"Rail’s growth agenda evaporates as Treasury takes control"

[squizzler]

Fair enough, but my main point stands…

I also should have said that, intuitively, I am also cynical about increasing highway use by 51%, unless they intend paying motorists to drive up and down under-utilised roads in the Highlands and West Wales. The highways where people actually want to live and work are already full. I have not read the report, and would not want to give the impression this is just a figure pulled out of thin air, but get the impression it is very much a top down, broad brush document based on historic trends.

 

[Sm5]

There's been a 10% increase in car use in the last decade, over that timeframe rail use had been growing.

That 51% growth rate between 2015 and 2050 isn't linked to the current 30% fall in rail use (which is only reversing rail travel back to about 2010).

What was driving the increase in both car and rail use ?

population growth ?
That may be in decline now.

 

[snowball]

Somebody has started a new thread about the same article that prompted me to bump this thread with #411:

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

The Guardian are running this story https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/dec/05/back-bad-old-days-swingeing-rail-cuts-alarm-bells-ringing The Department for Transport seeks to cut spending by 10% after the chancellor Rishi Sunak’s autumn budget. With the Treasury anxious to limit...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[MontyP]

If you're inside the M25, I'm not sure you'd use the M25 to get to Heathrow either way - the North Circ / A4 would be more logical or, although it's slow, the Piccadilly line. I think the question still stands, some may change, but I suspect most of X-rail's passengers will be transferrimg from the Met / Circle / H&C / Central lines partly because it will remove the need to change.

Quickest (not shortest) way to Heathrow (particularly T5) from a lot of SW London is via the A3 to Wisley then M25

 

[The Ham]

I also should have said that, intuitively, I am also cynical about increasing highway use by 51%, unless they intend paying motorists to drive up and down under-utilised roads in the Highlands and West Wales. The highways where people actually want to live and work are already full. I have not read the report, and would not want to give the impression this is just a figure pulled out of thin air, but get the impression it is very much a top down, broad brush document based on historic trends.

Over the 35 years between 2015 and 2050 you'd only need 1.2% growth year on year in motor traffic. That's not all that much really.

Also your wouldn't need a lot of people driving around remote locations to get to those spots of figures, outside of dense urban areas peak traffic can be fairly short lived.

For instance is entirely possible to think that Stonehenge always takes ages to get past as thru travel past it at the same time as a lot of other people, it's fairly easy to to get past it with limited delays and entirely possible to drive past it with no delay. As there's a fair amount of time when it's not as busy as during the day during the school holidays.

That's before we consider the level of government spending on increasing capacity of roads, or even the level of spending by developers to increase capacity near their developments. With larger developments being possible for the school run to be undertaken entirely on new roads.

Even where there's capacity issues quite a lot can be overcome at fairly low cost, such as small increases to the size of roundabouts, signalising junctions, adding right turn lanes, etc.

What was driving the increase in both car and rail use ?

population growth ?
That may be in decline now.

In part it was population growth, however not all of it.

Part of the extra car useage was down to there being extra cars on the road than there was before, which although reduced the miles per vehicle had increased the overall number further.

Another factor would be delivery vehicles, which tend to be off peak, and can do quite a lot of milage in a day. Although much of that is likely to be within side roads rather than in the major roads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From the non speculative thread:

Yes. That fact, however, doesn't mean that Wolmar is wrong to note that the coldly rational thing to do in order to realise savings at the present time would indeed be to prune services that have some of the biggest costs for the smallest returns.

Depends what you mean by prune. Could cutting frequencies on quiet branches be sensible? Possibly, the Cumbrian Coast for example only had a two hourly service on the middle bit for years with odd peak extras based on Sellafield shifts, recently upped to hourly but this is probably not necessary and could be dropped back, similarly Ormskirk to Preston could go back to its old 1h15 frequency, and perhaps Southport to hourly but with longer trains as per pre 1998. But you are not going to save all that much just by lopping one unit/crew out of a few branch lines. You would have to actually close some entirely, and that would be politically unpalatable, other than very odd examples that serve little purpose like Berney Arms. The other obvious ones are in Wales and Scotland, and so not really under their control.

The Marston Vale will become part of EWR so not that. St Albans? Well, maybe, but it is one unit and crew. S&C? No chance, the campaign would be far louder than last time. Bentham Line? Possibly, but what would that save, half a unit/crew? Morecambe? Not when the Eden Project is coming... Heysham? Yes, but very little to save with two round trips a day that just come out of the shuttle diagrams.

