do Northern spend on their zoo of different train types?

There are many ways of skinning a cat.

Nice to see some common sense on this thread - totally agree

 

[northwichcat]

I said that there were branches where "it’d be cheaper to put everyone in a taxi" than to run a train - a big difference.

Look at the line from Girvan to Stranraer where the daily demand is about enough to fill one 153 a day in total (but spread over several two coach trains a day). Is that efficient use of resources (when other lines are crying out for stock)?

As I'm sure you'll appreciate a taxi service is very expensive unless you have multiple people in it. I don't know how much of a discount the taxi company would give you for running a regular service every day over a one-off service. However, if you have high demand one day and need to bring in extra taxis I imagine they would be at full rate.

 

[Zoe]

I would say on a long journey people opt for the convenience of the coach/train over the car. The coach/train doesn't need to find a parking space in a busy city and on a long journey they change drivers opposed to taking long breaks (changing drivers is sometimes possible with a car journey but not always.)

It depends where you are going though. If your final destination is the city centre then train will be the much better option but if your final destination is further out and you are for example visiting someone rather than then you start to lose the benefit due to the need for onward travel, this is even more so if you are visiting someone's house rather than going to a business meeting or have a lot of luggage. The cost of driving will need to be much more expensive to get most of these people off the roads.

 

[northwichcat]

It depends where you are going though. If your final destination is the city centre then train will be the much better option but if your final destination is further out and you are for example visiting someone rather than then you start to lose the benefit due to the need for onward travel, this is even more so if you are visiting someone's house rather than going to a business meeting or have a lot of luggage. The cost of driving will need to be much more expensive to get most of these people off the roads.

Sorry my earlier post should have said 'some people' not just 'people.'

 

[jon0844]

It depends where you are going though. If your final destination is the city centre then train will be the much better option but if your final destination is further out and you are for example visiting someone rather than then you start to lose the benefit due to the need for onward travel, this is even more so if you are visiting someone's house rather than going to a business meeting or have a lot of luggage. The cost of driving will need to be much more expensive to get most of these people off the roads.

And that's why we need both - and nobody is going to make it to nobody can afford to buy a car. Maybe not the car that someone would really wish they had, but one that can safely and comfortably get you around.

The report isn't suggesting that cars are priced off the road to force people to use trains more, thus making them more profitable.

Cars aren't going anywhere, at least probably not in our lifetime.

And it does matter that you don't drive, as it clouds your judgement. It makes you think that everyone will give up their car (even though you also say that cars are more convenient, and therefore we must force people to stop using them) when this isn't going to be the case.

I'll give up or cut back on other things before I get rid of the car. I'll continue to use the train when I want to go somewhere without the hassle of parking, not being able to drink, or simply not wanting to drive in traffic or even drive at all. Sometimes it's nice to put your feet up (not literally) and let someone else do the driving for you.

However, if trains didn't run at convenient times or train fares kept rocketing, I'd have to consider using the car more even though it might not actually be as convenient.

 

[Zoe]

And it does matter that you don't drive, as it clouds your judgement. It makes you think that everyone will give up their car (even though you also say that cars are more convenient, and therefore we must force people to stop using them) when this isn't going to be the case.

You are making an assumption, you do not know what I do or do not do. The point is that for many journeys the car is more convenient but the roads can't cope with the traffic even now. You can't just go building more roads as that will encourage people to use cars even more so what's left? Legilsation to restrict use will never be considered acceptable so what can you do to force people to use public transport and reduce congestion?

 

[jon0844]

You are generalising far too much. I've been out twice today and live off a business park - so driving at 5pm meant there were far more cars on the road than normal, but the roads cope. You make it sound as if every road is gridlocked, which isn't true at all (and part of that is because people ARE using public transport to get about).

Motorways are being widened and I don't actually believe you can't build more roads, or widen and improve the current ones. Remember, we had a spell in the late 1990s where traffic calming and other ideas included narrowing roads (often simply painting bits of the road as out of use) and can reverse that to get the traffic flowing again. After all, we seemed to think that adding in pinch points was a good thing (before anyone thought about the increased emissions).

Take the traffic light phases in London to slow cars down, with changes of 6-7 seconds that aren't long enough for more than one or two cars to proceed. It was a nightmare and there are still roads and junctions like this in operation.

Why would a new road guarantee that you'd get more cars on the road, as against the same amount of cars more spread out? Maybe you would, but it's not a given. In fact, look at many new roads (including bypasses) and you can really improve a town or village - which sees a massive drop in traffic. Of course, you have other issues (like loss of trade) but that's for another thread.

