Back To Beeching - 40 Years On And More Cuts ??????

[Goingnorth]

There are some services in the UK that only have one service a week though. An example of this is Stockport to Stalybridge which has only one service a week in one direction (I think its on a Friday).

It's an important frieght line that's why it's there.

[Goingnorth]

Surely the fundamental problem is that the money we spend on our railways is spread too thinly.

As I understand it, the UK has the second largest rail network in Europe - a result of the Government in the late 19th century limiting railway companies' profits to a set rate of return on assets. Therefore, the only way of increasing their profits was to increase their assets by building lines into every corner of the UK. This means that UK railways are used much less intensively than those in most other countries and this lack of use is the main reason why the Government has to find cash to keep lines open.

As an example, in 2001/02 66% of all Government subsidy was spent on regional networks which earn less than 20% of revenue. ScotRail had the largest amount of subsidy and received about ten times the amount of subsidy that London commuter services received.

If you think that subsidies are acceptable as they ease things like congestion or pollution why do most of them go to areas such as the highlands of Scotland where these things aren't really a problem? What needs to happen is for subsidies to be targeted at those areas that do need them. Why aren't more subsidies provided for London & the South East? Almost three quarters of all rail journeys begin or end in London and they provide more than half of all passenger revenues but the TOC's providing those services receive only 18% of subsidies.

There clearly isn't a bottomless pit of money to spend on the railways and Lord Birt advised the Government last year that rail investment needs to be concentrated in London and the South-East. If that happens then some branch lines are going to disappear. The only alternative is a massive increase in subsidies which is only going to be funded by substantial increases in taxation and, despite all these protestations, hasn't the UK population consistently demonstrated that they don't want a heavier tax burden?

Don't forget that the motorist alone puts in some £42 billion per year into the tax pot, so in theory there is plenty of money coming from transport sources, it's all about wider government issues, such as the fact pensions are funded out of taxes instead of pension reserves for example.

The whole point about subsidy is more money if spend on areas where you have a thinner spread of population, or more distance between nodal points. The regional/London arguments are too simplistic, it depends on how you measure benefits in terms of things like tourism, social parity and so on. Moreover, freight traffic is spread across areas generally outside London and the SE. Apart from EWS international all freight makes a profit.

Historically lines terminate in the capital city, so many passengers are forced to travel through central London.

Some areas require more subsidy on account of local infrastructure conditions...for example the large amount of level crossings in Lincolnshire. Remember the roads generally became busy after the railways, so expensive and troublesome level crossing arrangement exists today sucking up large amounts of cash. Although no one in their right mind is suggesting closing lightly used roads? On large parts of the regional network extensive mechanical signalling exists which costs a great deal to staff and maintain and the investment has not been made. Whereas L&SE is by and large power signalled.

The real problems in the SE are because of an acute lack of capacity. And frankly the only way you can solve this is spend a vast amount of money on extending platforms, building new lines or moving the population. In most cases this just too expensive, and would suck up far more money than most of the regional TOCs get in subsidies over say a five year period.

Although most of the population is outside this area (! some 45 million), because it is thinly spread there are either less inter-town journeys (because of the comparative distance) or line utilisation is not as great, so doesn't earn as much per mile. Now take a city like Manchester, which is terms of land area is one fifth smaller than Greater London (498 square miles, compared to 610 square miles). Yet has nearly a 2/3rds less population. (2.5 million compared to 7.3 million)...so heavy flows of passengers are less.

So the reasons are geographical. Sure you could start closing railways, but actually in a wider economic sense you are cutting your nose off despite your face. Simply because you would encourage centralisation that brings problems of congestion. And fail to serve vast parts of the country, which would loose out further economically, causing more centralisation and a general downgrading as a whole.

It all goes back to historical arguments about industry, provision of services, market forces and so on. Essentially one of the biggest problems the country faces in population density in very small areas and concentration of certain industries. A crazy situation where you are proposing to build even more, expensive, housing in some parts where public services cannot cope and leaving (in comparative terms) a city the size of Birmingham with empty housing stock.

Essentially it is an political and planning argument rather than a straight case of certain things don't pay. There are much wider issues at stake. Leaving things to the market, profiteering with low taxes seems sensible in the short term. But this very policy has caused a great deal of problems today.

[anakha]

I dont agree though with your assumption that the public would not want to pay higher taxes for a better Rail service god knows the present one is the pits.

Are you sure about this? The howls of protest from the UK public on the question of road taxes, fuel taxes etc. might indicate that they're not all that keen on giving the Government lots of their money. The last 25 years have provided some evidence that the UK population likes low taxes. The Tories in 1987 and 1992 were largely re-elected on the basis of low taxation whilst a fundamental plank of the Labour party in 1997 was to make it clear that they were no longer a tax and spend party and would not seek to increase the tax burden.

I think the whole lot should be taken back into Public ownership because nobody is gonna convince me that Branson went into the rail and aviation industrys to provide better services,No he got in because he wants to be another Bill Gates.

The majority of the UK rail industry has effectively been nationalised. Network Rail has raised a loan guaranteed by the Government and most of the TOC's have been bailed out by the Government and aren't really independent any more. However, the Government doesn't want to call it nationalisation as the costs involved would then have to be counted as Government borrowing and they are fighting hard to keep as much expenditure off their books as possible.

Branson is a very disturbing case for example he owns a Modern airline a Railway and what does he do when he wants to travel round the world? Decides to travel by frigging hot Air balloon or does he know something we dont? maybe he considered the old balloon was the safest way to go.

And even then his hot air balloon record hasn't been that good - haven't most (all?) of his balloon expeditions ended in failure?

[anakha]

This means that UK railways are used much less intensively than those in most other countries and this lack of use is the main reason why the Government has to find cash to keep lines open.

Woooo slow down a minute, you trying ti tell me theres places more intensive than Waterloo during a weekday peak?

Bits of the UK rail network might be busier than anywhere else in Europe or the entire World as we currently know it but overall I think the point is valid. As I understand it, the UK a couple of years ago had something like 34,000 km of track and 39 billion annual passenger kilometers travelled. In comparison France had 32,000 km of track and 73 billion annual passenger kilometers travelled, Germany had 36,000 km of track and 74 billion annual passenger kilometers travelled and Japan had about 28,000 km of track and 384 billion annual passenger kilometers travelled.

It's pretty clear we have a lot of track and pretty low rates of usage compared to other countries.

[Goingnorth]

Yes, absolutely right, our track usage not very good, especially compared to places like Japan. Why is this? Principally because of the short train/mixed traffic nature of the railway we have.

Railways are very efficient movers of people. You can get 12-15 times the volume of passengers down a two-track railway compared to two-lane road. However once you start mixing stopping services with expresses and freight, you zap your capacity. Single track sections of line are obviously inefficient users of capacity in many cases.

For an 'on time' railway you need segregation of traffic, grade separated junctions and reliable kit and dedicated running lines running in one direction. Hence why virgin cross country, despite virgin's best efforts will never be at the top of the punctuality league.

Of course it's hugely expensive to start putting in extra lines and re-opening or building new lines. And in many cases financially it wouldn't wash it's own face. There's really two choices:

1. Longer trains and more freight loops and additional running lines.

or

2. The 'defined railway' concept to avoid 'the devil's hand' and regulation issues. This is why railways are essentially, where possible, one traffic use. You can then timetable very frequent services and have high punctuality rates, simply because traffic is running at the same speed with the same stopping patterns. For example, Japan run high-speed bullet trains 3 minutes apart carrying 1200 people. This is a very efficient and profitable method of transport. The services run for the most part on time, and there is simply no other way of moving such vast amounts of people. On the other end of the scale, for example Sunderland direct, where fast trains mix with a metro service the punctuality has tumbled. Operation princess spelt disaster for time keeping on cross country when frequent, short, long distance trains were run.

The options for types of railway are:

a) Metro railways. Many heavy rail schemes have started to be converted over to light rail, with a great deal of success. Running costs are much lower and services become virtually door-to-door. Really, in many conurbations where possible, heavy rail could be converted to light rail. Because services can run in the street, and trams/trains are lightweight, low cost units there are significant savings. You can also run more services and even drive on sight in some cases. Even out of town railways could be converted/and/or dedicated running lines laid. For example you could convert the T&W metro to a tram system, run on street as well as convert the Durham coast line and Teesside to trams. Obviously all signalling and track control would be replaced. The heavy rail freight would run on it's own tracks, and possibly just use the ECML, say if an HSL was built. More of which later.

b) Community railways. A typical example would be a scenic branch line (eg Whitby) or even the West highland line. These would be low capacity, mix use railways run by enthusiasts/local councils and small companies. They could make use of Heritage stock, and be primarily tourist railways, although serve the community. The wensleydale line has already shown the way forward, as have many of the preserved railways.

c) Freight priority routes. Essentially medium/low capacity very heavy freight routes. Not to say passenger trains cannot run, but essentially freight always takes preference and these would be run by freight TOCs. Ideally these would be signalling with two and three aspect signalling with axle counters and follow north American practice. Examples could be the S&C or Berks and Hants. Ideally you would route passenger trains off onto other routes or lay additional running tracks.

d) Passenger priority routes. High capacity, medium speed (100-125mph). Freight traffic would be minimal or would run at night. Lines would be signalled with conventional 3 and 4 aspect signals. Trains would all follow a similar stopping pattern, and stopping services would either be on metro lines or on segregated running lines. A typical example would be the Virgin cross country network, or trans Pennine. The lines would be run by the passenger TOCs. The commuter networks would also be an example.

e) High speed lines. High capacity routes with very high speed (above 162 mph) running. Dedicated new lines, maybe running to the west and north. Built with double deck capacity in mind.

Of course this is all hugely expensive in many cases. You would need to build many new lines and relay tracks. That said, there would be cost savings in other areas. But the two options above are the only way to increase capacity AND have a punctual railway. I think out present network has pretty much reached it's limits in many places and 80-90% time keeping really are the limits for these sort of mixed traffic routes.

[boeing126]

In reply to Robbie i think there was a poll carried out last year Among the public and i think something like 80% said they would be prepared to pay more taxes for rail travel if the trains were run on time. In the end its gonna be a political decission.
Regarding richard Branson i think its a case of dick by name and dick by any other name.

[Kevo00]

I guess option 2 might be the best way forward for the UK then, especially as we already have different types of TOC that broadly fit those categories.

The trouble is finding the cash for all the customisation needed.

[mattvince]

Interesting suggestions Goingnorth, I think option 2 would be ideal, however - how much is the government prepared to pay? Ultimately it has to be the Government - capital investments in rail are of a price no bank would be prepared to lend out - at least not without an interest rate set high enough to kill the scheme within six months.

Segregated alignments are ideal - something which should be extended. There are already examples of true segregation, the GWML out of Paddington as far as Didcot is probably the best - and with traffic flows high enough, or potentially high enough, to make that DF/UF DS/US (paired by use) viable - I await the Greaterish Western '04 timetable rehash to see if those fast lines are properly used by 125mph stock. Unfortunately I can see the only section of four-track to be laid in the next ten years will be the Trent Valley (WCML).

Community Railways - ideal, and there's almost a model for it: Island Line, and the aforementioned Wensleydale line.

The Berks and Hants would be iffy as a freight priority line - only if the TT commuter services are not disrupted.

However - I doubt whether much of this will happen...

[anakha]

In reply to Robbie i think there was a poll carried out last year Among the public and i think something like 80% said they would be prepared to pay more taxes for rail travel if the trains were run on time.

You are right. I've found at least one poll - an ICM poll of 1001 adults carried out in November 2002 - which asked would people be in favour or against further tax increases to provide extra money for the NHS and other public services and 62% said they would be in favour of higher taxes whilst 34% were against.

[Goingnorth]

In reply to Robbie i think there was a poll carried out last year Among the public and i think something like 80% said they would be prepared to pay more taxes for rail travel if the trains were run on time. In the end its gonna be a political decission.
Regarding richard Branson i think its a case of dick by name and dick by any other name.

Richard Branson has never made anything personally from Virgin rail group, and I think if Railtrack hadn't fouled them up he would have done even better.

[micksasse]

And let's not forget that the railways are now receiving FOUR TIMES, yes, let's say that again: FOUR TIMES the subsidy required by British Rail. This is not because traffic has dropped - it hasn't; it's not because fares have dropped - they haven't. Nor is it because more maintenance is being carried out than under BR - whatever the SRA and Tom Winsor et al will say, the 'decades of underinvestment' mantra is balls.

Around 75% of the increase is down purely and simply to privatisation and the disintegration (in the literal sense) of the former network (the bulk of the remainder of the increase being down to Health 'n Safety issues and other factors). Until there is the will to bite the bullet and reverse this destructive action, whether by nationalisation, or, if Blairite dogma precludes that, by the creation of one or more unitary private monopolies with full vertical integration (i.e. trains plus maintenance plus tracks), then we will keep coming up with nonsensical, short-sighted, irrelevant and downright dangerous strategies like the current argument about where to spend maintenance and renewal funds.

The point is not to move maintenance from secondary routes to primary ones (thereby shafting freight expansion by the way), but to shift expenditure from maintaining the bloated bureaucratic infrastructure of private enterprise into concrete investment in the network.

The railways will always (at least for the foreseeable future) need public money, but the public are entitled to expect that their funds are actually put into the railways themselves, which means tracks, trains, signals etc, - and not into drafting contracts, arguing track access charges, appealing regulatory decisions, apportioning blame for delays, and dividends, dividends and more dividends.

[boeing126]

What pees me off about all this lot is passengers have lost there lives through in my opinion sheer bloody incompetence and i,m sorry to say its gonna happen again.Rail track were the chief culprits of what has turned out to be a privatisation nightmare.If we accept railtracks arguement that the tracks e.t.c. had suffered years of neglect then they should have come out in the begining and said so instead of soldiering on doing track patch up jobs,Now the system is on the point of being completely knackered.As for Branson maybe i was a little hard on him after all he cant run his tilting h.s.ts on substandard track but i,m still a bit down on his previous mode of travel maybe he will be in his element one day if the balloon really goes up.

[Goingnorth]

As always it is political, and we do need another structure. Those that think the current one will work need to get into the real world and examine practicalities and human nature. Suffice to say, it doesn't take a genius to work out that an extra 200 profit margins cost the railway, as a whole, a lot more in the long run.

Here's a thought for the night:

Politicians...One of the few jobs that you don't have to know one thing about your responsibilities...

Mind you John Major did want the big four, so he wasn't that bad, even if he was a Tory..

[anakha]

Don't forget that the motorist alone puts in some £42 billion per year into the tax pot, so in theory there is plenty of money coming from transport sources, it's all about wider government issues...

Exactly. There is a finite amount of money for the Government to spend each year on our behalf. Government expenditure in the UK for 2001/2002 was expected to be £394 billion with 30% of that for Social Security, 17% for Health and 12% for Education. It seems unrealistic to demand that the Government spends more and more on railway services to support branch lines that see little use. If we do demand that the Government directs money to support such rail services then we have to accept that money has to come from elsewhere in the budget or that the budget has to increase - i.e. more tax or more Government borrowing.

The whole point about subsidy is more money if spend on areas where you have a thinner spread of population, or more distance between nodal points. The regional/London arguments are too simplistic, it depends on how you measure benefits in terms of things like tourism, social parity and so on.

The important point is that the London area generates 17.5% of Britain's entire GDP and yet the amount of Government railways funding it receives is less than one tenth of that received by Scotrail.

Essentially it is an political and planning argument rather than a straight case of certain things don't pay. There are much wider issues at stake. Leaving things to the market, profiteering with low taxes seems sensible in the short term. But this very policy has caused a great deal of problems today.

Are the UK railways being run as a social service or are they supposed to pay their way? If they are a social service it doesn't matter how much tax-payers money is lost each year we have to accept that as the price to pay. If they are supposed to pay their way then the current set-up is flawed with funding decisions on Britains railways not being based on economic or cost vs benefit analysis.

Finally, someone will have to explain to me why market disciplines won't work in the UK railway industry. When done well, deregulation seems to have produced improvements for consumers in a lot of other former state industries.

[johndibben]

The main problem is how much the public are prepared to pay for a decent transport system. In my experince, some would pay prefer to pay nothing and would vote accordingly.

The next problem is, who want's to use public transport. Again, in my experience, many prefer to travel by car, only using other forms of transport grudgingly.

Comparisons with countries abroad arn't valid as every country is unique. Especially this one Yes, I do know the definition of 'unique'

Japan is probably the nearest to our railway system but their people, government and whole ethos is different to ours.

Bicycles are always forgotten in these debates. Most roads arn't safe for them. Milton Keynes has an innovative cycle way system. Carefully avoiding road traffic and utilising areas with many trees and bushes. If you miss the broken bottles, you might still get mugged. Yes, high speed doesn't prove a barriers to MK's 'nippy' layabouts

Seriously, people like to use bicycles where they feel safe and some travel considerable distances to work.

The idea od defining lines for a purpose is very appealing as they often fall into one of the four catagories mentioned above.

Track utilisation would be better served by abandoning the obseesion for speed in favour of increasing freight train limits. As freight trains can be held up by 'stopping' services, this need not be much higher than existing speeds.

Speed in itself doesn't help track utilisation unless a traffic is co-ordinated. Difficult to achieve with so many TOC's.

Freight pays it's way with some subsidy but has drastically reduced. Passenger traffic can do the same but the result will be the same.

It would help if punitive measures like London's 'congestion charge' wre directly linked with improvements to alternative forms of transport. Some 'carrott' with the 'stick'.

The 'problems' are only caused by Democracy at work. The majority of UK appears to want a public transport system, on the cheap, for use when the car isn't an option and for other people to use the rest of the time.

And that's what they've got