Treasury ‘losing patience with rail’

[notadriver]

Is this extremely worrying or scaremongering ?

https://www.transportxtra.com/publi...ews/66550/treasury-losing-patience-with-rail-

The Treasury may withdraw funding support for many rail services if passenger numbers do not recover soon, a transport commentator has claimed.

Writing in the current issue of Rail magazine, Christian Wolmar says: “Infuriated by having to pay out around £700m per month to keep the trains running, the Treasury is on the warpath. Plans have been prepared to cut swathes of the railway in the event of a second lockdown or if numbers fail to return to the railways.

“Officials at the DfT are finding it increasingly difficult to hold the line about keeping all services going.”

A second spike in Covid-19 cases represented “the worst possible threat for the railways”.

“If there is a second lockdown, even a partial one, there is simply no money available for the Department to keep paying for trains carrying fresh air.

“Among the ideas that have been set out would be severe cuts to regional services, including the scrapping of most branch lines (notably those in Cornwall and East Anglia); a reduction in the frequency of intercity trains; and a thinning out of commuter services.

“Any major cuts could well end up becoming permanent. Initially they would be presented as temporary, but without signs of a major revival in numbers they may become irreversible.

“Even the best case scenario being considered by ministers is that, if a vaccine is found, perhaps only up to 60 per cent or possibly 70 per cent of the 2019 passenger number levels will be achieved by 2022.”

In some city regions, local authorities may be willing to accept a reduction in local service frequencies. The West Yorkshire Combined Authority has said there is a case for running fewer but longer trains on some lines in the conurbation to improve reliability (LTT 29 May).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Closures being proposed are a massive concern, yes. The rest of it sounds sensible - we really do need to end this thing of running short trains on high frequencies and rationalise things a bit, particularly in places like Castlefield where there is a capacity problem. And the idea that reduced commuters might mean the possibility to move to an all-week Saturday service is very positive - it would save a packet.

 

[JN114]

Scaremongering

 

[PR1Berske]

Closures as a permanent thing - worrying. And yes, we can look at things like Northern and Rose Hill etc as a taster of the policy of "close now, revisit later." But I always think these stories are leaked by the Treasury to warn other departments to step their games up, not to announce policy to the general public.

 

[py_megapixel]

I don't know. However, I find this section:

Think tank Greengauge 21 has suggested reducing service levels over the Castlefield corridor in Greater Manchester (Piccadilly to Deansgate) as a short-term fix for its congestion

particularly amusing, because the Castlefield corridor has been known to be overcongested for years at this point, and the only two possible solutions for relieving any congestion are capacity improvements (already cancelled) or service reductions.

So, this "think tank" is simply stating the obvious.

 

[Bantamzen]

Wait, what? Isn't this the same government that spent months telling us that going outside and onto public transport was scary & dangerous, so much so that we now have to wear face coverings in order to be allowed to use them?

 

[yorksrob]

You can bet your bottom dollar that the first lines for the chop will be regional, local services - the ones that are currently seeing bouyent passenger numbers.

Come to think of it, now that the DfT is running Northern Rail day to day, the cynic in me is wondering whether the continuation of dreadful temporary timetables lingering on in places such as west of Skipton, is part of a softening up exercise for such an eventuality !

I wonder how many railway users would be prepared to demonstrate if such an event were to come to pass. I would.

 

[yorkie]

We must not get complacent: clearly a lot more needs to be done to restore passenger numbers.

Unfortunately some train companies are acting in a way that is deterring passengers; I see the actions of those companies as a threat to the industry and I wish the Unions would wake up and sense the danger too.

 

[bramling]

Is this extremely worrying or scaremongering ?

https://www.transportxtra.com/publi...ews/66550/treasury-losing-patience-with-rail-

I'm really getting sick of this government.

*They* caused the issue with low passenger numbers on the railways, firstly with measures like working from home, and perhaps more avoidably by scaring the population witless. Then there's masks which is also putting people like me off using trains as I just can't be bothered with the dagger looks when I can simply jump into my car and not have to bother with all that.

The issue with passenger numbers on the railways is a consequence of the government's pathetic muddled handling of this situation.

By and large the railway has done what it's been asked to do, despite pressures like heavy staff absence (mainly due to shielding).

