What would services and timetables look like if it was market driven

[Greenback]

I'm not sure that that would have been true, but I draw no comfort from it.

In my view, it would have sparked an inevitable spiral of decline. Though I may be wrong about the actual date where everything would have gone!

My view is that many lines might be able to cover their immediate costs and continue in existence pro tem. However sooner or later a big expenditure will arise (rolling stock will need replacing, a sea wall will collapse, signal wiring will rot - there are lots of options) and then commercially there needs to be a profitable business case for the investment. At that point the network would be subject to contraction. Living off sunk investment from the past is easy, putting hands in current pockets in the hope of future net income streams is another matter. Our first generation tramways often ticked along until re-equipment (new tramcars, rewiring) brought them to their end (a bit of a generalisation, I know).

That illustrates my point perfectly, I think. There was a lot of investment in new commuter stock during the late 1980's and early 1990's which I doubt would have happened had Serpell's most radical proposal gone ahead.

If the railways had also been operated according to the market, then I don't think that there would have been any investment at all. The system that remained would simply have been squeezed for whatever profit it could have supplied, up until it basically fell apart.

No private company would have felt justified in investing billions for a questionable and very small rate of return.

My contention is that a purely commercial railway might tick along without major loss of network until major unavoidable cost issues arise. At those points contraction would be likely to occur. Whilst the weather was playing its game at Dawlish, the Hastings Line was also suffering from major landslip traumas that, under purely commercial criteria, could have been its nemesis.

I think you are correct. I do see it as a best case scenario and I still feel that the loss of a network would have had a significant effect on rail passenger numbers, and that even a line that was thought to be profitable (by whatever definition they wanted to use) could easily end up making an oeprating loss within a year or two.

I'll add - through ticketing would probably disappear, and InterCity ticketing would be compulsory reservation and much more heavily yield managed[1] like airlines.

[1] For instance, Friday evening and Sunday afternoon-evening would be priced far more like morning peaks, I would expect.

I agree. Prices would be far more dynamic than they are now. There would be no government protection of fare increases, and no through ticketing between any operators that remain.

To paraphrase a former government, it would be a very bad deal for passengers. Taxpayers might, like the Treasury, be pleased to see railways having to fend for themselves, until they notice how the roads have become even busier and clogged up.

With loss of many local services could result in more genuine on rail competition on almost all surviving routes

The network is likely to be so diminished even in the short term, that competition will be impractical if not impossible.

A pure economic driven TT would have much less than now - and certainly not in many places and at times taken for granted now.

Absolutely right. This would also lead to a fall in ridership, as those who take a busy, peak hour train in one direction might not be using a busy peak time train the other way. They might be travelling on one of the trains that the market doesn't run.

Inevitably, as with the loss of branches and other secondary routes, the profitable trains will become less profitable and finally unprofitable, maybe even before any major investment is due.

I see no reason to change my view that leaving the railways to the market would be the death knell for them as sure as Saturday follows Friday.

 

[pemma]

So, if the market drove the timetable what would things look like?

Do you mean so that all train services are 100% commercial, or do you mean if the railways were like bus services where local authorities would provide support for services where there is an economic need but wouldn't be profitable?

 

[AM9]

....or do you mean if the railways were like bus services where local authorities would provide support for services where there is an economic need but wouldn't be profitable?

That sounds like a recipe for total profiteering from cherrypicking. Then there is the infrastructure of course.

 

[Bald Rick]

Don't think you can call Merseyrail a basket case either tbf, it carries more passengers across its two lines than many northern cities put together... what it is perhaps burdened with are costs that are too high and that needs addressing.

Sorry, but it is, financially, a basket case. Fares pay only approx half the costs. Not a model for running a commercially driven business. But I do agree that it could pay, by raising fares and cutting costs, in both cases significantly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

... euro tunnel I maintain in a country where rail is run purely commercially it defies logic that this would have been able to raise any finance without the backing of governments who have been heavily involved in the construction and operation of the euro tunnel... just wouldn't happen.

