"Rail’s growth agenda evaporates as Treasury takes control"

[Clarence Yard]

As one of the few senior managers left in the industry who has experience of the pre-1985 (approx) cost conscious railway and who had to cope with the 1990 BR financial crisis (caused by the Treasury setting increasingly hard in year targets), can we leave the Tory vs Labour stuff alone - it’s the Treasury that has consistently wanted to see the financial drain that is the railways sorted out once and for all - arguably the TGWU dominated Labour Government didn’t do BR many favours in the 1970’s and it was Maggie who opened the purse strings in the mid 1980’s and we saw money being spent on BR like most of us had never seen before. Still didn’t make this old one-time union rep vote Tory though!

Where to cut costs? Easy. Staff are always where to look at if you want to make real savings. If I was in the following jobs, I would be concerned - Train Planning, Booking Office, TOC Commercial, TOC Finance and, don’t shoot me, Guards.

Once you have fixed on a sustainable train service that carries your present load, let driver staff establishments naturally and gradually fall to the level that you need to run that service. Saves on the redundancy. Look at combining depots where different TOCs operate out of the same town or city - the cheapest TOC gets the work and transfers in get to retain their pay rate until the others catch up.

Then make sure you drive out all the surplus stock you can by returning them to the ROSCO as early as you can. Back to the dark days of Autumn 1980 when we were literally pulling them out of service and sending them for store, stripping or scrap. That means you can start reducing your maintenance staff through natural wastage but, unlike those days, I can’t see any depots that could close.

What does that mean about accommodating future growth? You don’t worry about that - the Treasury will tell the DfT to get it priced off, just like BR had to do. Fighting for any investment or extra services then becomes a Herculean task.

Nobody wants to go back to the days when you wanted a new pencil from the stores and you appeared with our stub and, instead of a new one, you got a metal rod to put your stub into but the days of plenty are gone and, despite the climate change agenda, we are now going to have to fight for our continued existence with other government departments looking to grab our funding.

 

[tbtc]

This 90% figure that you quote is a figment.

Just because not everyone commutes everyday, doesn't mean that they'd be willing to see the station that they use every so often, close.

A figment?

90% of the UK population don't use trains regularly

If you live in an enthusiast bubble you'll probably think that everyone is equally obsessed, and doing a round trip from London to Newcastle just to sample a few hundred yards of track that Lumo serves round the back of York station is a normal day out

But look at how little outrage there's been to the various cuts of the past eighteen months - a small number of people have tried to make a large amount of noise but I don't think there's been any "painful" reaction from the general public that a number of services have been cut and not properly reintroduced (e.g. you've mentioned the lack of Wakefield - Huddersfield trains but it's been effectively scrapped without much notice)

Do you believe that there's a majority of people who were happy to accept closure of their library/ Sure Start etc and the downgrading of various other public services (medical appointment times etc) will draw the line at the scrapping of a train station they've barely used in the past decade? I think you overestimate these things a little.

we are now going to have to fight for our continued existence with other government departments looking to grab our funding.

Interesting post - thanks - I think that people don't appreciate how well railways were insulated from austerity (service levels guaranteed for the length of franchises etc) - now, the rail budget is going to have to compete with other Treasury demands - the other Government departments are going to look at the billions that the railway is swallowing up and make a case to 11 Downing Street that the funds could be better allocated to their specific projects instead.

As I've tried to explain to people before, be careful what you wish for

 

[Glenn1969]

A figment?

90% of the UK population don't use trains regularly

If you live in an enthusiast bubble you'll probably think that everyone is equally obsessed, and doing a round trip from London to Newcastle just to sample a few hundred yards of track that Lumo serves round the back of York station is a normal day out

But look at how little outrage there's been to the various cuts of the past eighteen months - a small number of people have tried to make a large amount of noise but I don't think there's been any "painful" reaction from the general public that a number of services have been cut and not properly reintroduced (e.g. you've mentioned the lack of Wakefield - Huddersfield trains but it's been effectively scrapped without much notice)

Do you believe that there's a majority of people who were happy to accept closure of their library/ Sure Start etc and the downgrading of various other public services (medical appointment times etc) will draw the line at the scrapping of a train station they've barely used in the past decade? I think you overestimate these things a little.



