Should cost benefits of new schemes be worked out in a different way?

[Starmill]

There you go, you’ve said it all, why are we making democratic decisions based on BCR when the figures can be cooked?!!!

You're calling the decision democratic, I'm calling it weak. Like I said, resources are limited and wants are unlimited. The shape of your argument is "give people what they want". Mine is give people good judgment, and be honest about the difficulty in allocation of resources, and the trade-offs this implies. The Restons of the world happen because politicians pre-determine an answer, and then instead of appraisal being used to inform the transport case, it has to be moulded to fit the answer. Ultimately the politicians are responsible, but other parties do have a minor responsibility not to just go along with it.

It’s nothing to do with my experiences. It’s everything to do with the social and economic benefits people and communities are realising. Do I believe we should pay to convert all those benefits to £s for a BCR? No, democracy should prevail.

WebTAG does a great job of appraising economic benefits. It's backed by decades of research and expertise.

 

[Xavi]

You've literally just fabricated that there's a casual relationship there. You have no evidence of that whatsoever.

No fabrication, it’s fact. Public investment is decided by elected representatives (with support from civil servants) and from the 70s they were guided by The Green Book. Only a fool would suggest there was no influence from the introduction of the new rules. There was a paper on the subject published by ARUP a while back.

 

[Starmill]

No fabrication, it’s fact. Public investment is decided by elected representatives (with support from civil servants) and from the 70s they were guided by The Green Book. Only a fool would suggest there was no influence from the introduction of the new rules. There was a paper on the subject published by ARUP a while back.

It's not a fact. Have you not noticed there were a lot of other big shifts in government taking place around that time?

The Book and its derivatives, in this case WebTAG, are pretty solid. Obviously they're not perfect, (I think they still underweight greenhouse gas emissions for example) but they're a lot better than any of the alternatives we have. The problem is that politicians decided they didn't want public funding going into these things any more. That was the approach of every Tory and New Labour Chancellor from then on. It's not the way we choose how to spend what money is available.

 

[The exile]

Valuing those benefits is something that a whole industry has been built around, both in government and outside it. Of course there's a value to them.

The fact that a whole industry has been built up around something doesn’t of itself prove anything.

 

[Starmill]

The fact that a whole industry has been built up around something doesn’t of itself prove anything.

It does however show that managing public money requires an academic approach based on evidence. The problems arise when the evidence points to answers which the politicians do not like.

 

[Xavi]

The shape of your argument is "give people what they want"

Absolutely not. Yes, there will always be limited funds, but let the people (democracy) decide. Guidance from BCR is sometimes useful, making all decisions (particularly on a national basis) through BCR is not. Before we know it we’ll have AI doing BCR and we’ll be in even more trouble.

The problem is that politicians decided they didn't want public funding going into these things any more.

So the politicians weren’t influenced by the new rules, they just didn’t want those things any more.

 

[Starmill]

Absolutely not. Yes, there will always be limited funds, but let the people (democracy) decide. Guidance from BCR is sometimes useful, making all decisions (particularly on a national basis) through BCR is not. Before we know it we’ll have AI doing BCR and we’ll be in even more trouble.

Unfortunately, while this kind of thing works great in Switzerland, it is utterly impossible in FPTP Westminster-style interpretation of a democratic system.

 

[Xavi]

Unfortunately, while this kind of thing works great in Switzerland, it is utterly impossible in FPTP Westminster-style interpretation of a democratic system.

I agree Westminster is a huge part of the problem.

 

[eldomtom2]

On lines where there's a competive journey time. To a major centre of employment and leisure.

Are you directly saying that an improvement in frequency would have minimal impact on ridership?

Even @Bald Rick was cross about that one.

I've rarely seen Bald Rick not be critical of a project!

 

[Starmill]

I've rarely seen Bald Rick not be critical of a project!

And yet in their career, they are personally responsible for, in part or maybe even in whole, the delivery of many of the railway enhancements out there right now being used by tens or many thousands of rail travellers daily. What does that suggest to you about the type of enhancements which we need vs the ones being delivered?

