UK rail tsar says stop taking customers for granted (Williams Review)

[yorksrob]

You are suggesting the the UK taxpayer should pay more of the cost of services in the "North" than they do for services in the "East" "South" or "West" because the "North" is a special case and therefore requires supersoaraway fares. Your view seems to be that you should simply be gifted brand new rolling stock and new infrastructure that everyone else but you pays for. Yeah, great plan.

Which areas of the country will have to pay higher costs to give you cheap fares? What about other run down and poorly performing areas in Wales or Scotland or areas of deprivation in London? Do they get special fares to?

All I ask is realism. It is often lacking here.

The reality is that in many areas of the country, public transport requires subsidy. That mix of subsidy and passenger revenue is there to cover the whole cost of the railway, including renewals when bits become life expired.

Many fares on the ECML had a premium added when it was renewed around forty years ago. That was never removed or allowed to decrease relatively as the investment reached the end of its cycle, hence why a return from York to Doncaster is still around 20 quid, or something ridiculouse. When the line comes to be renewed again, will passengers be expected to stump up a further premium, on top of the one from the last upgrade ?

My point is, there's no point hiking up the fares every time some routine replacement is due.

 

[BigCj34]

The fact is that rail staff have received incredibly generous pay deals, while most of the rest of the working population have seen nothing close. Public sector workers have had an official freeze and the majority of the private sector have seen their wages fall behind inflation for most of the last decade (I'm pretty sure decrying those things is a somewhat left-wing sentiment, even though the one-dimensional left-right dichotomy is a terrible way to characterise one's politics.). The money to pay rail staff has to come from somewhere; that's at least partially the "fare box". Thus, increasing staff costs do indeed push up fares (note that many unregulated fares have increased far more than the official percentage that applies to regulated fares) and thus that is indeed relevant when discussing how the rail industry is pricing away its customers.

That's a case of comparable public sector workers getting grossly underpaid then. The RMT's militant shoutiness may be an irritant, but their work has ensured staff get the treatment that they do in an era of highly diluted union power. Whether they should get CPI or RPI pay increases is another debate, but most workers should have a pay increase consummate to at least CPI.

 

[Carlisle]

The RMT's militant shoutiness may be an irritant, but their work has ensured staff get the treatment that they do in an era of highly diluted union power. CPI.

That’s a vast oversimplification of the reality, which amounts mostly to railways being a niche employer of specialist trades that have fortunately been far cheaper and simpler to throw money at in order to keep their unions quiet rather than try and open them up to more meaningful competition of any kind

 

[AndrewE]

That’s a vast oversimplification of the reality, which amounts mostly to railways being a niche employer of specialist trades that have been far cheaper and simpler to throw money at in order to keep their unions quiet rather than try and open them up to more meaningful competition of any kind

That's the free market for you: like it or lump it!
I would have thought that it was as plain as the nose on your face that in a specialised industry with specialised safety-critical jobs inside it there would be quite a few "trades" that you absolutely couldn't do without.
Railtrack assumed it didn't need engineers or inside knowledge, and look how well that turned out. A wake-up call for Thatcherite industrial policies, or business management, if you like.

 

[Carlisle]

That's the free market for you: like it or lump it!
I would have thought that it was as plain as the nose on your face

I welcome all workers in all jobs having good wages and conditions I just don’t subscribe to the theory that most of today’s workplace inequalities can be solved by what are, aside from being extremely disruptive, in the main rather disingenuous, deceptive, divisive, and at times completely dishonest campaigns and tactics undertaken by the likes of the present day RMT

 

[Tetchytyke]

You are suggesting the the UK taxpayer should pay more of the cost of services in the "North" than they do for services in the "East" "South" or "West" because the "North" is a special case and therefore requires supersoaraway fares. Your view seems to be that you should simply be gifted brand new rolling stock and new infrastructure that everyone else but you pays for. Yeah, great plan.

