Great British Railways - The proposed changes
Discussion
BlimeyCharlie said:
Either a train/railway can be run at a profit, or it can't?
We've had almost 200 years to work it out.
I just don’t think people realise how massively expensive it is to operate and maintain a railway. I don’t think it is possible to run a railway at a “profit” without government subsidy.We've had almost 200 years to work it out.
Indeed the concept of profit and railways is hard to imagine; in my view it’s just about minimising the amount of government subsidy.
What that means is that the tax payer is paying the bill whether you use the railway or not, and whether there is even a railway anywhere near you.
We have to look at railways as a national resource/ infrastructure for the good of the whole country and accept the cost…….as long as there is actually a benefit to the whole country.
BlimeyCharlie said:
Either a train/railway can be run at a profit, or it can't?
We've had almost 200 years to work it out.
Does the road outside your house run at a profit?We've had almost 200 years to work it out.
No It doesn’t it would be absurd to think it could, or even should. But if was taken away because it ran at a loss you would be a bit stuck.
We still need the railways and we have to accept they will not be profitable.
I agree they could be a damn site more efficient in the same way the NHS could be too.
Stedman said:
WyrleyD said:
It'll only work properly if they sack all the train drivers and re-employ those that actually want to work and can be relied upon to provide a reliable service.
Right-oNo surprise that countries without that hurdle out-perform us.
Simpo Two said:
Unions have this bizarre idea that their members can do half as much work for twice as much money, and that every employer is an unlimited pot of money.
No surprise that countries without that hurdle out-perform us.
Germany and Japan - both countries famous for their non-unionised workforces and liberal labour laws...No surprise that countries without that hurdle out-perform us.
Or Norway, Belgium, France, Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland that also have strongly unionised workforces and have higher productivity than us.
andy97 said:
BlimeyCharlie said:
Either a train/railway can be run at a profit, or it can't?
We've had almost 200 years to work it out.
I just don’t think people realise how massively expensive it is to operate and maintain a railway. I don’t think it is possible to run a railway at a “profit” without government subsidy.We've had almost 200 years to work it out.
Indeed the concept of profit and railways is hard to imagine; in my view it’s just about minimising the amount of government subsidy.
What that means is that the tax payer is paying the bill whether you use the railway or not, and whether there is even a railway anywhere near you.
We have to look at railways as a national resource/ infrastructure for the good of the whole country and accept the cost…….as long as there is actually a benefit to the whole country.
andy97 said:
I just don’t think people realise how massively expensive it is to operate and maintain a railway. I don’t think it is possible to run a railway at a “profit” without government subsidy.
Indeed the concept of profit and railways is hard to imagine; in my view it’s just about minimising the amount of government subsidy.
What that means is that the tax payer is paying the bill whether you use the railway or not, and whether there is even a railway anywhere near you.
We have to look at railways as a national resource/ infrastructure for the good of the whole country and accept the cost…….as long as there is actually a benefit to the whole country.
If you cannot make something run at a profit, then it isn't worth doing. Railways were an attempt to make money, and they failed. Those involved have switched their profit motive to subsidy farming, and now just spout any plausible sounding reason they can think of to keep that gravy train rolling.Indeed the concept of profit and railways is hard to imagine; in my view it’s just about minimising the amount of government subsidy.
What that means is that the tax payer is paying the bill whether you use the railway or not, and whether there is even a railway anywhere near you.
We have to look at railways as a national resource/ infrastructure for the good of the whole country and accept the cost…….as long as there is actually a benefit to the whole country.
Really we have an oversized Hornby set purely for the Glory of the State. A National Treasure, we are told. We should bang pots for it on Thursdays.
Or we could make the changes it needs. Scrap the subsidies and let the industry evolve. It would contract to the profitable bits overnight. I imagine changes to livery would be quite low on the priority list.
grumbledoak said:
If you cannot make something run at a profit, then it isn't worth doing. Railways were an attempt to make money, and they failed. Those involved have switched their profit motive to subsidy farming, and now just spout any plausible sounding reason they can think of to keep that gravy train rolling.
Really we have an oversized Hornby set purely for the Glory of the State. A National Treasure, we are told. We should bang pots for it on Thursdays.
Or we could make the changes it needs. Scrap the subsidies and let the industry evolve. It would contract to the profitable bits overnight. I imagine changes to livery would be quite low on the priority list.
I disagree with the premise that if something doesn't turn a profit then it isn't worth doing. If that was the case we would have very little national infrastructure or services. We certainly wouldn't have roads, the NHS, food standards, safety standards, Police, schools, passport services, and so on. We would basically have nothing if we had to ensure each service turned a profit in some way.Really we have an oversized Hornby set purely for the Glory of the State. A National Treasure, we are told. We should bang pots for it on Thursdays.
