General election - policies on Transport - what should we look or ask for?

[whole diary]

[eightonedee]

How many miles of track and/or new stations would that equate to?

Half a Reading reconstruction and associated works at 2015 prices, I reckon

[grahame]

There are a lot of posts around at the moment / questions as to funamentals such as who should run the railways.  A combination of the election campaign, perceived problmems with the franchising system and inquiries for the likes of the Williams report have brought this to the fore and there's all sort of stuff on social media.  From my feed at https://www.facebook.com/philvr/posts/2758701990841447 shared from https://www.facebook.com/966163353563533/photos/a.966174170229118/1280990762080789/

Yeah, right ...

The pacer trains in current service were built in 1985 rather than 1980 (classes 140 and 141 were withdrawn by 1997) and were built new using new components to the same design as bus components - not (as far as I know) recycled pieces from buses. It is true that they have lasted nearly twice as long as was originally intended - so have many other trains; if it ain't bust, dont fis it. They are not (never have been?) in used in London and the South East, in Scotland, or in Northern Ireland - so not really "across the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)". And I can't think of any journey that could be made on a pacer which could be made by air, even before we start doing a price comparison.

Vienns to Budapest ... cheapest fare £39, I believe,  Please check, but that new figure comes from the follow up comments on Facebook, which the original poster has admitted may be the cheapest fare (though online I can find other intermediate figures).  Vienna to Budapest is avout 250km - about the same as London to Cardiff, which I can buy in advance for £35.50 (many fares at around £40, occasionally £27.50)

I would rather suspect that members here wouldn't be very happy about having a pacer run a scheduled London to Cardiff services, nor would something like the trains used from Paris to Zurich be suitable for the Barry Island to Aberdare service. Th epost compares apples to hamburgers!

So - having concluded that there are some errors and inaccurcies in social media posts such as this one, what would a balanced comparison look like?  I found a (2017) comparison at BCG (not sure who they are, but data and methods smell good)  They look at:

The RPI^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) measures the performance of railway systems in three dimensions for both passenger and freight traffic:
* Intensity of Use. To what extent is rail transport used by passengers and freight companies?
* Quality of Service. Are the trains punctual and fast, and is rail travel affordable?
* Safety. Does the railway system adhere to the highest safety standards

We confined the analysis to these dimensions to create an indicator that is comprehensive yet easy to understand. Each dimension comprises at least two subdimensions, and all were given equal weight. (See Exhibit 1.) We rescaled the data to represent a score of 0 to 10 for each subdimension. To create the index, we then combined the ­ratings for each dimension and subdimension based on their weighting.

I'll leave forum mambers to read that report ... which puts the UK at the top of "tier 2" (of 3) - 8th out of 25 countries looked at.

Great Britain. At 5.4, Great Britain has an excellent rating for safety. However, its rating for intensity of use is only good, owing to a low level of freight utilization, and its quality of service is poor because of high fares and the relatively low punctuality of regional trains.

[Timmer]

After reading the above posts, it’s clear to see why we don’t see much in the way of reopening stations and lines...it’s so jolly expensive!

[eightonedee]

..and I've just realised that the £500m will just be for consultants' fees for preparing the planning applications

[Bmblbzzz]

BCG are Boston Consulting Group. The thing that immediately stands out from that graph is Tier 3 is the ex-socialist countries of Eastern Europe (plus Portugal and Ireland). They've pursued various paths of rail privatization since and probably don't have much in common (particularly with Portugal and Ireland) other than a generally lower GDP. It could be as simple as that.

[ellendune]

Good to see the BCG report has GB^▸ (Great Britain) near the top on safety. We should not have to choose, but if we do that is the one I would have as a priority. Interesting the take on intensity of use when we know so many of the issues  about our railways are capacity constraints. 

[ellendune]

An interesting quote from the BCG Report that Grahame refferenced is of relevance to party policies and the General Election:

As in previous RPI^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) studies, we compared each country’s overall RPI rating with its public cost (again, the sum of public subsidies and investments in the system). Public subsidies are recurring government contributions that support passenger and freight operations and infrastructure maintenance (excluding investment subsidies). Public investments are one-time government and company investments in infrastructure construction projects.