Are you directly saying that an improvement in frequency would have minimal impact on ridership?

Are you saying that an all day service of 4tph between say Bideford and Bude would be used by more people than one of 2tph?

Yes, if you choose a corridor with very weak demand you get very poor marginal returns when you increase frequency, compared to increasing it on a line elsewhere with better demand potential.

Ask yourself how Newquay was relegated to a two-hourly (or slightly worse) service in the first place. Was it because nasty BR management had it in for Newquay? Or is there a more rational explanation?

 

[Bald Rick]

The rail industry should have stopped them from funding a project so hopeless. Even @Bald Rick was cross about that one.

I was, and remain so. A horrible waste of money (in my opinion), and I know nobody in the rail industry who thinks otherwise (although they may not say so publicly). It is also hampering the delivery of much greater benefits to the people of Scotland by other means.

I've rarely seen Bald Rick not be critical of a project!

Well that’s just not true. I’m only critical of projects (few) and proposals (many) that make matters worse overall for passengers, the taxpayer, and especially both. As you can imagine, there are many such proposals appear on these pages.

And yet in their career, they are personally responsible for, in part or maybe even in whole, the delivery of many of the railway enhancements out there right now being used by tens or many thousands of rail travellers daily. What does that suggest to you about the type of enhancements which we need vs the ones being delivered?

Steady on. One doesn’t like to blow ones own trumpet. Yes I’ve been involved in lots of projects - some from start to finish - but I’ve not done any all by myself

 

[Starmill]

Steady on. One doesn’t like to blow ones own trumpet. Yes I’ve been involved in lots of projects - some from start to finish - but I’ve not done any all by myself

OK. Responsible in part then

Well that’s just not true. I’m only critical of projects (few) and proposals (many) that make matters worse overall for passengers, the taxpayer, and especially both. As you can imagine, there are many such proposals appear on these pages.

I always think it's curious how the enhancements that come with the strongest economic or financial dimensions seem to attract very little chatter on here or in the wider press and from politicians once they're in service. Where are the people going "where's the next Derby / Market Harborough / Shotts / Stevenage / Kings Cross". And things with the best commercial dimension are usually horribly unpopular (say L2E4) but I obviously do sympathise there.

 

[Wolfie]

No fabrication, it’s fact. Public investment is decided by elected representatives (with support from civil servants) and from the 70s they were guided by The Green Book. Only a fool would suggest there was no influence from the introduction of the new rules. There was a paper on the subject published by ARUP a while back.

Government is properly about evidence-based decision making. I spent 36 years (not in transport) initially in roles generating the evidence and latterly offering policy options based on that.

You talk about giving people what they want. What they want though is spending on their personal interests (which likely in no way reflect the general national good) and also low taxes..... Go figure.....

Unfortunately, while this kind of thing works great in Switzerland, it is utterly impossible in FPTP Westminster-style interpretation of a democratic system.

Such a system vitally relies on an informed electorate.... Look at our current media.....

 

[eldomtom2]

And yet in their career, they are personally responsible for, in part or maybe even in whole, the delivery of many of the railway enhancements out there right now being used by tens or many thousands of rail travellers daily. What does that suggest to you about the type of enhancements which we need vs the ones being delivered?

I'm not sure what your point is. It is generally not the job of engineers to both assess the benefits and costs of a project while also being responsible for its construction.

Are you saying that an all day service of 4tph between say Bideford and Bude would be used by more people than one of 2tph?

Yes, absolutely. The only question is by how many more, and if the increase would be worth it.

Yes, if you choose a corridor with very weak demand you get very poor marginal returns when you increase frequency, compared to increasing it on a line elsewhere with better demand potential.

There are problems with this logic - followed to its natural conclusion it leads to the conclusion that all intercity rail should be shut down.

Ask yourself how Newquay was relegated to a two-hourly (or slightly worse) service in the first place. Was it because nasty BR management had it in for Newquay? Or is there a more rational explanation?