Interesting post - thanks - I think that people don't appreciate how well railways were insulated from austerity (service levels guaranteed for the length of franchises etc) - now, the rail budget is going to have to compete with other Treasury demands - the other Government departments are going to look at the billions that the railway is swallowing up and make a case to 11 Downing Street that the funds could be better allocated to their specific projects instead.

As I've tried to explain to people before, be careful what you wish for

Pretty sure I once read that 90 % of all journeys are made by car. That said I wouldn't cut anything based on 2020 and 2021 figures given how badly affected by Covid these years have been. I think they should take a long term view and not judge until at least 2023 or 2024. Plus presumably to achieve net zero most of the network will need to have wiring in place or planned by 2035

 

[43066]

Well, what happens eventually is anyone’s guess. But the unions and Network Rail are having national level discussions. It’s far to early to tell if these will make any progress.

A period of low/no pay rises is one thing, but the idea that operational rail staff should be expected to see a large diminution in Ts and Cs is morally indefensible, given that we have continued working to provide an essential service throughout. With the government on a spending spree like never before it’s quite right that the rail unions do whatever it takes to defend their members’ interests.

The threat of the network being paralysed for weeks and months at a time - which absolutely nobody concerned wants - will (hopefully) be enough to ensure a sensible course is charted.

On the other hand I would also hope that the unions will be pragmatic enough to accept that some change is inevitable in certain areas - ticketing and ticket offices being one such area.

My suspicion is that the (short term, populist) government lacks the appetite for an all out war with the unions which will inevitably lead to massive disruption far in excess of any cost savings actually achieved. If there’s one thing this government doesn’t like it’s bad headlines. Plus of course it’s going to be eighteen months or so before anything meaningfully changes and fare revenue will no doubt increase further as Covid continues to receed. Clearly that recovery will be a big factor in determining what follows.

Once you have fixed on a sustainable train service that carries your present load, let driver staff establishments naturally and gradually fall to the level that you need to run that service. Saves on the redundancy. Look at combining depots where different TOCs operate out of the same town or city - the cheapest TOC gets the work and transfers in get to retain their pay rate until the others catch up.

Driver establishment is already below where it needs to be to operate the current (reduced) service in many places without substantial overtime, cross covering between depots etc.

90% of the UK population don't use trains regularly

The 10% that do (affluent, concentrated in London and the south east) are going to be worth more than their weight in influence (so to speak).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

As one of the few senior managers left in the industry who has experience of the pre-1985 (approx) cost conscious railway and who had to cope with the 1990 BR financial crisis (caused by the Treasury setting increasingly hard in year targets), can we leave the Tory vs Labour stuff alone - it’s the Treasury that has consistently wanted to see the financial drain that is the railways sorted out once and for all - arguably the TGWU dominated Labour Government didn’t do BR many favours in the 1970’s and it was Maggie who opened the purse strings in the mid 1980’s and we saw money being spent on BR like most of us had never seen before. Still didn’t make this old one-time union rep vote Tory though!

Where to cut costs? Easy. Staff are always where to look at if you want to make real savings. If I was in the following jobs, I would be concerned - Train Planning, Booking Office, TOC Commercial, TOC Finance and, don’t shoot me, Guards.

Once you have fixed on a sustainable train service that carries your present load, let driver staff establishments naturally and gradually fall to the level that you need to run that service. Saves on the redundancy. Look at combining depots where different TOCs operate out of the same town or city - the cheapest TOC gets the work and transfers in get to retain their pay rate until the others catch up.

Then make sure you drive out all the surplus stock you can by returning them to the ROSCO as early as you can. Back to the dark days of Autumn 1980 when we were literally pulling them out of service and sending them for store, stripping or scrap. That means you can start reducing your maintenance staff through natural wastage but, unlike those days, I can’t see any depots that could close.

What does that mean about accommodating future growth? You don’t worry about that - the Treasury will tell the DfT to get it priced off, just like BR had to do. Fighting for any investment or extra services then becomes a Herculean task.

Nobody wants to go back to the days when you wanted a new pencil from the stores and you appeared with our stub and, instead of a new one, you got a metal rod to put your stub into but the days of plenty are gone and, despite the climate change agenda, we are now going to have to fight for our continued existence with other government departments looking to grab our funding.

Pretty spot on and as a engineer from the same era we learnt how to sweat the assets and build out infrastructure improvements, not on the cheap as many on here would suggest, but sufficient to sustain the railway through hard times. Difference now is many costs aren't easily controllable like Agility Trains contract (luckily Hitachi have managed to screw it up so that has conveniently kicked that one into long grass), don't suspect DofT too bothered about 701 fiasco either and with NR on secure funding for operate and renewal for several more years its no wonder enhancements are off the radar as thats only controllable costs in the short term.
What doesn't see to be mentioned on this thread is that many service cutbacks have come from shortages of train crew due to training and ongoing competency assessment delays not just lack of passengers.
Lets be honest the rush hour was a challenge but the slightest issue and it would rapidly collapse into a heap and the resource provision to run it should be low hanging fruit so that should help in providing a more reliable service that ought to attract passengers.
Oh and our CO1 was a master at maximising every last bit of those pencils by using old biros - very sustainable when you think about it.
Finally the massive improvement in H&S has made the industry a whole lot safer for both passenger and workforce but this acts as a huge constraint to making quick changes now.

 

[HSTEd]

It would appear that any enhancements or investment (like electrification or new stock or what not) will have to be justified on reducing expenditure or increasing net revenue.

For example you might be able to make a case of buying high performance electrodiesels for Northern to replace sprinters on the basis that the very high performance compared to Sprinters would reduce the need for seperate stopper/semi fast services - so less trains and less staff overall without seriously degrading the attractiveness of the service.

But no more electrification unless HS2 requires it, unless NR can get costs firmly and actually under control.

One wonders if the government could cut services enough to release enough rolling stock to put ROSCOs into significiant financial difficulty..... increaisng the leverage the government has over them.

 

[JonathanH]

Working on lines Monday-Friday 0930-1530 would have the advantages of:

• lesser disruption to working people or schoolchildren who use trains for commuting or leisure
• reduced staff costs because these are not "antisocial hours" attracting premium rates
• daytime nearly all of the year (except late afternoon in Scotland in midwinter), so safer and no need for artificial lighting

It needs to be possessions for longer than 0930-1530 though doesn't it as that doesn't leave a lot of time to do anything between allowing for set up and tidying up. If possessions can take a whole week including both weekends there is a much longer working and more can get done.

That said, no doubt there will be a cut back in maintenance and renewals requiring less possessions in the first place.

 

[Annetts key]

It needs to be possessions for longer than 0930-1530 though doesn't it as that doesn't leave a lot of time to do anything between allowing for set up and tidying up. If possessions can take a whole week including both weekends there is a much longer working and more can get done.

That said, no doubt there will be a cut back in maintenance and renewals requiring less possessions in the first place.

The ‘white’ space during the day is intended for routine regular maintenance rather than renewals or heavy maintenance.

 

[JonathanH]

The ‘white’ space during the day is intended for routine regular maintenance rather than renewals or heavy maintenance.

I do wonder whether the rules might be changed so that a 0930-1530 white space could be organised on a regular basis without bus replacement. The railway would save a fortune if it didn't have to provide alternative transport. Maybe it is time for the rules to be changed, provided it is advertised well enough.

 

[Jozhua]

Railways were one of my entry points into understanding the dysfunction of UK politics on a more deep level.

I liken the Conservative party to a bunch of spoilt five year olds fighting over who next gets a turn on the swing. No-one is able to ever achieve anything because once on the swing, all the other kids refuse to push them because it is "their turn!!!".

Rishi Sunak is a careerist ideologue who is absolutely gunning for the prime minister role. In the meantime he refuses to guide treasury in the PM's direction, instead going on his personal whims. He claps for the PM during the party conference, before immediately going back to undermining him at every turn.

Johnson occasionally says the right things and perhaps he is earnest in his beliefs around climate change and "levelling up". But it appears to either be "blah blah blah", or a complete inability to achieve anything, even when his party commands a majority and pretty broad public support...that's regardless of the sticks he pokes into his own bike wheels.

Internal government battles can be seen on pretty much every piece of paperwork released, primarily between DfT and Treasury/NIC pen pushers who have no idea about long term planning/investment or project management. Everything can only be seen through the lens of short term "value for money" and returns. Of course anyone who knows about say rolling electrification, understands that investing in setting up a supply chain and the right skills constitutes a larger upfront cost, but then you can continue to electrify with more reasonable £££ per STKs. Of course the genius pen pushing pinheads at treasury did all the expensive upfront stuff, before cancelling the rest of it.

"Behind the NHS, its probably one of the biggest costs to central government"

This is absolute balderdash.

Look at any pie chart of government expenditure you'll see that the vast majority is spent on social security and pensions, NHS etc. The proportion spent on the railway is a tiny slither.

Like!

Also remember railways generate way more economic value than they cost government. Noticed with the Nottingham trams going on strike, noticeably quieter in the city centre today. These things pretty much universally generate more value than they cost, so the burden to "taxpayers" (hate that term ) is actually negative.

Remember how much railways, roads and shipping have transformed the economy. Funny how investment all but halting in those has been at the same time we've seen economic stagnation... I'd argue the former caused the latter!

Rolling stock is an interesting one, given the nature of some of the leases a 10% reduction in services won’t directly lead to a 10% reduction in rolling stock costs.

Huh, wonder if there are any say leasing companies who get paid to essentially do nothing, with whom getting rid of would save a similar amount of money...

There was always the risk that GBR could potentially lead to actually more, not less micro-management dependent on the whims of the Treasury and/or the government of the time. Whoever sets up the function at the beginning has a critical role because that is no doubt a structure that will probably last for 20 years at least.

There's some downright bizarre decisions (the APD domestic cut), as well as a classic amount of short-termism and it never ceases to amaze me how endemic this is in the UK.

Oh my god don't even start on air duty!!! It's increased for long haul, for which there IS somehow a viable alternative?

Short termism is an absolute scourge in UK politics. That and the idea of "my life is miserable so yours should be too".

If you were the Treasury, would you let the railway anywhere near that given railway management’s total inability to manage costs that has been demonstrated for many, many years?

I'd argue it's the Treasury that has been completely unable to manage costs, or at least the actual value that is generated by the money spent.

If national infrastructure schemes are so populist, why is there such a backlash against HS2 with more people talking about "using ££billions for local railways or our NHS"? Partly its poor PR on behalf of HS2, but many people also fail to grasp long-term benefits with expensive initial outlays.

We really need a way to like posts on here.

 

[JamesT]

Rail has 10ish percent share as a mode of transport, that is to say that 10pc of all journeys are made by rail, not that 10pc of people in general use rail. It’s an important distinction to make but easy to misinterpret

Though https://yougov.co.uk/topics/transpo...ten-brits-havent-set-foot-train-last-12-month has only 9% making more than 20 trips a year. You can quibble over the exact level where taking a train stops being ‘rare’ (which was @tbtc ’s claim), but the overall splits in usage are clear.

 

[tomuk]

Rishi Sunak is a careerist ideologue who is absolutely gunning for the prime minister role.

And the relationship between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown was completely amicable and free of any friction

 

[Kettledrum]

It would appear that any enhancements or investment (like electrification or new stock or what not) will have to be justified on reducing expenditure or increasing net revenue.

For example you might be able to make a case of buying high performance electrodiesels for Northern to replace sprinters on the basis that the very high performance compared to Sprinters would reduce the need for seperate stopper/semi fast services - so less trains and less staff overall without seriously degrading the attractiveness of the service.

But no more electrification unless HS2 requires it, unless NR can get costs firmly and actually under control.

This may indeed be the Treasury's thinking, but it seems so wrong at a time when we are phasing out diesel cars and we are having the COP26 climate change conference as things are at crisis point.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don’t know about the TOC scheme, but the NR scheme is not very generous.

The TOC scheme is the same. In my view it is sufficiently generous, given the number of people who have taken up the offer.

With the reduction in commuting, particularly in the South East, maybe it's time to start looking at Monday and Friday daytime engineering work, as those are the quietest days of the week.

They are not. For the network as a whole, every weekday is busier than either Saturday or Sunday.

The picture is different on some lines, but then it always was.

 

[ic31420]

Have they tried a hybrid method of working, or are they expecting everyone all in five days a week in one go ?

Very much everything is on the table. The desire was for people to start returning in the summer, be that a few people full time or a few days a week. There was some trepidation for some but those who are back have been fine and all their fears have not been realised.

There is just a hard core who seem to have taken the view they can work from home just fine. I don't listen to the waffle but I believe they keep just citing H&S legislation.

I don't think it can come continue and it's going to come to a head probably in the new year.

Anyway... Thread drift and mods hate that here.

 

[Robertj21a]

As one of the few senior managers left in the industry who has experience of the pre-1985 (approx) cost conscious railway and who had to cope with the 1990 BR financial crisis (caused by the Treasury setting increasingly hard in year targets), can we leave the Tory vs Labour stuff alone - it’s the Treasury that has consistently wanted to see the financial drain that is the railways sorted out once and for all - arguably the TGWU dominated Labour Government didn’t do BR many favours in the 1970’s and it was Maggie who opened the purse strings in the mid 1980’s and we saw money being spent on BR like most of us had never seen before. Still didn’t make this old one-time union rep vote Tory though!

Where to cut costs? Easy. Staff are always where to look at if you want to make real savings. If I was in the following jobs, I would be concerned - Train Planning, Booking Office, TOC Commercial, TOC Finance and, don’t shoot me, Guards.

Once you have fixed on a sustainable train service that carries your present load, let driver staff establishments naturally and gradually fall to the level that you need to run that service. Saves on the redundancy. Look at combining depots where different TOCs operate out of the same town or city - the cheapest TOC gets the work and transfers in get to retain their pay rate until the others catch up.

Then make sure you drive out all the surplus stock you can by returning them to the ROSCO as early as you can. Back to the dark days of Autumn 1980 when we were literally pulling them out of service and sending them for store, stripping or scrap. That means you can start reducing your maintenance staff through natural wastage but, unlike those days, I can’t see any depots that could close.

What does that mean about accommodating future growth? You don’t worry about that - the Treasury will tell the DfT to get it priced off, just like BR had to do. Fighting for any investment or extra services then becomes a Herculean task.

Nobody wants to go back to the days when you wanted a new pencil from the stores and you appeared with our stub and, instead of a new one, you got a metal rod to put your stub into but the days of plenty are gone and, despite the climate change agenda, we are now going to have to fight for our continued existence with other government departments looking to grab our funding.

Excellent, many thanks - and to 'tbtc' post that follows.

 

[Watershed]

The TOC scheme is the same. In my view it is sufficiently generous, given the number of people who have taken up the offer.

It's twice as much as statutory redundancy pay would be for most people, with no maximum weekly pay or total amount. That sounds pretty generous to me as you say; the fact that railway redundancy schemes have historically been more generous is neither here nor there.

 

[Goldfish62]

This may indeed be the Treasury's thinking, but it seems so wrong at a time when we are phasing out diesel cars and we are having the COP26 climate change conference as things are at crisis point.

I've long concluded the Treasury is staffed by a bunch of nihilists.

 

[Wolfie]

It might be better off at Network Rail than at TOCs because expectation management has been better. But if trade unions brand the principle of voluntary severance as "outrageous" during a financial crisis, I hate to guess what the RMT view of contract harmonisation or structured pay bands would be.

At some point, likely sooner rather than later, l suspect that HMG will take RMT on head-on aiming to break the union - BoZo fancying his Thatcher moment. Sadly its public image means that the TU will get precious little support. In fact l'm only surprised that it didn't happen during CV lockdown - the massive reductions in passenger numbers would have provided a ready excuse.

 

[The Planner]

I do wonder whether the rules might be changed so that a 0930-1530 white space could be organised on a regular basis without bus replacement. The railway would save a fortune if it didn't have to provide alternative transport. Maybe it is time for the rules to be changed, provided it is advertised well enough.

Things may change, but suggestions like that get a very firm "no" from operators at the moment.

 

[Annetts key]

At some point, likely sooner rather than later, l suspect that HMG will take RMT on head-on aiming to break the union - BoZo fancying his Thatcher moment. Sadly its public image means that the TU will get precious little support. In fact l'm only surprised that it didn't happen during CV lockdown - the massive reductions in passenger numbers would have provided a ready excuse.

I can only talk about what’s happening on NR.

Most long serving NR infrastructure staff have already gone through restructuring under the private infrastructure companies before NR was created. And more recently, under the NR 2B/C reorganisation in 2010 where large numbers of posts were removed.

You do know that before any industrial action, the RMT asks it’s members (the employees of the company) if they support industrial action. And only if there is sufficient support will it go to a ballot (as per the law).

We (the members) don’t want industrial action. It’s hard to tell what NR plans are, as they have not given the unions any written proposals so far. So any talk of industrial action is very premature. Especially as talks and discussions are at an early stage.

Having said that, if negotiations fail and no agreement is reached, and an awful change is forced in, of course the unions should give their members the choice of taking industrial action.

 

[geoffk]

A few things to throw in here -
The railway has very high fixed costs and, as has been stated above, cutting service levels will not make a big dent in them. Line closures seem incompatible with reopening to Okehampton, Ashington etc. Given the fall in commuting, what about closing a London terminus? Cannon Street, for example, if its trains can be accommodated at London Bridge or Charing Cross; even Marylebone - extend the Met to Aylesbury and reroute the rest back into Paddington. Maybe a silly idea and I've never lived in, or commuted to, London. But perhaps worth an airing.
Railways in UK have costs not borne by their overseas neighbours - fencing is an obvious example, along with the insistence on ramped bridges at stations rather than a light-controlled crossing as is common on secondary lines in Europe. "Reducing safety standards" everyone will cry, especially the Daily Mail, but how do they actually manage in, say, Germany and how do safety records compare?
There are other way of raising money for rail improvements - the Workplace Parking Levy is a charge on employers who provide workplace parking, a type of congestion charging scheme. All councils have the powers to raise this but, to date, only Nottingham has made use of it. "Land value capture" is to be used to part-fund the Ashington line and the idea has been around for some time, being championed by Dave Wetzel at the erstwhile GLC. Both of these I believe for capital, rather than revenue, expenditure.

Feel free to shoot me down on some/all of these!

 

[Wolfie]

I can only talk about what’s happening on NR.

Most long serving NR infrastructure staff have already gone through restructuring under the private infrastructure companies before NR was created. And more recently, under the NR 2B/C reorganisation in 2010 where large numbers of posts were removed.

You do know that before any industrial action, the RMT asks it’s members (the employees of the company) if they support industrial action. And only if there is sufficient support will it go to a ballot (as per the law).

We (the members) don’t want industrial action. It’s hard to tell what NR plans are, as they have not given the unions any written proposals so far. So any talk of industrial action is very premature. Especially as talks and discussions are at an early stage.

Having said that, if negotiations fail and no agreement is reached, and an awful change is forced in, of course the unions should give their members the choice of taking industrial action.

To be very clear, l was offering my take on how HMG (or more accurately the current governing party) could well choose to operate. I well understand the role of a TU and was offering no opinion whatsoever on RMT. For context I am myself a TU member in the public sector who has had pay, T&Cs and pension hacked to pieces by both major parties and thus speak from bitter experience.

A Govt in trouble often seeks a dispute in order to focus public opinion on something other than their failings (see both sides in the Falklands war for example)....

 

[yorksrob]

I do wonder whether the rules might be changed so that a 0930-1530 white space could be organised on a regular basis without bus replacement. The railway would save a fortune if it didn't have to provide alternative transport. Maybe it is time for the rules to be changed, provided it is advertised well enough.

That's a terrible idea.

The railway needs to be seen as a reliable transport service if it is to attract passengers.

 

[Deltic1961]

Scotrail are constantly tweeting about future investment. Millions here and millions there .... despite a catastrophic decline in passenger numbers.

Any business I have ever worked in bases future expenditure on current (and projected) revenue but the railway system seems to be completely immune to this. I really don't understand how you can invest vast sums of money in something that doesn't have guaranteed future income, evem moreso with the raft of service cuts coming next year. It's bizarre.

 

[43066]

Scotrail are constantly tweeting about future investment. Millions here and millions there .... despite a catastrophic decline in passenger numbers.

Any business I have ever worked in bases future expenditure on current (and projected) revenue but the railway system seems to be completely immune to this. I really don't understand how you can invest vast sums of money in something that doesn't have guaranteed future income, evem moreso with the raft of service cuts coming next year. It's bizarre.

The railway isn’t (and never has been) a profit making business in its own right. It’s a public service which is invested in because it generates positive economic externalities. Looking purely at farebox revenue entirely misses that point.

The government has also just spent many, many billions propping up entirely commercial businesses with no guaranteed future income!

 

[Railwaysceptic]

A few things to throw in here -
The railway has very high fixed costs and, as has been stated above, cutting service levels will not make a big dent in them. Line closures seem incompatible with reopening to Okehampton, Ashington etc. Given the fall in commuting, what about closing a London terminus? Cannon Street, for example, if its trains can be accommodated at London Bridge or Charing Cross; even Marylebone - extend the Met to Aylesbury and reroute the rest back into Paddington. Maybe a silly idea and I've never lived in, or commuted to, London. But perhaps worth an airing.
Railways in UK have costs not borne by their overseas neighbours - fencing is an obvious example, along with the insistence on ramped bridges at stations rather than a light-controlled crossing as is common on secondary lines in Europe. "Reducing safety standards" everyone will cry, especially the Daily Mail, but how do they actually manage in, say, Germany and how do safety records compare?
There are other way of raising money for rail improvements - the Workplace Parking Levy is a charge on employers who provide workplace parking, a type of congestion charging scheme. All councils have the powers to raise this but, to date, only Nottingham has made use of it. "Land value capture" is to be used to part-fund the Ashington line and the idea has been around for some time, being championed by Dave Wetzel at the erstwhile GLC. Both of these I believe for capital, rather than revenue, expenditure.

Feel free to shoot me down on some/all of these!

I have no wish to shoot you down but closing Marylebone is not a workable idea. Paddington is full which is why the shuttle from Greenford now terminates at West Ealing. In addition substantially upgrading the link between Northolt Junction and Greenford is not currently sensible because HS2 plans to tunnel under the formation. When the tunnel is in place, it will be feasible. Extending the Metropolitan Line to Aylesbury is a non-starter, partly because between Amersham and Aylesbury the route is not electrified and partly because London Underground (and now TfL) have long made it crystal clear they have no intention of going back to Aylesbury.

 

[43066]

Excellent, many thanks - and to 'tbtc' post that follows.

What exactly do you find “excellent” about prospect of people losing their jobs? What a strange thing to take pleasure in…

 

[Ianno87]

Things may change, but suggestions like that get a very firm "no" from operators at the moment.

On the majority of the network, the timetable and crew workings are probably far too complex to unpick for such a thing. Plus impact on freight.

It might be practical on a branch line (say) where the unit simply skips a few round trips during the day.

For example, the Sheringham branch. A few round trips in the morning, units sit at Norwich during the day, and then back out in service in the evening. One or two days during the week in winter months when passenger numbers are down. Keeps the railway open for peak commuting/education trips and the valuable weekend leisure market. Could even facilitate (say) later Friday/Saturday trains.

That's a terrible idea.

The railway needs to be seen as a reliable transport service if it is to attract passengers.

OK, so what if occasional middle of day closures (suitably advertised in advance via Journey planners, social media, etc) meant that weekend bus replacement was *never* necessary?

The industry cannot simply turn round and say “can’t be done” to everything Because it is not the “traditional” way of doing things. Now is the time to think differently.

 

[43066]

OK, so what if occasional middle of day closures (suitably advertised in advance via Journey planners, social media, etc) meant that weekend bus replacement was *never* necessary?

The industry cannot simply turn round and say “can’t be done” to everything Because it is not the “traditional” way of doing things. Now is the time to think differently.

But it has been explained above that weekdays on the railway are busier than weekends, even now. Surely it follows that weekend closures still make more sense than during the week?

There’s no point in doing things differently just for the sake of it.