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

Nicholas Lewis · 5 Dec 2021

The Guardian are running this story

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-days-swingeing-rail-cuts-alarm-bells-ringing

The Department for Transport seeks to cut spending by 10% after the chancellor Rishi Sunak’s autumn budget.

With the Treasury anxious to limit spending on rail, which increased massively during the pandemic, letters from the DfT’s managing director of passenger services, Peter Wilkinson, have been sent to individual operators setting out the swingeing cuts needed across the industry.

Dept of Transport view is its

Government sources said there were no finalised decisions, and denied that individual operators were being asked to deliver cuts of 10% or more to expenditure.

Even if, as DfT sources suggest, the latest call for savings are a “routine business planning process” to maintain efficiency and reduce the cost to taxpayers, alarm bells are ringing through the industry. While the effects of the pandemic on rail travel patterns and revenue are clear to all, a division has grown between those who believe it is essential to maintain services and lower fares to attract passengers and those who favour cutting costs and maximising current income.
A DfT spokesperson said it was “demonstrably false” to suggest the government was delivering cuts to the railway, given the current levels of investment, the £96bn rail plan and the restoration of lines such as Okehampton.

They added: “With passenger numbers significantly down, it would be reckless and irresponsible not to ensure that the railway is more efficient and reducing its costs to the taxpayer.

“As taxpayers would expect, we have asked operators to provide credible and sustainable business plans which ensure taxpayer money is used efficiently, to deliver exceptional services, promote recovery to reset the balance in financial support and ensure the railway has a bright future.”

Only to be expected given situation industry faces but Wolmars view is

Timetables are likely to be thinned out and late-night services withdrawn to cut costs, he predicted: “It’s back to the old days of British Rail when they squeezed services and then said no one is using trains because the service is rubbish.

“In a rational world they would just cut the branch lines – but they can’t do that politically because ministers have said they are reversing Beeching.”

Industries view is

Industry leaders and unions alike believe that the Treasury wants to target working conditions. According to one senior rail figure: “The single biggest thing is workplace reform, they believe productivity is low.”

There's no doubting the industry has to confront the change in passenger demand and come up with a response but the industry lacks a big hitter like the BR chairman of days gone by who have been charged to address the issue and deliver savings so now its left to the Dept of T who will tackle it as lay people not those with an understanding and risk undermining all the industry has achieved.

RailUK Forums

a_c_skinner · 5 Dec 2021

And de-carbonising? Or do they hope modal shift will be to electric cars? Or busses?

Ken H · 5 Dec 2021

Driver only operation will surely become an issue again. Outside the industry, many see guards as sitting in a van doing nothing. If trains can run Marylebone - Banbury with no guard, why not elsewhere?
I can see both sides of the argument, but will the media?

Taunton · 5 Dec 2021

If the litany of strikes and messing about continues, any government would get fed up with it all at a time of stretched public money. Nobody else is striking all over the place.

De-carbonising is for Guardian stories. It's no use relying on that line when the resulting rail service is one of the most unreliable at weekends that we have seen for years.

irish_rail · 5 Dec 2021

I agree to an extent that depot productivity isn't always great. At Plymouth we used to go to London regularly. That was extremely productive for the company, they got a bloody good days work out of the driver and one driver drives the train for its entire journey.
In past couple of years there has been a trend to use 3 different drivers to cover a Plymouth to London leg, changing often at Exeter then Reading. Why? I don't know if truth be told.
Signs of changes with the new roster changes in mid December with Plymouth drivers re gaining some more of our highly productive Plymouth-London-Plymouth diagrams, as much as its a pain doing lots of London work, at least the passenger is getting value for money from their driver.
So for me, more cases of traincrew working a trains entire journey and fewer crew changes on route would be one way in which crewing costs can be cut.

yorksrob · 5 Dec 2021

Nicholas Lewis said:
The Guardian are running this story

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-days-swingeing-rail-cuts-alarm-bells-ringing

Dept of Transport view is its

Only to be expected given situation industry faces but Wolmars view is

Industries view is

There's no doubting the industry has to confront the change in passenger demand and come up with a response but the industry lacks a big hitter like the BR chairman of days gone by who have been charged to address the issue and deliver savings so now its left to the Dept of T who will tackle it as lay people not those with an understanding and risk undermining all the industry has achieved.

Wolmar's wrong.

