Subsidies

[tbtc]

This is just the same subsidy figures that we've discussed a few times before, but with the quirk of lumping various TOCs together to suit some kind of 1920s map of the UK (which is meaningless - e.g. the LMS includes XC services from Aberdeen to Penzance but not Northern services in Manchester?).

Since all of the TOCs are clearly listed on the initial link, you can see the subsidy per passenger mile without needing to worry about a 1920s map:

• c2c 5.6
• Chiltern Railways 7.9
• CrossCountry 15.6
• East*Coast -0.6
• East Midlands Trains 13.1
• First Capital Connect -3.9
• First Great Western 6.4
• First TransPennine Express 16.8
• Greater Anglia 1.5
• London Midland 13.6
• Northern Rail 51.5
• Southeastern 12.4
• Southern 0.6
• South West Trains -1.7
• Virgin Trains 4.7
• Average 6.8p subsidy per passenger mile (the three TOCs paying a premium per passenger mile highlighted in bold)

A few points

• Note that privately run FCC and SWT both pay a larger premium to the Government per passenger mile than the DOR-run East Coast? One to remember next time we get the "DOR run a profitable service whilst inefficient private firms all require big subsidies" stuff trotted out?
  
• If TPE is meant to only operate the "cream" of services in northern England then you'd expect their subsidy to be a lot lower than it actually is.
  
• Cross Country is almost as bad as TPE - presumably because they also operate trains that are "too short whilst at fairly high frequency" (meaning high staffing costs per seat)
  
• If the average subsidy per passenger mile is 6.8p then however you split up franchises/ merge franchises (e.g. split EMT into "Intercity" and "local", add TPE to XC, try to hide some loss making Northern services in the profitable East Coast franchise) you won't change that figure. Let's not pretend that hiding some bad apples amongst the good apples will make any difference to the 6.8p - it's essentially a Zero Sum Game.
  
• I wonder how much of the CTRL/HS1 costs are artificially pushed onto SE to make the investment stack up?

If it does suggest anything, its that the rural and branch lines of the South West aren't exactly breaking the bank. Perheps such routes aren't as subsidy hungry as assumed.

Or, possibly, that the high volume of high value tickets sold to commuters of the Thames Valley, and the very high value long distance travellers from Bristol, Cardiff, Plymouth and Exeter areas, offset the rural lines

FGW's fleet consists on roughly one HST for every 75mph 1980s DMU (143, 150, 153). So the heavy loadings on every seven/eight coach high speed train (inc all of those First Class fares) has a much bigger impact upon their revenue than any equivalent "loss"on a Sprinter.

The rural operations in Devon/ Cornwall are almost a blip on the overall FGW figures, once you include the old Thames Trains services and the busy Cardiff - Portsmouth services.

Remember evidence presented to the Transport Select Committee recently said tax payer funding per head in London was a huge 24 times higher than it was in the North East

Sorry, do you mean the overall transport subsidy per head of population, or are you just using the "railway infrastructure in North East England" figure?

Given that a significant number of people from outside Greater London commute into Greater London each day (and very few people from outside the North East commute into the North East each day), it's hardly surprising that rail investment in Greater London looks big when only compared against the number of people living in Greater London (yes, Crossrail is umpteen billion, but maybe half of the users will live outside the capital, so won't count in the "per head of population" figure).

Erm, c2c?

Also known as LTS, London Tilbury and Southend. Admittedly a strange choice as all the others have their correct franchise names but it is there.

I don't know why the OP has lumped C2C into "London Midland", unless you consider that the Midland Railway purchased the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway (i.e. LTS) in 1912 and therefore this thread is an excuse to try to split the railway into some kind of 1920s version of the railway that bears no relevance to the 21st century.

as the South West shows, rural routes and branch lines do not, necessarily a subsidy make

We don't know that.

All we know is that the lucrative HSTs from Paddington matter a lot more to FGW's figures than the 153s (because each HST carries a lot more people) - you can try to spin that into thinking that each and every bit of FGW gets 6.4p/ mile, but I think that if Wessex were a stand alone franchise they'd need only 6.4p/ mile!

 

[Abpj17]

yorksrob - TfL is one of the least subisidied city transport systems; 91% of operating costs are covered by fares. Given the vast amount of business and tourism that passes through London and the complete lack of housing, let alone affordable, in much of the centre the slight subsidy seems justifiable.

