"The North Of England Is Getting A Rough Deal" discussion

[Bill Stanier]

Tax revenue from the likes of Amazon! Yeah right.

The likes of Amazon pay every penny of UK tax they are legally obliged to. If they didn't, the taxman would be after them.

The likes of Margaret Hodge just make themselves look silly when they publicly lambaste them for.... what? Hodge and her workmates make tax law; if the law allows the likes of Amazon to avoid paying as much tax as Hodge would like, the problem isn't with the likes of Amazon, it's with the likes of Hodge.

She's like the landlady who sets the rent at £1,000 per month, then castigates the tenant for not paying £1,500!

 

[northwichcat]

There's "promises" and then there are "promises".

However I think that it's worth comparing the reaction in "the north" to getting cascaded stock from elsewhere.

I don't remember many complaints about getting nine modern 170s from SWT (but then SWT were getting some 1980s DMUs to replace them, so there wasn't the idea that "the north" was getting "southern cast-offs, since "the north" was getting the younger stock).

I don't remember many complaints about getting three modern 180s from FGW (but then FGW were getting some 1970s HSTs to replace them, so there wasn't the idea that "the north" was getting "southern cast-offs, since "the north" was getting the younger stock).

However, when "the north" is getting cascaded stock due to "the south" getting brand new trains, the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude seems to come to the fore.

There was a thread on here a while back about what the reaction was when SWT gave up the 170s and it was pointed out the route the 170s were used on was no longer a route SWT operated and the 158s were refurbished and put on the lines which already had 158s/159s.

The Hull route was the first one to see 185s but when TPE first got the 170s they were primarily based on the Hull route so techically older stock replaced newer stock even though most people wouldn't have known.

The South West did complain about getting cast-offs when they got 142s on a short term lease to cover a refurbishment program.

The 180s did not come directly from FGW, they were in storage and were to be used on NXEC's new Lincoln services. As the LO 150s weren't released in time and FGW managed to persuade DfT they couldn't release the 142s even when their refurbishment program was complete because they needed extra capacity, it was a choice of run Hazel Grove to Bolton only or run Hazel Grove to Preston but sub-lease some 180s from NXEC.

There have also been complaints about the Northern reshuffle which saw the non-refurbished 150s operating in the former FNW area, with the former FNW 158s operating in the former ATN area. While there was a media fuss in West Yorkshire when the possibility of using 323s in West Yorkshire was looked in to, even though there aren't inferior to the 321s.

There were no complaints from Manchester to South Wales passengers about getting cascaded 175s. Although there were when 185s replaced older Voyagers on Manchester-Scotland services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The likes of Amazon pay every penny of UK tax they are legally obliged to. If they didn't, the taxman would be after them.

Although they work their business so that a lot of revenue from UK sales goes through an Irish business.

 

[sonorguy]

The likes of Amazon pay every penny of UK tax they are legally obliged to. If they didn't, the taxman would be after them.

The likes of Margaret Hodge just make themselves look silly when they publicly lambaste them for.... what? Hodge and her workmates make tax law; if the law allows the likes of Amazon to avoid paying as much tax as Hodge would like, the problem isn't with the likes of Amazon, it's with the likes of Hodge.

She's like the landlady who sets the rent at £1,000 per month, then castigates the tenant for not paying £1,500!

And, lest we forget, Margaret Hodge is the richest MP in the Commons by some margin, with a huge family fortune that's all cleverly invested in (perfectly legal, I will point out, just like Amazon, Starbucks et al) tax reduction/minimisation schemes.

Do as I say, not what I do.......

That said it would be interesting to see if those who complain about tax reduction schemes and the amount paid by wealthy individuals/large companies would willingly pay the taxman more than they absolutely had to, should they be in that kind of financial situation. I think not.....

 

[HH]

Northern Rail Limited make £20m in net profits per year, so would a cut in subsidy of around £10m not be possible without staff cuts?

They're looking for rather more than a £10m reduction... That would hardly make a scratch in the subsidy.

 

[northwichcat]

They're looking for rather more than a £10m reduction... That would hardly make a scratch in the subsidy.

Well apparently electric trains are substantially cheaper to operate than diesel ones, or at least that's what people keep saying.

 

[Hebden Bridger]

They're looking for rather more than a £10m reduction... That would hardly make a scratch in the subsidy.

Too right adding another zero would my guess, if the subsidy is going to reflect the cuts in non-ringfenced government spending between 2008 and 2020.

And while some may want to blame the government, the Labour Party have signed up to the Coalition spending plans for the next parliament. So there won't be any magic money tree.

 

[yorksrob]

An interesting point.

London's infrastructure (both in terms of rail and road) has changed relatively little over the last few generations. There have been some big schemes (Jubilee Line extension) and some local hot spots (DLR, Tramlink), but I reckon that a tourist who last visited London in the "swinging sixties" could navigate their way around the modern capital reasonably well with their 1960s A-Z and their 1960s Tube Map.

The same period has seen some huge changes in the same decades - I don't fancy driving round central Manchester/ Leeds etc with a 1960s road map (given the inner-city motorways and dual carriageways that have cut chunks through the landscape) - there was obviously no 1960s Metrolink map because such a system of long distance trams did not exist back then.

So whilst London has the "existing underground system" to rely upon, it's had that system for a long time and tries to deal with huge passenger numbers without the kind of supply-increases that it has needed. Thankfully Crossrail will be a big help to demand on the Central Line and the northern side of the "Circle".

Ah, but you forget that whereas London has been allowed to muddle through, albeit with its existing infrastructure, areas like West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester saw some quite substantial cuts to their suburban railway services. Infact, some of the investment you point to, in terms of Manchester Metrolink, is merely putting back these links which were ripped out fifty years ago, so I don't think London can feel too hard done by in that respect.

I think that, in focussing on fares between two "northern" places and fares between two "southern" places, we are missing the point that southern passengers tend to be paying most of the cost of their journeys, whilst those in "the north" pay slightly under half the cost of their journeys (with the rest made up in local/central subsidies).

Since the staffing costs on a two coach Pacer aren't going to be much less than the staffing costs on a DOO twelve coach EMU (and diesel fuel for the Pacer is going to cost more per passenger than the electricity), one is clearly a lot less efficient.

Maybe, but such efficiencies require a lot of capital. London's local railway has seen electrification from the early 20th Century. Even with the current programmes, the North still has some catching up to do.

I don't know about boundary changes over the years, but William Hague's Richmond constituency does include Northallerton train station

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_(Yorks)_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Still doesn't negate the Ministers central point, that for decades, residents of places like Richmond North Yorkshire, who were, through policy decisions, deliberately denied access to local rail services, were subsidising London commuters.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Ah, but you forget that whereas London has been allowed to muddle through, albeit with its existing infrastructure, areas like West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester saw some quite substantial cuts to their suburban railway services. Infact, some of the investment you point to, in terms of Manchester Metrolink, is merely putting back these links which were ripped out fifty years ago, so I don't think London can feel too hard done by in that respect.

Prior to the Great War, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway did seek to move into the field of line electrification by the conversion of the Manchester to Bury line and the Liverpool to Southport line, but the advent of the Great War and the very short time after that ended to the 1922 amalgamation with the London and North Western Railway saw the end of that far-sighted ambition.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Too right adding another zero would my guess, if the subsidy is going to reflect the cuts in non-ringfenced government spending between 2008 and 2020.
And while some may want to blame the government, the Labour Party have signed up to the Coalition spending plans for the next parliament. So there won't be any magic money tree.

Absolutely right. On top of which the public sector cuts are only part way through.
I think DfT/Rail North would sign up to a Northern spec/bid which agreed to tackle the subsidy reduction over the lifetime of the new franchise.
It won't happen on Day 1, not least because it will take 5+ years to roll out electrification and Northern Hub.
But somebody has to address costs.

 

[HH]

Well apparently electric trains are substantially cheaper to operate than diesel ones, or at least that's what people keep saying.

They do. However the Pacers are dirt cheap to lease; replacement RS will cost a lot more. This is why Rail North are looking at RS financing; they desperately need to find a way to make the RS cheaper.

 

[northwichcat]

They do. However the Pacers are dirt cheap to lease; replacement RS will cost a lot more. This is why Rail North are looking at RS financing; they desperately need to find a way to make the RS cheaper.

Like I've pointed out before there are places where newer 3 car trains could run diagrams currently operated by 4 car Pacers without a noticeable reduction in capacity. Newer trains may have higher leasing costs but can have cheaper maintenance costs and be more fuel efficient but of course it's not always the case e.g. 185s use more diesel than 3 car 158s.