Yes, there were service cutbacks, probably made without an adequate understanding of how decreases in frequency can cause a vicious circle.

It is also hampering the delivery of much greater benefits to the people of Scotland by other means.

If the idea is that it is damaging other projects by taking up funds that could have been used by them, why does this same logic not apply to HS2?

Well that’s just not true. I’m only critical of projects (few) and proposals (many) that make matters worse overall for passengers, the taxpayer, and especially both. As you can imagine, there are many such proposals appear on these pages.

The key project I've seen that you do support is HS2, which is perhaps not the best choice considering its constantly ballooning costs...

 

[Starmill]

I'm not sure what your point is. It is generally not the job of engineers to both assess the benefits and costs of a project while also being responsible for its construction.

Not so. Plenty do both as the day job.

Yes, absolutely. The only question is by how many more, and if the increase would be worth it.

The marginal return reaches zero much sooner than that example.

There are problems with this logic - followed to its natural conclusion it leads to the conclusion that all intercity rail should be shut down.

No it doesn't. You've just made that up to suit yourself.

Yes, there were service cutbacks, probably made without an adequate understanding of how decreases in frequency can cause a vicious circle.

BR had an excellent understanding of relative patronage and yield compared to other industries at the time.

If the idea is that it is damaging other projects by taking up funds that could have been used by them, why does this same logic not apply to HS2?

Because HS2 was very good value for money, unlike these small schemes?

The key project I've seen that you do support is HS2, which is perhaps not the best choice considering its constantly ballooning costs...

Those costs are mostly self-inflicted by the government, as we've covered ad infinitum. Ironically a lot of them are as a result of... trying to cut costs. Euston is the perfect example. The benefits are sound, and weren't changing.

 

[yorksrob]

On the contrary, speeding up the long-distance service would have created much bigger net benefits than running extra trains for which there will be little demand. The cost of three or four 150 diagrams with two crew is huge. The cost of an existing service running faster is near zero. The cost of an existing service calling at a new station is also near zero in most cases, as more resources are needed only if it breaks the diagram.

Although logically, someone travelling on a long distance journey through Cornwall, is highly unlikely to have their decision to travel affected by an extra three or four minutes.

By contrast, someone who was previously presented with an irregular five trains a day plus an awkward connection to the town, when they get a regular direct service, that's going to provide far greater, more valuable transformative transport opportunities.

On the contrary, the fact that we see reopenings where vast quantities of money are wasted in the rail industry, such as Reston, shows that it's needed far more now than in the past.

On the contrary, isn't Reston affected more by the fact that the industry cant seem to provide a decent rail service to it.

 

[Starmill]

On the contrary, isn't Reston affected more by the fact that the industry cant seem to provide a decent rail service to it.

No. It's affected by the fact that there's nearly nobody going to or from there to serve.

 

[yorksrob]

Well that’s just not true. I’m only critical of projects (few) and proposals (many) that make matters worse overall for passengers, the taxpayer, and especially both. As you can imagine, there are many such proposals appear on these pages.

Given that Governments seem to be happy to spaff away endless billions on fuel duty freezes, perhaps people other than rail professionals ought to step up to saving public money.

There's the other side of this coin in that if it costs stupid amounts of money to provide what is in effect a wayside halt, the risk profile is going to be more extreme

 

[Bald Rick]

If the idea is that it is damaging other projects by taking up funds that could have been used by them, why does this same logic not apply to HS2?

That‘s not the idea.

The key project I've seen that you do support is HS2, which is perhaps not the best choice considering its constantly ballooning costs...

I do support HS2. I’m not at all sure the costs are ‘ballooning’ ‘constantly’, unless you are referring to inflation, in which case most costs for most things are increasing ‘constantly‘. But there are other places to have that debate.

However I do support many, many other rail projects. And have initiated, developed, and built plenty of them too. I’ll have a tenner you have made journeys that have been better than they otherwise would because of them.

 

[yorksrob]

No. It's affected by the fact that there's nearly nobody going to or from there to serve.