The north gets a very poor deal in terms of transport spending. We all know this, it's why the mainstay of the Northern rail fleet is still a train that wasn't even fit for purpose when it was built 35 years ago.

It's funny how "user pays" isn't extended to London. London Buses get a subsidy of over half a billion quid a year and charge £1.50 a ticket and let you take two buses on one ticket (that wouldn't get me a mile up here!). So why should the rest of us have to make do with business cases and revenue neutrality and "user pays" policies?

I wonder if he is going to say that putting party dogma (e.g. minimising the number of operating staff, extension of DOO) into franchise requirements through the DfT is a silly idea?

Of course not, he's going to say there's too much regulation of TOCs and they should be free to do whatever the hell they want.

Luckily, that's also what the Tories want.

 

[FQTV]

The north gets a very poor deal in terms of transport spending. We all know this, it's why the mainstay of the Northern rail fleet is still a train that wasn't even fit for purpose when it was built 35 years ago.

And how much of the ‘subsidy’ for ‘people in the North’ is actually ending up with the owners of rolling stock that was fully-paid/written-down years before a Rosco was anything other than a hapless sidekick in the Dukes of Hazzard?

I have a feeling that I read recently that the lease cost on a 142 is c£40,000 per week.

If realism is asked for, that’s perhaps one of the realities.

 

[DarloRich]

The north gets a very poor deal in terms of transport spending. We all know this, it's why the mainstay of the Northern rail fleet is still a train that wasn't even fit for purpose when it was built 35 years ago.

It's funny how "user pays" isn't extended to London. London Buses get a subsidy of over half a billion quid a year and charge £1.50 a ticket and let you take two buses on one ticket (that wouldn't get me a mile up here!). So why should the rest of us have to make do with business cases and revenue neutrality and "user pays" policies?

My season ticket to travel a similar distance as between Woodlesford and Leeds is over £100 more expensive in the south. Half that journey is on a 150/153. Soon it will be replaced by a train not good enough for the north. My London season ticket costs me just a smidge under £5k. A Leeds - Manchester season ticket ( which is a similar distance) is a smidge over £2k.

I don't get the bus often but the last time I did in Milton Keynes I paid a fortune and seemed to be the only person paying!

 

[coppercapped]

That's a case of comparable public sector workers getting grossly underpaid then. The RMT's militant shoutiness may be an irritant, but their work has ensured staff get the treatment that they do in an era of highly diluted union power. Whether they should get CPI or RPI pay increases is another debate, but most workers should have a pay increase consummate to at least CPI.

Er, actually not quite.

People distrust monopolies, being the only or main supplier, of a good or service for good reasons. Prices often have little or no relationship to the cost of provision because the customer has nowhere else to go.

There is an equally bad situation when there is a monopoly PURCHASER of a good or service - in economics this is called a monopsony. This has the effect of depressing wages and salaries - because there is nowhere else for the person to go. A classic example is the NHS - wages and salaries are not as good as they could be because there is only one buyer.

The wages and salaries paid to railway staff now has little to do with union 'power' but a lot to do with competition for scarce skills as the railway business has expanded over the last twenty years.

If railway staff want to be less well paid in the future then 'nationalistion' - the return of a monopsony that was BR - is the way to go.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

It's funny how "user pays" isn't extended to London. London Buses get a subsidy of over half a billion quid a year and charge £1.50 a ticket and let you take two buses on one ticket (that wouldn't get me a mile up here!). So why should the rest of us have to make do with business cases and revenue neutrality and "user pays" policies?

Because the subsidy the rest of the country "enjoys" is paid out of central taxation while London buses are subsidised out of the financial surplus made by London Underground. As the Mayor of London has rendered TfL penniless, the subsidy is no longer viable and London's bus network is being reduced.

 

[Modron]

https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/williamsrailreview/

The former chairman and chief executive of British Airways, Keith Williams, will be the independent chair for this report.

