Back to the bad old days’: swingeing rail cuts set alarm bells ringing

[tbtc]

There's a couple of "arguments" that are getting pretty tiring:

So let's limit people's freedoms..... don't you think people have had enough of their freedoms being limited over the last 18 months ?

As ever it's the anti-freedom of choice brigade shifting the goal-posts - for years it was the emissions argument, now that fox is being shot it's something else.

Why not just be honest, you don't like people being able to travel using private transport ?

1. People who want to remove people's ability to use their cars (banning street parking, banning cars from cities, banning pensioners from driving etc), meaning that people would lose a lot of personal freedom, yet the same people are often the ones complaining about the draconian imposition of a face mask for a supermarket trip (i.e. everyone else should lose freedoms, but it's very different when the boot is on the other foot!)

May I ask, if you're so anti-rail (this is aimed at everyone who seems to be on here) why do you gain anything from being on a railway forum?

It continually astonishes me the number of clearly anti-rail users on this forum.

2. People who assume that anyone not as blindly in love with the railway as they are must somehow be "anti-rail" - seems to be an increasingly common thing - anyone who doesn't see the benefit of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on some rural re-opening or keeping every single service on a lightly used branchline will be portrayed as somehow "hating" the railway - anyone suggesting that a station like Breich is a waste of time must be the lovechild of Serpell and Beeching, a right wing obsessive who wants to close 99% of the network - it's possible to like railways without having to back every proposal to spend millions and reject any proposal to save a couple of quid - just like it's possible to be aware of the railway's finances relative to other public expenditure rather than assuming we can exist in a bubble without any belt tightening

 

[Peregrine 4903]

There's a couple of "arguments" that are getting pretty tiring:



1. People who want to remove people's ability to use their cars (banning street parking, banning cars from cities, banning pensioners from driving etc), meaning that people would lose a lot of personal freedom, yet the same people are often the ones complaining about the draconian imposition of a face mask for a supermarket trip (i.e. everyone else should lose freedoms, but it's very different when the boot is on the other foot!)





2. People who assume that anyone not as blindly in love with the railway as they are must somehow be "anti-rail" - seems to be an increasingly common thing - anyone who doesn't see the benefit of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on some rural re-opening or keeping every single service on a lightly used branchline will be portrayed as somehow "hating" the railway - anyone suggesting that a station like Breich is a waste of time must be the lovechild of Serpell and Beeching, a right wing obsessive who wants to close 99% of the network - it's possible to like railways without having to back every proposal to spend millions and reject any proposal to save a couple of quid - just like it's possible to be aware of the railway's finances relative to other public expenditure rather than assuming we can exist in a bubble without any belt tightening

The second point is a massive generalisation and over exaggeration. People don't view people who think Breich station should be shut as hating the railways.

However people who think Serpell report should be activated on the other hand

 

[Bletchleyite]

The second point is a massive generalisation and over exaggeration. People don't view people who think Breich station should be shut as hating the railways.

However people who think Serpell report should be activated on the other hand

Advocating a zero subsidy railway is advocating Serpell. That is worlds apart from whether the Conwy Valley should close or not.

 

[irish_rail]

^This. Airline pilots can fly to any airport, anywhere in the world, with no more "route knowledge" than provided by the charts and Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) on their iPads. Yet our railway timetables remain hamstrung by the 20th century requirement for weeks or months of in-cab training programmes, before introduction of service changes that require driver depots to support different combinations of route and traction knowledge to those signed by the existing links.

Route learning training could surely be greatly shortened by universal deployment of in-cab iPads with satnav-type displays, showing track layouts, speed restrictions, signal positions, braking points etc. This could enable each driver to sign a wider portfolio of routes, improving productivity and minimising the need for overtime and rest day working. Consequently fewer service cuts would be needed to achieve a given level of operational cost savings.

There are depots like Plymouth where many drivers already do sign each and every route in the area. It is the daft break up of the railway in places like Manchester where the virgin drivers can only drive to London and the Tpe to Leeds, Northern to Crewe etc etc. Easy remedy is pool the drivers together , working for GBR and can learn more routes and tractions (as is the case at somewhere like Plymouth). No need for any new expenditure or technology and overall, fewer drivers would be needed so saves money.

 

[dk1]

Agree, its actually shocking at times.

I was thinking the same. Some very odd comments indeed.

 

[Bald Rick]

No need for any new expenditure or technology and overall, fewer drivers would be needed so saves money.

That’s just not correct. It costs a lot of money to train drivers on routes and maintain their competency. Having all drivers in, say, Manchester sign all routes would require more drivers and cost money.

