Great British Railways - The proposed changes
Discussion
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 take it you feel the same way about the airline industry?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?
They’re subsidised to the tune of around £10bn a year as they don’t pay fuel duties or vat but you don’t hear much complaint about that.
Should they be closed down as well and let to stand on their own feet?
Lord Marylebone said:
........................ 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.
Road freight on HGVs alone is upwards of 1.5 billion tonnes already so I'm not sure we'd notice the difference.valiant said:
I take it you feel the same way about the airline industry?
They’re subsidised to the tune of around £10bn a year as they don’t pay fuel duties or vat but you don’t hear much complaint about that.
Should they be closed down as well and let to stand on their own feet?
Not being charged as much tax as some think they should is not a subsidy. In any case train tickets are zero rated for VAT while air tickets have air passenger duty added.They’re subsidised to the tune of around £10bn a year as they don’t pay fuel duties or vat but you don’t hear much complaint about that.
Should they be closed down as well and let to stand on their own feet?
Lord Marylebone said:
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.
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'.
I am inventing silly reasons why we should keep this zombie upright to emphasize that I think you are too! 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'.
You keep loading your assumptions and conflating profitable bits with unprofitable bits so you can claim the total collapse as a reason why we simply must keep paying subsidies for all of it. I don't accept that argument.
If we can only realistically run a railway for commuters, then do that. Then, once again, there will not suddenly be millions of extra cars on the roads or businesses collapsing because no-one could possibly get to work without the trains. Because those trains would still be running.
Freight, similarly, either pays or it doesn't.
valiant said:
I take it you feel the same way about the airline industry?
They’re subsidised to the tune of around £10bn a year as they don’t pay fuel duties or vat but you don’t hear much complaint about that.
Should they be closed down as well and let to stand on their own feet?
Yes. They’re subsidised to the tune of around £10bn a year as they don’t pay fuel duties or vat but you don’t hear much complaint about that.
Should they be closed down as well and let to stand on their own feet?
And to be clear I am not demanding or even suggesting they be shut down, but I would want the subsidies removed. They can pay for themselves or evolve.
I thought the same about the bank bailouts, before this gets very tedious.
Who ultimately is benefitting from the subsidy on commuter services? If it wasn't there the fares would presumably have to be higher but then employers would have to pay more, so it it actually a subsidy on city centre employers?
(I appreciate not all commute services are loss making).
(I appreciate not all commute services are loss making).
Society is benefitting from the loss making commuter services. With trains in to central London carrying 750 or more people each and a train arriving at least every minute that’s a lot of cars! You’d need a huge increase in road capacity, in car parking, and emissions would go through the roof.
Of course it is arguable some of the loss making has been created by government and DfT. Southern was profitable prior to the guards strike about a decade ago. That strike was driven by Peter Wilkinson in DfT who is still there. At the time he was commuting by air from Switzerland. The strike caused a loss of commuters which made Southern unprofitable and for various reasons to do with the timetable shambles it hasn’t recovered.
The government and DfT are very good at saying passengers numbers are down but it’s unclear how up to date their figures are. They also fail to mention that services have been cut. For example Southern have disposed of all their Class 455 and 313 trains and some of the 171s since the pandemic. I believe the numbers that have gone are around 25% of the fleet. So they couldn’t actually carry all the passengers if they returned.
It must also have reduced the cost of operating as well!
Of course it is arguable some of the loss making has been created by government and DfT. Southern was profitable prior to the guards strike about a decade ago. That strike was driven by Peter Wilkinson in DfT who is still there. At the time he was commuting by air from Switzerland. The strike caused a loss of commuters which made Southern unprofitable and for various reasons to do with the timetable shambles it hasn’t recovered.
The government and DfT are very good at saying passengers numbers are down but it’s unclear how up to date their figures are. They also fail to mention that services have been cut. For example Southern have disposed of all their Class 455 and 313 trains and some of the 171s since the pandemic. I believe the numbers that have gone are around 25% of the fleet. So they couldn’t actually carry all the passengers if they returned.
It must also have reduced the cost of operating as well!
velocemitch 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.
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.
The difference between the railways and roads (your example) is that we've not had the roads privatised.
Maybe I should have instead asked "why does a company take on a franchise to 'run' a railway, given it is almost guaranteed to make a loss?"
BlimeyCharlie said:
My point was and still is that in almost 200 years the railways have failed to make money, even with subsidies etc.
The difference between the railways and roads (your example) is that we've not had the roads privatised.
Maybe I should have instead asked "why does a company take on a franchise to 'run' a railway, given it is almost guaranteed to make a loss?"
Because its not guaranteed to make a loss. There were a number of routes than ran at a profit. Anyway thats not how franchises work.The difference between the railways and roads (your example) is that we've not had the roads privatised.
Maybe I should have instead asked "why does a company take on a franchise to 'run' a railway, given it is almost guaranteed to make a loss?"
When rail companies bid for franchises they either bid on the basis of the profit they were going to return to the government, or on the subsidy they needed to run it. The cynics would probably suggest that the government choose those that offered the most profit or least subsidy. Of course this lead to a number of operators givin back the keys as they overbid and they were losing lots of money because they promised too much to the government.
