|
Chris from Nailsea
|
 |
« on: August 26, 2014, 16:47:01 » |
|
From the Western Morning News: South West passengers pay ^230.3 million rail subsidy
Train passengers paid ^230.3 million to subsidise rail journeys in the South West.
New Deptartment for Transport figures for last year show that First Great Western, the biggest train operator in the region, were propped up by 6.4p per passenger mile.
Adrian Sanders, Torbay MP▸ and member of the government transport select committee said that passengers do not feel they are getting value for money. He said: ^Rail fares are extremely expensive compared to other rail routes in the country even with the subsidy. We should not have to pay more per mile than somebody in the North East or North West. But I think that would be worse if we had a fully privatised model. because we have less passengers per mile. However, our blend of privatisation and subsidy doesn^t give us the best of either worlds.^
The recent 2014 annual train survey by Which? showed that First Great Western (FGW▸ ) scored less than 50 per cent for customer satisfaction, putting it among the bottom five UK▸ train companies featured in the poll.
DfT» figures show that South West Trains, operating some services east of Exeter services and routes to Waterloo made an excess of ^64.1 million, 1.7p per passenger mile which went back to the public purse. In 2013-14, South West Trains made net payments to the taxpayer of ^312m, the highest of any train operator in the country. It has 222million passengers a year - more than double the figures 20 years ago.
The ^64.1m surplus on the South West Trains franchise is minus ^247.9m Network Grant, a payments made by government direct to Network Rail, which operates the track and signalling infrastructure.
A South West Trains spokesman said: "As well as returning significant sums to the taxpayer, we are investing directly in improving services for our customers as part of our alliance with Network Rail. A ^300 million infrastructure scheme will deliver the biggest capacity upgrade in a generation, and a package of measures is in place to improve track reliability. We are in the process of rolling out a ^65 million investment in 108 additional carriages to provide extra space on some of our busiest routes.^
Some of the lines with the busiest routes into London made tens of millions of pounds for the taxpayer last year ^ while others required hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidy. Overall, the public purse pumped ^2.3 billion into the rail system in 2013-14 - down from ^3.2 billion in 2009-10 as the Government shifted more of the burden to travellers.
The breakdown of subsidy levels comes after an announcement that regulated fares are due to go up by an average of 3.5% next year.
According to the DfT figures, the most heavily subsidised operator last year was Northern Rail, which received a net injection of ^707 million. That equated to a subsidy per passenger mile of 51.5p. CrossCountry received ^315 million overall ^ giving a subsidy per passenger mile of 15.6p. The public purse was ^93.7 million in the black from its dealings with First Capital Connect ^ 3.9p per passenger mile ^ and East Coast had a ^19.9 million surplus, equivalent to 0.6p per passenger mile.
A spokesman for the Rail Delivery Group, which represents train operators and Network Rail, said: ^Phenomenal growth in rail journeys is helping train operators to pay ^2bn a year back to government, five times more than 15 years ago, with government choosing to reinvest this money in further improving Europe's best network. Government support for the industry is declining and per journey is the same or lower than in nine of the last 12 years leading up to privatisation.^
The total subsidy for all DfT franchised train operating companies last year was ^2.3 billion, 6.8p per passenger mile.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830. Many more have died in the same way since then. Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.
"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner." Discuss.
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2014, 16:50:45 » |
|
Surely the headline is wrong? That's "The Government" paid that sum in subsidy?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stuving
|
|
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2014, 17:25:25 » |
|
Surely the headline is wrong? That's "The Government" paid that sum in subsidy?
Yes, but then it's pretty much a jumbled heap of oddments of news and figures, isn't it? More importantly, all of it - and the table as well - only deal with central government money. All local authority payments to railways, including those via PTEs▸ , are excluded. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JayMac
|
|
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2014, 17:34:47 » |
|
Northern Rail's PTE▸ Grants are included.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"A clear conscience laughs at a false accusation."
"Treat everyone the same until you find out they're an idiot."
"Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity."
|
|
|
|
stuving
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2014, 17:48:30 » |
|
Northern Rail's PTE▸ Grants are included.
From the DfT» 's "Measurement template"PTE grants are grants that DfT pays to PTEs to pay for
rail services in their area. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chris from Nailsea
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2014, 18:16:11 » |
|
Surely the headline is wrong? That's "The Government" paid that sum in subsidy?
Yes, but then it's pretty much a jumbled heap of oddments of news and figures, isn't it? Yes, I think it is: I quote such articles, simply to encourage open debate and lively discussion on the Coffee Shop forum.  I've not seen them called that before ...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830. Many more have died in the same way since then. Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.
"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner." Discuss.
|
|
|
|
didcotdean
|
|
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2014, 19:21:02 » |
|
From the Western Morning News: South West passengers pay ^230.3 million rail subsidy
...
New Deptartment for Transport figures for last year show that First Great Western, the biggest train operator in the region, were propped up by 6.4p per passenger mile.
...
A more accurate description taking the figures as presented might be that FGW▸ pays 2.1p a passenger mile and National Rail are propped up 8.5p per mile. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stuving
|
|
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2014, 19:25:49 » |
|
A more accurate description taking the figures as presented might be that FGW▸ pays 2.1p a passenger mile and National Rail are propped up 8.5p per mile.
Nooo, that's Network Rail, that is. And while you may have your doubts, you'd need hard evidence that all the 8.5p per mile is excess cost due to incompetence and profligacy. Otherwise it is quite proper to call it part of the cost of providing a railway service to the passengers that use it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
4064ReadingAbbey
|
|
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2014, 19:28:38 » |
|
The ORR» publishes a similar set of statistics each year. The main differences are that the ORR's distances are in kilometres rather than miles and the DfT» excludes figures for Scotrail, Merseyrail and Arriva Trains Wales as it is no longer financially responsible for them.
Caveat emptor...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
didcotdean
|
|
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2014, 20:21:11 » |
|
A more accurate description taking the figures as presented might be that FGW▸ pays 2.1p a passenger mile and National Rail are propped up 8.5p per mile.
Nooo, that's Network Rail, that is. Yes sorry that was a typo. And while you may have your doubts, you'd need hard evidence that all the 8.5p per mile is excess cost due to incompetence and profligacy. Otherwise it is quite proper to call it part of the cost of providing a railway service to the passengers that use it.
Propped up was just echoing the paper's phrase, who implied this was money going to FGW. Probably misleading having the first column labeled with the operator's name really when it isn't only their expenditure. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2014, 20:50:43 » |
|
I think this is the DfT» 's response to recent press reports that Pacers could be retained in the north, and their apparent desire to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of the Northern franchise. So it's "evidence" that Something Needs To Be Done.
The structure of the northern franchises does leave Northern as a bit of a basket case. The half decent traffic flows were siphoned off into TPEx a few years ago, leaving the unprofitable commuter and rural routes with Northern. I'm sure if Wessex Trains existed today, it's figures would look none too healthy either.
I'm also rather sceptical as to whether the figures are a sensible comparison. In the past DfT has released comparisons of Virgin v East Coast that have been very selective in a bid to show the private operator in a healthy light (and thus why EC should be reprivatised).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Click on the map to explore geographics
