A new Beeching-style report is needed, to refocus the role of rail

[Railwaysceptic]

True, but this is not 1964-1970.

No, it's not. The major political difference is that the Harold Wilson government was pro motor transport because it was in thrall to the two big trades unions with huge membership in motor industries and transport whereas today's Labour Party is feverishly hostile to the motor car. The major fiscal difference is that tax revenues were buoyant in the mid-sixties but certainly are not today. My guess is that the fiscal change will outweigh the political change and that gullible rail enthusiasts will be bitterly disappointed by a future Labour Government.

 

[yorksrob]

No, it's not. The major political difference is that the Harold Wilson government was pro motor transport because it was in thrall to the two big trades unions with huge membership in motor industries and transport whereas today's Labour Party is feverishly hostile to the motor car. The major fiscal difference is that tax revenues were buoyant in the mid-sixties but certainly are not today. My guess is that the fiscal change will outweigh the political change and that gullible rail enthusiasts will be bitterly disappointed by a future Labour Government.

No one's expecting the moon on a stick, however it would be quite an 'achievement' for a future labour government to out-disappoint the party of chaos, currently running the service into the ground.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

No one's expecting the moon on a stick, however it would be quite an 'achievement' for a future labour government to out-disappoint the party of chaos, currently running the service into the ground.

My assessment of some posts in this forum is that quite a few members here are hopelessly unrealistic in what they expect from a change in government. Notice how several of those who called for a renationalisation are now embittered by political and Civil Service control of the railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My assessment of some posts in this forum is that quite a few members here are hopelessly unrealistic in what they expect from a change in government. Notice how several of those who called for a renationalisation are now embittered by political and Civil Service control of the railway.

Because a bad job has been done of nationalisation. What those of us who advocate it want is an arms length business like either BR or indeed Network Rail.

 

[yorksrob]

My assessment of some posts in this forum is that quite a few members here are hopelessly unrealistic in what they expect from a change in government. Notice how several of those who called for a renationalisation are now embittered by political and Civil Service control of the railway.

At the moment I'd settle for the service running as timetabled.

Because a bad job has been done of nationalisation. What those of us who advocate it want is an arms length business like either BR or indeed Network Rail.

This is true !

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or, I should say, LNER. It isn't perfect by any stretch but it is certainly competent. Almost certainly the best operator the ECML has had since 1995.

 

[RailWonderer]

Because a bad job has been done of nationalisation. What those of us who advocate it want is an arms length business like either BR or indeed Network Rail.

What arrangement is made will make little fundamental difference. Ultimately it will depend on the level of subsidy granted to railways, and the way things are headed, we are going the way of knee height litter on trains, graffitied liveries and more DOO. If the government want to penny pinch to the maximum, they will. Without private companies to bill the government for subsidies, it will all get a lot worse.

 

[Irascible]

And in 15 years time a Tory govt can blame it all on excessive state control ( never mind it was *them* who set up excessive state control - people advocating for a BR-style nationalisation are ironically wanting it further away from the DfT ) and round we go again.

I would agree with the need for a report on the railways & where they should be going, if there was some idea of where the country and it's industry/economy as a whole was going. Pointless when nobody seems to have a clue except a few businesses trying to quietly keep things together.

 

[yorksrob]

Or, I should say, LNER. It isn't perfect by any stretch but it is certainly competent. Almost certainly the best operator the ECML has had since 1995.

And it has enough rolling stock to run an acceptable service. For the timebeing at any rate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And it has enough rolling stock to run an acceptable service. For the timebeing at any rate.

TPE has a surplus of rolling stock not seen since 1980s BR and its grossly incompetent management can't even manage to avoid short forms there, so I wouldn't overtalk that.

 

[yorksrob]

TPE has a surplus of rolling stock not seen since 1980s BR and its grossly incompetent management can't even manage to avoid short forms there, so I wouldn't overtalk that.

Indeed, but at least it hasn't been cut back to the bone yet, as seems to be happening at many TOC's.

 

[Merle Haggard]

If Labour win the the next election (in 2025?) they would be much less likely to close anything. Any closures proposed by this Government would probably be revered by Labour.

If you are pinning your hopes on Labour being more rail-orientated you might, on the basis of previous experience, be disappointed.

For instance, before the 1964 election, Labour's manifesto commitment was to 'reverse Beeching'. In power, they continued with Beeching and even closed lines that Beeching considered should stay. A later Labour government preferred road freight over rail (e.g., allowing/supporting the then-new Milton freight terminal blockade) - although a cynic might say that was because the T&G had more members that paid dues to the party than the railway ones. The starvation of railway investment money was just as severe when Labour were in power. And Mr Blair carried on privatising the industry in 1997.

Funnily enough (and I have an equal dislike of all parties) there is an argument that the Conservatives are more rail-friendly than the Labour Party.

 

[Xavi]

Spectator ideas not acceptable in today’s society. Fails to acknowledge any wider social benefits of the railway. Whilst we all want best value, the funding is a small part of total government spending and is a key enabler for the wider economy.

