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

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Arguably using Voyagers for now (perhaps re-formed) is better use of money, as HS2 is going to make vast swathes of XC redundant anyway.

 

[LowLevel]

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.

Funnily enough in my neck of the woods that assessment of a staffed or no railway certainly wasn't what came about - BR started de-staffing the stations from the 60s onwards and by the 90s when the final tranche before privatisation happened "The East Midlands" away from the larger town/city stations had hardly any manned stations at all. Compare it to the North West and the West Midlands and it is pretty stark.

As recently as 2015 or so pretty much all of our routes were pay train and to this day there still aren't plans to install TVMs everywhere.

I suspect there will be a push to where there are the greatest savings available to reduce staffing levels but I don't think universal DOO is likely - you get the most value from on board staff on regional/Intercity trains and arguably the least on suburban services where you need far more of them.

A guard on an hourly train that runs for 80 miles serving very few manned stations but still with decent loadings checking tickets, assisting passengers, reporting station issues and so on will always come out far better in the value for money stakes than one who works on a train that runs 10 minutely to mostly manned stations every mile or two who never gets to leave the cab. I can't disagree with focusing on where you get the most benefit.

 

[Kingston Dan]

Abolish the Office of Road and Rail, 10% reduction in DfT, Cabinet Office and Treasury budgets should do it.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Abolish the Office of Road and Rail, 10% reduction in DfT, Cabinet Office and Treasury budgets should do it.

YES!!!!

 

[Wolfie]

Abolish the Office of Road and Rail, 10% reduction in DfT, Cabinet Office and Treasury budgets should do it.

Hahaha.... Nice try....

 

[mmh]

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.

Litigation over a change in government policy, or even just a delay in the implementation of an unchanged policy? Good luck with that. It's simply not how things work.

Arguably using Voyagers for now (perhaps re-formed) is better use of money, as HS2 is going to make vast swathes of XC redundant anyway.

Wait. This thread is about what needs to be cut to reduce spending, with many nods to a presumed continuing reduced demand, but HS2 is untouchable?

 

[Wolfie]

Litigation over a change in government policy, or even just a delay in the implementation of an unchanged policy? Good luck with that. It's simply not how things work.

I have to say that your post, with all due respect, is unmitigated rubbish. I suggest that you read about ClientEarth's litigation against HMG. The latter have lost at every stage both domestic and European.

 

[172007]

It's all very well thinning services but, if you drop from 6 an hour to 4 like some lines you end up with uneven gaps in the timetable. At some point the timetable will ideally need to be rebalanced out.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Wait. This thread is about what needs to be cut to reduce spending, with many nods to a presumed continuing reduced demand, but HS2 is untouchable?

HS2 is CAPEX not OpEx.

Abolish the Office of Road and Rail, 10% reduction in DfT, Cabinet Office and Treasury budgets should do it.

YES!!!!

Hahaha.... Nice try....

Well I believe in leading/governing by example. I agree with Kingston Dan - savings could undoubtedly be made in those areas.

 

[HSTEd]

Wait. This thread is about what needs to be cut to reduce spending, with many nods to a presumed continuing reduced demand, but HS2 is untouchable?

Even if you could somehow axe HS2 without enormous penalties in the contracts with the builders - the cost of HS2 won't actually get you very far at the rate at which the railway is haemmorhaging money.

 

[Wolfie]

Well I believe in leading/governing by example. I agree with Kingston Dan - savings could undoubtedly be made in those areas.

Central Government has been subject to ongoing savings measures for years. In the SR my employer was asked to look at 10 and 25% reductions.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Transport in Scotland is of course devolved - but - Caledonian Sleeper seems a hell of a drain on money.

 

[mmh]

I have to say that your post, with all due respect, is unmitigated rubbish. I suggest that you read about ClientEarth's litigation against HMG. The latter have lost at every stage both domestic and European.

Central Government has been subject to ongoing savings measures for years. In the SR my employer was asked to look at 10 and 25% reductions.

If you're a civil servant - I'm a former one - I'm surprised you don't think of such litigation as elaborate legal theatre.