What would save money is where there are drivers from different companies driving the same route(s). If they were combined there’s would be rostering efficiencies to be had and also a potential reduction in back office costs.

 

[6Gman]

Wrong terminlnology - sorry - you need another crew to take the second portion forward to destination. (and possibly a shunter / station staff to supervise / despatch) the portions.

(one of the reasons why reducing train lengths off peak in the past was done way with , as an 8 reduced to 4 say , needs a crew / driver to dispose of the detached sets if going to sidings or a depot)

Some posters might be surprised how difficult and expensive moving a single unit from station to nearby siding can be in certain circumstances.

 

[Starmill]

2. People who assume that anyone not as blindly in love with the railway as they are must somehow be "anti-rail" - seems to be an increasingly common thing - anyone who doesn't see the benefit of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on some rural re-opening or keeping every single service on a lightly used branchline will be portrayed as somehow "hating" the railway - anyone suggesting that a station like Breich is a waste of time must be the lovechild of Serpell and Beeching, a right wing obsessive who wants to close 99% of the network - it's possible to like railways without having to back every proposal to spend millions and reject any proposal to save a couple of quid - just like it's possible to be aware of the railway's finances relative to other public expenditure rather than assuming we can exist in a bubble without any belt tightening

Arguably it is those of us who are concerned enough with value for money so as to at least countenance permanent withdrawal of some services, which may well leave a small number of tens of stations nationally with no train service whatsoever in the future, who have the best interests of the industry as a whole at heart. If strictly limited resources aren't properly prioritised you get a weaker case for increased funds in the future, not a stronger one.

 

[Watershed]

Some posters might be surprised how difficult and expensive moving a single unit from station to nearby siding can be in certain circumstances.

Indeed. It usually only presents a saving where you can park sets in platforms (typically at the "country" end). Nowadays there are few stations with enough spare platforms (or platform length), plus the requisite peaky demand, to enable and justify that.

That’s just not correct. It costs a lot of money to train drivers on routes and maintain their competency. Having all drivers in, say, Manchester sign all routes would require more drivers and cost money.

What would save money is where there are drivers from different companies driving the same route(s). If they were combined there’s would be rostering efficiencies to be had and also a potential reduction in back office costs.

Yes, essentially a return to the regions-based setup. But even a return to the OfQ setup would deliver efficiencies; what's the point in having separate XC and LNER depots in Newcastle or Edinburgh, or TPE and Avanti depots in Glasgow.

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed - essentially a return to the regions-based setup. But even a return to the OfQ setup would deliver efficiencies; what's the point in having separate XC and LNER depots in Newcastle or Edinburgh, or separate TPE and Avanti depots in Glasgow.

exactly.

 

[squizzler]

There's a couple of "arguments" that are getting pretty tiring:



1. People who want to remove people's ability to use their cars (banning street parking, banning cars from cities, banning pensioners from driving etc), meaning that people would lose a lot of personal freedom, yet the same people are often the ones complaining about the draconian imposition of a face mask for a supermarket trip (i.e. everyone else should lose freedoms, but it's very different when the boot is on the other foot!)

I am unable to read contributions from the person who you quote to make your point but think I am consistent on the examples you give and agree consistency of logic is important. Nonetheless it is the latter point I take issue with:

2. People who assume that anyone not as blindly in love with the railway as they are must somehow be "anti-rail" - seems to be an increasingly common thing - anyone who doesn't see the benefit of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on some rural re-opening or keeping every single service on a lightly used branchline will be portrayed as somehow "hating" the railway - anyone suggesting that a station like Breich is a waste of time must be the lovechild of Serpell and Beeching, a right wing obsessive who wants to close 99% of the network - it's possible to like railways without having to back every proposal to spend millions and reject any proposal to save a couple of quid - just like it's possible to be aware of the railway's finances relative to other public expenditure rather than assuming we can exist in a bubble without any belt tightening

Conversely, many of us are getting tired of how many of the forum's more strident "bears" (to borrow a stock market term) post as if they are blessed with a monopoly on common sense, political savvy, call it what you will, that is denied to the "bulls", and thus we can safely disregard the bulls' arguments. Actually bulls and bears are two different viewpoints, both equally valid, and perhaps the truth lies between somewhere.

I don't recognise your specific charge against us bulls, which frankly seems well off the mark from what I have read.

