Change is inevitable… but when?
Can the DfT introduce a ‘railway reset’ before passengers return in greater numbers to the railway? asks PHILIP HAIGH
THE advent of longer emergency agreements brings the prospect of tighter government control of railway companies a step closer.
This could herald nationalisation, something railway trade unions have long called for. Or it could produce even more micro-management, in which the Department for Transport puts its own needs above those of passengers.
With the DfT and HM Treasury footing the railway’s bills in the absence of passenger revenue, train operators will have little choice but to accept what ministers propose. The upside is that this presents an opportunity to reset aspects of the railway system. The downside is that this reset may produce some unwelcome trade-offs.
Take timetables as one example. Lockdown cut rail services, and as fewer trains ran so punctuality increased. The lack of passengers contributed to the improved punctuality because trains were less delayed at stations.
I spent some time poring over the links between punctuality and train services for a piece in the latest RailReview. It was little surprise to find that the link between the two is stronger on congested lines than on tracks with plenty of spare capacity.
From my analysis, the tipping point came nationally in around 2017, when increases in train services used the last spare capacity. So, it would make sense for the DfT to look closely at just how many trains should run. Of course, the franchise deals it negotiated and signed called for these increases, but admitting that it’s been part of the problem is not one of DfT’s strong suits.
Nevertheless, the COVID-19 crisis gives DfT and train operators a chance to revise timetables and operating patterns.
Take the East Coast Main Line from York northwards as an example. Three longdistance franchised operators operate between York and Edinburgh. LNER and TransPennine Express use bi-mode or electric trains, while CrossCountry uses diesels. Some services run only to Newcastle; others cross the border.
TPE has only recently extended to Edinburgh. But despite using trains capable of running electrically, it must use diesel north of Newcastle because Network Rail’s overhead line equipment cannot provide sufficient current. So, dumping TPE’s extended services could remove the need to upgrade power supplies, avoiding some spending for DfT. It would mean passengers changing trains if they wished to travel beyond Newcastle.
TPE’s services were barely established before the virus struck, so removing them would hardly deny passengers a service to which they have become accustomed.
However, there’s another option - turn back XC trains at York. This removes diesel trains from an electrified railway. And if DfT and NR upgrade power supplies north of Newcastle, it would leave all long-distance passenger trains on the route running on cleaner and greener electricity.
In the short term, there’s unlikely to be a problem with reducing overall capacity in this way. In the longer term, it’s anyone’s guess how and when demand for rail travel will recover. It might be a quick bounce back but equally it might take years to return. Before the virus, DfT and Transport for the North were expecting continued growth into the 2030s (see
News Analysis, RAIL 909).
Demand aside, both options put the railway before the passengers because people don’t generally like changing trains. At this point, I’d hoped to introduce some statistical evidence from Transport Focus, but Chief Executive Anthony Smith admitted to me (I think to his surprise) that TF hadn’t researched this area directly. He did point to some indirect evidence that includes the railway’s demand forecasting methods giving greater value to reduced journey times.
Smith suggested that people who don’t use rail cite cost and inconvenience as barriers to using trains. Changing trains makes journeys more inconvenient and book-ahead fares generally provide better value on single trains. Then there’s the matter of trust and whether passengers can rely on their connections between trains. If fewer trains brings better punctuality, this problem might be solved.
Tighter government control could lead to increased interest in staff numbers and costs, if
“Rail has already absorbed extra billions to run largely empty trains and I can see the Treasury being reluctant to endlessly provide more.”
the reports I’ve heard of DfT asking train operators for their organisation charts are accurate.
Changes could come for front-line staff along the lines seen at London Underground, with booking offices closing and staff moving out onto concourses to directly help passengers. But I suspect there will be more focus on management layers within train operators, as DfT looks for savings in staff costs.
The counter argument comes from Network Rail, which has been under closer government control for many years since its debts were placed on the Government’s books. Here, staff numbers have risen from 35,600 in 2010-11 to 40,300 in 2018-19, according to the company’s annual reports.
Inevitably, any interest in staff numbers will spill over into industrial relations. I’m sure the trade unions haven’t forgotten the comments of senior DfT civil servant Pete Wilkinson back in February 2016.
As reported by the Croydon Advertiser, he told a residents’ meeting in Croydon Town Hall: “Over the next three years we’re going to be having punch-ups and we will see industrial action, and I want your support,” adding: “They have all borrowed money to buy cars and got credit cards. They can’t afford to spend too long on strike, and I will push them into that place. They will have to decide if they want to give a good service or get the hell out of my industry.”
Wilkinson remains a senior DfT official, as its passenger services director. He was talking about Southern’s dispute with its trade unions over driver only operation (DOO) and turning the guard’s essential operational role into an optional ‘on board supervisor’.
Southern achieved its aim, but strikes have since blighted South Western Railway over the same subject despite SWR pledging to keep guards for the duration of its franchise. Guards employed by Northern also walked out over owner Arriva’s DOO plans. Arriva has since left the franchise and it’s now directly operated by a DfT subsidiary.
DfT took an arm’s-length approach to strikes. It wasn’t a direct party in the disputes, but its franchise deals offered compensation for force majeure events of which industrial action was one type.
In theory, this supported train operators, but I’ve never sensed that DfT was willing or quick to pay that compensation. This could now change with DfT directly involved. It has deeper pockets than train operators and trade unions, and could decide to force the DOO issue while passenger numbers are low and strikes therefore less effective.
Taking on the rail unions over DOO might appeal to ministers with a commanding majority in Parliament. In last December’s General Election, formerly strong Labour seats fell to the Conservatives, and this might make ministers bolder - they could argue that electors rejected socialist policies of the sort promoted by trade unions.
However, it will take a strong will to do battle with the union trio of RMT, ASLEF and TSSA while possibly also cutting management numbers. Ministers could easily see themselves at war with large parts of the railway. It remains to be seen whether they are brave enough or foolish enough to push through decisive rail reform.
But when you stand far enough back, it’s clear that change is inevitable. Railways have an insatiable appetite for cash, as shown by Network Rail’s ever greater settlements, and there’s no shortage of improvement plans to soak up yet more money. Rail has already absorbed extra billions to run largely empty trains and I can see the Treasury being reluctant to endlessly provide more.
All depends on passengers. Rail’s fundamentals remain unchanged - trains can move large numbers of people, they are more environmentally friendly than cars or planes when busy, they are often quicker over long distances, and there are very cheap fares available. If people can be convinced that they are safe to use from a virus perspective, and that visiting other people for business or pleasure is also safe, I can see demand returning - even if I prevaricate on the speed of that return.
I’m more certain that it will be a long time before any private operator takes the risk of running services on DfT’s behalf, and that means the Emergency Measures Agreements and their successors will be in place for some time. That gives the Government its chance to reset the railway. Will it take that opportunity?