Or we could make the changes it needs. Scrap the subsidies and let the industry evolve. It would contract to the profitable bits overnight. I imagine changes to livery would be quite low on the priority list.
You often have to run things at a loss to offer it as a public service. But I'm sure you know all this, and I'm not sure why you made such a comment as you are usually much better than that.
If you scrapped the subsides then the rail network would simply collapse, in most areas, passenger numbers are now back up to 95% of pre-pandemic levels, meaning 3.9 million people use the trains as a form of transport every day, and nearly 2.5 million of those journeys are people commuting to work.
The end of subsidies would mean only a handful of profitable lines would remain on the busiest commuter routes.
If the rail service stopped tomorrow, the impact on the economy would be almost incalculable, especially for any large towns and cities where rail transport is essential for commuters, shoppers. and tourists.
The Beeching cuts were a clear example of how you can be too hasty with dismantling the railways. Sure, there will be a significant number of his axed lines that would still get axed today, but many routes would now be significantly busier, mostly due to factors like our increased population, younger people shunning driving, car ownership costs more expensive, parking and driving in town and city centres becoming more difficult and expensive, environmental concerns with driving, and so on.
2xChevrons said:
Germany and Japan - both countries famous for their non-unionised workforces and liberal labour laws...
Or Norway, Belgium, France, Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland that also have strongly unionised workforces and have higher productivity than us.
It may just be that many Britons have lost the work ethic and got lazy.Or Norway, Belgium, France, Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland that also have strongly unionised workforces and have higher productivity than us.
Lord Marylebone said:
I disagree with the premise that if something doesn't turn a profit then it isn't worth doing. If that was the case we would have very little national infrastructure or services. We certainly wouldn't have roads, the NHS, food standards, safety standards, Police, schools, passport services, and so on. We would basically have nothing if we had to ensure each service turned a profit in some way.
That premise is an oversimplification, but it's worth asking whether people would be prepared to pay the cost of providing a service voluntarily and if not, should they be forced to. Or to put it another way, do they add value?Roads, police, health services, passport services in the sense of passport issuing, yes, people would be prepared to pay. The problem with subsidising railways is that the majority of the population don't use a train from one month to the next.
Lord Marylebone said:
I disagree with the premise that if something doesn't turn a profit then it isn't worth doing. If that was the case we would have very little national infrastructure or services. We certainly wouldn't have roads, the NHS, food standards, safety standards, Police, schools, passport services, and so on. We would basically have nothing if we had to ensure each service turned a profit in some way.
You often have to run things at a loss to offer it as a public service. But I'm sure you know all this, and I'm not sure why you made such a comment as you are usually much better than that.
If you scrapped the subsides then the rail network would simply collapse, in most areas, passenger numbers are now back up to 95% of pre-pandemic levels, meaning 3.9 million people use the trains as a form of transport every day, and nearly 2.5 million of those journeys are people commuting to work.
The end of subsidies would mean only a handful of profitable lines would remain on the busiest commuter routes.
If the rail service stopped tomorrow, the impact on the economy would be almost incalculable, especially for any large towns and cities where rail transport is essential for commuters, shoppers. and tourists.
The Beeching cuts were a clear example of how you can be too hasty with dismantling the railways. Sure, there will be a significant number of his axed lines that would still get axed today, but many routes would now be significantly busier, mostly due to factors like our increased population, younger people shunning driving, car ownership costs more expensive, parking and driving in town and city centres becoming more difficult and expensive, environmental concerns with driving, and so on.
We certainly would have roads. They were not originally a gift from the mythical benevolent State. Farmers and merchants needed them to get to market. So they built and maintained them. The did this because it was economically worthwhile.You often have to run things at a loss to offer it as a public service. But I'm sure you know all this, and I'm not sure why you made such a comment as you are usually much better than that.
If you scrapped the subsides then the rail network would simply collapse, in most areas, passenger numbers are now back up to 95% of pre-pandemic levels, meaning 3.9 million people use the trains as a form of transport every day, and nearly 2.5 million of those journeys are people commuting to work.
The end of subsidies would mean only a handful of profitable lines would remain on the busiest commuter routes.
If the rail service stopped tomorrow, the impact on the economy would be almost incalculable, especially for any large towns and cities where rail transport is essential for commuters, shoppers. and tourists.
The Beeching cuts were a clear example of how you can be too hasty with dismantling the railways. Sure, there will be a significant number of his axed lines that would still get axed today, but many routes would now be significantly busier, mostly due to factors like our increased population, younger people shunning driving, car ownership costs more expensive, parking and driving in town and city centres becoming more difficult and expensive, environmental concerns with driving, and so on.
Other things do have their origins in communal self interest. Defence was another. That evolved from voluntary to organised.
The machinations of the state are not the same thing. There we are often forced to pay for things we don’t want. As in this case, where failing businesses have rebranded themselves as communal goods to get subsidies in place of profits.