This report aims to find out the best organisational and commercial frameworks which support what HM Government wishes to proceed with in regards to the future of the railways in the united Kingdom.

The points for consideration (lifted from the weblink and highlighted in Italic) are:

a) commercial models for the provision of rail services prioritising the interests of passengers and taxpayers

b) rail industry structures that promote clear accountability and effective joint-working for both passengers and the freight sector

c) a system that is financially sustainable and able to address long-term cost pressures a railway that is able to offer good value fares for passengers, while keeping costs down for taxpayers

d) improved industrial relations, to reduce disruption and improve reliability for passengers

e) a rail sector with the agility to respond to future challenges and opportunities

The above will go into the findings which will be the basis of a White Paper later this year, with expected reforms to begin in 2020.

Please note that decisions made through current and existing franchise agreements, funding commitments in Control Period 6, HS2 and spending decisions made through the Spending Review of 2019 are not being considered.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If one was unkind, one could draw a comparison to the mentioned former British Airways chief and his knowledge of the airline industry to a certain noted personage from the industry that ICI was once a main player in about fifty yeas ago, about shaping future railway thinking based upon how matters were seen in the totally unrelated airline and chemical industries.

 

[squizzler]

I presume you are alluding to Dr Beeching, and if so that's great news for British rail scene. His job was to entrench the railway in the face of alternative forms of transportation and arguably was successful in dong so.

The current situation is of growth. Passenger traffic is expected to double by the 2040's. We need somebody with the courage of Beeching to make the rail system fit to handle this traffic. Nothing should be sacred. It is too easy to be complacent when experiencing growth, the railways cannot afford to shy away from the challenge.

That said, I hope the diversity of the British scene, that ecosystem of different types of operation and ownership, remains. It is this engagement of such a wide range of stakeholders that has brought around the success, and that should be built upon.

 

[ComUtoR]

Why is the 'North' debate always 'North vs London' London isn't the 'South' My local bus fare is £2.50 for a 'short hop' !

 

[yorksrob]

I presume you are alluding to Dr Beeching, and if so that's great news for British rail scene. His job was to entrench the railway in the face of alternative forms of transportation and arguably was successful in dong so.

The current situation is of growth. Passenger traffic is expected to double by the 2040's. We need somebody with the courage of Beeching to make the rail system fit to handle this traffic. Nothing should be sacred. It is too easy to be complacent when experiencing growth, the railways cannot afford to shy away from the challenge.

That said, I hope the diversity of the British scene, that ecosystem of different types of operation and ownership, remains. It is this engagement of such a wide range of stakeholders that has brought around the success, and that should be built upon.

Except that Beeching didn't succeed in entrenching the railway as a form of transport in the face of competition from other modes. The railway remained in relative decline until the early 1980's ( probably at least partially because so many people didn't know from one year to the next whether their railway station would still be there).

Perhaps we should be hoping for a latter day Peter Parker to turn the corner instead.

 

[Modron]

I presume you are alluding to Dr Beeching, and if so that's great news for British rail scene. His job was to entrench the railway in the face of alternative forms of transportation and arguably was successful in dong so.

The current situation is of growth. Passenger traffic is expected to double by the 2040's. We need somebody with the courage of Beeching to make the rail system fit to handle this traffic. Nothing should be sacred. It is too easy to be complacent when experiencing growth, the railways cannot afford to shy away from the challenge.

That said, I hope the diversity of the British scene, that ecosystem of different types of operation and ownership, remains. It is this engagement of such a wide range of stakeholders that has brought around the success, and that should be built upon.

It would be a very bold move, but I detect that a few NIMBY's would not be too happy if nothing was sacred.

What I would welcome is less political interference and actually getting on with it.

 

[sprunt]

Because the subsidy the rest of the country "enjoys" is paid out of central taxation while London buses are subsidised out of the financial surplus made by London Underground. As the Mayor of London has rendered TfL penniless, the subsidy is no longer viable and London's bus network is being reduced.