You would get bigger savings by destaffing, I reckon. I genuinely don't think mass ticket office closures would be that politically unpalatable given online sales are now in the majority, for instance - certainly it is difficult to argue for example that blanket staffing Merseyrail stations for full period of service is anything other than a massive waste of money, particularly if they are planning on keeping guards who could sell tickets instead, and most would use contactless or e-tickets were they offered. Even reducing them all to a single morning shift would save a packet based on the fact that most people do a day trip out in the morning and buy a return ticket then.

And there are always those three little unpopular operational letters...even if you kept an OBS style on board member of staff, the use of cameras could allow dispatch staff to be removed because unlike the Mk1 eyeball they can be used on curved platforms, so that is another cut...

 

[Philip]

From the non speculative thread:


You would get bigger savings by destaffing, I reckon. I genuinely don't think mass ticket office closures would be that politically unpalatable given online sales are now in the majority, for instance - certainly it is difficult to argue for example that blanket staffing Merseyrail stations for full period of service is anything other than a massive waste of money, particularly if they are planning on keeping guards who could sell tickets instead, and most would use contactless or e-tickets were they offered.

Ticket ofices in the bigger stations are back to having hundreds of people use them every day now, many there because of a problem with their m-ticket of their journey. It's not a complete waste of money keeping them open when you have those kind of numbers and the purpose they serve.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ticket ofices in the bigger stations are back to having hundreds of people use them every day now, many there because of a problem with their m-ticket of their journey. It's not a complete waste of money keeping them open when you have those kind of numbers and the purpose they serve.

I can see sense in keeping them at major interchanges (so perhaps about 30-40 in England in total), but does Bletchley, say, really need one? Or Aughton Park? There are a lot that could be lopped.

 

[BrianW]

What was driving the increase in both car and rail use ?

population growth ?
That may be in decline now.

I sense that the (UK) government may be in a bit of a minor quandary between wanting to 'encourage' folk back to work (to keep Pret a Manger going) against the benefit of cutting back expenditure on expensive rail (and road) improvements. What are railways (going to be) for?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I sense that the (UK) government may be in a bit of a minor quandary between wanting to 'encourage' folk back to work (to keep Pret a Manger going) against the benefit of cutting back expenditure on expensive rail (and road) improvements. What are railways (going to be) for?

Leisure travel.

 

[JonathanH]

I can see sense in keeping them at major interchanges (so perhaps about 30-40 in England in total), but does Bletchley, say, really need one? Or Aughton Park? There are a lot that could be lopped.

On the other hand, many more stations need ticket gates, perhaps all stations in urban areas, and the staffing which accompanies that. My local station has a ticket office between 0630 and 1230, but first-to-last staffing of the ticket gates, even where the service is only half hourly. Merseyrail really should be a fully gated system for example.

 

[Sm5]

Leisure travel.

Back to the 1970’s then,

history repeats itself..

right now we must be close to repeating 1966… finishing off the last of the old, followed by dumping loads of modern stock, then waste continue to rundown modern stock prematurely by reducing maintenance and scrapping it for the next 15 years, whilst simultaneously abandoning the infrastructure.
Then cometh the age of the train, HS2 is the new IC125.

The class 230.. the new class 17 ?

 

[Starmill]

The Guardian piece linked says rail use is back up to 70% pre-pandemic, and the rise in petrol price is likely to nix motoring as a practical alternative.

Is it really? If anything current evidence suggests that people are as willing as ever to pay for motor fuel

 

[tomuk]

On the other hand, many more stations need ticket gates, perhaps all stations in urban areas, and the staffing which accompanies that. My local station has a ticket office between 0630 and 1230, but first-to-last staffing of the ticket gates, even where the service is only half hourly. Merseyrail really should be a fully gated system for example.

But do the ticket gates need manning? In these days of Zoom etc it we should have the wherewithal to allow remote monitoring. You could add a mobile element such like an NR MOM to deal with any particular issues.

 

[The Ham]

Is it really? If anything current evidence suggests that people are as willing as ever to pay for motor fuel

In which case it's worth increasing fuel duty to cover the shortfall in rail income.

As I'd we start cutting services, then like after the Beaching cuts, you'll see fewer people using the services that remain as if you can't use rail for A to B you'll not use it for A to F (even if A to F is a few times a year or could be a reasonable chunk of the money that person spends on the railways).

If we fail to learn from what happened after Beaching we are domed to repeat the mistakes.

Yes there's likely to be things that could be cut, however we should be careful in what we cut.

Something which could be looked at is car parking charges, with much reduced demand would it be better to charge less to attract more to use them (even if they aren't rail customers).

 

[squizzler]

The elephant in the room, is that the tory's ageing support base are increasingly non-motorists. My own parents, whilst part of the motoring community, are getting to the age that they will have to surrender their licences soon.

The government understand that, which is why they are the party of a bus renaissance, reversing "beeching", great british railways, etc.

The public transport agenda also plays well with a younger audience more concerned with the nation's economic competitiveness which tends to favour a switch from wasteful motorcars to more efficient public transport, carbon emissions, etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the other hand, many more stations need ticket gates, perhaps all stations in urban areas, and the staffing which accompanies that. My local station has a ticket office between 0630 and 1230, but first-to-last staffing of the ticket gates, even where the service is only half hourly. Merseyrail really should be a fully gated system for example.

I think that needs experimentation (which can be done by monitoring ticket sales on the same day of the week with the gates open and closed) and gatelines should be used where they stop more revenue loss than they cost to run.

With Merseyrail having a fairly flat fare structure off peak (as day tickets are applicable to most journeys) there is not a lot to gain from short faring nor is it that easy to actually do it, so as long as the main stations are gated it might bring in very little to do the complex and expensive work needed to gate local stations which aren't really well laid out for it.

 

[A0wen]

The elephant in the room, is that the tory's ageing support base are increasingly non-motorists. My own parents, whilst part of the motoring community, are getting to the age that they will have to surrender their licences soon.

The government understand that, which is why they are the party of a bus renaissance, reversing "beeching", great british railways, etc.

The public transport agenda also plays well with a younger audience more concerned with the nation's economic competitiveness which tends to favour a switch from wasteful motorcars to more efficient public transport, carbon emissions, etc.

And most of those older people only travel longer distances a couple of times a year.

They're going to be far more interested / concerned about having a regular local bus service which allows them to get to the shops, doctors, hospital or local social events. Which is, of course, a current area of focus.

 

[Starmill]

In which case it's worth increasing fuel duty to cover the shortfall in rail income.

This is a splendid idea. It's also one that currently ministers simply won't consider.

The public transport agenda also plays well with a younger audience more concerned with the nation's economic competitiveness which tends to favour a switch from wasteful motorcars to more efficient public transport, carbon emissions, etc.

I think that the difference is that a younger audience simply doesn't believe that the current government actually has a public transport agenda.

 

[Ken H]

This is a splendid idea. It's also one that currently ministers simply won't consider.


...

Political suicide. the government already takes a massive slice of pump price.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

And most of those older people only travel longer distances a couple of times a year.

They're going to be far more interested / concerned about having a regular local bus service which allows them to get to the shops, doctors, hospital or local social events. Which is, of course, a current area of focus.

Many older people who, because of increasing infirmity and deteriorating eyesight, give up motoring will use taxis/minicabs to the local supermarket, doctor's surgery, hairdresser etc. etc. The idea that they're going to generate a noticeable increase in rail travel is absurd.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Many older people who, because of increasing infirmity and deteriorating eyesight, give up motoring will use taxis/minicabs to the local supermarket, doctor's surgery, hairdresser etc. etc. The idea that they're going to generate a noticeable increase in rail travel is absurd.

That's why he said "local bus service".

The only rail that is really in any way relevant to that sort of journey is the high frequency metro services, i.e. LU, Metrolink, Merseyrail and the T&W Metro, give or take niche, very rural cases like the Conwy Valley where I wouldn't be surprised if some (but not many) older, non-driving people who have lived rurally all their life did use it to go to the supermarkets at the Junction. And the main reason they are relevant is that such services tend to result in a very sparse local bus service indeed.

I think the argument is, and it's a valid one, that it would provide a fairer offering to a wider range of people if you closed all the branch lines entirely (not quite Serpell, but pretty heavy cuts) and put all that money into bus subsidy.

The other thing we need to look at in terms of those urban networks is why Metrolink can operate at break even but Merseyrail not, for instance, and what capital investment might be able to allow an operating break-even.

 

[bramling]

This is a splendid idea. It's also one that currently ministers simply won't consider.


I think that the difference is that a younger audience simply doesn't believe that the current government actually has a public transport agenda.

From my point of view (at the younger end of the middle!) I find it hard to see what agenda this government has on *anything*, besides keeping Johnson as PM.

I struggle to recall a government in my lifetime which has been such an empty vessel and rudderless ship.

Even GBR seems like a response to the mess which has been made of the railway over the last few years. It’s quite odd to have a so-called Conservative government who want to stick their fingers into literally everything.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From my point of view (at the younger end of the middle!) I find it hard to see what agenda this government has on *anything*, besides keeping Johnson as PM.

I struggle to recall a government in my lifetime which has been such an empty vessel and rudderless ship.

Even GBR seems like a response to the mess which has been made of the railway over the last few years. It’s quite odd to have a so-called Conservative government who want to stick their fingers into literally everything.

I'd agree it's Bozza wanting his reputation in history. Though of course the Conservative Party isn't a conservative party - conservatism (small C) is more an ethos of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", though with a right-wing/small Government leaning. It is more of a right-of-centre populist party at present.

This is not at all unusual in any form of politics, after all pretty much any country that has the word "democratic" in its title is nothing of the sort.

 

[A0wen]

I'd agree it's Bozza wanting his reputation in history. Though of course the Conservative Party isn't a conservative party - conservatism (small C) is more an ethos of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", though with a right-wing/small Government leaning. It is more of a right-of-centre populist party at present.

This is not at all unusual in any form of politics, after all pretty much any country that has the word "democratic" in its title is nothing of the sort.

It's not really a "right-of-centre populist party" with the levels of public spending, albeit some of it driven by Covid, that you're seeing.

By most measures they're pretty centrist. It's a measure of quite how far left that Labour drifted from the centre ground Blair had put them on that the Conservatives have shifted onto the centre ground yet people are claiming they're right wing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not really a "right-of-centre populist party" with the levels of public spending, albeit some of it driven by Covid, that you're seeing.

By most measures they're pretty centrist. It's a measure of quite how far left that Labour drifted from the centre ground Blair had put them on that the Conservatives have shifted onto the centre ground yet people are claiming they're right wing.

Public spending is high, but we are in an emergency which is similar to wartime, and in wartime public spending is always high. Other policies, such as that towards immigration and towards poorer people, are definitely right of centre.

 

[A0wen]

Public spending is high, but we are in an emergency which is similar to wartime, and in wartime public spending is always high. Other policies, such as that towards immigration and towards poorer people, are definitely right of centre.

Record levels of welfare spending is right of centre? Interesting. Care to tell me what defines left of centre?

And I'm not sure immigration has a natural left / right split - Labour when in power did crack down on non-EU migration, it foolishly didn't do anything about EU migration (and lied about the numbers) which led to the position we are today.

Going OT though - so to bring it back on topic, the reason I'd said "local" bus service earlier is that most people (outside of London and possibly Manchester or Birmingham) don't live in walking of their local railway station. Equally their local station is often nowhere near the things they need on a daily basis. So the bigger attraction for older voters will be improvements to their local transport - which will usually be a bus, not train.

 

[Starmill]

Record levels of welfare spending is right of centre?

Calling it "record" is meaningless. It's pretty small by international standards.

 

[A0wen]

Calling it "record" is meaningless. It's pretty small by international standards.

A similar level to Japan - higher than Canada or New Zealand both of which often get held up as examples. Significantly higher than the Netherlands or Switzerland.

List of countries by social welfare spending - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The Ham]

Political suicide. the government already takes a massive slice of pump price.

Probably not, there's a number of factors why not:

Firstly EV's and WFH giving an alternative to quite a few people (even if the latter is only used infrequently).

Being green (OK, seen as being green), is something which is fairly popular.

Road traffic is a major issue and doing something to reduce it could be seen as good.

Air quality improvements could also be seen as a good thing.

Yes it costs people more in fuel, however to reduce your fuel costs by 1% (which would offset a 1p/l increase) would only require most to reduce their milage by an average of between 1.5 and 2 miles a week (those doing 8,000 to 10,400 miles a year).

However for a lot of people within the average cost of car ownership (over £3,000 per year) the cost of fuel is cited as being an average of 30% of their costs, with the purchase/depreciation costs being slightly more and everything else taking up the remaining circa 1/3.

A 5% increase (which is higher than I'm suggesting) in fuel costs would raise total costs from £961 to £1,009 and changing the overall cost from £3,081 to £3,129 (an increase of 1.55% or £48).