(In the same way that it's not surprising that Wales and Scotland are subsidised due to the local population densities)

 

[21C101]

A common misconception. But as the South West shows, rural routes and branch lines do not, necessarily a subsidy make.

The fact that such routes would have been shut down "in a flash" when the railway was badly run and subject to gross political mismanagement (if not down right corruption in the case of Marples) is hardly a good indicator to what should be good policy now.

I don't even think you're right about sparsely populated rural routes. Having grown up in Kent, there are a couple of routes which, thank goodness they survived, but had they been in the North, I feel sure they would have got the chop. Strood to Paddock Wood springs to mind and even my beloved Marshlink (which is the source of my railway obsession) would probably have been done for.

The point to remember is that the Northern regional railway connects together a lot of urban areas.

I had in mind in particular the Central Wales line which was famously going to be rubber stamped by the cabinet for closure until the Welsh secretary pointed out how many marginal seats with the nationalists it went through....

Strood to Paddock wood I am certain only survived because it had just been electrified, Marshlink survived by the skin of its teeth after a vociferous local campaign (permission for closure was given in 1969 but not implemeted). Kent emerged almost uniquely unscathed from Beeching due to the late 1950s electrification (the only Beeching era closure was the New Romney branch). In many ways, though Kent, especially East Kent, is more like northern England than the rest of the southeast, although with the closure of the Kent coalfield and HS1 enabling commuting from east Kent I suspect that is now changing.

Leave Kent; and plenty of lines like Horsham - Shoreham shut that would have survived in the north. Even the North Cornwall line would have survived had it been in Highland Scotland.

 

[northwichcat]

Since all of the TOCs are clearly listed on the initial link, you can see the subsidy per passenger mile without needing to worry about a 1920s map:

Not quite correct. All the TOCs who have contracts directly with DfT. The two highest subsided franchises are excluded (Arriva Trains Wales and Scotrail), while we've got no idea how Merseyrail and LO fair in comparison to other franchises.

There is also the question about whether the huge jump in Northern's Network access grant over the previous year is a mistake, given they're still running the same services with the same trains.

[*]Note that privately run FCC and SWT both pay a larger premium to the Government per passenger mile than the DOR-run East Coast? One to remember next time we get the "DOR run a profitable service whilst inefficient private firms all require big subsidies" stuff trotted out?

Noted. However, EC is the most profitable Intercity franchise and there isn't a London commuter franchise operated by DOR to compare with FCC or SWT.

[*]If TPE is meant to only operate the "cream" of services in northern England then you'd expect their subsidy to be a lot lower than it actually is.

[*]Cross Country is almost as bad as TPE - presumably because they also operate trains that are "too short whilst at fairly high frequency" (meaning high staffing costs per seat)

Main problem with TPE is they specified in the ITT for new trains they needed powerful diesel trains which could hope well with routes where trains need to do a lot of climbing. A company based in Munich won the tender who have the Bavarian Alps on their doorsteps, so the requirement got mis-interpreted and as a result TPE pay a lot more in fuel and track access then they should need to.

Apparently XC was profitable under Virgin, so I wonder if the reduction in operator specific Advance tickets has actually harmed XC?

Sorry, do you mean the overall transport subsidy per head of population, or are you just using the "railway infrastructure in North East England" figure?

It was what got debated by the Transport Select Committee and apparently comes from a report by IPPR in to public spending. It does seem to relate to government projects.

Given that a significant number of people from outside Greater London commute into Greater London each day (and very few people from outside the North East commute into the North East each day), it's hardly surprising that rail investment in Greater London looks big when only compared against the number of people living in Greater London (yes, Crossrail is umpteen billion, but maybe half of the users will live outside the capital, so won't count in the "per head of population" figure).

Even if you take the Greater London population and double it, the total number of people comes to less than the total for the North.

One argument gets given for Greater London get a disproportionally high level of public spending, then a different argument gets given for a disproportionally high level of spending in Scotland compared to the North of England. (Scotland being similar in population to Yorkshire & Humber.) It just seems the government is anti-North of England.

One thing to remember is a lot of larger companies have multiple sites. A company with a head office in London may have an office near Middlesbrough. If some of the most highly qualified people in the North East can't easily get to the office near Middlesbrough due to transport infrastructure issues, then that could result in the company being less profitable and not being able to employ more people in London.

 

[Metrailway]

Even if you take the Greater London population and double it, the total number of people comes to less than the total for the North.