 

[daodao]

Scaremongering

No. It would be reasonable to cull permanently a number of routes running through empty countryside. Examples include Dingwall to Kyle of Lochalsh, Fort William to Mallaig, Carlisle to Settle, Reedham to Yarmouth, Retford to Barnetby and Llandudno Junction to Blaenau Ffestiniog. There are many others.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No. It would be reasonable to cull permanently a number of routes running through empty countryside. Examples include Dingwall to Kyle of Lochalsh, Fort William to Mallaig, Carlisle to Settle, Reedham to Yarmouth, Retford to Barnetby and Llandudno Junction to Blaenau Ffestiniog. There are many others.

Several of those completely disregard tourist potential. Even the Conwy Valley loads reasonably as far as Betws and could form part of an improved Snowdonia public transport network.

 

[yorksrob]

No. It would be reasonable to cull permanently a number of routes running through empty countryside. Examples include Dingwall to Kyle of Lochalsh, Fort William to Mallaig, Carlisle to Settle, Reedham to Yarmouth, Retford to Barnetby and Llandudno Junction to Blaenau Ffestiniog. There are many others.

No. You fall into the trap (of many London civil servants no doubt) of thinking that just because a line runs through "empty countryside" its trains are also empty. This is not the case.

Although you are a useful reminder of the mindset of the type of people who need to be resisted.

 

[bramling]

We must not get complacent: clearly a lot more needs to be done to restore passenger numbers.

Unfortunately some train companies are acting in a way that is deterring passengers; I see the actions of those companies as a threat to the industry and I wish the Unions would wake up and sense the danger too.

I'm not sure it's the TOCs that's the issue. Whilst there's nonsense like some of the distancing arrangements (mainly on long-distance trains), the main issue is the complete absence of the commuter peaks, particularly in the London area.

This isn't the railway's doing, it's because people simply aren't making the journeys at the moment, the root cause of which is that a significant proportion of the population remain scared witless such that we're still seeing massive amounts of people not working in their established place of work.

 

[py_megapixel]

We must not get complacent: clearly a lot more needs to be done to restore passenger numbers.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

I don't understand how the TOCs and the govenment can just expect the passengers to come flooding back without any encouragement. There is in fact less incentive to use the railway now than there was a year ago. It's ridiculous.

*They* caused the issue with low passenger numbers on the railways, firstly with measures like working from home, and perhaps more avoidably by scaring the population witless. Then there's masks which is also putting people like me off using trains as I just can't be bothered with the dagger looks when I can simply jump into my car and not have to bother with all that

Fine... but what alternative course of action would have prevented this?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure it's the TOCs that's the issue. Whilst there's nonsense like some of the distancing arrangements (mainly on long-distance trains), the main issue is the complete absence of the commuter peaks, particularly in the London area.

But again that isn't actually a problem. A purely leisure-and-business-travel railway is much cheaper to run - same timetable, all day, every day, all week, same train lengths. No peak extras, no stock sitting around all day, no platform lengthening etc. Compare Avanti West Coast to a London commuter operation. But it does even apply to them - if demand dictated that London-Manchester could drop to 2tph x 11-car, then you could improve South Manchester local services from the mess they are at present.

The business travel will come back in time to some extent and there may be more of it (e.g. people living up North and doing one day a week in London). The commuters might not but they're a costly faff who don't pay the full cost of their travel anyway, with a day on a monthly season often coming in cheaper than an Off Peak Day Return for the same journey.

Fine... but what alternative course of action would have prevented this?

There are other ways of managing capacity than controlling who uses the network; there are threads on them.

 

[py_megapixel]

No. It would be reasonable to cull permanently a number of routes running through empty countryside. Examples include Dingwall to Kyle of Lochalsh, Fort William to Mallaig, Carlisle to Settle, Reedham to Yarmouth, Retford to Barnetby and Llandudno Junction to Blaenau Ffestiniog. There are many others.

How about you tell that to the people who use them, and the people who rely on their potential to bring tourists to an area.

 

[bramling]

Fine... but what alternative course of action would have prevented this?

First of all, the government needs to decide if trains are safe for people to use or not. There's been research recently suggesting that the chances of contracting Covid on a train is fairly low, so if that's the case then this needs to be made clear - not hidden away such that only people on specialist places like here readily see it. Then at the same time decide on whether they really want people working from home or not.

If working from home continues indefinitely then it doesn't really matter what the industry does these journeys simply don't need to be made.

Despite what some people here predict I just can't see places like the City of London and Canary Wharf remaining line ghost towns forever, and when they get going properly again the passengers will be back as there's simply no realistic alternative way to get mass numbers of people in and out.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not sure it's the TOCs that's the issue. Whilst there's nonsense like some of the distancing arrangements (mainly on long-distance trains), the main issue is the complete absence of the commuter peaks, particularly in the London area.