 

[Class377/5]

Like I've pointed out before there are places where newer 3 car trains could run diagrams currently operated by 4 car Pacers without a noticeable reduction in capacity. Newer trains may have higher leasing costs but can have cheaper maintenance costs and be more fuel efficient but of course it's not always the case e.g. 185s use more diesel than 3 car 158s.

But new trains will cost around 4 times more than a pacer (according to inddustry sources and the only real figures we have on this) which would never be covered by the reduced maintaince in reality.

 

[northwichcat]

But new trains will cost around 4 times more than a pacer (according to inddustry sources and the only real figures we have on this) which would never be covered by the reduced maintaince in reality.

I think the only figures publicly available are for track access charges and they show a 3 car 172 would be a 30% saving on a 4 car Pacer, which surprised quite a few people when the updated track access charges were made public. I think the likes of DfT and Northern want to make it sound like Pacers are very cheap and can be justified so don't give a detailed analysis with any claim so people can't say things like you've compared a 2 car Turbostar to a 2 car Pacer but a 4 car Pacer is the same length as a 3 car Turbostar.

 

[Class377/5]

I think the only figures publicly available are for track access charges and they show a 3 car 172 would be a 30% saving on a 4 car Pacer, which surprised quite a few people when the updated track access charges were made public. I think the likes of DfT and Northern want to make it sound like Pacers are very cheap and can be justified so don't give a detailed analysis with any claim so people can't say things like you've compared a 2 car Turbostar to a 2 car Pacer but a 4 car Pacer is the same length as a 3 car Turbostar.

I wasn't talking TAC but rental costs of units. As printed in MR the general cost of rental for refurbished unit is 2x of an unfurbished and a new unit x2 more expensive again. So the actual cost of just renting the units is massively increased by a new unit and your new 3 car idea looks to cost in rental similar to 2x 319s. Sorry but the latter is much better valve for a franchise that is looking to reduce costs as it can offer better capacity overall.

 

[northwichcat]

I wasn't talking TAC but rental costs of units. As printed in MR the general cost of rental for refurbished unit is 2x of an unfurbished and a new unit x2 more expensive again. So the actual cost of just renting the units is massively increased by a new unit and your new 3 car idea looks to cost in rental similar to 2x 319s. Sorry but the latter is much better valve for a franchise that is looking to reduce costs as it can offer better capacity overall.

The reason I mentioned TAC is because they seem to be the only thing for which exact costs are publicly available.

How much will the 319s cost post-refurbishment though? From the Porterbrook brochure it appears it's not a question of whether they will be refurbished but a question of what level of refurbishment will be carried out.

Of course the initial cost of installing overheads wires is huge which is why Network Rail say some rural routes may never justify the cost of being electrified and currently there are a lot of lines in the North with 30 year old DMUs with no plans for electrification of those lines.

 

[AM9]

Ah, but you forget that whereas London has been allowed to muddle through, albeit with its existing infrastructure, areas like West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester saw some quite substantial cuts to their suburban railway services. Infact, some of the investment you point to, in terms of Manchester Metrolink, is merely putting back these links which were ripped out fifty years ago....

Surely that was because passengers were deserting the railways for the new roads built in the 'M62 areas'. Even if London had got any significant road investment then the rail services would still have been far too heavily used to consider widespread closure.

Still doesn't negate the Ministers central point, that for decades, residents of places like Richmond North Yorkshire, who were, through policy decisions, deliberately denied access to local rail services, were subsidising London commuters.

Why are we getting so hung-up on a specious 'subsidy' argument? That's about as relevant as taxpayers in the more healthy areas of the UK complaining about subsidising higher healthcare costs of those in the unhealthy places, or people in cities complaining about subsidising the cost of postal deliveries in the Outer Hebrides. Rail subsidy is a fact of life across the world. There are of course cases of genuinely self-paying services, (and Thameslink is probably not one of them), it just depends on whatever spin the cost collection system puts on the actual figures.
The only relevance of actual ticket costs for 'similar' journeys is the benefit of getting the passenger from A to B and how much he/she pays. Rail infrastructure, rolling stock and service into major cities are scaled by the needs of commuters, Leisure travel is a bonus, both for the passenger who benefits from a capacity exceeding the daytime loading and for the operator who gets some revenue from stock that would either sit in sidings until the evening rush or be carrying air.
As I have said before, the average commuter, (i.e. not a trainspotter) just wants to do the journey with the minimum of delays, and, accepting that they are part of the overcrowding problem, - in as much comfort than can be reasonably provided. Of course, as elsewhere in life, there are quite a few vociferous and selfish types who choose to ignore that their wishes are part of the big picture.