One argument gets given for Greater London get a disproportionally high level of public spending, then a different argument gets given for a disproportionally high level of spending in Scotland compared to the North of England. (Scotland being similar in population to Yorkshire & Humber.) It just seems the government is anti-North of England.

One thing to remember is a lot of larger companies have multiple sites. A company with a head office in London may have an office near Middlesbrough. If some of the most highly qualified people in the North East can't easily get to the office near Middlesbrough due to transport infrastructure issues, then that could result in the company being less profitable and not being able to employ more people in London.

The number of National rail journeys orignate/end/with in Greater London was about 787 million in 2012-13. Around 62% of National rail journeys started or ended in London. London Underground has 1,265 million passengers a year. 130 million used the DLR and Tramlink in 2012-13.

National Rail Journeys excluding a Greater London station as an origin/destination was 482 million 2012-2013; Light rail journeys outside London was 92 million in 2012-13.

It is inevitable London will get more rail infrastructure funding.

You stated upthread that it is unfair that London gets 24 times more transport funding than the North East. National Rail journeys to/from/within the North East was a mere 14 million. The Tyne and Wear Metro had 37 million passengers in 2013-13.

Total rail pax in N. East: 51 million
Total rail pax in London: 2,182 million

Ratio of NE pax:London pax ~ 1:43

Indeed if one uses passenger numbers as a measure for fair funding London is getting a bad deal if it is only getting 24 times more funding than the North East!

 

[northwichcat]

The number of National rail journeys orignate/end/with in Greater London was about 787 million in 2012-13. Around 62% of National rail journeys started or ended in London. London Underground has 1,265 million passengers a year. 130 million used the DLR and Tramlink in 2012-13.

National Rail Journeys excluding a Greater London station as an origin/destination was 482 million 2012-2013; Light rail journeys outside London was 92 million in 2012-13.

It is inevitable London will get more rail infrastructure funding.

You stated upthread that it is unfair that London gets 24 times more transport funding than the North East. National Rail journeys to/from/within the North East was a mere 14 million. The Tyne and Wear Metro had 37 million passengers in 2013-13.

Total rail pax in N. East: 51 million
Total rail pax in London: 2,182 million

Ratio of NE pax:London pax ~ 1:43

Indeed if one uses passenger numbers as a measure for fair funding London is getting a bad deal if it is only getting 24 times more funding than the North East!

A bit of analysis would be needed on those figures for them to have any meaning. For instance, you're counting one person who travels from East Croydon to Greenwich on National Rail via London Bridge as making one journey. Yet you could be counting someone who does Surrey Quays-Canada Water-Canary Wharf-Greenwich on a combination of Overground, Underground and DLR as making 3 journeys, despite them travelling a significantly shorter distance.

Also as we were talking about tax payer funding before, how many million of the Greater London journeys are made by people who aren't British nationals?

 

[yorksrob]

We don't know that.

All we know is that the lucrative HSTs from Paddington matter a lot more to FGW's figures than the 153s (because each HST carries a lot more people) - you can try to spin that into thinking that each and every bit of FGW gets 6.4p/ mile, but I think that if Wessex were a stand alone franchise they'd need only 6.4p/ mile!

Spin it might be, but DfT bases it's spending decisions on such spin, so we might as well spin it in a way that's beneficial.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

yorksrob - TfL is one of the least subisidied city transport systems; 91% of operating costs are covered by fares. Given the vast amount of business and tourism that passes through London and the complete lack of housing, let alone affordable, in much of the centre the slight subsidy seems justifiable.

(In the same way that it's not surprising that Wales and Scotland are subsidised due to the local population densities)

Oh, I'm not saying it's not justifiable, merely pointing out that the figures are missing from this analysis, so it gives an incomplete picture not to include them as a lot of those shorter distance commuter journeys are the sort that the regional railway network caters for in the other cities.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I had in mind in particular the Central Wales line which was famously going to be rubber stamped by the cabinet for closure until the Welsh secretary pointed out how many marginal seats with the nationalists it went through....

Strood to Paddock wood I am certain only survived because it had just been electrified, Marshlink survived by the skin of its teeth after a vociferous local campaign (permission for closure was given in 1969 but not implemeted). Kent emerged almost uniquely unscathed from Beeching due to the late 1950s electrification (the only Beeching era closure was the New Romney branch). In many ways, though Kent, especially East Kent, is more like northern England than the rest of the southeast, although with the closure of the Kent coalfield and HS1 enabling commuting from east Kent I suspect that is now changing.

Leave Kent; and plenty of lines like Horsham - Shoreham shut that would have survived in the north. Even the North Cornwall line would have survived had it been in Highland Scotland.

It's interesting as I think that overall there was a bias towards keeping lines in the South open which would have closed elsewhere. For example, it's doubtful whether a town the size of Leigh (in Lancashire) would have been left without a station had it been in the South East. Same with Mansfield.

This was reversed a little bit with the social railway which helped routes like Whitby to survive.

Scotland and Wales are separate political entities now, so aren't immediately put at risk by association with a high subsidy.

 

[Bald Rick]

Spin it might be, but DfT bases it's spending decisions on such spin, so we might as well spin it in a way that's beneficial.

Sorry, no it doesn't. DfT bases it's decisions on very detailed information, sometimes leavened with political interference.

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry, no it doesn't. DfT bases it's decisions on very detailed information, sometimes leavened with political interference.

It clearly does, hence why Northern has been singled out for cuts, which has more to do with how the franchise was assembled than any objective assessment of passenger needs.

A route that has been included in a high subsidy franchise is at a much greater risk of cuts than a similar route that has been included in an InterCity type franchise.

 

[21C101]

It's interesting as I think that overall there was a bias towards keeping lines in the South open which would have closed elsewhere. For example, it's doubtful whether a town the size of Leigh (in Lancashire) would have been left without a station had it been in the South East. Same with Mansfield.

This was reversed a little bit with the social railway which helped routes like Whitby to survive.

Scotland and Wales are separate political entities now, so aren't immediately put at risk by association with a high subsidy.

You make a valid point but I think you do confuse the south of England with the home counties.

Lots of lines in the London commuter area were not closed that otherwise would have gone (eg Oxted - Uckfield) as a matter of deliberate policy, and Kents lines still open on 1/1/1963 all survived bar the New Romney branch due to the then recent mass electrification.

However away from the home counties it was a different story. Okehampton, Ilfracombe and Minehead were all refused social grants and many marginal lines like Horsham-Shoreham went. It has been suggested that the main reason some of these were refused grants despite being far more marginal closures than lines in the north was political to counter accusations of bias against the north.

 

[yorksrob]

You make a valid point but I think you do confuse the south of England with the home counties.

Lots of lines in the London commuter area were not closed that otherwise would have gone (eg Oxted - Uckfield) as a matter of deliberate policy, and Kents lines still open on 1/1/1963 all survived bar the New Romney branch due to the then recent mass electrification.

However away from the home counties it was a different story. Okehampton, Ilfracombe and Minehead were all refused social grants and many marginal lines like Horsham-Shoreham went. It has been suggested that the main reason some of these were refused grants despite being far more marginal closures than lines in the north was political to counter accusations of bias against the north.

This is true - I do tend to regard the West of England as a different entity from the "South" of England, even though the West of England is technically the South.

 

[Rapidash]

Dorset is where the difficulty lies, as half of it is very Westy (Charmouth up to around Dorchester), and has alot of commuting into the likes of Exeter, whereas as you go towards Weymouth, it starts to feel alot more Southerly, which I think is down to the electrification of the rails, and generally larger conurbations, like Poole and Bournemouth.

Always befuddles me that Wiltshire and Gloucestershire as classed as West as well. West Midlands, possibly!

 

[Bald Rick]

It clearly does, hence why Northern has been singled out for cuts, which has more to do with how the franchise was assembled than any objective assessment of passenger needs.

Which cuts are these?

 

[yorksrob]

Which cuts are these?

Those alluded to in the TPE/Northern consultation.

 

[Bald Rick]

Those alluded to in the TPE/Northern consultation.

If you mean the questions about potential reductions in calls / frequency at some lightly used stations (offset by improved journey times for all those on the trains), and the potential changes to station ticket office opening hours, this isn't / won't be a northern only thing.

Dft know, in detail, the revenue and costs of individual routes and stations on every franchise. There are quite a few stations in Northern-land that perform very poorly (that is stated as such in the consultation). Where other franchises have similarly performing routes and stations, you can expect the same questions in future consultations.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Here's another thought. How much subsidy does TFL pay for tube services ?

It.

The tube does carry 25% more passengers than the rest of the UK rail network put together though.

 

[northwichcat]

The tube does carry 25% more passengers than the rest of the UK rail network put together though.

Rather than comparing London Underground to National Rail, why not compare LU to similar EU systems?

