Fares to rocket and jobs cut in the great train shake-up (Independent 24/04/11)

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

From The Independent on Sunday:

Millions of rail passengers face misery under dramatic plans to allow fares to rocket while closing ticket offices and firing on-board staff, The Independent on Sunday has learnt.

Leaked documents reveal that a government rail review will suggest that ticket pricing is too complex, too subsidised, over-regulated and inadequate at managing rush-hour demand. It sets out plans to slash staff numbers while proposing the decentralisation of Network Rail and its possible break-up.

Ministers risk angering the public and facing a stand-off with unions if they press ahead with the proposals, being drawn up by Sir Roy McNulty, the former chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, who has warned that annual state funding for the industry of ^5bn is unsustainable.

In a detailed presentation of his Rail Value for Money review, seen by The IoS, Sir Roy paints a bleak picture for passengers if the railway's finances are to be reformed. It warns that industry costs are a "major problem" and need to be reduced by up to 35 per cent to match competitor countries in Europe. The industry has to give a "better deal" to both passengers and taxpayers.

In a workshop last month with senior industry figures, Sir Roy set out the early findings of his study, to be published next month. He told the seminar that "staffing on trains and in ticket offices can be significantly reduced", while "changing terms and conditions, especially for drivers, will reduce costs". The report will recommend that ministers launch a comprehensive fares review, with the aim of "removing or allowing more flexibility in relation to caps on fares".

"Some fares are much lower than the market could/should bear," Sir Roy's presentation said. Walk-on fares on peak services could be banned. Only those with season tickets or booked seats are able to travel on the very busiest services.

A Rail Delivery Group will be set up by the industry to focus on cutting costs and making best use of existing capacity. It will call for longer franchises for train-operating companies of up to 15 years and "more freedom to set fares". Sir Roy also advocates "deregulation of ticket office opening hours balanced by the introduction of modern technology", raising the prospect of more barriers and card machines at stations. A similar plan for the London Underground by Mayor Boris Johnson provoked a wave of strikes on the Tube.

Bob Crow, general-secretary of the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) rail union, vowed to "fight this attack on jobs, safety and service quality every step of the way".

The study identifies barriers to efficiency, including "unproductive relationships" with the unions, the structure of Network Rail and too much government interference.

Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, insisted that the Government recognises that there is an issue with over-crowding at peak periods and is investing in a new high-speed network to triple capacity between London and Birmingham.

"We're very clear that the whole purpose of the McNulty review over the medium term is to get a better deal for taxpayers and fare-payers by reducing the cost of our railways."

Maria Eagle, the shadow transport secretary, warned: "It's clear that the Tory-led government plans to embark on a dangerous experiment by breaking up Britain's railway infrastructure. Yet more fragmentation isn't the answer; neither should passengers be expected to take on yet more of the cost when they are already seeing household budgets squeezed by the eye-watering fare rises ordered by ministers."

[woody]

The rail privatisation chickens are now certainly coming home to roost.Sad that even now the government still refuses to accept the clear evidence that Britains psuodo privatised fragmented rail system has been a financial disaster from the beginning with Sir Roy McNulty painting a bleak picture for passengers if the railway's finances are to be reformed and warning that ^annual state funding for the industry of ^5bn is unsustainable ^ and ^that industry costs are a "major problem" and need to be reduced by up to 35 per cent to match competitor countries in Europe.^
 As we all know most of those  competitor countries in Europe are state owned but as the old saying goes ^theres nowt so blind as those that dont want to see^.
I am not opposed the privatisation in general but rail privatisation was clearly a privatisation too far.

[ChrisB]

I reckon you'll find that wages are 35% higher than in Europe.....

[Electric train]

I reckon you'll find that wages are 35% higher than in Europe.....

and our system is at least 35% busier than in Europe

[ChrisB]

BNut that shouldsn't increase maintenance costs by the same % surely?

Whereas the wage bill must be a large % of the toal costs?....

[woody]

One has to ask the question what would British Rail has done with a ^5billion annual state subsidy today.We certainly would not have ended up with a half baked Great Western electrification scheme and Bi-mode trains that noboby really wants and a life after death HST^▸ (High Speed Train) re-engineering of 35 year old trains.In the1980s the basic reason the Advanced Passenger Train(APT^▸ (Advanced Passenger Train)) failed and the HST is still a front line train today was a chronic lack of state funding to sort out the technical problems which Fiat eventually did do and then later proceeded to sell the technology(Pendelinos) back to us.Only ^50milion was allocated to APT development including buildings while billions of pounds of taxpayers money was being thrown at Concorde.Had this this scheme been allowed to progress all the country would by now be benefiting from a 21st century railway and not just a select few routes.Instead some parts of the Great Western network face years of stagnation against a deteriorating financial backround.How Sad.

[JayMac]

Indeed. I am amazed at the huge cost Concorde was for UK^▸ (United Kingdom) PLC. An excellent technical achievement, yes, and a prestigious brand for our national carrier, but it failed spectacularly to get anywhere near showing a return on investment. Those potential orders that failed to materialise should've been copper bottomed before the fleet went into full production after the prototypes were built.

As for the impending release of the full McNulty report - if the leaked details are accurate then it is time to be afraid, very afraid. If one of the crackpot ideas is to ban walk-up passengers from peak services* then I wonder what other recommendations are in the report.

I hope the implementation of the the report's suggestions is not as draconian as Beeching. Ideally I'd prefer to see it die a death like Serpell did in the early 1980s and let the industry itself manage the necessary cost cutting.

I fear HMG is going to stick to the prestige HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) project at the expense of the existing network. I just hope that IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) doesn't get scaled back.

*So what does someone do if their car breaks down prior to setting off for work? Won't be allowed to use a train until mid morning?

[MarkRanger]

I too saw the bits of this that made the press. I had two concurrent thoughts -

1. That those airlines who had more or less given up trying to compete on UK^▸ (United Kingdom) domestic routes because the trains have been so successful may just think again. The good old government cavalry is charging in again.

2. The government's track record in getting major transport decisions right is laughable. I don't have an opinion as to whether nationalised railways are the right or wrong thing, but endless government interference is in itself as expensive as it is intrusive.

What I have believed for many years is that trains are the only really effective way of moving large numbers of people, and they are the mode of public transport that most people will happily engage with. This ridiculous notion of no walk on fares at peak time is ludicrous - especially given how much we all contribute to the railways through our taxes.

Let's hope this is a classic government spin exercise - initial findings so over the top that peoples' jaws drop, then magically they come up with a half way house that is more acceptable. Cynical? Remember, I have been fighting the Cambridge Guided Busway for about 5 years, another triumph of government edict over common sense