If no-one wants it, switch it off.
Simpo Two said:
Well gentlemen, it seems we are a bit screwed. Private companies can't run the UK trainset, and neither can Government.
I think at times like this it is worth going back through history to find when the trains were last competently run, and try to copy it.
Agreed. Trying to remember what the guy who was in charge at the time was called..? Stephenson? Yes, George Stephenson, that's it. I think at times like this it is worth going back through history to find when the trains were last competently run, and try to copy it.
Don't get me wrong, I think our railways are riddled with issues, especially over these last few months.
But this is a case of be careful what you wish for.
Do you really want a national transport service to be allowed to collapse?
What about the millions of people who rely on trains as their main or only means of transport?
What would happen to the millions of commuters/workers who need to get in and out of town and centres?
What would happen to all the businesses served by those workers who commute on the train?
What would happen to the roads if those millions of commuters were forced back into cars and attempted to commute by car? It would be utter gridlock.
What about all the freight that is moved by rail? Thousands more lorries on the roads adding to the traffic?
I think letting the railways fail and close would absolutely create far more problems than we realise. Those problems would also cause issues for people who never use trains.
But this is a case of be careful what you wish for.
Do you really want a national transport service to be allowed to collapse?
What about the millions of people who rely on trains as their main or only means of transport?
What would happen to the millions of commuters/workers who need to get in and out of town and centres?
What would happen to all the businesses served by those workers who commute on the train?
What would happen to the roads if those millions of commuters were forced back into cars and attempted to commute by car? It would be utter gridlock.
What about all the freight that is moved by rail? Thousands more lorries on the roads adding to the traffic?
I think letting the railways fail and close would absolutely create far more problems than we realise. Those problems would also cause issues for people who never use trains.
Lord Marylebone said:
grumbledoak said:
If you cannot make something run at a profit, then it isn't worth doing. Railways were an attempt to make money, and they failed. Those involved have switched their profit motive to subsidy farming, and now just spout any plausible sounding reason they can think of to keep that gravy train rolling.
Really we have an oversized Hornby set purely for the Glory of the State. A National Treasure, we are told. We should bang pots for it on Thursdays.
Or we could make the changes it needs. Scrap the subsidies and let the industry evolve. It would contract to the profitable bits overnight. I imagine changes to livery would be quite low on the priority list.
I disagree with the premise that if something doesn't turn a profit then it isn't worth doing. If that was the case we would have very little national infrastructure or services. We certainly wouldn't have roads, the NHS, food standards, safety standards, Police, schools, passport services, and so on. We would basically have nothing if we had to ensure each service turned a profit in some way.Really we have an oversized Hornby set purely for the Glory of the State. A National Treasure, we are told. We should bang pots for it on Thursdays.
Or we could make the changes it needs. Scrap the subsidies and let the industry evolve. It would contract to the profitable bits overnight. I imagine changes to livery would be quite low on the priority list.
You often have to run things at a loss to offer it as a public service. But I'm sure you know all this, and I'm not sure why you made such a comment as you are usually much better than that.
If you scrapped the subsides then the rail network would simply collapse, in most areas, passenger numbers are now back up to 95% of pre-pandemic levels, meaning 3.9 million people use the trains as a form of transport every day, and nearly 2.5 million of those journeys are people commuting to work.
The end of subsidies would mean only a handful of profitable lines would remain on the busiest commuter routes.
If the rail service stopped tomorrow, the impact on the economy would be almost incalculable, especially for any large towns and cities where rail transport is essential for commuters, shoppers. and tourists.
The Beeching cuts were a clear example of how you can be too hasty with dismantling the railways. Sure, there will be a significant number of his axed lines that would still get axed today, but many routes would now be significantly busier, mostly due to factors like our increased population, younger people shunning driving, car ownership costs more expensive, parking and driving in town and city centres becoming more difficult and expensive, environmental concerns with driving, and so on.
velocemitch said:
Leithen said:
Does anyone have passenger numbers over the last 100-200 years?
I may be wrong, but I think I remember reading passenger numbers on the railways peaked, just before the pandemic. And I’m talking about 1919 either.2019 was the busiest year for passenger travel in the UK, ever, before the pandemic hit. Apparently the figures are now back to about 95% of 2019, despite the expansion of working from home. Estimates suggest we will likely be back to the 2019 figure in full by the end of this year. Numbers will likely continue to rise in the way we have seen over the last 20 years or so.
This was my point earlier, that the need for passenger travel on the railways has literally never been greater, and continues to rise. Not saying it is anyone in this thread, but it baffles me when some people say there is no need for the railways these days.
Some graphs below:
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 17th February 08:48
Lord Marylebone said:
Don't get me wrong, I think our railways are riddled with issues, especially over these last few months.
But this is a case of be careful what you wish for.