Even if you could somehow axe HS2 without enormous penalties in the contracts with the builders - the cost of HS2 won't actually get you very far at the rate at which the railway is haemmorhaging money.

This sounds like the sunk cost fallacy. The biggest risk HS2 has is new leadership. Those waiting in the wings will be well aware that axing it would be a vote winner with an increasingly disillusioned Conservative electorate.

 

[JonathanH]

Taken from the thread about cuts

Perhaps later evening trains from kings cross could all go via Leeds to Newcastle and Edinburgh once leeds to Colton junction electrified? Slower journey, but more likely to fill train.

Did that happen on a timetabled basis prior to ECML electrification? The idea of 'catch all' late night services serving more than one day time flow does seem better than cutting out one or the other or having fairly empty trains.

Consolidating multiple services to ensure they run full, but slower, does seem to be a good principle. There are multiple places in the South East where this is needed reversing the process which had evolved in the decades prior to March 2020.

 

[Wolfie]

If you're a civil servant - I'm a former one - I'm surprised you don't think of such litigation as elaborate legal theatre.



This sounds like the sunk cost fallacy. The biggest risk HS2 has is new leadership. Those waiting in the wings will be well aware that axing it would be a vote winner with an increasingly disillusioned Conservative electorate.

I am a current Civil Servant. Having spent eight years handling litigation against two different departments, as well as public and parliamentary inquiries, l assure you that l take it very, very seriously indeed. As did the Permanent Secretary to one of those departments when he was under threat of having to appear in person to explain how things had gone wrong. As did the Secretary of State when she was threatened with contempt of Court charges.

 

[HSTEd]

Consolidating multiple services to ensure they run full, but slower, does seem to be a good principle. There are multiple places in the South East where this is needed reversing the process which had evolved in the decades prior to March 2020.

Is this such a big saving compared to making use of the short trains we have now (even though I think they were a mistake) and simply splitting the train into a Leeds and Newcastle portion at Doncaster?

This sounds like the sunk cost fallacy. The biggest risk HS2 has is new leadership. Those waiting in the wings will be well aware that axing it would be a vote winner with an increasingly disillusioned Conservative electorate.

Well its not a sunk cost fallacy - I'm not saying we've spent money so we have to keep spending it - I am simply pointing out that the marginal cost saving from cancelling now will not go very far with a railway haemmorhaging money as fast as this one is.

 

[mmh]

Well its not a sunk cost fallacy - I'm not saying we've spent money so we have to keep spending it - I am simply pointing out that the marginal cost saving from cancelling now will not go very far with a railway haemmorhaging money as fast as this one is.

HS2 will not be free to operate.

 

[HSTEd]

HS2 will not be free to operate.

It will however be considerably cheaper to operate per passenger carried than the conventional railways it relieves.

HS2, by relieving the railway's responsibility to carry huge numbers of passengers on the extremely expensive to operate WCML, will net save the railway money.
Indeed the sensible play would be build the committed parts of HS2 and then to divert as much traffic as possible onto them

 

[matacaster]

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.

Whilst for some stations destaffing might be the only answer, other possibilities might present themselves. Perhaps some lightly used ticket offices could offer food, snacks drinks using the existing staff if there is room. These are things that many small shops have embraced to stay in business. The same staff could also take parcels for Amazon etc. The problem with the railway in this is that the unions are he'll bent on keeping tightly specified jobs. However, see how Aldi and Lidl now pay MORE than some traditional supermarkets as they really value maximum flexibility which facilitates low prices. Aldi managersxand staff get on the tills or fill the shelves, at Morrisons, the checkout staff sit on their butts if no one to serve.

It will however be considerably cheaper to operate per passenger carried than the conventional railways it relieves.