 

[Class377/5]

The reason I mentioned TAC is because they seem to be the only thing for which exact costs are publicly available.

How much will the 319s cost post-refurbishment though? From the Porterbrook brochure it appears it's not a question of whether they will be refurbished but a question of what level of refurbishment will be carried out.

Of course the initial cost of installing overheads wires is huge which is why Network Rail say some rural routes may never justify the cost of being electrified and currently there are a lot of lines in the North with 30 year old DMUs with no plans for electrification of those lines.

Only justing one of the cost factors to justify trains is a silly idea. Especially when what little we do know of rental costs is fairly alarming in terms of pricing difference. I suggest your idea of new units fails to take into accout what little we do know and it's feasible in reality.

 

[northwichcat]

Only justing one of the cost factors to justify trains is a silly idea. Especially when what little we do know of rental costs is fairly alarming in terms of pricing difference. I suggest your idea of new units fails to take into accout what little we do know and it's feasible in reality.

Well if you can tell me exact figures for 142s and 150s compared to Turbostars then I might have a better idea. The way you've said is makes you sound like a salesperson who only has 319s available to lease.

 

[Class377/5]

There are of course cases of genuinely self-paying services, (and Thameslink is probably not one of them), it just depends on whatever spin the cost collection system puts on the actual figures.

As part of TSGN announcement FCC/Southern (the future TSGN parts) have a surplus after costs of £323m* in just 21012-13 with the expected surplus in 2021 of £800m. Thameslink is one of the few that is actually putting money back, hence the justfication of the upgrade works (which actually affects more than just FCC/Southern routes so benefits may be silghtly higher).

*note thats not far off Northern needs a year to keep going on its recent extension.

Well if you can tell me exact figures for 142s and 150s compared to Turbostars then I might have a better idea. The way you've said is makes you sound like a salesperson who only has 319s available to lease.

Not really, I'm just challenging yourself to make a vaild point but your not changing the goalpost now to avoid comparing pacers/319s/new stock.

Considering what I have mentioned is general figure rental costs of all units, you seem to be ignoring that on basis I can only talk about the 319s. Care to stay on topic for once please?

 

[yorksrob]

Surely that was because passengers were deserting the railways for the new roads built in the 'M62 areas'. Even if London had got any significant road investment then the rail services would still have been far too heavily used to consider widespread closure.

Before Ms Castle introduced her social railway, the only criteria for keeping a line open was whether it made a profit or not, not how many passengers used it.

Why are we getting so hung-up on a specious 'subsidy' argument? That's about as relevant as taxpayers in the more healthy areas of the UK complaining about subsidising higher healthcare costs of those in the unhealthy places, or people in cities complaining about subsidising the cost of postal deliveries in the Outer Hebrides. Rail subsidy is a fact of life across the world. There are of course cases of genuinely self-paying services, (and Thameslink is probably not one of them), it just depends on whatever spin the cost collection system puts on the actual figures.
The only relevance of actual ticket costs for 'similar' journeys is the benefit of getting the passenger from A to B and how much he/she pays. Rail infrastructure, rolling stock and service into major cities are scaled by the needs of commuters, Leisure travel is a bonus, both for the passenger who benefits from a capacity exceeding the daytime loading and for the operator who gets some revenue from stock that would either sit in sidings until the evening rush or be carrying air.
As I have said before, the average commuter, (i.e. not a trainspotter) just wants to do the journey with the minimum of delays, and, accepting that they are part of the overcrowding problem, - in as much comfort than can be reasonably provided. Of course, as elsewhere in life, there are quite a few vociferous and selfish types who choose to ignore that their wishes are part of the big picture.

In case you hadn't noticed, this whole argument boils down to subsidy. Subsidy is the whole reason why Northern rail has been singled out for potential cuts in the forthcoming consultation.

 

[northwichcat]

Not really, I'm just challenging yourself to make a vaild point but your not changing the goalpost now to avoid comparing pacers/319s/new stock.