This is a very real issue.

The treasury is wont to see a big drop in passenger revenye in the London area, then decide to cut local services elsewhere (which to be fair, never made money in the first place) but which are actually still being well used.

Interestingly in his article Wolmar mentioned services in Kent as being at risk. I certainly won't be buying any "via HS1" tickets in the near future.

First of all, the government needs to decide if trains are safe for people to use or not. There's been research recently suggesting that the chances of contracting Covid on a train is fairly low, so if that's the case then this needs to be made clear - not hidden away such that only people on specialist places like here readily see it. Then at the same time decide on whether they really want people working from home or not.

The industry needs to be making that case to the public.

 

[PR1Berske]

No. It would be reasonable to cull permanently a number of routes running through empty countryside. Examples include Dingwall to Kyle of Lochalsh, Fort William to Mallaig, Carlisle to Settle, Reedham to Yarmouth, Retford to Barnetby and Llandudno Junction to Blaenau Ffestiniog. There are many others.

If you are genuine and serious, then I do acknowledge that other views are available and it's your right to express them...except your main premise is wrong. These are not "empty countrysides". These are commuter routes. Tourist routes. Lifelines. Community stations. Community hubs. No, not everybody on these routes has a car. Not everyone on these route have reliable buses.

I do understand where your view is coming from, and where the Treasury "warning" is coming from. Money matters. The railway isn't making much of it right now. The DfT is headed by an airline guy rather than a railways man so of course defending the financial realities of cutting local services is difficult. But let's look at this by stepping back. Cutting local services "through empty countryside" has already been tried by Beeching et. al and is demonstrably a financial, economic, social, and community disaster. Beeching's legacy is one of shortsighted financial gain outweighting long-term strategy.

Nobody should be thinking of doing it again. Lose Rose Hill etc. until September? Lose it permanently? What's next? What price the railways full stop? Be very careful, very careful, about thinking that cutting the Mallaig line would happen in isolation. There will always be a next time. And a next. And a next.

 

[bramling]

But again that isn't actually a problem. A purely leisure-and-business-travel railway is much cheaper to run - same timetable, all day, every day, all week, same train lengths. No peak extras, no stock sitting around all day, no platform lengthening etc. Compare Avanti West Coast to a London commuter operation. But it does even apply to them - if demand dictated that London-Manchester could drop to 2tph x 11-car, then you could improve South Manchester local services from the mess they are at present.

The business travel will come back in time to some extent and there may be more of it (e.g. people living up North and doing one day a week in London). The commuters might not but they're a costly faff who don't pay the full cost of their travel anyway, with a day on a monthly season often coming in cheaper than an Off Peak Day Return for the same journey.

This is simplistic; something like Thameslink largely pays its way by having dense peak loadings alongside decent off-peak demand.

Presumably the ideal is running a railway which carries large numbers of commuters, but not *so many* that expensive capacity increase schemes are required.

It's hard to reconcile Sunak moaning about funding essential public transport services with wasting money on the ridiculous dining scheme.

 

[Ianno87]

Despite what some people here predict I just can't see places like the City of London and Canary Wharf remaining line ghost towns forever, and when they get going properly again the passengers will be back as there's simply no realistic alternative way to get mass numbers of people in and out.

I think there will be a slow burn return to a more sustainable level of demand as offices gradually reopen and employers push the value of occasional (albeit bot daily) office visits for face-to-face collaboration.

Plus as kids / spouses return to school, many will cherish some office contact over repeated long days of working in isolation at home.

 

[yorkie]

Fine... but what alternative course of action would have prevented this?

Look at many other countries to see how it could have been handled better. For example I've been in Switzerland and they seem to be taking a far more sensible approach; people are not fearful there like they are here.

The industry needs to be making that case to the public.

As I've mentioned in other posts, TOCs such as LNER, GTR etc are doing exactly this, but are hindered by the likes of XC. My TPE Guard yesterday was very negative; saying window seats only, mentioning threats of fines, anyone with Northern tickets must get off the train (even though the Northern timetable has been decimated and ticket acceptance has been agreed by the industry)

I cannot see any way out of this; some companies and some staff are loving the current situation and are very keen to make rail unattractive. And who is going to stop them? I'll tell you the answer: nobody.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably the ideal is running a railway which carries large numbers of commuters, but not *so many* that expensive capacity increase schemes are required.

What you probably want to maximise income with lowest costs is a level of capacity where your all day service is carrying 80%+ loadings on most trains, but you can cram a few peak ones full and standing, but where you operate the same timetable and length all day.

LNER, GTR etc are, but are hindered by the likes of XC.

XC are dire anyway, and I'm not sure how much effect they are having as anyone with any sense avoids them regardless.

 

[bramling]

The industry needs to be making that case to the public.

I don't think it's for the industry to be doing something which needs to be science-led.

What realistically has the government done to encourage people back to work? The short answer appears to be essentially nothing, apart from perhaps masks on transport which if anything may have put people off more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What realistically has the government done to encourage people back to work?

We shouldn't encourage people back to work if people can viably work from home. In the vein of reduce, reuse, recycle it's better that people don't make journeys than that they make them by public transport. What's worst is them going by car or flying.

What's totally wrong here is the suggestion that lopping country branch lines that don't carry heavy commuter loads anyway is the way to deal with a problem which dictates as its solution a reduction in commuter services primarily around London to essentially an all-week Saturday (or in some cases Sunday) service. It sounds like "burying bad news", not finding the correct solutions to the problem.

 

[Ianno87]

This is simplistic; something like Thameslink largely pays its way by having dense peak loadings alongside decent off-peak demand.

Presumably the ideal is running a railway which carries large numbers of commuters, but not *so many* that expensive capacity increase schemes are required.

It's hard to reconcile Sunak moaning about funding essential public transport services with wasting money on the ridiculous dining scheme.

Currently, if you have the stock and you have the drivers (plus all the associated depot gubbins), the marginal cost of keeping these out in service is relatively low.

There might be a case for leasing a few less trains in the short term to account for less "peaky" peaks, but that is not a particularly major saving in the grand scheme of things.

 

[bramling]

What you probably want to maximise income with lowest costs is a level of capacity where your all day service is carrying 80%+ loadings on most trains, but you can cram a few peak ones full and standing, but where you operate the same timetable and length all day.

The ideal is something like the GN outer suburban setup, where trains stable overnight at the country end, and visit the maintenance depot between the peaks. Especially if you can invert it so that another fleet of trains get maintained overnight, which happens with the inner suburbans. It isn't just as simple as saying trains which only carry passengers in the peaks is a bad thing.

XC are dire anyway, and I'm not sure how much effect they are having as anyone with any sense avoids them regardless.

Whilst it may be useful to many on here, XC isn't really a significant part of the rail system, so whilst they are dire it probably doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things as regards the current situation.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think it's for the industry to be doing something which needs to be science-led.

What realistically has the government done to encourage people back to work? The short answer appears to be essentially nothing, apart from perhaps masks on transport which if anything may have put people off more.

It's not all about work.

The treasury needs to learn to value the other journeys that people make outside of work. They seem to do so with the motor car, but they have a blindspot with the railway.

Looking at the news, the government seems to react when it is seen to make a mess of things. We passengers will need to make sure that any move towards closures becomes as messy as possible for them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There might be a case for leasing a few less trains in the short term to account for less "peaky" peaks, but that is not a particularly major saving in the grand scheme of things.

Reduction in units and crews over time is a pretty big cost saving, is it not? Closing country branch lines that get maintenance once every 20 years[1] and run with one unit and one crew saves you next to nothing compared to lopping the peak Thameslink service in half.

[1] The Conwy Valley is as ever the odd exception, being rather a money-pit as it requires rebuilding every year or two, but most branch lines in their present form cost very little to run.

The ideal is something like the GN outer suburban setup, where trains stable overnight at the country end, and visit the maintenance depot between the peaks. Especially if you can invert it so that another fleet of trains get maintained overnight, which happens with the inner suburbans. It isn't just as simple as saying trains which only carry passengers in the peaks is a bad thing.

True, but take a trip into Euston and look at all the units parked up at Bletchley and Camden Bank which aren't receiving maintenance and are just doing nothing.

 

[MotCO]

*They* caused the issue with low passenger numbers on the railways, firstly with measures like working from home, and perhaps more avoidably by scaring the population witless. Then there's masks which is also putting people like me off using trains as I just can't be bothered with the dagger looks when I can simply jump into my car and not have to bother with all that.

Have you forgotten how serious this pandemic was, and still is? Reducing the movement of people was a key element in trying to control the virus. Far from scaring people witless, this was the most effective measure available to help reduce the incidence and spread of the virus, and more importantly, reducing the number of deaths and long-term after-effects of those who caught the virus.