[eightonedee]

So - looks like you get what you pay for.

[grahame]

From Railway World

Railways and the 2019 General Election

Transport and the railways was never going to take centre stage in an election that is dominated by Brexit and the NHS, but with all the manifestos now published there are a pretty wide range of promises being made to improve and expand our rail services.

So, without fear or favour, here is a review of what is being said by all the political parties on the future of our railways, looking in particular at four key topics, namely ownership and control, HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), electrification and network expansion/re-openings.

I am going - at the risk (!) of being a bit selective

Here the most curious reference seems to be the Conservative Party, which singles out Fleetwood and Willenhall as places that have “suffered permanent disadvantage” after being removed from the rail network, but makes no mention of the many other viable re-opening schemes that have been under discussion for a long time.

Speculation - might this be something to do with two constituencies ...

Lancaster and Fleetwood. (Held by the Conservatives to 2015 then Labour more recently)

Walsall North. (Held by Labour until 2017 when it went Conservative)

Further down, talking of all the parties

So an election full of remarkable and hugely expensive promises when it comes to transport and the railway, though if I was a voter in somewhere like Portishead, Wisbech or Ashington who had been waiting decades for my railway to re-open, only to be let down time and again by successive governments as the cost spiralled, I might well take it all with a large pinch of salt!

North Somerset - Conservative, strong majority
North East Cambridgeshire - Conservative, strong majority
Wansbeck - Labour, strong majority

[Chris from Nailsea]

North Somerset - Conservative, strong majority

That's an interesting one, grahame.

In terms of the current MP^▸ (Member of Parliament), Dr Liam Fox: he is indeed in a secure seat.

However, in our recent local council elections, the Conservatives were absolutely annihilated - the deputy leader even lost his seat (to spend more time with his helicopters, perhaps) and there is not one Conservative on the new executive. 

The impetus to restore the Portishead branch line to passenger service must be maintained, however. 

[grahame]

From the Independent

Up to three-quarters off train fares and free travel for under-16s – that is Labour’s promise to rail passengers if elected.

An across-the-board 33 per cent cut in regulated fares would take effect from January 2020 – replacing the planned 2.7 per cent increase announced by train operators.

In addition, a crucial change in pricing for rush-hour tickets would see some fares fall by as much as 74 per cent.

[snip]

Andy McDonald, the shadow transport secretary, said Britain has “one of the most complex, exploitative and expensive ticketing systems in the world” as a result of privatisation.

[snip]

His party’s most radical proposal is to cut the cost of single peak fares to one-tenth of the cost of a one-week season ticket. On a journey such as Brighton to London Victoria, the effects would be dramatic.

If implemented as described - examples

Peak single, Melksham to Paddington down from £88.50 to £28.23 (or £18.91)
Peak single, Melksham to Swindon down from £8.60 to £4.26 (or £2.92)
First figure - current peak single.  Second - a tenth of current 7 day season. Third - that will extra 33% off

Will the trains have sufficient peak capacity for extra traffic generated?
Where is the extra income stream to make up the difference?
Who will buy weekly seasons in the future - does this rocket the number of transactions?

[TaplowGreen]

Ooooooooooo's gonna pay for it? 

[grahame]

Ooooooooooo's gonna pay for it? 

I think that's the colloquial form of

Where is the extra income stream to make up the difference?

 


Of course, not all reductions would be as spectacular as the peak single examples ... but still (with 33% general reduction) I would expect the typical fare to halve.    More than double the number of passengers and you'll be back to the same income level, though I expect you would have some (understatement) overcrowding issues - especially in the peak as the financial persuasion to travel off peak would be much reduced.

[IndustryInsider]

Even by the standards of this election campaign, that fares pledge by Labour is extraordinary.  The industry simply isn’t ready, willing or able to cope with the fallout from it.

[paul7575]

Even by the standards of this election campaign, that fares pledge by Labour is extraordinary.  The industry simply isn’t ready, willing or able to cope with the fallout from it.

But unfortunately if the industry tries to explain the fallout, they’ll just be portrayed as causing the problem.  Difficult to see where a realistic response to this comes from...

Paul