Which services should be permanently cut to achieve a 10% reduction in railway expenditure?

[PTR 444]

From reading the main thread on swingeing rail cuts, it is clear that services will have to be thinned out one way or another. The big question is precisely which ones to throw the axe at.

I would preferably go for services where there is already adequate provision (ideally 4+tph) or where diesel can be removed from running on electrified lines. If you were in charge of running the railway, which services would you thin out or axe altogether?

 

[Peterthegreat]

If you want to achieve a 10% cut in (operating) expenditure you will need to cut services by far more than 10%.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It will mostly need to involve routes around London where large capacities exist for commuters who won't be back any time soon.

Here are some suggestions:

For one, the south WCML could be reduced to the Sunday timetable all week (but for a longer operating day), with all trains south of Northampton 12-car (8-car towards Brum and on the Crewes). I'm sure other routes around London could have similar.

XC to keep the hourly timetable with double units, but with some changes to improve Manchester-Bristol connections. Avanti Voyagers in but HSTs out. Or if the "2 units require 2 guards" nonsense can't be solved, consider bringing in all the 22x and reforming to fixed 7 or 8-car sets.

4tph on TPE (one to each eastern branch or two to Newcastle with Scarborough as a shuttle, 2 to Liverpool, 2 to Manchester Piccadilly main trainshed, none to the Airport) for the foreseeable.

Southport to hourly (let's not have a debate of which central Manchester station it should be again) but longer trains.

 

[O L Leigh]

Nothing permanently. There needs to be space for growth and the ability to reinstate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nothing permanently. There needs to be space for growth and the ability to reinstate.

Yes, good point. Probably better to say "for the foreseeable future". We should not make any infrastructure changes that would make increases difficult.

 

[HSTEd]

If we had a somewhat uniform rolling stock fleet this would be a case of simply forcing more aggressive use of portion working.

But we don't.

I don't want to start a huge argument over it but staffing is the elephant in the room.

 

[Failed Unit]

It is an interesting question, in Great Northern Land (which is probably the same in other London commuter areas) we have significant reductions in the service. For example in the peak the Baldock - Kings Cross, Welwyn Garden City - London Kings Cross and Peterborough - London ones are not in the timetable. Many services are no long 12 coaches. If demand doesn't return I suspect they will be gone for good and it will save overtime and release some units back to the general pool (with no-one to lease them).

However I am nervous one some of the regional routes where demand is recovering I think cutting could damage recovery. If you look at EMR the 2021 timetable is still no introduced. The hourly Grimsby - Lincoln (for example) still isn't introduced. But by not doing so this may damage growth.

Likewise Cambridge - Maidstone East is not introduced to save money, would this actually damage recovery.

Hard to see where easy savings can be made. Retiring staff / trains seems an easy target, but we have being here before, when demand returns we can't turn the tap on very quickly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we had a somewhat uniform rolling stock fleet this would be a case of simply forcing more aggressive use of portion working.

But we don't.

There are still places it could be done, e.g. XC.

 

[RT4038]

From reading the main thread on swingeing rail cuts, it is clear that services will have to be thinned out one way or another. The big question is precisely which ones to throw the axe at.

I would preferably go for services where there is already adequate provision (ideally 4+tph) or where diesel can be removed from running on electrified lines. If you were in charge of running the railway, which services would you thin out or axe altogether?

I should think looking very closely at those trains which cost a disproportionate amount of money to operate - looking at inefficiency in crew schedules and station/infrastructure manning costs (without resulting in overcrowding!). Thinning down timetables with longer trains on the more frequent lines. Removing trains that carry few passengers, only where there is a significant saving to be made. Horses for courses, depending on the circumstances. Focus on cost reductions rather than blanket policies which might have unintended consequences.

 

[AM9]

I should think looking very closely at those trains which cost a disproportionate amount of money to operate - looking at inefficiency in crew schedules and station/infrastructure manning costs (without resulting in overcrowding!). Thinning down timetables with longer trains on the more frequent lines. Removing trains that carry few passengers, only where there is a significant saving to be made. Horses for courses, depending on the circumstances. Focus on cost reductions rather than blanket policies which might have unintended consequences.

Which in many cases mean that services efficient in operation would return a lower saving than others. If a cost saving is the prime motive, then start with services that:

have higher on board human resources needs, (i.e. not DOO and not with comprehensive full gatelines)​

higher per train signaller needs, (e.g. not normally running under automated signalling systems that require minimal manning)​

higher maintenance requirements, (mainly not electric)​

higher energy costs, (not electric)​

Higher percentage of unproductive running, (not long turnrounds or peak-only services).
That would unburden the railway of some of the least financial rewarding services. It may not be the optimum political move.

 

[stuu]

Looking at the figures from 2019/20, 54% of cost was spent on operating passenger trains. I would have thought you would need to cut ~25% of services to save 10% of the budget.

That strikes me as being politically unacceptable, so the chances are there will be some tinkering and marginal cuts. Almost certainly more DOO as a compromise saving

 

[Failed Unit]

You raise an interesting point about energy costs.

It seems that energy requirements seem to go up with every generation of units. I know people are talking about removing the 15x units, but are they 195 (as an example) cheaper to operate in terms of fuel and maintenance. I know on the EMU side with all the new mod-cons such as air-conditioning the power draw is increasing with every generation of unit.

I understand regional services are expensive to operate, but then I am also told that cutting back a service to save a diagram doesn't cost that much. This was probably true under BR when I understand the majority of the costs were keeping the line upto standard, but is this still the case where the line is NR problem?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Almost certainly more DOO as a compromise saving

DOO doesn't just save you the guards' wages. It also means that any on board staff have more time to do revenue duties, and that you can also get rid of dispatchers because with cameras you can see the whole train even on a curve. You do need to have something in place to deal with assistance, but that doesn't require nearly as many staff, and if you have an OBS they can do it.

With respect to all guards (particularly one very good one who posts here), if it's a choice between closing routes and destaffing, it's destaffing for me every time. Let's not make the mistakes Beeching made in this regard, basically seeing the only two options as "full service" and "nothing", and not considering "railway, but staffed as a bus would be" as a middle ground.

On the other hand it is booking offices I would look at first. This Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_railway_station_categories shows how many of each we have - there are presently 1320 stations which have some form of staffing. The full list is here: https://webarchive.nationalarchives...ger/stations/betterrailstations/pdf/partd.pdf

It would strike me that all of 679 "Category D" stations should be destaffed as a priority, with most "Category C" stations to follow (but perhaps not quite all; it might for instance be worth retaining some "end of line" stations like Ormskirk and "touristy" ones like Windermere with staff). All "Category A" and "Category B" stations would remain staffed. This would probably mean maybe 100-150 stations retaining staffed booking offices, probably in some cases with reduced shifts. That's more than I originally thought, but could save a lot of money by destaffing about 1,170 stations without having any impact on the actual passenger service. Other than Merseyrail, almost all of these stations already have TVMs, so no added cost there. To avoid disadvantaging passengers, e-tickets would be enabled for all flows nationally without exception, ideally including PlusBus if Ticketer could be persuaded to update their scanners to scan e-ticket barcodes.

 

[Goldfish62]

I would suggest that the SWR plans for December 2022 provide a good example of what could be done. Basically cut as many peak extras as you can get away with, reduce 4tph to 2tph where possible (and in one case 2tph down to 1tph off-peak), but broadly retain weekend services as is.

Pretty much taking the timetable back to where it was 20 years ago.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pretty much taking the timetable back to where it was 20 years ago.

I was going to say that other than the number of "no Sunday service" routes that date back to when Sunday wasn't a shopping day, the pre-1998 timetable is not a bad place to look for the likes of Northern, but with longer trains. It really wasn't that bad, and at least did manage to operate reliably on Castlefield (arguably it hasn't since).