HS2, by relieving the railway's responsibility to carry huge numbers of passengers on the extremely expensive to operate WCML, will net save the railway money.
Indeed the sensible play would be build the committed parts of HS2 and then to divert as much traffic as possible onto them

I am interested to know how much saving will come from the transfer of many services to HS2. Will the 4-tracking be reduced to 2? I can see that maintenance might be reduced a bit and staffing reduced, but surely the freed up space will be used for commuter services and freight and that is hardly light on track maintenance. To me it seems that HS2 actually adds to running costs overall. I am more than happy to bedisproved on this as my view is not backed by any figures, just gut feel. Discuss!

 

[stuu]

I am interested to know how much saving will come from the transfer of many services to HS2. Will the 4-tracking be reduced to 2? I can see that maintenance might be reduced a bit and staffing reduced, but surely the freed up space will be used for commuter services and freight and that is hardly light on track maintenance. To me it seems that HS2 actually adds to running costs overall. I am more than happy to bedisproved on this as my view is not backed by any figures, just gut feel. Discuss!

Well-used high speed lines have consistently shown an operating profit all over the world, Hs2 will be no different. Barring perpetual lockdowns or other acts of god, there is no way it will add to overall running costs.

It should earn extra revenue as well, both through increased passenger demand and using the released capacity on the WCML. Removing the heavy pendolinos, and possibly reducing the top speeds to 110mph, will lower the maintenance requirements and thus costs

 

[The Planner]

It should earn extra revenue as well, both through increased passenger demand and using the released capacity on the WCML. Removing the heavy pendolinos, and possibly reducing the top speeds to 110mph, will lower the maintenance requirements and thus costs

It wouldnt, as 110mph still keeps it in category 1 and with the amount of tonnage using the WCML it puts it into 1A. You would need a further reduction in speed and a lot less trains.

 

[stuu]

It wouldnt, as 110mph still keeps it in category 1 and with the amount of tonnage using the WCML it puts it into 1A. You would need a further reduction in speed and a lot less trains.

Ok thanks, I thought I had read that 110mph was a slightly lower maintenance requirement

 

[Purple Orange]

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

There will still be the opportunity for growth. Take the XC services as an example, cutting to 1 tph may mean it is better to reallocate the 2nd path to a different combination of services

 

[James90012]

I think this is only one end of the spectrum. Cutting services here and there based on ridership, or even worse, solely revenue basis may well give excuses to cut some of the light fat in the system - but it's not going to give you the changes that might be needed or the bigger savings which are possible to ensure the railway is more sustainable.

True cost savings come from timetable recasts, seeing the overall rolling stock pool as one, and seeing service specification as one too. Ironically when you break this down there may well be a case for some sort of investment in fleet particularly.

The problem is this kind of recast takes time, so I suspect we're in for some pretty arbitrary and rough cuts in the short term - but that also suits as it would be ludicrous to make substantial changes until there is more clarity on just how many people will come back to peak rail, particularly in the South East.

 

[HSTEd]

I am interested to know how much saving will come from the transfer of many services to HS2. Will the 4-tracking be reduced to 2? I can see that maintenance might be reduced a bit and staffing reduced, but surely the freed up space will be used for commuter services and freight and that is hardly light on track maintenance.

The government may chose to fund those extra services - but it is not required to do so.

To me it seems that HS2 actually adds to running costs overall. I am more than happy to bedisproved on this as my view is not backed by any figures, just gut feel. Discuss!

Well if you want to provide passenger service from Birmingham to London, it takes many more trains, with the resultant additional crews to do it.

For example, it is likely the Birmingham service will go from a 4 hour "cycle time" to 2 hours.
So you've cut the number of traincrews by half.

On top of that, HS2 is almost certain to be DOO, so you've eliminated half the safety trained traincrew.

Given the much shorter journey, expectations of service "quality" in first class will be dramatically reduced - reducing the need for the very expensive catering and other services in first class. You also won't need tilt trains which consumes significant maintenance resources and burns quite a lot of energy due to weight.

On top of this, the cut in journey times would be expected to lead to more demand, and thanks to 400m trains capacity can be very cheaply increased to soak up all that sweet sweet revenue.

It wouldnt, as 110mph still keeps it in category 1 and with the amount of tonnage using the WCML it puts it into 1A. You would need a further reduction in speed and a lot less trains.