Do you really want a national transport service to be allowed to collapse?
What about the millions of people who rely on trains as their main or only means of transport?
What would happen to the millions of commuters/workers who need to get in and out of town and centres?
What would happen to all the businesses served by those workers who commute on the train?
What would happen to the roads if those millions of commuters were forced back into cars and attempted to commute by car? It would be utter gridlock.
What about all the freight that is moved by rail? Thousands more lorries on the roads adding to the traffic?
I think letting the railways fail and close would absolutely create far more problems than we realise. Those problems would also cause issues for people who never use trains.
Difficult to answer a list, but...But this is a case of be careful what you wish for.
Do you really want a national transport service to be allowed to collapse?
What about the millions of people who rely on trains as their main or only means of transport?
What would happen to the millions of commuters/workers who need to get in and out of town and centres?
What would happen to all the businesses served by those workers who commute on the train?
What would happen to the roads if those millions of commuters were forced back into cars and attempted to commute by car? It would be utter gridlock.
What about all the freight that is moved by rail? Thousands more lorries on the roads adding to the traffic?
I think letting the railways fail and close would absolutely create far more problems than we realise. Those problems would also cause issues for people who never use trains.
So what if it collapses? I don't care at all about the Glory of the State. If we are only keeping this on life support to spare the State's blushes, switch it off.
The millions of commuters can pay for their transport. That bit probably is worth keeping.
So we won't have business collapsing due to the absence of commuters, or all the commuters on the roads.
I don't see why the freight cannot also pay it's way.
I think you a priori want to keep the big Hornby set and are fishing about for justifications for why we all have to pay for it. There really is only one - will people voluntarily pay for it and use it?
grumbledoak said:
Difficult to answer a list, but...
So what if it collapses? I don't care at all about the Glory of the State. If we are only keeping this on life support to spare the State's blushes, switch it off.
The millions of commuters can pay for their transport. That bit probably is worth keeping.
So we won't have business collapsing due to the absence of commuters, or all the commuters on the roads.
I don't see why the freight cannot also pay it's way.
I think you a priori want to keep the big Hornby set and are fishing about for justifications for why we all have to pay for it. There really is only one - will people voluntarily pay for it and use it?
I'm not sure what all this 'glory of the state' stuff is? I don't know a single person who thinks the railways are anything but a mild embarrassment to the country, and I certainly don't know anyone who wants to keep the railways purely out of some feeling of national pride.So what if it collapses? I don't care at all about the Glory of the State. If we are only keeping this on life support to spare the State's blushes, switch it off.
The millions of commuters can pay for their transport. That bit probably is worth keeping.
So we won't have business collapsing due to the absence of commuters, or all the commuters on the roads.
I don't see why the freight cannot also pay it's way.
I think you a priori want to keep the big Hornby set and are fishing about for justifications for why we all have to pay for it. There really is only one - will people voluntarily pay for it and use it?
As for myself, I will use the railways when they operate as they should, as it is faster and more convenient than using my car for when I am in the office/meetings. You will note in my opening post that said I have avoided using the railways as best I can for 8 months now, and it hasn't caused me any concerns. If they disappeared tomorrow I would manage just fine, so you needn't bother going down the route of thinking this is some personal crusade or concern of mine. I am interested in the business model and how it might change. I started this thread as a discussion of the proposed changes for anyone who might be interested.
You don't seem to understand that unless it is a strictly closed/separate system, such as the Underground, The Glasgow Metro, or perhaps the Isle of White 'Island Line' then it isn't easy to run just selected parts of a railway that make a profit. You can't just tell freight to 'pay its own way' on a large network where passenger services have been abandoned, as the freight alone would be nowhere near enough to pay for the running, signalling, and upkeep of the network. The freight would also have to close and we would have a whopping 100-120 million tonnes of freight back on the roads, on lorries, per year. Each freight train removes an average of 76 lorries off the roads.
If you let the national passenger network flop then thats fine as long as you can acknowledge the freight side closes with it and there would be an impact on industry and an extra 5 million lorry movements on the road per year as a minimum.
You also have to acknowledge that our roads and car parks wouldn't cope with the millions of extra cars that would suddenly flood the system due to commuters needing to get to work. You can't just keep very specific lines that are busy with commuters, that isn't how it works. People need a network, to get to multiple destinations.
I think our railways are piss poor to a large extent, but absolutely necessary, for a multitude of reasons, even to those who never use them. The growth in passenger numbers over the last 20 years is extremely significant, and continues to grow. As the government and various towns/cities continue to try to kick people out of their cars for environmental reasons, trains will become ever more useful.
If you think all of this is just nonsense, that is fine, but at least provide some statistics of your own regarding freight tonnes, freight movements, passenger numbers, commuter statistics, and so on, to back up your concept of 'let it fail and it'll be fine'.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff