Why is the UK so bad at railways?

[Annetts key]

To be fair, the railway has had more than enough time to resurvey the network and sort out ELRs properly.

In some places, there are still arguments over which ELR applies…!

 

[zwk500]

In some places, there are still arguments over which ELR applies…!

Which demonstrates somebody has not taken control properly. It's a similar problem with LOR codes and the Freight loads book section codes. Every office has developed their own system, broadly aligned but none quite identical. As each office has consolidated nobody's had the time to review it properly, and so it gets baked into the collective memory. And now the argument becomes 'we can't change it because everybody knows this line as x' which then stops anything happening.

 

[yorksrob]

In some places, there are still arguments over which ELR applies…!

To be fair, that doesn't affect the day to day running of the system

 

[Fazaar1889]

ELR

What is ELR? Can't find anything useful on Google...

 

[zwk500]

To be fair, that doesn't affect the day to day running of the system

It has a bigger impact than you think, as possessions and stock clearances are done by ELR.

What is ELR? Can't find anything useful on Google...

Engineer's Line Reference, a set of letters, often with numbers suffixed used to identify each section of route uniquely. E.g. VTB1 is London Victoria to Windmill Bridge Junction, STS is Southerham Jn to Seaford. By combining an ELR with a mileage, you can (in theory) uniquely identify any position on the network. See: http://www.railwaycodes.org.uk/elrs/elr0.shtm

 

[Annetts key]

What is ELR? Can't find anything useful on Google...

Try this link

Edit, zwk500 got in just before me…

 

[The Ham]

well, actually, we’re not that bad. But could do better. What hampers us, in short is:

History, Geography, and Politics.

Indeed, I'd suggest that the last on your list of the is likely the biggest issue.

Just come across this quote attributed to a the Mayor of Bogotá, no less.

“A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation.” ​

This is probably more about urban buses and trams and what makes cities work properly, which they don't really in the UK.

Arguably the most used public transport system is lifts, if it rail network was run like most lifts are (free at the point of use, because they are funded because of the economic benefits they bring due to the movement of people) then or economy would be a lot stronger.

Especially given that rather than spending on cars and oil (with a lot of that going overseas) there would be a lot more local spending.

Americanization. Specifically, the surburbia dream. Even wants to live in the suburbs with two cars, like the USA, to show off their 'great' lifestyle, even though it's a terrible way to live. Walkable cities with good public transport have far happier populations than car centric ones.

Indeed, the dream of car ownership is often a millstone to their owners.

Because we have a political establishment that believes that the passenger railway should cover its costs.

Indeed, see my point about lifts.

The biggest problem is the Government are trying manage at a level they don't belong. Setting strategic direction and approving borrowing on the public purse is one thing, but micro-managing pay disputes and specifying x number of services between 06:00 and 09:59 is not helpful.

Indeed.

 

[RPI]

"Large chunk"? 13 of them were built for Devon and Cornwall, out of a total build of 96 142s, or 144 of all Pacers. 9% wasn't a large chunk last time I checked.

Thats subjective, if you lost 9% of you're income you'd consider it a large chunk.

But just for you I'll rephrase it then, "a significant chunk"

 

[JonathanH]

I had 100% confidence in the management of NetworkSouthEast, for example. They ran the railway and got me where I needed to be.

To some extent that is just a rose tinted view of what was going on in the early 1990s. Network SouthEast were likewise forced into cuts in the light of a recession in 1991, had 'misery lines', industrial action and issues with overcrowding on some routes, compounded with pressures on funding. You will remember the best bits of what you saw to suit your narrative.

The various documentaries of the time show the railway trying to do what it could to run the best possible service. I assume a documentary today would show a similar picture. Someone has to pay for the difference between fare income and costs, which gives that body a considerable say in how their money is spent.

 

[Brubulus]

1. Politicians dont like authorising projects that will go beyond the next election as the opposition may get the kudos.
2. Much spending is given the 'why not spend on schools and hospitals' type analysis.
3. Too many projects have yes man as middle management. They say crossrail was like a swan. looking serene above the water surface but the feet paddling away like mad underneath!
4. silly rows between local and central government.
5. the problem of compensating TOC's for closing lines so their services benefit, inflating project costs

Furthermore - what are the factors that have caused new lines, even non high speed to cost tens of millions of pounds per mile, with feasibility studies for junction upgrades (Ely North) to run into tens of millions.

 

[yorksrob]

To some extent that is just a rose tinted view of what was going on in the early 1990s. Network SouthEast were likewise forced into cuts in the light of a recession in 1991, had 'misery lines', industrial action and issues with overcrowding on some routes, compounded with pressures on funding. You will remember the best bits of what you saw to suit your narrative.

The various documentaries of the time show the railway trying to do what it could to run the best possible service. I assume a documentary today would show a similar picture. Someone has to pay for the difference between fare income and costs, which gives that body a considerable say in how their money is spent.

And what narrative do you have of how the railway should be run, aside from expecting passengers to put up with more of the same ?

 

[The Ham]

And what narrative do you have of how the railway should be run, aside from expecting passengers to put up with more of the same ?

My view is that they shouldn't be used as a political football and certainly not expected to "pay it's way", in the same way that we don't expect road tolls to cover the costs of the road network (given that road based taxes are to reduce fuel use).

 

[JonathanH]

My view is that they shouldn't be used as a political football and certainly not expected to "pay it's way", in the same way that we don't expect road tolls to cover the costs of the road network (given that road based taxes are to reduce fuel use).

Road tolls could potentially be set at a rate which would result in a surplus of funding for the road network.

No one expects the railway to "pay its way". However, the subsidy budget is finite and that is how it appears to be being managed.

 

[The Planner]

It has a bigger impact than you think, as possessions and stock clearances are done by ELR.

PPS (possession planning system) is still driven by LOR even if work is based off the ELR.

 

[The Ham]

Road tolls could potentially be set at a rate which would result in a surplus of funding for the road network.

No one expects the railway to "pay its way". However, the subsidy budget is finite and that is how it appears to be being managed.

Really (and these are so from pre Covid):

The Economic Case for Rail Subsidies

Service increases may pay for themselves through emissions reductions and safety improvements, even before factoring in congestion.

www.bloomberg.com

One argument against government rail subsidies is that public transportation should pay for its own costs through fares.

Train Fares Set To Rise After Government Cut In Railways Subsidy

Train Fares Set To Rise After Government Cut In Railways Subsidy

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

The government will reduce taxpayer contributions to the railways in Britain by £3.6bn a year before 2019,

Removing rail subsidies could end up benefiting passengers - British Politics and Policy at LSE

Taxpayer subsidies to the rail sector have increased dramatically in recent years, with concomitant fare increases attracting widespread condemnation. Richard Wellings argues that structural reform to the railways is necessary to reduce the burden on the public purse. Taxpayer subsidies to the...

blogs.lse.ac.uk

The economic case for phasing out subsidies is very strong. The taxes imposed on individuals and businesses to support the railways destroy jobs and hinder wealth creation in the wider economy.

 

[JonathanH]

Really (and these are so from pre Covid):

Well, no one except right wing ideologues.

 

[yorksrob]

My view is that they shouldn't be used as a political football and certainly not expected to "pay it's way", in the same way that we don't expect road tolls to cover the costs of the road network (given that road based taxes are to reduce fuel use).

I don't understand why we can't just copy what other countries in Europe do, it would be better than the current shambles.

Road tolls could potentially be set at a rate which would result in a surplus of funding for the road network.

No one expects the railway to "pay its way". However, the subsidy budget is finite and that is how it appears to be being managed.

The railway's being managed in such a way as to drive down revenue, not grow it. That is the problem.

 

[zwk500]

I don't understand why we can't just copy what other countries in Europe do, it would be better than the current shambles.

Land Rover owners.

The railway's being managed in such a way as to drive down revenue, not grow it. That is the problem.

Is it? It looks to me like it's being managed in such a way as to drive down costs but in a rather anaemic way. Mainly because I suspect the DfT has been directed to find ways to shrink the budget, fast (not the subsidy).

 

[Bletchleyite]

At present it is certainly being penny wise and pound foolish, as it were.

 

[yorksrob]

Is it? It looks to me like it's being managed in such a way as to drive down costs but in a rather anaemic way. Mainly because I suspect the DfT has been directed to find ways to shrink the budget, fast (not the subsidy).

Your second sentence answers the question in the first. It is.

 

[zwk500]

Your second sentence answers the question in the first. It is.

If you're managing for budget you ignore revenue completely and focus on expenditure. Driving down revenue doesn't stop the expenditure and increases the subsidy, there's no reason the DfT would look to do that.

 

[Annetts key]

At present it is certainly being penny wise and pound foolish, as it were.

Agree. They try to spend less and end up storing up more expensive problems for the near future. Reminds me of what has happened previously when this sort of cost cutting was done.

 

[yorksrob]

If you're managing for budget you ignore revenue completely and focus on expenditure. Driving down revenue doesn't stop the expenditure and increases the subsidy, there's no reason the DfT would look to do that.

If you "ignore" revenue, the chances are you're driving it down anyway, whether you like it or not.

 

[zwk500]

If you "ignore" revenue, the chances are you're driving it down anyway, whether you like it or not.

Which is very different to deliberately managing it specifically to drive down revenue, which is what you first claimed.

The DfT may well be causing deep-rooted problems by trying to plaster over the cracks at the moment, but that's different to deliberately tearing out the wiring first. If you were trying to drive down revenue you'd have skeleton services at awkward times with random gaps in afternoons etc, not regular patterns with early finishes, for example.

I do agree it's not being managed well either way.

 

[Bald Rick]

specifying x number of services between 06:00 and 09:59 is not helpful.

To be fair, this type of specification has been in place for nigh on 30 years.

if it wasn’t specified by the organisation that is paying for it, then plenty of lines would get no service at all.

Absolutely. That’s the problem with all the railway companies having been private and commercial and hence competing with each other. A free market does not always produce the best outcome.

Indeed. Had railways been centrally planned from the outset, and regulated in a different way, we’d have had rather fewer closures before and during Beeching, for the simple reason that much less would have been built in the first place. We’d have a smaller railway now, but much, much more efficient and effective. The Victorians didn’t do everything right.

Quite a lot of ‘branch line’ railway was built by railway companies who were limited in the profits they could make. Any excess profits (in % terms) were liable to be paid to Government, so many companies simply spent their excess profit on unnecessary bits or new railway to chase extra revenue and build up total profit rather than % profit. Again, we still have some of this railway today.

forced into cuts in the light of a recession in 1991, had 'misery lines', industrial action and issues with overcrowding on some routes, compounded with pressures on funding. You will remember the best bits of what you saw to suit your narrative.

Quite. I well remember the frequency cuts, formation shortening, and complete abandonment of Sunday services on some routes in 1991/92 in NSE. Rather similar to what’s happening now, history repeating.

 

[Brubulus]

Could rail deregulation on long distance and outer suburban routes work - paths bid for like slots at airports to return money to the government instead of franchising and the ORR trying to limit revenue abstraction. I know it wouldn't work on local and regional routes but on the most competitive routes it could increase quality of service and reduce fares.

 

[Bald Rick]

I know it wouldn't work on local and regional routes but on the most competitive routes it could increase quality of service and reduce fares.

It would do precisely the opposite with fares.

 

[yorksrob]

Quite. I well remember the frequency cuts, formation shortening, and complete abandonment of Sunday services on some routes in 1991/92 in NSE. Rather similar to what’s happening now, history repeating.

I don't recall Kent or Sussex being left with barely useable services for months on end, in the style of Avanti/TPE under NSE.

Even the little Marshlink always retained a reasonably reliable service.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't recall Kent or Sussex being left with barely useable services for months on end

Perhaps you didn’t travel on Sundays.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps you didn’t travel on Sundays.

Even the Marshlink managed a two hourly service in those days.

I think you're clutching at straws.