Look at the big picture and the railways strike me as being in an excellent place politically, with "levelling up", carbon reduction, the need to keep an ageing population mobile, etc, and once the rubble stops bouncing the pandemic will not change that. The railway and its supporters need to come out swinging, rather than do the haters (h8terz - look at me with my 1337speak!) narrative for them. Shoot or the stars, get the moon (as with Integrated Rail plan for NPR).

 

[tbtc]

The second point is a massive generalisation and over exaggeration. People don't view people who think Breich station should be shut as hating the railways.

However people who think Serpell report should be activated on the other hand

You're accusing me of making a massive generalisation... and then you're suggesting that there are people who think that Serpell should be activated?

How many people are there on here who want the full Serpell? Previous few, certainly not me

Or is it just that Serpell is a handy generalisation when categorising people who are slightly more sceptical than you?

Some posters might be surprised how difficult and expensive moving a single unit from station to nearby siding can be in certain circumstances.

I'd shudder to think

I know that changing a lightbulb can cost a hundred pounds in some industries (given the need to close things down, get specialist equipment, staff time etc) - I'm sure that what appears like a "simple" railway manoeuvre might be eye watering (the extra staff required, the signalling moves, the diagrams in the system etc)

Arguably it is those of us who are concerned enough with value for money so as to at least countenance permanent withdrawal of some services, which may well leave a small number of tens of stations nationally with no train service whatsoever in the future, who have the best interests of the industry as a whole at heart. If strictly limited resources aren't properly prioritised you get a weaker case for increased funds in the future, not a stronger one.

That's the way I see it - I want the railway to thrive, but sometimes survival is more important

Some people think the railway is sacred and that every late night train and branchline and through service between stations hundreds of miles apart must be saved (in the same way that every inch of closed lines must be preserved for decades just in case we ever decide to re-open it)

 

[the sniper]

What would save money is where there are drivers from different companies driving the same route(s). If they were combined there’s would be rostering efficiencies to be had and also a potential reduction in back office costs.

What are the chances of it happening under GBR? What little we know of the future model wouldn't seem to readily facilitate it. Though complicated solutions to unnecessary problems are the done thing on the railway of many cooks...

 

[Andrew1395]

Hopefully the work from home edict will not go one for many months and further erode revenue, which is currently significantly below where it was pre- pandemic. Former colleagues are saying unlike journeys revenue is barely 50% of what it was in December 2019. Another poor 18 months in the fares box, will only enbolden the Treasury mandarins desperate to see industry subsidies reduce significantly very quickly.

Could be a very bumpy birth for GBR.

 

[Bald Rick]

What are the chances of it happening under GBR? What little we know of the future model wouldn't seem to readily facilitate it. Though complicated solutions to unnecessary problems are the done thing on the railway of many cooks...

It doesn’t need GBR to make that happen. Just changes to existing contracts between DfT and TOCs.

Former colleagues are saying unlike journeys revenue is barely 50% of what it was in December 2019.

Revenue and journeys have been similar % since the summer, and are as reported by the numbers published by DfT.

However both have taken a dip since Storm Arwen last week, and given tonight’s news that is likely to continue.

 

[Andrew1395]

You're accusing me of making a massive generalisation... and then you're suggesting that there are people who think that Serpell should be activated?

How many people are there on here who want the full Serpell? Previous few, certainly not me

Or is it just that Serpell is a handy generalisation when categorising people who are slightly more sceptical than you?

Of course Serpell empowered the BRB to push the Treasury to support a Business led Railway. You could argue that the Sectorisation era in its last decade was both the high point of the nationalised railway, but the high point of the railway since 1945

It doesn’t need GBR to make that happen. Just changes to existing contracts between DfT and TOCs.




Revenue and journeys have been similar % since the summer, and are as reported by the numbers published by DfT.

However both have taken a dip since Storm Arwen last week, and given tonight’s news that is likely to continue.

I take your word for it, but colleagues say season ticket sales, that’s monthlies and above- as your know weekly is not accounted as a season), are at 20% of what they were, and daily revenue is 50% of pre pandemic. Glad they are way off. A £12 billion passenger railway shrinking to half that would be a disaster. Of course TfL are busted and that’s bad news for the national railway too.

 

[Horizon22]

Try harder. I've no problem with people having the choice to use public transport. But that does not ewuate to forcing people to do so, nor does it mean running a bloated network (train or bus) which is a permanent drain on the public finances. Let the farebox cover the cost of the service.

Although there wouldn't be a "bloated network" if there were more passengers were encouraged to take public transport / discouraged from their car usage.

A farebox covering the cost would mean drastic cuts everywhere. There's a moderate position to be token with some data-driven, specific cuts.

 

[Watershed]

I take your word for it, but colleagues say season ticket sales, that’s monthlies and above- as your know weekly is not accounted as a season), are at 20% of what they were, and daily revenue is 50% of pre pandemic. Glad they are way off. A £12 billion passenger railway shrinking to half that would be a disaster. Of course TfL are busted and that’s bad news for the national railway too.

For medium to long distance flows I can well believe that. But it's made up for by the recovery - at least until recent weeks - of the leisure market broadly to pre-pandemic levels, if not higher.

The two more or less cancel each other out to mean that ridership and revenue are now at similar proportions.

Never missing an opportunity to produce negative column inches for the railway, the unions are "getting [their] tanks on the lawn" following the leaks:

Rail unions are drawing up plans for a national strike as job cuts loom across the industry.

...

An RMT spokesperson said: “We’re very clear on the direction of travel, that a massive jobs cull at train operators and Network Rail are coming, as well as an attack on pay and pensions. We’re getting our tanks on the lawn right now.”

Manuel Cortes, the general secretary of the TSSA, said: “Any attempt to use compulsory redundancies will be seen as a declaration of war and trains will be coming to a halt.

 

[infobleep]

It will go the opposite way due to safe track worker and reduction of red zone. Work is already being done at looking at blockades (and plenty are done as it is). Lose longer Saturday night/Sunday mornings and you will need more if added to midweek nights as you lose the efficiency as you cannot do as much. If GBR is happy to offset higher NR costs against more revenue then that is fine but I suspect it will be do it at the same or less cost and increase ridership.

I take it mid-week, week day mornings, are still much more popular than Sunday mornings.

 

[Horizon22]

Never missing an opportunity to produce negative column inches for the railway, the unions are "getting [their] tanks on the lawn" following the leaks:

Talk about self-defeating. Strikes from unions regarding generalised cuts (i.e if an industry is shrinking as opposed to one department being impacted) will just make the powers that be more sure that their course of action is correct.

 

[Watershed]

Talk about self-defeating. Strikes from unions regarding generalised cuts (i.e if an industry is shrinking as opposed to one department being impacted) will just make the powers that be more sure that their course of action is correct.

Even where cuts are part of a 'legitimate' downsizing, I can certainly foresee circumstances where I'd sympathise with a strike.

But just going out all guns blazing, where there's not even any concrete proposals... there's no better way of telling the public (and the politicians) that you're stuck in the 70s and proud of it!

 

[tomuk]

what's the point in having separate XC and LNER depots in Newcastle or Edinburgh, or TPE and Avanti depots in Glasgow.

Or indeed the XC or TPE franchises give the routes to Avanti, LNER ,Northern, West Midlands Railway, EMR and GWR.

 

[Horizon22]

Even where cuts are part of a 'legitimate' downsizing, I can certainly foresee circumstances where I'd sympathise with a strike.

But just going out all guns blazing, where there's not even any concrete proposals... there's no better way of telling the public (and the politicians) that you're stuck in the 70s and proud of it!

Yes there are - but as you say this comes off as generalised angst with no real understanding of the very real financial circumstances the industry finds itself in.

 

[Robertj21a]

Agree, its actually shocking at times.

Isn't it more the fact that the 'right' answer is somewhere in the middle of the two extreme views?
I know that I'm continually amazed at the blinkered view of some on here who are so intent on pursuing pro-rail issues that they clearly have no understanding of finance, politics or life out in the 'real world'.
On the other hand we have many rail staff who are far more astute and can use their more general knowledge to provide a balanced view.

 

[Bald Rick]

but colleagues say season ticket sales, that’s monthlies and above- as your know weekly is not accounted as a season), are at 20% of what they were, and daily revenue is 50% of pre pandemic. Glad they are way off.

On some routes that will be right. But more generally, not. Although the are closed to the mark for this last 10 days

 

[A0wen]

Hopefully the work from home edict will not go one for many months and further erode revenue, which is currently significantly below where it was pre- pandemic. Former colleagues are saying unlike journeys revenue is barely 50% of what it was in December 2019. Another poor 18 months in the fares box, will only enbolden the Treasury mandarins desperate to see industry subsidies reduce significantly very quickly.

Could be a very bumpy birth for GBR.

BIB - too late. Many companies have invested hugely in remote working capability e.g. upgrading networks, deploying laptops to staff, using MS Teams etc and will want a return on their investment.