Considering what I have mentioned is general figure rental costs of all units, you seem to be ignoring that on basis I can only talk about the 319s. Care to stay on topic for once please?

You're claiming the lower track access costs, fuel and maintenance costs aren't enough to offset the higher leasing costs, even if you are talking about 3 x 23m car trains instead of pairs of 2 x 15.5m car trains. As I said I only have the track access costs available so I'm asking you to provide the figures for the rest. If you don't have the figures for the rest then how do know a 3 car 172 costs LM as much as 2 x 4 car 319 costs FCC or that a new train costs 4 times more than a Pacer? I suspect the DfT wanted to compare a 2 car Turbostar with a 2 car 142 (or even a 185 with a 3 car 144) to make it look like Northern couldn't justify new trains and without seeing actual figures I can't discount that theory.

 

[Class377/5]

You're claiming the lower track access costs, fuel and maintenance costs aren't enough to offset the higher leasing costs, even if you are talking about 3 x 23m car trains instead of pairs of 2 x 15.5m car trains. As I said I only have the track access costs available so I'm asking you to provide the figures for the rest. If you don't have the figures for the rest then how do know a 3 car 172 costs LM as much as 2 x 4 car 319 costs FCC or that a new train costs 4 times more than a Pacer? I suspect the DfT wanted to compare a 2 car Turbostar with a 2 car 142 (or even a 185 with a 3 car 144) to make it look like Northern couldn't justify new trains and without seeing actual figures I can't discount that theory.

You talking about new trains replacing old and seem to ignore hat I put. Its been stated by industry sources in MR (check my previous posting where I stated this) the costing is x2 for refurbished and x4 for new. Can you not accept that those in the actual industry would know the figures thy deal with daily?

Its clear Northern can't afford new trains with the current set up requiring £1m a day subsidy to keep things here they are. Discussing new units replacing old means you'd have to ignore a business case to fund those new trains is your theory that lacks reality.

 

[tbtc]

How do you know that Manchester-Liverpool or Manchester-Blackpool have poor business cases? Have these been published?

Similarly how do you know that the passengers on these routes pay half the true cost, is there some kind of route analysis available ?

I'm pretty sure that the figures are available for the business cases - I'll have a look and see if I can dig them out.

From memory, the average Northern passenger pays 35p/ mile to travel, which means a subsidy from central/local government of around 40p per mile (i.e. passengers aren't even paying half of the cost)

We all pay the same rates of income tax, NI, VAT etc to government, we should receive similar services back.

No we shouldn't.

Should the Environment Agency spend the same amount of money per person that it does in London/ Birmingham as it does in Cumbria/ Cornwall?

Some things work better in urban areas - rail is mass transportation and a train that carries hundreds of people isn't the answer to every transport problem.

An EMU in London may be able to carry almost a thousand people at rush hour, but that doesn't mean that we should use the same blunt tool to meet travel demand in quieter areas.

Spend money where it's needed most and where it has the best case, rather than some kind of "tokenistic" idea of spending the same everywhere.

The north-south cross city services via the Hazel Grove and Windsor Link chords did not exist either, nor the Airport branch.
Modest investments compared to London's, but hugely important to today's northern rail map.

True. We quickly forget the improvements that we've seen (whilst complaining about other people getting improvements in their areas)

The South West did complain about getting cast-offs when they got 142s on a short term lease to cover a refurbishment program

I'm sure some people complained, but that's different from "the south west" complaining en masse.

There were no complaints from Manchester to South Wales passengers about getting cascaded 175s. Although there were when 185s replaced older Voyagers on Manchester-Scotland services

It would have been interesting if the DMUs for Wales were ex-London ones. I think that the main complaint about the 185s taking over Scottish services was due to them being shorter than the Voyagers that they replaced (and the fact that there was a reduction in services on the Manchester - Oxenholme corridor).

Ah, but you forget that whereas London has been allowed to muddle through, albeit with its existing infrastructure, areas like West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester saw some quite substantial cuts to their suburban railway services. Infact, some of the investment you point to, in terms of Manchester Metrolink, is merely putting back these links which were ripped out fifty years ago, so I don't think London can feel too hard done by in that respect

We spent a lot of money in northern England on infrastructure in those heady post-war years - sadly a lot of that money was spent on urban motorways/ dual carriageways that ripped through cities (M602 and A57M in Manchester, M621 and A58M in Leeds, Arundel Gate and Sheffield Parkway in Sheffield, A167M in Newcastle) rather than the railways.

London certainly didn't see an equivalent amount of spending on such urban roads, hence my point that you could probably drive round the capital with a fifty year old A-Z but would struggle in northern cities.

The money spent on those urban flyovers/underpasses etc are part of the reason for the cutting of rail services - people deserted trains when they could now drive into central Manchester/ Leeds/ Sheffield etc much easier than they used to.

In hindsight you could argue that we spent money on the wrong things back then, but you can't argue that we didn't have money to spend.

Maybe, but such efficiencies require a lot of capital. London's local railway has seen electrification from the early 20th Century. Even with the current programmes, the North still has some catching up to do.

Until the current splurge on Crossrail and Thameslink, there's not been many big heavy rail projects within the kind of fifty year timescale that I've mentioned above.

The fact that London is now seeing two big projects going ahead at the same time makes it look like they've always had a greater share of infrastructure investment, but until now it's been nothing like enough to keep up with the massive increase in demand.

Still doesn't negate the Ministers central point, that for decades, residents of places like Richmond North Yorkshire, who were, through policy decisions, deliberately denied access to local rail services, were subsidising London commuters.

Deliberately denied? I'm not sure what you mean.

Richmond isn't exactly a huge place (Wiki quotes a population of eight thousand, but I don't know what boundary definitions it uses), so never going to be a massive rail destination.

It's about fifteen miles from Northallerton (served by the same North Yorkshire MP) and closer still to Darlington. That's two main line stations fairly close by, which is better than a number of settlements with 8,000 residents can boast of.

I think the only figures publicly available are for track access charges and they show a 3 car 172 would be a 30% saving on a 4 car Pacer, which surprised quite a few people when the updated track access charges were made public

I don't think it's *that* surprising that a four coach sixtyish metre train costs more in track access charges than a three coach sixtyish metre train costs, since my understanding was that the track access charges are partly based upon the number of wheels (i.e. in proportion to "damage" to the track).

However the track access charges are only one part of the equation - quoting them without the ROSCO leasing fees means we are only seeing one part of the equation.

I appreciate that we aren't easily going to find out the ROSCO fees (commercial data etc), but at the moment we are basing things on only one bit of data.

Why are we getting so hung-up on a specious 'subsidy' argument? That's about as relevant as taxpayers in the more healthy areas of the UK complaining about subsidising higher healthcare costs of those in the unhealthy places, or people in cities complaining about subsidising the cost of postal deliveries in the Outer Hebrides. Rail subsidy is a fact of life across the world. There are of course cases of genuinely self-paying services, (and Thameslink is probably not one of them), it just depends on whatever spin the cost collection system puts on the actual figures.
The only relevance of actual ticket costs for 'similar' journeys is the benefit of getting the passenger from A to B and how much he/she pays. Rail infrastructure, rolling stock and service into major cities are scaled by the needs of commuters, Leisure travel is a bonus, both for the passenger who benefits from a capacity exceeding the daytime loading and for the operator who gets some revenue from stock that would either sit in sidings until the evening rush or be carrying air.
As I have said before, the average commuter, (i.e. not a trainspotter) just wants to do the journey with the minimum of delays, and, accepting that they are part of the overcrowding problem, - in as much comfort than can be reasonably provided. Of course, as elsewhere in life, there are quite a few vociferous and selfish types who choose to ignore that their wishes are part of the big picture.

Agreed.

The only difference is that we are all agreed on providing a decent level of healthcare/ education/ policing/ postal services etc in the Outer Hebrides (though it obviously costs more to provide), but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should spend the same on heavy rail in every constituency or have the same kind of provision in every constituency.

 

[AM9]

Before Ms Castle introduced her social railway, the only criteria for keeping a line open was whether it made a profit or not, not how many passengers used it.

Well if there weren't enough passengers using it, how could it make a profit?

In case you hadn't noticed, this whole argument boils down to subsidy. Subsidy is the whole reason why Northern rail has been singled out for potential cuts in the forthcoming consultation.

I think the case for Northen area investment is based on volume of passengers. If the cost of track electrification is amortised over the volume of passenger traffic, its probably just about justified. The additional cost of new stock would just push the case out of the window, so the investment cost is contained by using stock with capital values written down, i.e. 319s that are no longer suitable for the Thameslink role. Just because they are owned by a ROSCO, it doesn't mean that DfT can't put a written down value on them. If they were end of life, it would be the DfT that authorised new stock from public funds. The ROSCO is just a middleman that provides the airline equivalent of a wet-lease.
The fact that Northern has been asked to reduce costs is part negotiation strategy for the next bidding session and part the current government's attitude to investment on anything that doesn't make a profit. If London didn't have such a dependence on services into London they would apply the same pressure. the only Tory who really fights for London services is BoJo and he will change his tune when he ceases to be Mayor of London.

 

[yorksrob]

We spent a lot of money in northern England on infrastructure in those heady post-war years - sadly a lot of that money was spent on urban motorways/ dual carriageways that ripped through cities (M602 and A57M in Manchester, M621 and A58M in Leeds, Arundel Gate and Sheffield Parkway in Sheffield, A167M in Newcastle) rather than the railways.

London certainly didn't see an equivalent amount of spending on such urban roads, hence my point that you could probably drive round the capital with a fifty year old A-Z but would struggle in northern cities.

The money spent on those urban flyovers/underpasses etc are part of the reason for the cutting of rail services - people deserted trains when they could now drive into central Manchester/ Leeds/ Sheffield etc much easier than they used to.

In hindsight you could argue that we spent money on the wrong things back then, but you can't argue that we didn't have money to spend.

Until the current splurge on Crossrail and Thameslink, there's not been many big heavy rail projects within the kind of fifty year timescale that I've mentioned above.

The fact that London is now seeing two big projects going ahead at the same time makes it look like they've always had a greater share of infrastructure investment, but until now it's been nothing like enough to keep up with the massive increase in demand.

We may well have spent a lot of money on infrastructure in Leeds and Manchester for a while, but that wasn't on public transport. London and the South East simply didn't experience the same level of railway cuts that West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester did, so in comparative terms, it was not hard done by.

I would have thought that the Jubilee and Victoria lines would also count as a fairly large rail investment in the past fifty years.

Deliberately denied? I'm not sure what you mean.

Richmond isn't exactly a huge place (Wiki quotes a population of eight thousand, but I don't know what boundary definitions it uses), so never going to be a massive rail destination.

It's about fifteen miles from Northallerton (served by the same North Yorkshire MP) and closer still to Darlington. That's two main line stations fairly close by, which is better than a number of settlements with 8,000 residents can boast of.

It had its local railway station closed. Closed because it required subsidy, hence why the Minister made the comparison with commuter services in London, which at the time also required subsidy.

I presume you're not denying that the closure programme was a deliberate policy ?

 

[Grumpy]

Before Ms Castle introduced her social railway, the only criteria for keeping a line open was whether it made a profit or not, not how many passengers used it.

No it wasn't really. The Railway put up many loss making lines lines for closure, both pre and post Beeching. It would go to a hearing, the objectors would claim hardship etc and in many cases the closure was turned down.

So the railway had to carry the losses of these services, hopefully from the profits of the rest of the Business. The problem was these profits weren't sufficient to carry the lossmakers . Hence the 68 Act.

 

[yorksrob]

No it wasn't really. The Railway put up many loss making lines lines for closure, both pre and post Beeching. It would go to a hearing, the objectors would claim hardship etc and in many cases the closure was turned down.

So the railway had to carry the losses of these services, hopefully from the profits of the rest of the Business. The problem was these profits weren't sufficient to carry the lossmakers . Hence the 68 Act.

Actually my mistake, you're right in that hardship was a criteria for rejecting a closure, but it was the only one. There was no etcetera. You couldn't argue for example, that the local economy would suffer, or the seaside trade relied on the railway, or that you were about to build a thousand extra houses next to the station for example. Personal hardship was the only criteria that could be accepted by the TUCC's.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well if there weren't enough passengers using it, how could it make a profit?

True, but just because there weren't enough passengers to make a profit, it doesn't mean that there weren't substantial numbers of passengers. Don't forget, that a considerable proportion of the London commuter railway hasn't made a profit through a fait proportion of the 20th century.

I think the case for Northen area investment is based on volume of passengers. If the cost of track electrification is amortised over the volume of passenger traffic, its probably just about justified. The additional cost of new stock would just push the case out of the window, so the investment cost is contained by using stock with capital values written down, i.e. 319s that are no longer suitable for the Thameslink role. Just because they are owned by a ROSCO, it doesn't mean that DfT can't put a written down value on them. If they were end of life, it would be the DfT that authorised new stock from public funds. The ROSCO is just a middleman that provides the airline equivalent of a wet-lease.
The fact that Northern has been asked to reduce costs is part negotiation strategy for the next bidding session and part the current government's attitude to investment on anything that doesn't make a profit. If London didn't have such a dependence on services into London they would apply the same pressure. the only Tory who really fights for London services is BoJo and he will change his tune when he ceases to be Mayor of London.

Well, I'm not against cascades per se. What worries me is whether these will include enough additional capacity to deal with growth, and whether enough provision is being made for those routes which are unlikely to be electrified in the near future.

 

[paul1609]

I was under the impression that the Richmond branch only lasted so long because of use by the military to Catterick Camp which was served by a sub branch that required a reversal in Richmond station.
Once the military traffic had gone the branch was hopelessly uneconomic as there was already a good bus service from darlington via Richmond into the Dales.

 

[AM9]

We may well have spent a lot of money on infrastructure in Leeds and Manchester for a while, but that wasn't on public transport.

Not per se but it was public money for the public's transport use.

London and the South East simply didn't experience the same level of railway cuts that West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester did, so in comparative terms, it was not hard done by.

That was because London was using most of the existing rail infrastructure to capacity and was also heavily dependent on it as I said above. There were many closures of lines in the Home Counties resulting from the Beeching review. With the benefit of hindsight, some of those made valuable infill routes that with the spread of the Greater London built-up area, would now be seeing profitable levels of use and reducing road-use.

I would have thought that the Jubilee and Victoria lines would also count as a fairly large rail investment in the past fifty years.

The Victoria Line added about 10% to the tube's capacity within the GLC area only.
The Jubilee Line was not really new. The 1979 works added about 2.5 miles onto the end of the Stanmore branch of the Bakerloo. The Jubilee Line Extension skipped the last station of the '79 line (Charing Cross) and went on to Stratford. Even this longer extension means that over half of its length was really a part of the old Bakerloo Line.
I estimate that both the Victoria and Jubilee lines together added about 5-8% extra capacity to London's rail network capacity, which was far less than the increase in passenger traffic over the period from the '60s to 1999.

 

[Grumpy]

I think the case for Northen area investment is based on volume of passengers. If the cost of track electrification is amortised over the volume of passenger traffic, its probably just about justified. The additional cost of new stock would just push the case out of the window, so the investment cost is contained by using stock with capital values written down, i.e. 319s that are no longer suitable for the Thameslink role. Just because they are owned by a ROSCO, it doesn't mean that DfT can't put a written down value on them. If they were end of life, it would be the DfT that authorised new stock from public funds. The ROSCO is just a middleman that provides the airline equivalent of a wet-lease.
.

I don't think so. If you are clearly going to continue running services for the indefinite future ( I don't believe anyone is questioning the need for services such as Manchester-Liverpool) then the question is simply "What is the most efficient means of providing those services?" Either continue with diesel or electrify. Someone has cranked the numbers, fed in the alleged benefits of electrification, together with the costs of providing, and concluded that electrification is the solution. The phrase "If the cost of track electrification is amortised over the volume of passenger traffic, its probably just about justified" is nonsensical gobbleldygook.

The numbers used will have been real cash flow forecasts. The lease charges are real cash flows. The leasing companies are charging what they can for trains many will consider written down. However what's been written down in their books is irrelevant-they charge as much as they can. And those charges are what comes out of the Railway's bottom line. The reference to the Rosco's as middlemen is barmy. The DfT cant just make up some notional written down figures as you suggest, the Treasury wouldn't allow it. The actual cash you are going to have to pay out is what has to be used in the case.

Clearly the Lessors need to maximise the yield from their assets which includes trying to gain additional leasing years out of old stock. Hence they try to make them appealing with re-tractioning and refurbishment proposals. They may have quoted figures which have been used in the Business Case which should also cover such as maintenance, energy usage, effect on passenger demand etc all of which can be compared with new stock. It may be that the overall cash flows for old stock look better than new. But of course that should also be the case down south.