Paris Metro
Total track length: 133 miles
Total number of stations: 303
Annual ridership: 1.527 billion

London Underground
Total track length: 250 miles
Number of stations: 270
Annual ridership: 1.23 billion

So LU has 90% more track than Paris Metro, yet has less stations and less usage.

 

[21C101]

Rather than comparing London Underground to National Rail, why not compare LU to similar EU systems?

Paris Metro
Total track length: 133 miles
Total number of stations: 303
Annual ridership: 1.527 billion

London Underground
Total track length: 250 miles
Number of stations: 270
Annual ridership: 1.23 billion

So LU has 90% more track than Paris Metro, yet has less stations and less usage.

If you demolished most of the semi detached and terraced houses in north London and replace them with large blocks of flats, along with building more flats on Hyde and Regents parks you would soon turn that around.

Those figures are more a statement on Londons almost uniquely low density for a city of its population.

 

[northwichcat]

Those figures are more a statement on Londons almost uniquely low density for a city of its population.

Really?

Paris has a higher population than London, but London covers a smaller area meaning London has the higher population density. Therefore, logically London should have less track and more stations than Paris but it's the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_urban_areas_of_the_European_Union

 

[CC 72100]

Really?

Paris has a higher population than London, but London covers a smaller area meaning London has the higher population density. Therefore, logically London should have less track and more stations than Paris but it's the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_urban_areas_of_the_European_Union

The reason for this is that the Paris metro barely ventures outside of the city, and of it does, it is only for a few stops. Now think of London; Heathrow, the Met, the eastern bits of the central line - none of these would be on the metro in Paris and would instead be taken up by a suburban system. I lived 5 miles from my office, outside of Paris, and yet my closest station was on the suburban heavy rail system.

Also while Paris may have more stations, they are considerably closer together than the average distance between stations on the LU.

 

[21C101]

The reason for this is that the Paris metro barely ventures outside of the city, and of it does, it is only for a few stops. Now think of London; Heathrow, the Met, the eastern bits of the central line - none of these would be on the metro in Paris and would instead be taken up by a suburban system. I lived 5 miles from my office, outside of Paris, and yet my closest station was on the suburban heavy rail system.

Also while Paris may have more stations, they are considerably closer together than the average distance between stations on the LU.

Yes it is often forgotten that the Underground contains several lines that are outer suburban and one very out of suburban four track main line going more than half way to Milton Keynes.

To answer the previous point, the Paris Metropolitan area contains a huge swathe of rural land, as can be seen from this map whereas most of greater London is a homoenous built up area. However the built up part of Paris (the "urban development" bright red bit on the above map) is far greater in population/building density and far smaller than the built up area of London.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Apparently XC was profitable under Virgin, so I wonder if the reduction in operator specific Advance tickets has actually harmed XC?

XC was/is a high subsidy TOC, even under Virgin.
That's one of the reasons the current VT (which kept the XC Birmingham-Scotland leg) is not a better premium payer.
It was also why Manchester-Scotland was downgraded into TPE whose costs were lower.

 

[northwichcat]

It was also why Manchester-Scotland was downgraded into TPE whose costs were lower.

It would actually have been cheaper to keep it with XC and use 3 car 170s on it than to transfer to TPE and use 185s on it.

I thought DfT were really looking for a way to free up Voyagers to allow the VHF WCML timetable. While Virgin had already created huge opposition to half the Manchester-Birmingham services switching to 350/1s (before they knew Arriva would win the next franchise), they didn't want a small fleet of 350/1s and they didn't want the service to be transferred to Central. However, TPE liked the idea of running new services to Scotland (but I imagine they were probably expecting more rolling stock.)

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The reason for this is that the Paris metro barely ventures outside of the city, and of it does, it is only for a few stops. Now think of London; Heathrow, the Met, the eastern bits of the central line - none of these would be on the metro in Paris and would instead be taken up by a suburban system. I lived 5 miles from my office, outside of Paris, and yet my closest station was on the suburban heavy rail system.

Also while Paris may have more stations, they are considerably closer together than the average distance between stations on the LU.

Had the motor bus developed say 5 years earlier - then there is little doubt that London would have had fewer "tube" lines. The 1920's and 1930's extensions of the tube to places like Edgware / Cockfosters was to drag traffic from brand new suburbia into underused and capital intensive (but already built) ex private Tube lines. Very successful too it was , following on from the Metropolitan line. Up to about 1970 - "surpluses" from the tube paid for bus losses.