In the UK, HM Government was not involved in any way in the financing, construction or operation of the tunnel. All it did was pass the relevant legislation, and permit BR to spend it's own money on upgrading the route to the tunnel.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Inevitably, as with the loss of branches and other secondary routes, the profitable trains will become less profitable and finally unprofitable, maybe even before any major investment is due.

Not sure I agree with this. No doubt this could happen on the marginal routes, but then I don't think they would survive anyway by definition. But the core 'profitable' railway, ie most London commuter routes, most Inter City routes from London (albeit not necessarily to their current destinations) does not rely on branches or secondary routes.

Bear in mind that the Inter City sector was profitable without subsidy for several years up to privatisation even allowing for amortisation of capital costs. This was helped admittedly by some interesting accounting and cross sector deals. NSE wasn't far behind in profit stakes. Trim off the (then) larger loss making elements and you have the network.

 

[yorksrob]

Not sure I agree with this. No doubt this could happen on the marginal routes, but then I don't think they would survive anyway by definition. But the core 'profitable' railway, ie most London commuter routes, most Inter City routes from London (albeit not necessarily to their current destinations) does not rely on branches or secondary routes.

Bear in mind that the Inter City sector was profitable without subsidy for several years up to privatisation even allowing for amortisation of capital costs. This was helped admittedly by some interesting accounting and cross sector deals. NSE wasn't far behind in profit stakes. Trim off the (then) larger loss making elements and you have the network.

I'm not convinced that the success of Inter City routes from London has ever not been reliant on secondary routes. I simply don't believe that London - Leeds, for example would justify two, or even one train an hour without onward connections to the wider hinterland of Yorkshire, rather than just the centre of Leeds. Would they be profitable ? No. I agree with Greenback that it would be a spiral of decline.

The commuter routes - yes, these probably are less reliant on secondary lines for passengers, but these have always been a lot more borderline in terms of profitability. Even in these profitable times, I'm sure some of our London commuter TOC's needed subsidy when the trains needed replacing.

 

[deltic]

I'm not convinced that the success of Inter City routes from London has ever not been reliant on secondary routes. I simply don't believe that London - Leeds, for example would justify two, or even one train an hour without onward connections to the wider hinterland of Yorkshire, rather than just the centre of Leeds. Would they be profitable ? No. I agree with Greenback that it would be a spiral of decline.

The commuter routes - yes, these probably are less reliant on secondary lines for passengers, but these have always been a lot more borderline in terms of profitability. Even in these profitable times, I'm sure some of our London commuter TOC's needed subsidy when the trains needed replacing.

I cant remember the source now but I recall something like 20-25% of London to Leeds/Manchester passengers continue their journeys by rail when they reach each city

 

[fowler9]

Would it not be true to say that some of the none profitable routes help make the profitable routes profitable? Indeed without the none profitable routes may it not be possibly that we may either have to move everyone to London, or move more business away from London? Don't many businesses use loss leaders? The company I work for makes no money off the regular bread and butter work, it gets its profit from additional project work.

 

[yorksrob]

I cant remember the source now but I recall something like 20-25% of London to Leeds/Manchester passengers continue their journeys by rail when they reach each city

I wonder if that's done on through tickets. If people like myself (I nearly always start an InterCity journey with a local train journey using my metrocard) haven't been included, that proportion would be even higher.

Then, there are likely to be a few more who go to places like Cambridge and Shrewsbury from Leeds and Manchester. I'm sure it all adds up !

 

[deltic]

I wonder if that's done on through tickets. If people like myself (I nearly always start an InterCity journey with a local train journey using my metrocard) haven't been included, that proportion would be even higher.

Then, there are likely to be a few more who go to places like Cambridge and Shrewsbury from Leeds and Manchester. I'm sure it all adds up !