The Mayor of London in question being Boris Johnson, who readily acceded to the abolition of TfL's £700 million grant.

 

[FQTV]

If one was unkind, one could draw a comparison to the mentioned former British Airways chief and his knowledge of the airline industry to a certain noted personage from the industry that ICI was once a main player in about fifty yeas ago, about shaping future railway thinking based upon how matters were seen in the totally unrelated airline and chemical industries.

I have no idea how knowledgeable the noted personage from ICI was about the chemical industry, but if one was unkind, one could note that this particular former British Airways chief is not generally regarded as being particularly knowledgeable about how to run an airline.

Nice chap and/but an accountant first, foremost and possibly purely.

 

[Carlisle]

I have no idea how knowledgeable the noted personage from ICI was about the chemical industry, but if one was unkind, one could note that this particular former British Airways chief is not generally regarded as being particularly knowledgeable about how to run an airline.

Nice chap and/but an accountant first, foremost and possibly purely.

Agreed, the U.K. now appear world leaders in the process of shelving anything remotely challenging, difficult or controversial into hugely expensive, complex and lengthy enquires or Royal commissions and hoping any problems just conveniently disappear

 

[physics34]

the answer is nationalising the Intercity routes, and regulating the rest harder.

 

[YorkshireBear]

My season ticket to travel a similar distance as between Woodlesford and Leeds is over £100 more expensive in the south. Half that journey is on a 150/153. Soon it will be replaced by a train not good enough for the north. My London season ticket costs me just a smidge under £5k. A Leeds - Manchester season ticket ( which is a similar distance) is a smidge over £2k.

Just in defence here. You have a significantly better service between Milton Keynes and London than we do between Leeds and Manchester, in terms of frequency, journey time and train length, and at the moment in terms of service reliability (usual caveat of taking a snapshot of a few days to compare). Not saying that its worth £2k more and I generally agree with your point, I am an advocate of investment everywhere. But it is not quite comparing apples with apples.
And the £2K version is not quite a true reflection. As someone who pays for a season ticket between Leeds and Manchester it is a not insignificant amount over £3K.

 

[DarloRich]

Just in defence here. You have a significantly better service between Milton Keynes and London than we do between Leeds and Manchester, in terms of frequency, journey time and train length, and at the moment in terms of service reliability (usual caveat of taking a snapshot of a few days to compare). Not saying that its worth £2k more and I generally agree with your point, I am an advocate of investment everywhere. But it is not quite comparing apples with apples.
And the £2K version is not quite a true reflection. As someone who pays for a season ticket between Leeds and Manchester it is a not insignificant amount over £3K.

Firstly you are right about the season ticket price. I mistakenly quoted Northern ONLY prices. Any permitted is £3272. However any permitted From Fenny to Euston is £6244! Those figures are without the onward underground travel that most commuters will need. I will point out my London season is from Bletchley not Milton Keynes.

Taking an hour from 14:00 today Bletchley sees trains to Euston thus:

• 3 x LNWR
• 1 x Southern which is slower and goes to another part of London. I see that as a comparison with Northern for the purposes of this discussion.

Further there are two trains an hour from Woodeslford to Leeds and only one from Fenny Stratford to Bletchley.

There is a better service as long as travel is from Milton Keynes to Euston. Taking an hour from 14:00 today from MKC there are:

• 4 x Virgin - all in the first 15 minutes of the hour
• 5 x LNWR
• 1 x Southern - to a different part of London and substantially slower

The same hour at Leeds sees Leeds to Manchester services thus:

• TPE: 5 per hour
• Northern 2 per hour ( a different route and a longer journey)

Yes more of a service ( a long as you measure from MKC) although one could say more of a service that is less convenient than the TPE service frequency!
Yes. The trains are longer. They are longer because there are more people to move. A 12 car train between Leeds and Manchester even at the peak of the peak would be over kill. However some of the trains down here are only 1 carriage longer than TPE. That leads to crowding as bad as the worst TPE services. In fact I regularly suffer 12 car trains crowded like TPE trains.
Yes the journey time is shorter. Leeds to Manchester is very slow. However the speed from Bletchley is not that much quicker.

BTW None of that suggests that longer, faster and better trains are not needed on TPE. They are. Now. Investment is badly needed.

The issue for me is that those trains and the facilities to serve them have to be paid for. The government has indicated that they want us passengers to pay more of the cost of that provision. We can moan all we like but we cant fix that unless we are prepared to vote for the other guy and the other guy offers that policy! Should we not therefore accept that fares in the North have been lower than justifiable for quite some time and that an upwards change to provide for and then maintain a better service is not required?

The one point of the political balance underpinning this is that the economy of the south is better than the north. That is why I live down here! There is an argument that fares should be lower in the north to help stimulate economic growth. I might have some sympathy with that if I truly thought government were trying to grow the economy. The problem is I don't think they are. None of this suggests season tickets between Leeds and Manchester should be £6k. I simply suggest they should go up in order to reduce the differential between customers across the country and pay a fair contribution towards the improvements we all need.

PS I would prefer my season ticket came down to the Leeds - Manchester level but we all know that aint happening!

 

[YorkshireBear]

Firstly you are right about the season ticket price. I mistakenly q..........

I shall get back in my box! I also saw MK and assumed wrongly! I did not realise all the virgin ones were so tightly spaced. The only other point I would add ito the different prices. If Leeds Manchester was £6K it certainly would solve the overcrowding problems!!!

Very good post and forever proof as to why it is not as simple as it seems. I really try to not get involved in North - South debate because of this as it is such a hideously massive and complex issues.

 

[underbank]

Another factor is that average wages are a lot lower in the North than London/SE, so that also needs to be factored in when comparing season ticket prices.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I might have some sympathy with that if I truly thought government were trying to grow the economy. The problem is I don't think they are.

Neither do I.

 

[DarloRich]

I shall get back in my box! I also saw MK and assumed wrongly! I did not realise all the virgin ones were so tightly spaced. The only other point I would add ito the different prices. If Leeds Manchester was £6K it certainly would solve the overcrowding problems!!!

Very good post and forever proof as to why it is not as simple as it seems. I really try to not get involved in North - South debate because of this as it is such a hideously massive and complex issues.

There is no simple answer because no two journeys are alike and having been a north east season ticket holder for many years ( Darlo to York/Newcastle and Boro) and knowing the service quality I don't have a problem with a differential in principle. However I think that until the government policy changes we have to accept that differential is going to narrow. I think that is right as a principle.

Another factor is that average wages are a lot lower in the North than London/SE, so that also needs to be factored in when comparing season ticket prices.

that is my point about economic performance. However I don't see much being done to improve that and until it is I honestly do not see how season ticket price is retarding growth. The people who most need jobs aren't travelling by train and wont be. We need a high number of good quality jobs in local areas in the north not a central concentration like in the south.

On the reverse side of that coin house prices are substantially lower in the north than the south meaning people can live closer to work, often have a wider choice of transport options and may well have a better quality of life and more disposable income.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I really , really wish this useless term "Tsar" could get binned. ...

Students of history might care to consider what awful fate befell the last Russian one , and worse, his family.
...

Going OT.
Fully agree with the sentiment in the first sentence. Wouldn't have passed muster in the Guardian of old, either.
Re the second - I think fate of the Romanovs was but a drop in the ocean of blood compared to what had been happening to the peoples of the Russian empire, and later, the peoples of the Soviet Union.

 

[kieron]

Meanwhile, the last Bulgarian tsar was exiled rather than executed, and is still doing okay now. It does seem a bit odd to use the term for someone who just chairs a government review and isn't in a position of authority of any sort,

I read the artlcle trying to work out what difference Keith William's views would have made to the way the rail timetable is planned. I'm still none the wiser.