Anyway, you say you can't legislate to force people out of their cars - but ask how we can force people to use public transport? I say you don't force anyone to do anything - you just make public transport an option that you'd choose over the car if it's available.

It's not rocket science. If I am going into London, I can drive. I can park (it might cost a lot of money, but I can do it). However, when I don't need to carry a lot of stuff then the train - to me - is more convenient.

If the service suddenly went to only one train every hour or every two hours (or even less frequent) then I'd seriously consider either not going at all, or driving.

If I had a job where I might work varying hours and the train couldn't always be there to take me home (or get me to work if I went in late), I'd also have to reconsider, even if 90% of the time the train was fine. That last 10% or less would rule it out as an option for me, if I was going to buy a season ticket but still need a back up mode of transport that has fixed costs I can't avoid however much (or little) I used it.

 

[Zoe]

Motorways are being widened and I don't actually believe you can't build more roads, or widen and improve the current ones. Remember, we had a spell in the late 1990s where traffic calming and other ideas included narrowing roads (often simply painting bits of the road as out of use) and can reverse that to get the traffic flowing again. After all, we seemed to think that adding in pinch points was a good thing (before anyone thought about the increased emissions).

Up until the 1990s though it seemed that the private car would always be the primary form of transport for most people and so additional capacity was provided to cope with increase in demand but time and time again once this additional capacity was provided, it quickly filled with traffic needing a further improvement. This can't continue indefinitely.

Take the traffic light phases in London to slow cars down, with changes of 6-7 seconds that aren't long enough for more than one or two cars to proceed. It was a nightmare and there are still roads and junctions like this in operation.

If it slows down the traffic and gets peope out of their cars and onto public transport, is this really a bad thing?

Why would a new road guarantee that you'd get more cars on the road, as against the same amount of cars more spread out? Maybe you would, but it's not a given. In fact, look at many new roads (including bypasses) and you can really improve a town or village - which sees a massive drop in traffic. Of course, you have other issues (like loss of trade) but that's for another thread.

As I said above, new roads just fill up with cars so although providing relief to old road, does not reduce congestion as the extra capacity encourages more people to use the road.

Anyway, you say you can't legislate to force people out of their cars - but ask how we can force people to use public transport? I say you don't force anyone to do anything - you just make public transport an option that you'd choose over the car if it's available.

But as I say, due to the convenience of the car a lot of people will choose it over public transport and the roads can't cope with extra traffic. Road have limited capacity and public transport is much better use of this capacity so getting people to use it is the only option if you are not going to build more roads which considering the political climate is very unlikely at this time.

 

[starrymarkb]

If it slows down the traffic and gets peope out of their cars and onto public transport, is this really a bad thing?

But in the absence of Bus Priority, buses just sit in the jam with everyone else thereby decreasing the attraction of public transport.

 

[Zoe]

But in the absence of Bus Priority, buses just sit in the jam with everyone else thereby decreasing the attraction of public transport.

But if the people got out of their cars and onto the bus then the bus wouldn't have so much traffic to sit in.

 

[yorksrob]

I said that there were branches where "it’d be cheaper to put everyone in a taxi" than to run a train - a big difference.

But there's the knub.

Say you have two towns that generate enough traffic between them to cover the costs of the railway. All well and good.

But then say you have another pair of similar towns that generate the same amount of passenger traffic between them. This time, they are twice the distance apart than the previous two settlements and the terrain is a lot more rugged, leading to higher infrastructure costs.

In this case the route between the second set of cities is just as important in terms of utility as the first, but the costs are much higher (and it might be cheaper to run a fleet of taxis, or more likely a bus since most of our branchlines are quite well used).

By your logic, even though both of these routes are important, one should survive and the other not.

If you then take into account the fact that the road alternative to the more expensive route is likely to be more dangerous, less attractive for travel than the road equivalent for the other two towns, and since these towns are likely to be more isolated than the closer two towns, the cost of losing the rail link in economic and social terms for the more distant two towns is likely to be far more severe than for the closer two towns. The more expensive route is actually more important than the cheaper one.

An extreme example this may be, but it illustrates that going by cost alone is no way to run a public service.

The Stranrear branch is, as we all know, an unusual case in that its services are planned for the benefit of the now departed ferries than the town. With the right marketing approach, the line could be an absolute asset to the area.