It's the branch lines that are booming at the moment - there would be no rationale for thinning those out while the commuter routes struggle to get people onto their trains.

As for thinning out late night services, try doing that up here - there aren't any.

Bletchleyite · 5 Dec 2021

yorksrob said:
Wolmar's wrong.

It's the branch lines that are booming at the moment - there would be no rationale for thinning those out while the commuter routes struggle to get people onto their trains.

As for thinning out late night services, try doing that up here - there aren't any.

Wolmar lost any credibility with me when he started arguing against HS2 using the tired old argument of gaining 5 minutes and disregarding the south WCML.

ohgoditsjames · 5 Dec 2021

What does this mean for electrification I wonder? Specifically the MML etc, or is safe to assume that's already got funding committed to it?

Bletchleyite · 5 Dec 2021

ohgoditsjames said:
What does this mean for electrification I wonder? Specifically the MML etc, or is safe to assume that's already got funding committed to it?

This seems more of a thinning of operating rather than capital spending.

squizzler · 5 Dec 2021

Another Chicken Little piece about rail cuts.

yorksrob said:
It's the branch lines that are booming at the moment - there would be no rationale for thinning those out while the commuter routes struggle to get people onto their trains.

The Guardian piece linked says rail use is back up to 70% pre-pandemic, and the rise in petrol price is likely to nix motoring as a practical alternative.

Bletchleyite said:
Wolmar lost any credibility with me when he started arguing against HS2 using the tired old argument of gaining 5 minutes and disregarding the south WCML.

I find Christian Wolmar an enjoyable author, have read most of his books and own a few, but his Alter-ego "Mystic Wolmar" is an affront to astrologers and fortune tellers because their predictions on rail matters would almost certainly be more accurate. He confidently predicted probably in the '00s that HS2 would not happen, and simply hardened his opposition to the project as history proved him wrong.

Mind you I'll let that pass since he has been one of the few voices of sense on driverless motor cars.

mrcheek · 5 Dec 2021

Bletchleyite said:
Wolmar lost any credibility with me when he started arguing against HS2 using the tired old argument of gaining 5 minutes and disregarding the south WCML.

For someone who loves railways Wolmar sure seems to hate all things railway-related!

Watershed · 5 Dec 2021

Unfortunately there are still a lot of people who are in denial of the fact that the good times are at an end, and that the industry will have to cut its cloth accordingly. There is simply not the public backing for the industry to run 50-80% of pre-Covid services, with 70% of the passengers, at near 100% of the pre-Covid cost base.

squizzler said:
The Guardian piece linked says rail use is back up to 70% pre-pandemic

Yes, but not revenue. And that's what ultimately matters to the Treasury.

squizzler said:
the rise in petrol price is likely to nix motoring as a practical alternative

Petrol could cost £3 a litre and it would still be cheaper than rail for lots of journeys - not to mention more comfortable.

Rail only really has a discernable advantage where it's significantly faster and/or where it brings you right into a city centre (where parking and driving would be a pain).

So the rise in petrol prices will only tip the balance for the handful of journeys where the train is already a plausible and affordable option.

PupCuff · 5 Dec 2021

I think it's fairly certain that there are places cuts can be made, and productivity improved.

We let revenue literally walk out the door in many cases, so having conductors do additional revenue checks (eg have them work from the saloon throughout rather than the cab) is a good starting point.

Within management, meetings which could have been an email need to stop. Meetings which take place need to be productive and have some tangible benefit at the end of it all.

Do train companies need large, expensive offices in London, Birmingham, Manchester, when there's unused space remaining on railway property, eg at stations, where management could hotdesk or hold meetings? If I had the ability to book a desk at Closetown Parkway on Monday, Bigcity Central on Tuesday etc I'd get more done by liaising with local management teams and I'd also be much more visible to the frontline staff. Co-locating certain functions in ROCs could save money.

Are the management processes always proportionate? For instance, when you're passing out a new conductor, some train operators require a lot more work than others for management, including various levels of sign off. If some operators manage to run safely by just internally verifying a sample of competence files, why do others require senior management to sign off every single one?

I think before we start talking about closing branch lines and whatnot it's worth everyone in the industry taking a few minutes and looking to see the few quid we can all save the industry ourselves, closer to home, tbh. Things like the 'kaizen' principles show that efficiencies can be made effectively by empowering those further down the line to own some of their own efficiency improvements.

Ken H · 5 Dec 2021

Watershed said:
Unfortunately there are still a lot of people who are in denial of the fact that the good times are at an end, and that the industry will have to cut its cloth accordingly. There is simply not the public backing for the industry to run 50-80% of pre-Covid services, with 70% of the passengers, at near 100% of the pre-Covid cost base.

Yes, but not revenue. And that's what ultimately matters to the Treasury.

Petrol could cost £3 a litre and it would still be cheaper than rail for lots of journeys - not to mention more comfortable.

Rail only really has a discernable advantage where it's significantly faster and/or where it brings you right into a city centre (where parking and driving would be a pain).

So the rise in petrol prices will only tip the balance for the handful of journeys where the train is already a plausible and affordable option.

driving into cities is expensive because of parking. that ramps up the costs to make rail worth while financially

Nicholas Lewis · 5 Dec 2021

PupCuff said:
I think it's fairly certain that there are places cuts can be made, and productivity improved.

We let revenue literally walk out the door in many cases, so having conductors do additional revenue checks (eg have them work from the saloon throughout rather than the cab) is a good starting point.

Within management, meetings which could have been an email need to stop. Meetings which take place need to be productive and have some tangible benefit at the end of it all.

Do train companies need large, expensive offices in London, Birmingham, Manchester, when there's unused space remaining on railway property, eg at stations, where management could hotdesk or hold meetings? If I had the ability to book a desk at Closetown Parkway on Monday, Bigcity Central on Tuesday etc I'd get more done by liaising with local management teams and I'd also be much more visible to the frontline staff. Co-locating certain functions in ROCs could save money.

Are the management processes always proportionate? For instance, when you're passing out a new conductor, some train operators require a lot more work than others for management, including various levels of sign off. If some operators manage to run safely by just internally verifying a sample of competence files, why do others require senior management to sign off every single one?

I think before we start talking about closing branch lines and whatnot it's worth everyone in the industry taking a few minutes and looking to see the few quid we can all save the industry ourselves, closer to home, tbh. Things like the 'kaizen' principles show that efficiencies can be made effectively by empowering those further down the line to own some of their own efficiency improvements.

The article also suggests formation of GBR is slipping. I would suggest that the best way of tackling this is to accelerate the creation of GBR so we have a one stop shop to get consistency back into the industry and do things once and not in umpteen different permutations through each TOC.

PupCuff · 5 Dec 2021

Nicholas Lewis said:
The article also suggests formation of GBR is slipping. I would suggest that the best way of tackling this is to accelerate the creation of GBR so we have a one stop shop to get consistency back into the industry and do things once and not in umpteen different permutations through each TOC.

The problem is, who decides which of the umpteen standards get adopted?

Everyone thinks their standards are the best and will resist change.

When you want to cut or change something for efficiency reasons you get "but safety!" cried out by people with (in the nicest possible way) no safety management training or qualifications, which because few people in the industry are willing to stand up and argue the point, the most bureaucratic (and costly) one normally wins.

squizzler · 5 Dec 2021

Watershed said:
Unfortunately there are still a lot of people who are in denial of the fact that the good times are at an end, and that the industry will have to cut its cloth accordingly. There is simply not the public backing for the industry to run 50-80% of pre-Covid services, with 70% of the passengers, at near 100% of the pre-Covid cost base.

Source?

Watershed said:
Yes, but not revenue. And that's what ultimately matters to the Treasury.

Petrol could cost £3 a litre and it would still be cheaper than rail for lots of journeys - not to mention more comfortable.

Rail only really has a discernable advantage where it's significantly faster and/or where it brings you right into a city centre (where parking and driving would be a pain).

So the rise in petrol prices will only tip the balance for the handful of journeys where the train is already a plausible and affordable option.

I disagree that petrol at £3 a litre would not cause many people to switch their journeys to rail. Presumably the government also believe that, otherwise they would increase the duty accordingly (and capture that differential in perceived value as tax revenue). In fact the current prices are causing many people to change their travel habits.

Nicholas Lewis · 5 Dec 2021

PupCuff said:
The problem is, who decides which of the umpteen standards get adopted?

Everyone thinks their standards are the best and will resist change.

That is true BRB battled the former big four organisations for decades to try and get things aligned which were still prevalent into NR and part of centralising everything at MK by Coucher was an attempt to deal with this issue.

PupCuff said:
When you want to cut or change something for efficiency reasons you get "but safety!" cried out by people with (in the nicest possible way) no safety management training or qualifications, which because few people in the industry are willing to stand up and argue the point, the most bureaucratic (and costly) one normally wins.

Another truism that only a strong leadership team can tackle head on. I feel Haines has the credentials but whether he can assemble a team around him im not so sure.

Doctor Fegg · 5 Dec 2021

squizzler said:
I find Christian Wolmar an enjoyable author, have read most of his books and own a few, but his Alter-ego "Mystic Wolmar" is an affront to astrologers and fortune tellers because their predictions on rail matters would almost certainly be more accurate. He confidently predicted probably in the '00s that HS2 would not happen, and simply hardened his opposition to the project as history proved him wrong.

Yes, I'd agree - he's a much better author than pundit.

In my days as a magazine editor, one of the hardest things to do was figuring when your talking heads were past it. Once you sign someone up as a monthly columnist, or make them your go-to pundit, always ready with a quote, they no longer have to prove themselves article-by-article. Sometimes they thrive (I remember one columnist I was particularly proud of bagging, and his columns were a monthly delight) but often they go off the boil after a while.

Christian Wolmar has been commentating and pundit-ing since at least the 1990s. It would be a stretch for anyone to stay vital and relevant over that time. Roger Ford has arguably managed (and for much longer) but he is very much the exception: indeed, I used to have regular conversations with my 'oppo' on another magazine about how we'd each love to find the Roger Ford of the waterways.

snowball · 5 Dec 2021

I posted earlier about the same Guardian article, in the existing thread "Rail’s growth agenda evaporates as Treasury takes control", thereby bumping it (it had been quiet for 3 weeks). I think it started life in this subforum but had got moved at some time to Speculation.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/rail%E2%80%99s-growth-agenda-evaporates-as-treasury-takes-control.224406/page-14

Wilts Wanderer · 5 Dec 2021

irish_rail said:
I agree to an extent that depot productivity isn't always great. At Plymouth we used to go to London regularly. That was extremely productive for the company, they got a bloody good days work out of the driver and one driver drives the train for its entire journey.
In past couple of years there has been a trend to use 3 different drivers to cover a Plymouth to London leg, changing often at Exeter then Reading. Why? I don't know if truth be told.
Signs of changes with the new roster changes in mid December with Plymouth drivers re gaining some more of our highly productive Plymouth-London-Plymouth diagrams, as much as its a pain doing lots of London work, at least the passenger is getting value for money from their driver.
So for me, more cases of traincrew working a trains entire journey and fewer crew changes on route would be one way in which crewing costs can be cut.

Not speaking with any direct knowledge, but I know that automated diagramming software looks for the most productive solution overall, rather than necessarily at individual depot level. You may find that the optimal ‘all GWR’ solution for Dec 19 (with full timetable across the board) counterintuitively required a productivity loss at Plymouth to make bigger gains elsewhere. I imagine maintaining route knowledge on all the various routes to London is challenging and would possibly complicate matters for Bristol and Exeter depots?

mmh · 5 Dec 2021

Bletchleyite said:
Wolmar lost any credibility with me when he started arguing against HS2 using the tired old argument of gaining 5 minutes and disregarding the south WCML.

Wolmar was right on that. It was all based on marginally quicker times to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds when first proposed. That was the public reasoning for it.

On here (and elsewhere, usenet in particular) was the argument it was actually to increase commuter capacity between Milton Keynes and London. Unsurprisingly, that was never a stated reason.

HS2 is a vote loser for the Tories, and some in Government realise that, but I suspect none of them know how to stop the nonsense given how long they've used it as an important investment.

dk1 · 5 Dec 2021

mrcheek said:
For someone who loves railways Wolmar sure seems to hate all things railway-related!

He certainly grinds my gears.

Bald Rick · 5 Dec 2021

Nicholas Lewis said:
Only to be expected given situation industry faces but Wolmars view is

Having read his articles for 35 years or so I never thought this day would come, but I find myself agreeing with Wolmar.

yorksrob said:
there would be no rationale for thinning those out while the commuter routes struggle to get people onto their trains.

The issue is that branch lines lose a ton of money. Commuter routes don’t, even with fewer people using them. (For the avoidance of doubt, most commuter routes do lose money, but much, much less than regional branch lines).

But it is going to be very difficult for the DfT with hard cash limits. Want to run some services on the reopened Northumberland line ? Sure, which services elsewhere will be withdrawn to pay for them.

yorkie · 5 Dec 2021

To discuss anything of a speculative nature, please use the following thread:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/rail%E2%80%99s-growth-agenda-evaporates-as-treasury-takes-control.224406

To discuss petrol costs, please use the following thread:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/is-it-time-to-raise-motor-fuel-duty.225707/

(Any questions/feedback, please contact us directly)

Thanks

Watershed · 5 Dec 2021

squizzler said:
Source?

The Treasury are behind this. They form part of an elected government. An elected government that (supposedly) represents the public.

It's not hard to imagine the answer if you asked the average voter "we propose to increase taxes by 1% - would you like it spent on reducing NHS waiting lists or further subsidising the railways?"...

squizzler said:
I disagree that petrol at £3 a litre would not cause many people to switch their journeys to rail.

Perhaps 'many' in absolute terms, but in the grand scheme of things? A very small percentage at best.

Even if train travel were completely free there are still markets where it simply can't compete.

squizzler said:
Presumably the government also believe that, otherwise they would increase the duty accordingly (and capture that differential in perceived value as tax revenue).

No, they rightly understand that it's a vote loser. I'm sure they'd love to increase fuel duty but it's simply not a palatable option - unlike running the railways down.

RailWonderer · 5 Dec 2021

yorksrob said:
As for thinning out late night services, try doing that up here - there aren't any.

A seperate note from this thread but does that make the taxis up north very successful at nights then?

irish_rail · 5 Dec 2021

Wilts Wanderer said:
Not speaking with any direct knowledge, but I know that automated diagramming software looks for the most productive solution overall, rather than necessarily at individual depot level. You may find that the optimal ‘all GWR’ solution for Dec 19 (with full timetable across the board) counterintuitively required a productivity loss at Plymouth to make bigger gains elsewhere. I imagine maintaining route knowledge on all the various routes to London is challenging and would possibly complicate matters for Bristol and Exeter depots?

Well the fact Plymouth are regaining London work again does suggest to me that it has been realised that obviously it isn't overall productive across the board to have 3 drivers driving one train. No real reason for Bristol drivers to work on the b and h. The fast London trains driven by Plymouth drivers with the slower ones driven by Exeter drivers (coupled with say an Exmouth trip) is surely the best way of diagramming b and h work, with Paddington taking some of the early down and late up trains as well.
Hopefully it will be this type of diagramming which was successfully employed for many years until recently that will return and enable money savings without the need for job losses, or ticket price increases.

87 027 · 5 Dec 2021

squizzler said:
I disagree that petrol at £3 a litre would not cause many people to switch their journeys to rail.

Looking at prices for a return trip next weekend with my sons to visit my elderly father and bring him down to stay for a few days before Christmas. Avanti = £188, car = £55, door-to-door journey time comparable at around 4 hours (London outer suburbs to Manchester outer suburbs). Train is clearly more comfortable and relaxing, but can't ignore that sort of price differential. Fuel would have to be over £4/litre before the motoring charges start to bite

tbtc · 5 Dec 2021

Watershed said:
Unfortunately there are still a lot of people who are in denial of the fact that the good times are at an end, and that the industry will have to cut its cloth accordingly. There is simply not the public backing for the industry to run 50-80% of pre-Covid services, with 70% of the passengers, at near 100% of the pre-Covid cost base.

Agreed - we've been lucky in an ever expanding universe, where passenger numbers/ train frequencies/ number of stations/ level of Government subsidy all seemed to be growing year on year for pretty much a generation - I think that this has number some people to the prospect of tough times ahead (in the way that the decade of economic growth from the mid 1990s onwards meant that some people assumed that "boom and bust" was a thing of the past)

The railway needed billions in subsidy pre-pandemic (but there was no urgency to fix the "waste" because everything was getting better, so there was nobody demanding we take "tough decisions")

Now, if we have 70% of the pre-pandemic passengers, we may have 50%-60% of the pre-pandemic revenue (given that the commuters were paying high fares, leisure passengers less so), in which case a 10% cut doesn't sound unreasonable - especially at a time when other Government departments are seeing big cuts

But, this is the Government control that a lot of people wanted - there are no franchise commitments to worry about any more, the Government have a free hand to cut things - be careful what you wish for...

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

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member