No it was based on surveys so split ticketing etc is picked up. I think we sometimes over estimate the number of people who interchange. I know plenty of business passengers who will use intercity services then hire a car or get a taxi rather than connect to local rail services

 

[fowler9]

No it was based on surveys so split ticketing etc is picked up. I think we sometimes over estimate the number of people who interchange. I know plenty of business passengers who will use intercity services then hire a car or get a taxi rather than connect to local rail services

It is an interesting point but I travel by train a lot and have never been surveyed apart from on buses in Merseyside and they do those surveys a lot.

 

[yorksrob]

No it was based on surveys so split ticketing etc is picked up. I think we sometimes over estimate the number of people who interchange. I know plenty of business passengers who will use intercity services then hire a car or get a taxi rather than connect to local rail services

But again, it still doesn't include those travelling South to other destinations. If 25% of passengers to Manchester or Leeds aren't able to make a complete journey, then another 25% of passengers making journeys from Leeds and Manchester to places South other than London (and don't forget, this includes the Southern Region) that soon adds up (although there will be some overlap with people going from further destinations South to further destinations North).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is an interesting point but I travel by train a lot and have never been surveyed apart from on buses in Merseyside and they do those surveys a lot.

Yes, neither have I, except by Metro.

 

[Bevan Price]

So, if the market drove the timetable what would things look like?

Who would be the winners?

Who would be the losers?

I've often wondered.

A lot would depend on the time (year) at which market driven services were implemented. If it had started in the Marples-Beeching era, then it is unlikely that there would have been any significant further electrification (unaffordable). On lines that survived, there would be few, if any, all-day regular interval services, but there would probably still be a single, national passenger service operator (possibly privatised).

Main line express services remaining might be

London Euston to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool & Preston.
London St. Pancras to Leicester, Nottingham & Derby (possibly also Sheffield)
London Kings Cross to Leeds, York & Newcastle.
London Liverpool St. to Colchester & Ipswich
London Paddington to Bristol, Cardiff & Southampton (via Reading)

Most of these would have a couple of peak hour services each way, plus irregular off-peak services (with some 2 to 3 hour gaps)
Some would still be operated by diesel locos (Class 47, maybe even a handful of residual Class 40), often with long formations (12 to 15 coaches on some lines) - speed would be secondary to minimising costs.

Some suburban services would survive around big cities, but much curtailed, and largely reduced to peak hour operation only.

Frustrated rail managers would dream of electrification & much faster services, but accountants would continue to repeat "we have no money for such things".

Frustrated passengers & potential passengers would pester MPs incessantly until the government admitted that market forces were "not entirely suitable" for public transport, and decided that the only option was to partially finance passenger services & network improvements.

 

[fowler9]

It does kind of beg the question, who is being surveyed?

 

[deltic]

It does kind of beg the question, who is being surveyed?

Surveys do not have to be very big to be reasonably statistically accurate - while I have not been surveyed on an intercity service I have seen plenty of surveys conducted on them over the years for lots of different reasons

 

[fowler9]

Surveys do not have to be very big to be reasonably statistically accurate - while I have not been surveyed on an intercity service I have seen plenty of surveys conducted on them over the years for lots of different reasons

Lies, damn lies and statistics (Joke). In 40 years I haven't been surveyed on a train. I would have thought at least once I may have been.

 

[Bald Rick]

All perfectly valid points. And no doubt some of the connecting traffic would be lost to rail for good.

What we don't know is what proportion of, say, Horsforth (other local stations in W Yorks are available) to London traffic would find another way to Leeds and get the train there. It is safe to assume that some would, in the same way that some people travelling from Wells to London make their way to Castle Cary, or Bath, or Micheldever and pick up a train there.

Many many moons ago, when I was nobbut a lad, I had the dubious pleasure of surveying passengers on every timetabled daytime Euston - Scotland (SX, SO, SuO) train to check origin and destination of Anglo-Scots traffic. This was to solve an ORCATS dispute between Intercities East Coast and West Coast in the early days of APEX tickets, but before the concept of split ticketing was widely understood. (Yes such disputes happened in BR days).