With regard to Merseyrail, I wonder what impact on ridership going to 2tph (but all double units) all week would be, perhaps plus a few peak extras? Could that make it less grossly unremunerative? Plenty of people still use it on Sundays, yet 4tph is classically operated all day on weekdays including when it's quiet during the day. Perhaps it could be 2tph all day, but 4tph from 7-9am and 4-6:30pm ish? (With regard to commuters, Merseyside is much more of a blue-collar/low-level office employment culture, so I doubt commuting will take the same sort of long-term dip as London). An easy cut would be not to go back to 4tph to Chester, though, or to do it by making Ellesmere Port a shuttle from Hooton. Or even portion working the two routes (batteries through to Helsby would roughly equalise the running times).

 

[AM9]

You raise an interesting point about energy costs.

It seems that energy requirements seem to go up with every generation of units. I know people are talking about removing the 15x units, but are they 195 (as an example) cheaper to operate in terms of fuel and maintenance. I know on the EMU side with all the new mod-cons such as air-conditioning the power draw is increasing with every generation of unit.

I can see that energy demand on all MUs is increasing giving better acceleration and passenger creature comforts, but it a different equasion for EMUs vs DMUs. With EMUs (and BEMUs), a degree of the energy can be recovered by regeneration, whereas the kinetic energy in a moving overpowered DMU like a 195 is sent into the environment as heat, so along with the CO2, a double whammy on climate change. Also, providing more performance for aa DMU requires a greater increase in tare weight with both engine and fuel mass than an EMU where the increase in traction motor and transformer mass is largely cancelled out with developments in electric traction. I would add to my list above, the impact on climate as a bonus of reducing diesel vs electric services even if the saving was the same as a similar electric service.

[QUOTE="Failed Unit, post: 5434413, member: 3366"I understand regional services are expensive to operate, but then I am also told that cutting back a service to save a diagram doesn't cost that much. This was probably true under BR when I understand the majority of the costs were keeping the line upto standard, but is this still the case where the line is NR problem?[/QUOTE]
I doubt that the DfT discriminates between end costs of train operating budgets and infrastructure maintenance. Cost is cost to the exchequer.

 

[PTR 444]

I’m thinking about routes which see at least 4 trains per hour on the exact same stopping pattern, so maybe pruning shorter workings of these might be a good start. Perhaps services such as:

• 2tph of London Victoria - Sutton via Selhurst
• 2tph of London Bridge - Coulsdon Town
• 2tph of Brighton - Hove shuttle
• 2tph of Brighton - Lewes
• 1tph of London Victoria - Bromley South
• 1tph of London Charing Cross - Tunbridge Wells
• 1tph of London Charing Cross - Hayes

 

[HSTEd]

Given how (relatively) cheap new trains are these days, what kind of timetabling headache would it cause if XC were to replace the Voyagers on the Manchester-South East trains with 3-car 197s?

A 3-car Turbostar-type job matches a 4-car 220 on seating capacity, and you could run treble units if you really needed to.

Running a 3-car Turbostar/CAF thing is going to cost dramatically less than a 4-car Voyager

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given how (relatively) cheap new trains are these days, what kind of timetabling headache would it cause if XC were to replace the Voyagers on the Manchester-South East trains with 3-car 197s?

A 3-car Turbostar-type job matches a 4-car 220 on seating capacity, and you could run treble units if you really needed to.

Running a 3-car Turbostar/CAF thing is going to cost dramatically less than a 4-car Voyager

I'm not sure ordering new stock is a very good way of cutting costs. If XC is permanently going to be running the reduced timetable, taking the Avanti Voyagers and reforming them to 7 or 8-car sets (using the spare end cars for parts recovery) would probably be a better bet. You could keep some at 5 for quieter diagrams. That way you only need one guard and one trolley pusher, even with the silly rule in place.

 

[Goldfish62]

I'm not sure ordering new stock is a very good way of cutting costs. If XC is permanently going to be running the reduced timetable, taking the Avanti Voyagers and reforming them to 7 or 8-car sets (using the spare end cars for parts recovery) would probably be a better bet. You could keep some at 5 for quieter diagrams. That way you only need one guard and one trolley pusher, even with the silly rule in place.

Potentially irrelevant anyway as it was mentioned very recently on another thread that the pre-Covid timetable is being reinstated in May. Although this could of course change!

 

[AM9]

I'm not sure ordering new stock is a very good way of cutting costs. If XC is permanently going to be running the reduced timetable, taking the Avanti Voyagers and reforming them to 7 or 8-car sets (using the spare end cars for parts recovery) would probably be a better bet. You could keep some at 5 for quieter diagrams. That way you only need one guard and one trolley pusher, even with the silly rule in place.

Especially buying yet more examples of dead-end diesel-only technology traction.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Is it me or are people getting a little confused here. Are we talking about cuts from the Pre Covid timetable, or cuts from the current timetable which is much reduced from the pre covid timetable.

 

[Esker-pades]

Given how (relatively) cheap new trains are these days, what kind of timetabling headache would it cause if XC were to replace the Voyagers on the Manchester-South East trains with 3-car 197s?

A 3-car Turbostar-type job matches a 4-car 220 on seating capacity, and you could run treble units if you really needed to.

Running a 3-car Turbostar/CAF thing is going to cost dramatically less than a 4-car Voyager

A ****ing massive one. We've just finished a re-write that should last up to the introduction of HS2.

 

[JonathanH]

Is it me or are people getting a little confused here. Are we talking about cuts from the Pre Covid timetable, or cuts from the current timetable which is much reduced from the pre covid timetable.

Almost certainly further cuts, particularly on middle distance services into London. It has indicated in other threads that further cutbacks will be needed relative to the current timetable to address the funding gap.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Almost certainly further cuts, particularly on middle distance services into London. It has indicated in other threads that further cutbacks will be needed relative to the current timetable to address the funding gap.

Are you sure about that?

 

[The Planner]

Are you sure about that?

Would say its pretty much certain.

 

[Wolfie]

I'm not sure ordering new stock is a very good way of cutting costs. If XC is permanently going to be running the reduced timetable, taking the Avanti Voyagers and reforming them to 7 or 8-car sets (using the spare end cars for parts recovery) would probably be a better bet. You could keep some at 5 for quieter diagrams. That way you only need one guard and one trolley pusher, even with the silly rule in place.

Makes sense to me

Given how (relatively) cheap new trains are these days, what kind of timetabling headache would it cause if XC were to replace the Voyagers on the Manchester-South East trains with 3-car 197s?

A 3-car Turbostar-type job matches a 4-car 220 on seating capacity, and you could run treble units if you really needed to.

Running a 3-car Turbostar/CAF thing is going to cost dramatically less than a 4-car Voyager

Hardly compatible with getting rid of diesels. Unless of course you mean trying to take TfW's in which case expect a spectacular political battle.. and what would TfW use?

 

[HSTEd]

Hardly compatible with getting rid of diesels. Unless of course you mean trying to take TfW's in which case expect a spectacular political battle.. and what would TfW use?

We aren't going to be getting rid of diesels - that ship sailed a long time ago. The railway is fundamentally incapable or unwilling to do that in the next couple of decades. This is the place that gives its signalling transition programme such long lifespans that people working on the project have a decent chance of not even living to see it finished.

We can burn tonnes of money and diesel running Voyagers on routes for the next thirty years or we could buy some much more fuel and cost efficient units to do it - ultimately those are the options we have.

 

[Wolfie]

We aren't going to be getting rid of diesels - that ship sailed a long time ago. The railway is fundamentally incapable or unwilling to do that in the next couple of decades. This is the place that gives its signalling transition programme such long lifespans that people working on the project have a decent chance of not even living to see it finished.

We can burn tonnes of money and diesel running Voyagers on routes for the next thirty years or we could buy some much more fuel and cost efficient units to do it - ultimately those are the options we have.

Given that Government has said otherwise l imagine litigation would follow any attempts to buy yet more pure diesels. You better get used to the fact that the railway will have to clean up. Dirty old technology is no longer acceptable to increasing numbers of people.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Given that Government has said otherwise l imagine litigation would follow any attempts to buy yet more pure diesels. You better get used to the fact that the railway will have to clean up. Dirty old technology is no longer acceptable to increasing numbers of people.

The government has said many things.......