How can you tell if no one provides a decent rail service ?

 

[Bald Rick]

Given that Governments see to be happy to spaff away endless billions on fuel duty freezes, perhaps people other than rail professionals ought to step up to saving public money

We all have a part to play. And, frankly, the railway has not done a right lot in terms of improving productivity. There’s various reasons for that, but that’s for another thread.

I will say that I personally was not at all happy will the fuel duty freeze (again). They’ve only done it to knock 0.2% off inflation for election time, and also so that when Labout get in (assuming they do) and unfreeze it, they can have a moan.

 

[Starmill]

How can you tell if no one provides a decent rail service ?

Same way it was done for Okehampton, Leven, Galashiels or Portishead. By doing a demand forecast. Assess the local population, visitors to the area, and the nearby attractors. Model demand in line with the instructions here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tag-unit-m2-1-variable-demand-modelling

 

[yorksrob]

Same way it was done for Okehampton, Leven, Galashiels or Portishead. By doing a demand forecast. Assess the local population, visitors to the area, and the nearby attractors. Model demand in line with the instructions here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tag-unit-m2-1-variable-demand-modelling

But at Okehampton and Galashiels they provided a regular, usable train service.

If they didn't do that at Reston - I agree, maybe they should have done. On the other hand, what's the point of being a devolved Government if you have to apply Westminster's edicts about when you can build a railway station.

 

[Bald Rick]

How can you tell if no one provides a decent rail service ?

Modelling helps, and there is a great deal of evidnece out there to support it.

Just one random example, that is a useful comparison.

Cantley in Norfolk has a population of about 750, and a rather large factory (sugar) which attracts inward commuting to boost numbers. The station has an hourly service, with a few two hour gaps in the middle of the day but extra services at peak time. Less than 20 minutes from Norwich (the nearest regional centre), and about half an hour from Lowestoft, 20 mins from Gt Yarmouth (peak services).

Reston has a population of about 450. No industry or commerce for inward commuting. 40 minutes from the regional centre (Edinburgh) and over an hour to Newcastle. It won’t attract much park and ride from the hinterland as a) there isn’t much in the hinterland and b) Berwick is better suited to that for trips to the south.

I think you’ll agree that Cantley has a decent service for a settlement of its size. It averages 1 passenger per train.

It‘s reasonable to assume that were a similar level of service be provided at Reston as at Cantley, it would average fewer than 1 passenger per train (once we get all the station scratchers out of the system).

That’s how we tell, even at a very basic level.


Meanwhile, providing services to stop at this station takes up capacity that could be far better used by other services running more quickly between London (or the Midlands / SW, or the North West and Yorkshire) to Edinburgh, which has been proven to increase passenger numbers significantly, taking many of them from air and the roads, to the benefit of many, many more people, and taxpayers too.

Or put another way, providing a new station that benefits maybe 40 people a day on shortish journeys means that several hundred, probably well over a thousand, other people per day on long journeys are not attracted to rail. How can that be right?

 

[yorksrob]

Modelling helps, and there is a great deal of evidnece out there to support it.

Just one random example, that is a useful comparison.

Cantley in Norfolk has a population of about 750, and a rather large factory (sugar) which attracts inward commuting to boost numbers. The station has an hourly service, with a few two hour gaps in the middle of the day but extra services at peak time. Less than 20 minutes from Norwich (the nearest regional centre), and about half an hour from Lowestoft, 20 mins from Gt Yarmough (peak services).

Reston has a population of about 450. No industry or commerce for inward commuting. 40 minutes from the regional centre (Edinburgh) and over an hour to Newcastle. It won’t attract much park and ride from the hinterland as a) there isn’t much in the hinterland and b) Berwick is better suited to that for trips to the south.

I think you’ll agree that Cantley has a decent service for a settlement of its size. It averages 1 passenger per train.

It‘s reasonable to assume that were a similar level of service be provided at Reston as at Cantley, it would average fewer than 1 passenger per train (once we get all the station scratchers out of the system).

That’s how we tell, even at a very basic level.


Meanwhile, providing services to stop at this station takes up capacity that could be far better used by other services running more quickly between London (or the Midlands / SW, or the North West and Yorkshire) to Edinburgh, which has been proven to increase passenger numbers significantly, taking many of them from air and the roads, to the benefit of many, many more people, and taxpayers too.

Or put another way, providing a new station that benefits maybe 40 people a day means that several thousand other people are not attracted to rail. How can that be right?

The size of the settlement is a reasonable point, although I see that there are a few settlements in the area, so I can also see why the Government would want a local railhead in the area

In terms of your last point, my understanding was that it was supposed to be served by the regular TPE to Edinburgh that got canned, so it wasn't a case of it preventing other long distance services going ahead, rather the long distance service was cancelled for other reasons regardless.

 

[Bald Rick]

In terms of your last point, my understanding was that it was supposed to be served by the regular TPE to Edinburgh that got canned, so it wasn't a case of it preventing other long distance services going ahead, rather the long distance service was cancelled for other reasons regardless.

I’m afraid your understanding is incorrect.

 

[Starmill]

In terms of your last point, my understanding was that it was supposed to be served by the regular TPE to Edinburgh that got canned, so it wasn't a case of it preventing other long distance services going ahead, rather the long distance service was cancelled for other reasons regardless.

Those TPE services which were withdrawn called at Morpeth but nowhere else, except for a tiny number of evening stops at Bewick-upon-Tweed and Alnmouth. They were never to call at Reston or East Linton.

Yes, clearly 'Metro' is a red herring here - it's short for 'metropolitan', which does not apply to the areas concerned. A 3tph train service is not what is meant/implied by a metro one!

Or indeed 1tph.

 

[yorksrob]

I’m afraid your understanding is incorrect.

Those TPE services which were withdrawn called at Morpeth but nowhere else, except for a tiny number of evening stops at Bewick-upon-Tweed and Alnmouth. They were never to call at Reston or East Linton.


Or indeed 1tph.

In that case, it is fairly pointless opening a station if you're not planning to stop anything at it.

Fortunately, in Cornwall, they're planning the exact opposite and turning what is a bit of a ropey service into something much more useful to the community (it's about time they did it with the Whitby line).

 

[Xavi]

You talk about giving people what they want. What they want though is spending on their personal interests (which likely in no way reflect the general national good) and also low taxes..... Go figure.....

I do not talk about given people what they want. I talk about the principles of democracy or people’s choice. Candidates state their priorities, (including public investment) they get elected or not, they implement those policies (or perhaps not) supported but not dictated by BCR and similar. They get re-elected or not.

It’s not about taxes. It’s about priorities and choices. Yes, there are limited funds.

Sadly we’re nowhere near that today. Instead we have unelected civil servants running the country by rule books. Most notably HMT which has the final say on all public investment.

I have 30 years of experience rail, road, nuclear, environmental, energy, defence, education, healthcare, and aviation, navigating the system on behalf of government departments and quangos. Many of the projects have never been delivered despite being key priorities at the time, hence the desperate state of our national infrastructure today.

 

[Wolfie]

I do not talk about given people what they want. I talk about the principles of democracy or people’s choice. Candidates state their priorities, (including public investment) they get elected or not, they implement those policies (or perhaps not) supported but not dictated by BCR and similar. They get re-elected or not.

It’s not about taxes. It’s about priorities and choices. Yes, there are limited funds.

Sadly we’re nowhere near that today. Instead we have unelected civil servants running the country by rule books. Most notably HMT which has the final say on all public investment.

I have 30 years of experience rail, road, nuclear, environmental, energy, defence, education, healthcare, and aviation, navigating the system on behalf of government departments and quangos. Many of the projects have never been delivered despite being key priorities at the time, hence the desperate state of our national infrastructure today.

I raise your thirty years by another six! Ever heard of accountability for public money? Hence the checks and balances. Every functioning democratic country has something similar.