I probably saw over 2000 tickets in a month, a reasonable sample. Over 80% of the tickets were London to Glasgow / Motherwell. Most of the rest were London to destinations in the Glasgow suburbs or Central belt. Very little to/from beyond London, and practically none from beyond London to beyond Glasgow.

Now much may have changed in the intervening (almost) quarter century, but it does tally with comments up thread about connecting traffic on Intercity services.

Incidentally, the survey results proved that ORCATS was right all along. That's a month I'll never get back.

 

[yorksrob]

All perfectly valid points. And no doubt some of the connecting traffic would be lost to rail for good.

What we don't know is what proportion of, say, Horsforth (other local stations in W Yorks are available) to London traffic would find another way to Leeds and get the train there. It is safe to assume that some would, in the same way that some people travelling from Wells to London make their way to Castle Cary, or Bath, or Micheldever and pick up a train there.

.

Or indeed, the proportion who might give up trying to get into Leeds altogether due to the inevitably increased congestion, and drive all the way instead !

 

[Bald Rick]

Or indeed, the proportion who might give up trying to get into Leeds altogether due to the inevitably increased congestion, and drive all the way instead !

Well exactly. Or drive to another railhead. Or not travel at all. Although personally, I really wouldn't fancy a drive from Horsforth to the M25 on a working day, let alone getting into London. (Having done a day return drive of that very trip myself several times over the years, at quiet times on Sundays, it's hard work).

One thing is for sure though, trying to make the railway entirely market driven would not be the best result for UK plc.

 

[fowler9]

All perfectly valid points. And no doubt some of the connecting traffic would be lost to rail for good.

What we don't know is what proportion of, say, Horsforth (other local stations in W Yorks are available) to London traffic would find another way to Leeds and get the train there. It is safe to assume that some would, in the same way that some people travelling from Wells to London make their way to Castle Cary, or Bath, or Micheldever and pick up a train there.

Many many moons ago, when I was nobbut a lad, I had the dubious pleasure of surveying passengers on every timetabled daytime Euston - Scotland (SX, SO, SuO) train to check origin and destination of Anglo-Scots traffic. This was to solve an ORCATS dispute between Intercities East Coast and West Coast in the early days of APEX tickets, but before the concept of split ticketing was widely understood. (Yes such disputes happened in BR days).

I probably saw over 2000 tickets in a month, a reasonable sample. Over 80% of the tickets were London to Glasgow / Motherwell. Most of the rest were London to destinations in the Glasgow suburbs or Central belt. Very little to/from beyond London, and practically none from beyond London to beyond Glasgow.

Now much may have changed in the intervening (almost) quarter century, but it does tally with comments up thread about connecting traffic on Intercity services.

Incidentally, the survey results proved that ORCATS was right all along. That's a month I'll never get back.

Yeah but you have to take in to account that people are daft and will treat buying a long distance rail ticket as a plane ticket and will then go and buy another ticket to somewhere else when they arrive. It happens a lot.

 

[yorksrob]

Well exactly. Or drive to another railhead. Or not travel at all. Although personally, I really wouldn't fancy a drive from Horsforth to the M25 on a working day, let alone getting into London. (Having done a day return drive of that very trip myself several times over the years, at quiet times on Sundays, it's hard work).

One thing is for sure though, trying to make the railway entirely market driven would not be the best result for UK plc.

Can't disagree with that.

From a personal point of view, I wonder how many more through journeys West Yorks would get with better early morning/night time local connections. I often seem to end up getting buses and taxis due to a lack of trains !

 

[Bald Rick]

Yeah but you have to take in to account that people are daft and will treat buying a long distance rail ticket as a plane ticket and will then go and buy another ticket to somewhere else when they arrive. It happens a lot.

Now, yes. Back then, not so much.

Those I asked had generally started / would finish their journey in London, using bus or tube to get to/from Euston.