Well.... how much time would the typical non ICWC trains lose if it wasn't 110mph any more but dropped back to 100mph?

Isn't the 110mph thing primarily meant to ease pathing for Pendolinos?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst for some stations destaffing might be the only answer, other possibilities might present themselves. Perhaps some lightly used ticket offices could offer food, snacks drinks using the existing staff if there is room. These are things that many small shops have embraced to stay in business. The same staff could also take parcels for Amazon etc. The problem with the railway in this is that the unions are he'll bent on keeping tightly specified jobs. However, see how Aldi and Lidl now pay MORE than some traditional supermarkets as they really value maximum flexibility which facilitates low prices. Aldi managersxand staff get on the tills or fill the shelves, at Morrisons, the checkout staff sit on their butts if no one to serve.

I think a nose at the not-really-success of Merseyrail's Mtogo (most if not all of which are being converted back to regular booking offices) will suggest that that just gives you something that is neither a particularly good booking office nor a particularly good convenience store, and quite expensive to staff, too. A small format supermarket concession with a couple of TVMs outside is almost certain to be better for everyone, the supermarket also providing a staff presence which while not rail trained are capable of calling the Police if they "see something that doesn't look right", as it were, or someone asks them for help.

 

[The Planner]

Well.... how much time would the typical non ICWC trains lose if it wasn't 110mph any more but dropped back to 100mph?

Isn't the 110mph thing primarily meant to ease pathing for Pendolinos?

Depends on your view of it, 110mph was to fit things in between Pendolinos, not to make it easier for them as they would be on the graph first.

Simple maths tells you the other bit, 1 mile at 100mph is 36 seconds, 1 mile at 125mph is 29 seconds. 8½ miles and you have lost a minute. Wembley where the speed increases to MK is about 41 miles so you will lose over 4 minutes. Go as far as Rugby at 82 miles and you are down over 8 minutes.

 

[ScotGG]

"I would preferably go for services where there is already adequate provision (ideally 4+tph)"

That's one of the the worst places to do it. You then remove turn up and go (every 15 mins generally) which has been shown to encourage people to use rail to a greater extent.

Cut that to 2tph and watch people avoid rail as it's too risky if just one cancellation or busy train arrives that cannot be boarded.

Probably peak frequencies which are 4+ IF they are not already busy. Say 8 to 6 tph

We are however buying straight into the treasury austerity narrative and how public services are funded.

Little thought that cutting rail increases congestion which harms business and health costs long term.

Much Treasury action is dated thinking when the BoE prints money anyway.

 

[InTheEastMids]

In England at least, I wonder what cuts the current administration has the political capital to take on right now.
This is thinking both narrowly about the IRP debacle and more broadly about support (amongst Conservative MPs) for the current administration.

If the railway is going to be administratively more simple, then delay attribution might seem increasingly like an expensive wooden dollars exercise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"I would preferably go for services where there is already adequate provision (ideally 4+tph)"

That's one of the the worst places to do it. You then remove turn up and go (every 15 mins generally) which has been shown to encourage people to use rail to a greater extent.

Cut that to 2tph and watch people avoid rail as it's too risky if just one cancellation or busy train arrives that cannot be boarded.

Every 15 minutes isn't "turn up and go"; 14 minutes in the cold and rain is unpleasant and unnecessary. Most people will look at the timetable (on their phone) and leave for the station at an appropriate time, or will just know what it is (from my parents' house it's 10 minutes before departure). You aren't really getting into true "turn up and go" until you get above 6tph in my view. Yes, Metrolink, but you have no choice but to turn up for that as they don't respect passengers enough to provide a public timetable.

Merseyrail is heavily used on Sundays when it's 2tph all day, and would still be heavily used if the daytime service was to be reduced to 2tph recognising that weekdays between about 1000 and 1500 are very quiet, certainly quieter than Sundays and evenings.

The biggest gain is going from 1 to 2tph. There's a very good reason why the Swiss have chosen 2tph as the "magic number" for their Takt.