I've recently changed job - here's 2 examples:

My former employer (large, household name) was moving to flexi working for all office based employees. This was already happening pre Covid due to office space constraints, as I left it was becoming standard policy.

My new employer (not a recognised name but in the IT field) offered me 2 contract options - fully remote or hybrid office / home. They are not offering 100% office based contracts. No odds to me as the office is ~5 miles from my front door. 2 years ago it would have been a full time office role.

Even now, scanning Linked In, many, many jobs are selling remote / hybrid working. The government advice might change, but the genie of remote working is well and truly out of the bottle now. And employers who try to insist on a full time office presence for roles where it has been demonstrated can be done remotely will find their staff turnover starts increasing, particularly with a buoyant job market.

The rail industry - and certain other industries - which used to have a high income from commuters will have to get used to a much reduced income from that stream as normal - it's unlikely to return to pre Covid levels.

 

[squizzler]

Talk about self-defeating. Strikes from unions regarding generalised cuts (i.e if an industry is shrinking as opposed to one department being impacted) will just make the powers that be more sure that their course of action is correct.

I would suggest their hand is stronger than people admit - a massive public strike would probably bring down the government at this stage. Following that Christmas party revelation, good luck convincing the public to stand behind the political establishment against those rascally trades unionists.

The current government appear to command less moral authority than those of the 1970s which was known for militant labour, certainly they are a far cry from that of the early Thatcher era.

 

[irish_rail]

What would save money is where there are drivers from different companies driving the same route(s). If they were combined there’s would be rostering efficiencies to be had and also a potential reduction in back office cocosts

Thats exactly what I said. Obviously every driver isn't going to sign every route at Manchester for example, but no reason why an Avanti driver can't also sign 802s and the route to York, plus maybe 195s and the road to Liverpool etc etc.

What are the chances of it happening under GBR? What little we know of the future model wouldn't seem to readily facilitate it. Though complicated solutions to unnecessary problems are the done thing on the railway of many cooks...

Id say slim to none. I've already seen it written that GBR will insist on traincrew remaining separate, God only knows why as it is one of the biggest inefficiencies in the industry the Dft are supposedly so desperate to save money on.
Why is it , as a GWR driver at Plymouth I am able to drive Voyagers, or pertinently XC HSTs on Laira depot, yet I am barred from driving them into Plymouth Station, or driving them on routes to say Taunton or Penzance that I am perfectly allowed to drive an IET along? Its bonkers. And I suspect one of the reasons why XC are having such problems with crewing their HST fleet at present. If GBR isn't to remedy this kind of cr*p then what is it for?

 

[A0wen]

I would suggest their hand is stronger than people admit - a massive public strike would probably bring down the government at this stage. Following that Christmas party revelation, good luck convincing the public to stand behind the political establishment against those rascally trades unionists.

The current government appear to command less moral authority than those of the 1970s which was known for militant labour, certainly they are a far cry from that of the early Thatcher era.

You're mistaken. With a modal share of ~15% and many former commuters now able to work from home, I think a national rail strike would go largely un-noticed by the vast majority of the population. Certainly not enough to make a material difference to the government's standing. The only thing a strike like that would achieve is worsen the fiscal position of the railway network.

In a different field the Teaching unions have exhausted many people's sympathy over the last year with their dogmatic approach to school openings and oppose everything attitude, when many other people then had to balance home schooling and continuing their day job.

 

[Wolfie]

I would suggest their hand is stronger than people admit - a massive public strike would probably bring down the government at this stage. Following that Christmas party revelation, good luck convincing the public to stand behind the political establishment against those rascally trades unionists.

The current government appear to command less moral authority than those of the 1970s which was known for militant labour, certainly they are a far cry from that of the early Thatcher era.

Without being rude if you were talking about a strike by say NHS workers l might agree. I don't think that you realise exactly where the rail unions sit in public esteem though. Frankly, given a choice between a discredited Government and the rail unions, the former wins every time.

You're mistaken. With a modal share of ~15% and many former commuters now able to work from home, I think a national rail strike would go largely un-noticed by the vast majority of the population. Certainly not enough to make a material difference to the government's standing. The only thing a strike like that would achieve is worsen the fiscal position of the railway network.

In a different field the Teaching unions have exhausted many people's sympathy over the last year with their dogmatic approach to school openings and oppose everything attitude, when many other people then had to balance home schooling and continuing their day job.

You sir l have zero sympathy with. The archetypical right wing Tory bigot shut your mouth and tug your forelock to your employers type. How dare those pesky teachers want to protect themselves, their pupils, and their health. I support them. I despise the current Government.