Another factor not being mentioned is that railways grew because they were the cheapest means of moving "stuff" from A to B. this is because Steel wheels on Steel rails have minimum friction...but they do need to be reasonably level. Canals and rivers are also good but freeze in winter and need expensive locks or meanders around hills.
There are alternatives but they soon get even more expensive.
So Railways are actually very efficient in pure Physics, Economic and Environmental terms.
There are alternatives but they soon get even more expensive.
So Railways are actually very efficient in pure Physics, Economic and Environmental terms.
DodgyGeezer said:
ChocolateFrog said:
Our local council can now boast losing this along with our airport.
But it's OK they secured City status, which makes up for it.
don't tell me - you live in Southend But it's OK they secured City status, which makes up for it.
Flying Phil said:
Another factor not being mentioned is that railways grew because they were the cheapest means of moving "stuff" from A to B. this is because Steel wheels on Steel rails have minimum friction...but they do need to be reasonably level. Canals and rivers are also good but freeze in winter and need expensive locks or meanders around hills.
There are alternatives but they soon get even more expensive.
So Railways are actually very efficient in pure Physics, Economic and Environmental terms.
I don’t think it is as simple as that.There are alternatives but they soon get even more expensive.
So Railways are actually very efficient in pure Physics, Economic and Environmental terms.
For a start rail maintenance costs are vast, largely because of the difficulty of having to maintain infrastructure in short windows at night (or at weekends) whilst the railways continue to run during the day. Hence much stop-start/ mobilisation and de-mobilisation costs each day and expensive personnel costs.
This report indicates that rail is the cheapest form of transport in terms of GHG for passengers but maritime transport is cheapest for freight. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/rail-and-wa...
Not many sea routes, or indeed rivers and canals in the U.K. freeze in winter. I have often wondered why we don’t have more coastal trans-shipment of containers around our coastline, and even now you can get quite reasonably sized ships carrying a fair few containers up rivers such as the Humber, Trent, Thames, Severn etc as far as Goole, Gloucester, Newark, Oxford etc. There also many smaller trading ports around our coast that could be used.
There is a Govt/ industry push for inter-modal rail freight hubs right now, often known as “inland ports”. Daventry is the obvious example, but one has just been built near me, Near East Mids Airport. How about using actual ports?
Edited by andy97 on Wednesday 22 March 15:08
andy97 said:
I don’t think it is as simple as that.
For a start rail maintenance costs are vast, largely because of the difficulty of having to maintain infrastructure in short windows at night (or at weekends) whilst the railways continue to run during the day. Hence much stop-start/ mobilisation and de-mobilisation costs each day and expensive personnel costs.
This report indicates that rail is the cheapest form of transport in terms of GHG for passengers but maritime transport is cheapest for freight. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/rail-and-wa...
Not many sea routes, or indeed rivers and canals in the U.K. freeze in winter. I have often wondered why we don’t have more coastal trans-shipment of containers around our coastline, and even now you can get quite reasonably sized ships carrying a fair few containers up rivers such as the Humber, Trent, Thames, Severn etc as far as Goole, Gloucester, Newark, Oxford etc. There also many smaller trading ports around our coast that could be used.
There is a Govt/ industry push for inter-modal rail freight hubs right now, often known as “inland ports”. Daventry is the obvious example, but one has just been built near me, Near East Mids Airport. How about using actual ports?
Indeed; there's a measure of irony in that there is a govt policy for free ports that is very little to do with shipping. UK govt have done very little helpful for coastal shipping for decades; shipping cos argued unsuccessfully in the 70s and 80s for a road equivalent tariff to promote economic development in the scottish islands, indeed when an RET was introduced by the scottish govt a few years ago it was only available for the state-owned ferry company.For a start rail maintenance costs are vast, largely because of the difficulty of having to maintain infrastructure in short windows at night (or at weekends) whilst the railways continue to run during the day. Hence much stop-start/ mobilisation and de-mobilisation costs each day and expensive personnel costs.
This report indicates that rail is the cheapest form of transport in terms of GHG for passengers but maritime transport is cheapest for freight. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/rail-and-wa...
Not many sea routes, or indeed rivers and canals in the U.K. freeze in winter. I have often wondered why we don’t have more coastal trans-shipment of containers around our coastline, and even now you can get quite reasonably sized ships carrying a fair few containers up rivers such as the Humber, Trent, Thames, Severn etc as far as Goole, Gloucester, Newark, Oxford etc. There also many smaller trading ports around our coast that could be used.
There is a Govt/ industry push for inter-modal rail freight hubs right now, often known as “inland ports”. Daventry is the obvious example, but one has just been built near me, Near East Mids Airport. How about using actual ports?
ChocolateFrog said:
DodgyGeezer said:
ChocolateFrog said:
Our local council can now boast losing this along with our airport.
But it's OK they secured City status, which makes up for it.
don't tell me - you live in Southend But it's OK they secured City status, which makes up for it.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff