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

[Bletchleyite]

That would almost have put BR straight onto the German model - IC for profit, regional paid and specified by local Government.

 

[Greenback]

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.

Marginally profitable would probably not be enough for an operator in a market driven industry. A very small return percentage wise on a big turnover would not generate a decent dividend for shareholder, nor would it encourage investment in shares of that company as a result.

The risk of making a loss as opposed to a small profit would simply not be worth it.

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.

We aren't just talking about closing one route, though. What the reality would be is that marginal routes and the services on more profitable lines would be cut. remember that the motives of a publicly listed company are to maximise returns for their shareholders, and that this is a legal requirement. Such organistations tend to be pretty brutal in trying to protect their share price, and without some sort of protection from the state, the results would be devastating, though it may take a few years to reach that point.

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.

It's a very interesting discussion and I can fully understand why the politicians of those earlier days thought that they could find a profitable core. Basically, freight was still very important to rail in those days, newspaper, coal and steel traffic were seen as vital to the economy of the UK, and were the focus of a lot of the Beeching report, in contrast to this discussion, where freight has hardly had a mention!

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.

I agree with you. It would be a gradual thing, with each fall in revenue being countered with more cuts, which would lead to more revenue decreases.

While traffic congestion is worse today and will have an effect on the pace of the decline, it will all be very reminiscent of BR of the 1970's and early 1980's, with cuts in services in attempt to turn things around financially, then cuts in maintenance, fares increases, but no real improvement in the bottom line.

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.

As you will probably have guessed by now, I'm convinced that it did have an effect. And quite a big effect, though not as big as things like the growth in independent road travel and the impact of the motorway system on long distance freight.

I've read enough histories of local lines to see that BR cutting services to reduce costs in the face of what they said was falling demand, didn't encourage people to return to the rails at all. It had the opposite effect, as infrequent trains forced even more passengers away.

 

[iwearahalo2]

Hi there first post!

Is the Manchester Tram the only break even business in the UK? No line is as far as I'm aware.

 

[Philip C]

That would almost have put BR straight onto the German model - IC for profit, regional paid and specified by local Government.

Rightly or wrongly that would not have been the case. The relationship between railway and state in two countries cannot be described as conforming to the same model, unless both the railway and the nation model of power are similar.

Yes, you are right that the railway model described by Bald Rick (post #60) conforms well to the German model, but our division of power between State, Regional and Local government is far from the German model. Some of us see that as being one of the biggest problems with this country!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, you are right that the railway model described by Bald Rick (post #60) conforms well to the German model, but our division of power between State, Regional and Local government is far from the German model. Some of us see that as being one of the biggest problems with this country!

Worth noting though that the German model of railway funding doesn't only have advantages. With the central Government funded model of the UK (Wales/Scotland/Merseyrail excepted), closures and cuts, however minor, are national matters and national news, and are as such politically inexpedient. With the local funded model, chopping a branch line here and a branch line there is far easier - and some parts of Germany have undergone something of a Beeching over the last 10 years as a result. All you need is "nichts bestellt", and it's gone - just like the slashing of tendered bus services across the UK.

For a bit of thread crossover, the Island Line wouldn't stand a chance, for instance.

Not only that, but you end up with a very clear split of IC and regional services (rather than some playing both roles as in the UK) which would necessarily mean lower frequencies on each.

 

[yorksrob]

Rightly or wrongly that would not have been the case. The relationship between railway and state in two countries cannot be described as conforming to the same model, unless both the railway and the nation model of power are similar.

Yes, you are right that the railway model described by Bald Rick (post #60) conforms well to the German model, but our division of power between State, Regional and Local government is far from the German model. Some of us see that as being one of the biggest problems with this country!

This is a good point. I can imagine that a system of lander (sorry - don't know how to do an umlaut) would lend itself rather better than out over-centralised system. Infact, it probably mirrors the devolved nations more, where decentralisation has been a much greater success.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With the local funded model, chopping a branch line here and a branch line there is far easier - and some parts of Germany have undergone something of a Beeching over the last 10 years as a result. All you need is "nichts bestellt", and it's gone - just like the slashing of tendered bus services across the UK.

For a bit of thread crossover, the Island Line wouldn't stand a chance, for instance.

Although the cursed legacy of Beeching does still seem to stalk the corridors of power in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh as much as Westminster, making closures politically unacceptable (fortunately). Perhaps this is a cultural/political, rather than an administrative phenomenon.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is a good point. I can imagine that a system of lander (sorry - don't know how to do an umlaut)

OT, but if it's any help you can always substitute an umlauted character with a letter E after it. That is, "Laender" is an equally valid form as with the umlaut.

would lend itself rather better than out over-centralised system. Infact, it probably mirrors the devolved nations more, where decentralisation has been a much greater success.

I think Scotland in particular is headed that way (indeed again going a bit OT but I see the only long term future for a non-split UK as being federalism of some form). The more vexatious question is of how to deal with England.

 

[yorksrob]

OT, but if it's any help you can always substitute an umlauted character with a letter E after it. That is, "Laender" is an equally valid form as with the umlaut.

Ah thanks, my German lessons were a long time ago !

I think Scotland in particular is headed that way (indeed again going a bit OT but I see the only long term future for a non-split UK as being federalism of some form). The more vexatious question is of how to deal with England.

Hmm maybe. I can't imagine Scottish politicians biting the bullet and actually closing a line. Given the political uproar when the highland lines were threatened, would an SNP Government dare to court such anger ? (the rest of them wouldn't as they're all to weak politically up there).

 

[pemma]

Hi there first post!

Is the Manchester Tram the only break even business in the UK? No line is as far as I'm aware.

Railways aren't broken down by lines but by franchise areas, this means there can be profitable routes mixed in with unprofitable routes and overall the franchise will be seen as break-even, profitable or unprofitable.

Using the last full year stats available First Capital Connect, Southern and South West Trains were profitable franchises overall. All the others were loss making with East Coast making the smallest loss and Scotrail making the biggest loss.

The only franchise I'm aware of which gives a more detailed breakdown is Arriva Trains Wales. Overall it makes a huge loss. However, the English parts of the franchise are profitable and the Welsh parts return a massive loss.

Manchester Metrolink does have the advantage of not having to lease vehicles off money grabbing ROSCOs and that the routes Metrolink run have been cherry picked.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Marginally profitable would probably not be enough for an operator in a market driven industry. A very small return percentage wise on a big turnover would not generate a decent dividend for shareholder, nor would it encourage investment in shares of that company as a result.

I think it depends on the size of the operator. Arriva weren't interested in continuing to run some of the bus services in Cheshire due to them not making enough money. This led to other operators taking the routes Arriva didn't want, one of those was GHA Coaches who expanded in to the area from North Wales. Now GHA have grown quite a bit we are starting to see a couple of the least profitable routes GHA have transfer to smaller operators.

 

[Greenback]

Let's not go too far off topic, and keep the discussion about what would happen should the railway industry ever become purely market driven.

I think it depends on the size of the operator. Arriva weren't interested in continuing to run some of the bus services in Cheshire due to them not making enough money. This led to other operators taking the routes Arriva didn't want, one of those was GHA Coaches who expanded in to the area from North Wales. Now GHA have grown quite a bit we are starting to see a couple of the least profitable routes GHA have transfer to smaller operators.

That's a fair point. It's possible that a market driven railway could operate in a similar fashion, even if it;s only int he short or medium term.

I remain convinced that there would be no long term future for the railways!

 

[pemma]

I remain convinced that there would be no long term future for the railways!

Agreed. Without local connecting services Intercity services wouldn't be viable and there would be a lack of interest to run the local connecting services without someone providing a subsidy to the operator.

 

[Greenback]

The railways can't run without subsidy in some shape or form. I wouldn't like to be proven right by seeing it happen though, so i hope it just remains an interesting but theoretical discussion!

 

[deltic]

Hi there first post!

Is the Manchester Tram the only break even business in the UK? No line is as far as I'm aware.

Metrolink covers its operating cost but not the capital cost of constructing the scheme - similar AFAIK to most light rail schemes