 

[tbtc]

My assessment of some posts in this forum is that quite a few members here are hopelessly unrealistic in what they expect from a change in government. Notice how several of those who called for a renationalisation are now embittered by political and Civil Service control of the railway.

Absolutely!

Who’d have imagined that Nationalisation would have meant the railway ending up being run by the same numpties who’ve made such a mess of all other public services for the past dozen years?

Because a bad job has been done of nationalisation. What those of us who advocate it want is an arms length business like either BR or indeed Network Rail.

There was no realistic chance of any “arms length” BR

And Network Rail (whilst public sector for the past couple of decades) seems to be the most complained about bit of the railway for it’s subcontracting and inefficiencies (the people who delivered half of the GWML electrification for only five times the budget, after many years)

I tried to explain this over the years, that “Nationalisation” would mean the railway being treated just like other public services by the government of the day, and that the crumbling education/ health/ prison/ armed forces/ police (basically anything that remained after over a decade of “austerity” / cuts/ trying to palm off responsibility for things like libraries onto the voluntary sector

Because that’s the problem with Nationalisation, it means putting the government in charge, not just the occasional “nice” Government but also the many years of “bad” Government

But, no, people didn’t want to hear this, they insisted that Nationalisation would magically happen independently of current day political realities, the same Government that starved public services and interfered with objectives for political raids would just had a “Proper Railwayman” a few billion pounds a year and leave them to get with it for the duration of the Parliament

It’s the railway equivalent of the “Leave” voters claiming that “This wasn’t the Brexit I voted for” (as if you can act surprised that the government of the day were the ones out in charge of delivering things)

 

[Bletchleyite]

There was no realistic chance of any “arms length” BR

Yet there basically is an arms length LNER, Northern and Southeastern. These TOCs seem to be given a lot more freedom than the commercial ones.

 

[deltic]

There are 1987 stations in England, 561 of them in total account for just 1% of all passengers. Getting rid of them would save a reasonable amount of money, speed up some journeys and free up capacity on the network.

 

[bramling]

Yet there basically is an arms length LNER, Northern and Southeastern. These TOCs seem to be given a lot more freedom than the commercial ones.

The only potential spoiler here is that LNER in particular is quite an easy TOC to run. 5tph out of King’s Cross through the main part of the day, much less in the evening, across essentially two basic routes. Meanwhile there’s Merseyrail running 14tph just round the loop alone.

Northern and Southeastern meanwhile get quite a bad press on here, though to be fair my personal experience is they have improved a bit since coming under DOR. Southeastern in particular has underlying issues - indeed for many years the non-HS1 parts (Metro especially) have felt like the Arriva Trains Wales of the London commuter TOCs.

 

[htafc]

There are 1987 stations in England, 561 of them in total account for just 1% of all passengers. Getting rid of them would save a reasonable amount of money, speed up some journeys and free up capacity on the network.

Interesting statistic. Please could you provide a source for me?

 

[deltic]

Interesting statistic. Please could you provide a source for me?

Its derived from ORR Passenger entries and exits by station https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/estimates-of-station-usage/

 

[htafc]

Its derived from ORR Passenger entries and exits by station https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/estimates-of-station-usage/

Cheers!

 

[Tobbes]

From the end of line run-round loop buffer stop at the Imerys St Dennis china clay plant (Parkandillack) to the site of St Dennis Junction on the Newquay line, it is 3.3 km (2.1 miles), measured on Google Earth. St Austell to St Dennis Jn is ~15.5 km via Treviscoe compared to the same journey via Par (reverse) at ~27.5 km. There'd be much work upgrading the freight line to make it suitable for passengers however, including safeworking of siding points incorporating trapping around Parkandillack which are simple handpoints today, traps at Burngullow siding exits, FPLs (where not provided) on points at ground frames around Treviscoe, and a means for 'locking in' freight at intermediate siding sites while the passenger train is running. There are some level crossings that will require attention too, including at least one new site on the reinstated section. Currently, the line is worked by means of a one train staff [OT(S)], which in itself would be ok theoretically for passenger services, but the current single section would provide insufficient capacity alone for the increased traffic of passenger and freight combined.

So upgraded, how much time would be saved for say London-Newquay rather than the existing route? Could reopen Toldish Tunnel to reduce the distance again.....

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Because a bad job has been done of nationalisation. What those of us who advocate it want is an arms length business like either BR or indeed Network Rail.

Which is unlikely to change regardless of whoever is in power. The DfT will stay the DfT…

Yet there basically is an arms length LNER, Northern and Southeastern. These TOCs seem to be given a lot more freedom than the commercial ones.

In recent months they are finding that is very much less so the case now.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

My guess is that ………….gullible rail enthusiasts will be bitterly disappointed by a future Labour Government.

Like I was 1997-2010 - lowest rate of electrification since 2nd world war.

 

[TheBigD]

So upgraded, how much time would be saved for say London-Newquay rather than the existing route? Could reopen Toldish Tunnel to reduce the distance again.....

Par to Newquay on a non stop IET is around 50 minutes.
Par to St Austell is 6 minutes.
St Austell to Newquay on an upgrade track along the Parkandillack would be, at a guess, 30 minutes, as its not exactly a straight high speed route.
(you might get more reductions by closing/replacing level crossings on the route but at a cost)

So best guess, for London to Newquay around 15 minutes.

The benefits would be more local, eg Newquay to St Austell and Truro.

 

[tbtc]

Maybe all of the negatives I mention below were because of “interfering civil servants” and “penny pinching DfT”, but any “improvements” are so because Nationalisation is brilliant?

I have a horrible feeling that the zealots are never going to accept that Nationalisation has been a disaster, it’ll be excused in the way that the far left gloss over the excesses of Stalin by claiming that “real communism has never been tried though”

Yet there basically is an arms length LNER, Northern and Southeastern. These TOCs seem to be given a lot more freedom than the commercial ones.

You’re holding up Northern as poster boys for Government control?

Okay, i suppose, if you like having a local TOC who’ve abandoned all plans for improvements (running a “fast” Sheffield to Leeds service, and by “fast” i mean covering the thirty miles as the crow flies in under an hour)/ given up on various routes for several months at a time (cutting most services in Yorkshire that don’t serve Leeds, e.g. Doncaster to Hull/ Scunthorpe, the Brigg route, three quarters of stoppers from Sheffield to Doncaster, Huddersfield to Wakefield/ Castleford)

I’d honestly rather have Arriva back than the Operator of Last Resort; at least Arriva delivered quantifiable improvements (getting rid of the Pacers, ordering the 195/331s, introducing 170s etc) as well as ambitions for doing more in future (the “connect” brand, faster Calder Valley services) even if i didn’t agree with some of their priorities (increasing the Bentham line provision by almost 50%, disproportionate attention on Bradford including direct Manchester Airport trains), but at least there were plans for the future

But the OLR means the worst of all worlds, all of the lack of ambition of a “zero growth” franchise plus genuine cuts and no end in sight (unlike a badly written franchise where you at least know it’s finite and change will eventually come) in addition to zero accountability because who’s going to hold the Government’s feet to the flames?

As pointed out earlier, LNER is one of the easiest routes to operate, lots of lucrative fares on a line where any operator should be able to generate some surplus

South Eastern seem like the worst performing of the ex- Southern Region operators, from my limited experience

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If you are pinning your hopes on Labour being more rail-orientated you might, on the basis of previous experience, be disappointed.

For instance, before the 1964 election, Labour's manifesto commitment was to 'reverse Beeching'. In power, they continued with Beeching and even closed lines that Beeching considered should stay.

Funnily enough (and I have an equal dislike of all parties) there is an argument that the Conservatives are more rail-friendly than the Labour Party.

Exactly

 

[Tobbes]

Par to Newquay on a non stop IET is around 50 minutes.
Par to St Austell is 6 minutes.
St Austell to Newquay on an upgrade track along the Parkandillack would be, at a guess, 30 minutes, as its not exactly a straight high speed route.
(you might get more reductions by closing/replacing level crossings on the route but at a cost)

So best guess, for London to Newquay around 15 minutes.

The benefits would be more local, eg Newquay to St Austell and Truro.

Excellent - many thanks. Would any of the existing route east of St Dennis Juncton be retained?

 

[TheBigD]

Excellent - many thanks. Would any of the existing route east of St Dennis Juncton be retained?

Bearing in mind it ain't going to happen...

Par to Burngullow is used by freight.
Burngullow to St Dennis Junction would be unused.
St Dennis Juncyion to Newquay no change.

As I said in an earlier post, it was proposed as part of the A30 widening in the late 1980s (I think) but the rail part never happened.

 

[Tobbes]

Bearing in mind it ain't going to happen...

Par to Burngullow is used by freight.
Burngullow to St Dennis Junction would be unused.
St Dennis Juncyion to Newquay no change.

As I said in an earlier post, it was proposed as part of the A30 widening in the late 1980s (I think) but the rail part never happened.

Fair enough- forgive me, I wasn't clear @TheBigD - accepting that this is unlikely, would anything be retained between St Dennis Junction and Par? If rule one of change is that those who lose shout much more loudly than those who are gaining incrementally, what would need to be done to mitigate the utility losses for passenger from Bugle, Luxulyan and Roche? Given low passenger numbers, presumably an improved bus service?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fair enough- forgive me, I wasn't clear @TheBigD - accepting that this is unlikely, would anything be retained between St Dennis Junction and Par? If rule one of change is that those who lose shout much more loudly than those who are gaining incrementally, what would need to be done to mitigate the utility losses for passenger from Bugle, Luxulyan and Roche? Given low passenger numbers, presumably an improved bus service?

Luxulyan would be the main loser, but it is tiny. The other two have far better bus service than rail service already.

I think the benefits of this would be significant if done right.