 

[CC 72100]

Lies, damn lies and statistics (Joke). In 40 years I haven't been surveyed on a train. I would have thought at least once I may have been.

I was surveyed once, on a train that was practically empty, on it's first run in the morning, when travelling on a very cheap ticket.

End result is I'm gushing with praise about facilities/prices/train upkeep etc.

But then I suppose for everyone surveyed on a good day I'm sure somebody else is on a bad one!

 

[telstarbox]

Time is money! Especially if you come off the Intercity and just miss a local train which only runs every 30 minutes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was surveyed once, on a train that was practically empty, on it's first run in the morning, when travelling on a very cheap ticket.

End result is I'm gushing with praise about facilities/prices/train upkeep etc.

But then I suppose for everyone surveyed on a good day I'm sure somebody else is on a bad one!

I remember being surveyed about the TPE Class 158 refurbs some time around 2000. I suggested wood effect panelling for the interior to make the units look a bit classier - and to my amazement they actually did it.

 

[pemma]

Time is money! Especially if you come off the Intercity and just miss a local train which only runs every 30 minutes.

A local train every 30 minutes at off-peak times would be an improvement on most lines. Local stopping services from Stockport to Buxton, Stoke, Crewe and Chester run every 60 minutes off-peak.

 

[lejog]

Lies, damn lies and statistics (Joke). In 40 years I haven't been surveyed on a train. I would have thought at least once I may have been.

I only travel by train a couple of times a week now, but in the past couple of months have been asked to fill in two Northern customer satisfaction surveys and in the past few years have had three or four WY Metro or GMPTE staff asking questions about my journey.

As Deltic says it does not take many surveys for the results to be valid AS LONG AS you get a representative sample. I've never been questioned by an opinion poll in 40 year - the pollsters may not think I'm part of the typical demographic! - but their results have been pretty good over the years. I know the polls were consistently wrong at the last election, but that seems due a couple of percent of people not admitting to any of pollsters that they were going to vote Tory - until the exit polls when they were happy to say how they had voted.

That would be my concern about travel surveys, by their nature they seem to be taken at off peak times and may not be representative of peak time passengers. You would hope the survey takes this into account.

 

[Greenback]

Sorry, but it is, financially, a basket case. Fares pay only approx half the costs. Not a model for running a commercially driven business. But I do agree that it could pay, by raising fares and cutting costs, in both cases significantly.

Cutting costs would probably result in a loss of passengers, as most cuts would be to the number of services, usually those which are marginal, a reduction in staff and facilities, and reducing maintenance to the cheapest and most basic form to keep the trains running. Just like BR at it's worst, we'd end up with toilets not fit for purpose, broken, scruffy seats, and grubby, rubbish strewn trains. As I said, a spiral of decline!

Not sure I agree with this. No doubt this could happen on the marginal routes, but then I don't think they would survive anyway by definition. But the core 'profitable' railway, ie most London commuter routes, most Inter City routes from London (albeit not necessarily to their current destinations) does not rely on branches or secondary routes.

The point I'm trying to make is that the search for the core profitable railway has always failed. Beeching tried to find it, but lopping off the branches only weakened the lines that connected to them.

The railways will always need subsidising.

Bear in mind that the Inter City sector was profitable without subsidy for several years up to privatisation even allowing for amortisation of capital costs. This was helped admittedly by some interesting accounting and cross sector deals. NSE wasn't far behind in profit stakes. Trim off the (then) larger loss making elements and you have the network.

You don't though. Even the most interesting accounting won;t help when the costs of running the services that are left have to apportioned to fewer of them.

It's difficult to know exactly which lines, and which trains on those lines are the profitable ones. That's the first thing that any private company allowed to run a timetable according to market forces would try and do. They may decide that there are a couple of trains a day from station A that will be worth running, and they join an even busier route at B, where there's a profitable half hourly service to a big city.

Those who currently use the services that will be cut, because they are deemed not profitable, will be lost, and those that continue on at B will eb lost to the so called profitable line.

Meanwhile, the costs of keeping the line from A open, whatever they are and however much they can be trimmed, now onyl support four services a day, so each train is costing a lot more once its contribution to maintenance is included int he balance sheet.

The unavoidable result is that those services become unprofitable, and are cut, the line is closed, and there is a consequent fall in number son the main line at B, which becomes less profitable than previously, cuts are made and more passengers leave the railway because the service no longer meets their needs in terms of frequency. Fares rise even more to try and compensate, and more passengers bleed away.. Eventually the line from C succumbs completely and is closed.

Would it not be true to say that some of the none profitable routes help make the profitable routes profitable?

Yes! Exactly!

I wonder if that's done on through tickets. If people like myself (I nearly always start an InterCity journey with a local train journey using my metrocard) haven't been included, that proportion would be even higher.

I always used to use my local season ticket to connect with the FGW services at Swansea. As far as the tickets I bought would show, I was an inter city only passenger, and no doubt this would influence any decision on whether services west of Swansea were to be considered profitable or not. Without my local service, though, I wouldn't be catching any train from Swansea.

Then, there are likely to be a few more who go to places like Cambridge and Shrewsbury from Leeds and Manchester. I'm sure it all adds up !

Yes indeed, it's wrong to just consider start and end flows. There will be people who travel between places like Wakefield and Norwich, Leeds and Ely, or in my area Neath to Newport, where they change on to other services.

It's difficult to quantify how many these people are, and how much they contribute money wise to the network, but if there are no trains left to connect into, they majority will take a coach, drive, or simply not travel at all. They won't travel by rail form Neath to Newport and then transfer to any mode, they'll take that all the way, whatever it is.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm not saying that removing the loss making services wouldn't affect the income on the profitable services. That's a pretty obvious conclusion. There would also be routes that are marginally profitable that become marginally unprofitable as a result.

What I'm saying is that the loss of income to the most profitable, core network would not be sufficient to cause the latter to then close. As an example, I can't imagine for one moment that the closure of Bedford to Bletchley would cause a spiral of decline on the Thameslink north route, given that in my experience 99% of the traffic on the line is entirely contained between Central London and Bedford.

Quite an interesting thread this! You can see how the politicians in the 50s and 60s got to where they did before the socio-economic benefits of the railway were understood (by them) and before road traffic congestion and pollution were a major problem.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not saying that removing the loss making services wouldn't affect the income on the profitable services. That's a pretty obvious conclusion. There would also be routes that are marginally profitable that become marginally unprofitable as a result.

Then the newly unprofitable routes are closed, causing another set of routes to become marginal and then unprofitable in turn. I'm not saying the InterCities would all become unprofitable overnight, but its that nibbling and nibbling away of the network that has a cumulative effect.

The railways were undergoing a decline in passenger numbers from the 1950's until the early 80's. This is put down to the rise of the motor car, which we all know is true to a large extent. Nevertheless, I wonder whether this nibbling effect contributed more to that decline than it is credited for on account of being hidden by the car phenomenon.

 

[Bald Rick]

Interestingly, and by coincidence, one of the regular commenters over on London Reconnections has almost answered this question tonight. And he is (or rather was) very well placed to answer it.

http://http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/east-coast-mainline-routes-branches-part-1-thameslink-works/#comment-252575

Here is the key bit which I hope doesn't breach any copyright from LR!

Somewhere on file is the GH proposal to dispose of the Board’s services thus:
– IC as emerged
– Alphaline priced up and marketed as (?REX to use a Swiss term) but out of subsidy
– LSE out of subsidy after 10 years of pricing (as would have happened were it not for privatisation)
– PTEs to take on their own areas in full
– Scotland and Wales ditto
– That left a rump of ex-OPS services most of which could be handed to the relevant counties (perhaps with a rural equivalent of MRG)
– at the bottom of the heap were a handful of services which straddled several counties and which would have been quite difficult to park; there were not many of these.