pa le yr oeddwn heddyw, y nawfed o Awst

[whole diary]

[ellendune]

Even the diddiest little lines over there seem to have a better service ...

Could that be down to public ownership? To the left of Offa's Dyke 'subsidy' is not a dirty word. Social mobility is being promoted. There's  investment in rolling stock and stations. New and more frequent services have been, or are being, introduced.

Similar things are happening in Scotland too.

Meanwhile, the hapless bunch of twonks on the government benches in Westminster are doing their damnedest to ruin public transport in England.

I don't  have much time for the current Government, but those "hapless twonks" (via those of us who pay tax of course!) have subsidised rail to the tune of £42 billion since the beginning of the COVID pandemic. Seems an odd way to go about ruining it.

What amount of taxpayers money do you feel would be appropriate to match your expectations?

I wasn't looking for more subsidy, just better use of that money.  The Treasury seems to only know about cutting costs rather than growing income by providing a reliable service that meets customer demand.  The politicians only want to fight culture wars by arguing with trade unions thinking that will gain them votes.  In the circumstances "Hapless Twonks" doesn't seem far of the mark.  I certainly wouldn't want to let them manage any business I had invested money in. 

[TaplowGreen]

Even the diddiest little lines over there seem to have a better service ...

Could that be down to public ownership? To the left of Offa's Dyke 'subsidy' is not a dirty word. Social mobility is being promoted. There's  investment in rolling stock and stations. New and more frequent services have been, or are being, introduced.

Similar things are happening in Scotland too.

Meanwhile, the hapless bunch of twonks on the government benches in Westminster are doing their damnedest to ruin public transport in England.

I don't  have much time for the current Government, but those "hapless twonks" (via those of us who pay tax of course!) have subsidised rail to the tune of £42 billion since the beginning of the COVID pandemic. Seems an odd way to go about ruining it.

What amount of taxpayers money do you feel would be appropriate to match your expectations?

I wasn't looking for more subsidy, just better use of that money.  The Treasury seems to only know about cutting costs rather than growing income by providing a reliable service that meets customer demand.  The politicians only want to fight culture wars by arguing with trade unions thinking that will gain them votes.  In the circumstances "Hapless Twonks" doesn't seem far of the mark.  I certainly wouldn't want to let them manage any business I had invested money in. 

It's costing an extra £175 million a month from the taxpayer just to make up the 30% drop in revenue post COVID.

How do you "grow income" in that context?

Much of the deficit can be attributed to the dramatic fall in the huge reservoir of commuter money has gone. It won't return.

There are opportunities in leisure travel but it'll never bridge that chasm.

This isn't an ideological issue. It's just reality. Ask the average man in the street what he most wants his taxes spent on and you'll find rail is some way down the list.

Cutting costs as part (not all) of the solution is absolutely a reasonable approach, and I very much doubt you'll find Starmer's approach will be vastly different.

[Red Squirrel]

On my recent trip up the Valleys I was struck by the difference between what we are trying to achieve in the Bristol area, with MetroWest, and what TfW^▸ (Transport for Wales) are trying to achieve in Wales.

Here, we are trying to deal with a problem of a successful economy - congestion - by spending a relatively small amount of money slowly. In Wales they are trying to stimulate a depressed economy by spending a larger amount of money more quickly.

The result is that in Bristol we are running crowded 30-year-old hand-me-down diesel trains every half hour, while in South Wales they are running less crowded new tri-mode trains every 15 minutes.

On balance, that's probably the right priority. It's certainly helped by the fact that the Welsh railway has TfW as a controlling mind. At the recent opening of Portway Park & Ride Station, I noted that six different organisations had their logos on the ceremonial banner. That implies a lot of negotiating, and potential for delay.

It strikes me that the current government is torn between two facts: railways benefit the economy, and running them is expensive. It is cakeism to think that you can have the benefits without the cost. But that cost is not a subsidy, any more than the cost of any other essential service is a subsidy. To call it that is to imply that the railways are some sort of lame duck that needs propping up, whereas they are actually a crucial enabler of a successful economy.

[grahame]

On my recent trip up the Valleys I was struck by the difference between what we are trying to achieve in the Bristol area, with MetroWest, and what TfW^▸ (Transport for Wales) are trying to achieve in Wales. ...

All the way reading through your post, I'm shouting "hear hear" at my screen - worth more than just a like.

Railways, for the most part, are a huge benefit to the economy and community wellbeing and quality of life in the places they serve.  But there's an issue as to how enough of the benefit is returned to the people who provide the service. My understanding is that in current times, railway income goes to the treasury, and rail operating costs are paid by the Department for Transport.  And this result is that the Department for Transport puts heavy controls on the operating costs, without appropriate consideration of the effect of cutting costs on income, or on benefit to the economy of the areas served, let alone the community.

[TaplowGreen]

It strikes me that the current government is torn between two facts: railways benefit the economy, and running them is expensive. It is cakeism to think that you can have the benefits without the cost. But that cost is not a subsidy, any more than the cost of any other essential service is a subsidy. To call it that is to imply that the railways are some sort of lame duck that needs propping up, whereas they are actually a crucial enabler of a successful economy.

I agree with a lot of that (worthwhile even if only for the image of Graham shouting at his computer at 4am!), there's no doubt that rail provides benefits and equally that it's extremely expensive - it's an important rather than an essential service for much of the country, but when the costs are rising inexorably, revenue is falling, and benefits are remaining virtually static, it's probably time to look at doing things somewhat differently - something that businesses have to do every day in the current environment - and many public services are contemplating too (or should be)

Calling a subsidy something other than what it is may make people feel superficially better about it, but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.............

Rail can have a future - but the need for it and its purpose is changing and those who work within it and/or strongly advocate for it must acknowledge that it needs to change in response and endlessly spiralling costs can't be met from the public purse indefinitely.

[Red Squirrel]

I think everyone who cares about rail agrees that change is needed.

The current structure is clearly unfit for purpose - according to Christian Wolmar, there are 400 staff employed in attributing the cost of delays, for example. The current faux-privatisation, with the railway battered back and forth by the Treasury and the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), cannot continue. The railway needs to be run by an arms-length organisation. But the government seems in no great hurry to fix this, despite the potential for cost saving.

[ellendune]

It's costing an extra £175 million a month from the taxpayer just to make up the 30% drop in revenue post COVID.

How do you "grow income" in that context?

Much of the deficit can be attributed to the dramatic fall in the huge reservoir of commuter money has gone. It won't return.

There are opportunities in leisure travel but it'll never bridge that chasm.

This isn't an ideological issue. It's just reality. Ask the average man in the street what he most wants his taxes spent on and you'll find rail is some way down the list.

Cutting costs as part (not all) of the solution is absolutely a reasonable approach, and I very much doubt you'll find Starmer's approach will be vastly different.

So where are the cuts being made and where are the losses in commuter income. 

Outside the metropolitan bubble you will hear of services on lines such as Melksham that are so unreliable that people can no longer use them for commuting. Privatisation succeeded (yes I am saying that) in growing traffic on rail because the companies invested money in better services that people used.  The type of cutting costs being used at the moment is just a vicious circle.  Sweat the assets (trains or track) and what happens.  Fewer trains covering diagrams mean there is no cover for unexpected failures. Reduced track maintenance or renewals and failures on the track increase. As a result the service worsens and people find other ways to travel so less income.

The last time I had a business meeting in London (in March) I had to stand all the way from Swindon to London and half the way back because of train cancellations and short formations.  Why would I choose to do that?  Why would I do that again.  Yet before Covid I did several times a month without that pain.

Also how do we define commuting?  The place where I work has been transformed over the last 3 years with more and more people recruited who live far (sometimes 100's of miles) from the office and only visit one day a week.  Not many of them use the train.   

[grahame]

Just this one to identify:

5.

[stuving]

Just this one to identify:

Birchgrove. (Probably.)

[grahame]

Just this one to identify:

Birchgrove. (Probably.)

On the right lines but no. This is Birchgrove:

[stuving]

On the right lines but no. This is Birchgrove:

Rhiwbina, then. Almost as close as it could be - but not quite: 41 chains where Ty Glas is only 17. That's shorter than some trains!

And despite the obvious floor-level conclusion being that both pictures are from the same round trip to Coryton, they aren't.

[Mark A]

Amazed at the history of that line. Built in its entirety as a through route, never used as such?

Mark

[grahame]

On the right lines but no. This is Birchgrove:

Rhiwbina, then. Almost as close as it could be - but not quite: 41 chains where Ty Glas is only 17. That's shorter than some trains!

And despite the obvious floor-level conclusion being that both pictures are from the same round trip to Coryton, they aren't.

Indeed - it's Ribena (oops - Rhiwbina).  I travelled up to Rhiwbina, got off and took pictures and caught the same train on its return journey down to Ty Glas.  I walked to Birchgrove and caught the next train up to Coryton, returning on it to Heath Low level.  My apologies to Whitchurch for missing it out.  I have a good collection of "what station is this" type pictures to post in Christmas quizzes!

[stuving]

Indeed - it's Ribena (oops - Rhiwbina).  I travelled up to Rhiwbina, got off and took pictures and caught the same train on its return journey down to Ty Glas.  I walked to Birchgrove and caught the next train up to Coryton, returning on it to Heath Low level.  My apologies to Whitchurch for missing it out.  I have a good collection of "what station is this" type pictures to post in Christmas quizzes!

That's a lot of trouble to go to just to avoid having half an hour a Coryton.

[grahame]

Amazed at the history of that line. Built in its entirety as a through route, never used as such?

Mark

You encouraged me to look that up - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Railway - Cortyon has been the end of the passenger line since 1931 and completely the end of the line since 1952.