Trains 'too costly' for rail firm

[whole diary]

[Timmer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8354358.stm

Network Rail is transporting 200 staff by coach from Reading to Coventry for a conference because of the high cost of train tickets, it has emerged.

The rail operator has opted to shun train travel for road transport as it is more than ^24,000 cheaper.

If open return tickets were bought for all the staff it could cost up to ^27,000 - ^135 each. But coach travel, at ^12 a head, will cost just ^2,400.

The firm said it made no apologies for getting the "best value" for taxpayers.

[inspector_blakey]

If this story is completely accurate, I'm not sure what's more depressing - the fact that NR^» (Network Rail - home page) apparently hasn't heard of group travel rates/savers/advance tickets etc or the fact that it allows this sort of publicity to get out!

[John R]

Can't imagine you could get an allocation of 200 advance tickets on a Voyager.

For 200 pax they could have hired a train - always assuming they could give the operator a path!

Yes it is depressing.  Though without knowing where they were going in Coventry, might they have needed coaches at the other end, which would have added to the rail cost.

[JayMac]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8354358.stm

Network Rail is transporting 200 staff by coach from Reading to Coventry for a conference because of the high cost of train tickets, it has emerged.

The rail operator has opted to shun train travel for road transport as it is more than ^24,000 cheaper.

If open return tickets were bought for all the staff it could cost up to ^27,000 - ^135 each. But coach travel, at ^12 a head, will cost just ^2,400.

The firm said it made no apologies for getting the "best value" for taxpayers.

Network Rail staff sent to Coventry......there's a joke in there somewhere 

[Electric train]

Network Rail is its own ticket agent, that is it has ticket printing machines in larger offices like travel agents do.  We have to use rail as a first choice of travel.  The location they are traveling to I suspect is Network Rails Management, Business and Leadership center at Westwood nearest station is Tile Hill.  I have attended a National meeting of Electrification and Plant at Westwood basically we filled two coaches of train going and coming back as we have tickets issued with seat reservations just like anyone else who gets a ticket in advance public fair paying customers we standing.

I can not comment on this particular groups arrangement they may have used the travel company we use to book hotels etc to arrange the travel (this company also does rail tickets for us for offices that don't have ticket issuing machines) and would do the cheapest deal as that is what their service contract requires them to do.

It is important to note that Network Rail does not get free travel on the network it pays the full fair, potty I know but thats how it is.

[devon_metro]

Coach will always be the best way for large groups of people to travel. Perfectly understandable decision, BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) ought to think before it publishes a load of dribble.

[Tim]

Coach will always be the best way for large groups of people to travel.

Quite - something my company takes into account.  One or two of us travelling to London we get the train.  5 or 6 we get a taxi, 20 or 30 we hire a coach.  Entirely sensible.

[RichardB]

Coach will always be the best way for large groups of people to travel. Perfectly understandable decision,

That's a bit defeatest there, Devon Metro.  If you can get the capacity on the train and the right fares, and you're not going far from the station at the other end, train is best.

It can be done - though of course I'll admit, it can be tricky on the busiest routes.  As has been said, 200 from Reading to Coventry would have meant a special train or Voyager added to a service train (yes, I know that's not at all easy).

I hope they at least tried to do it by train and am disappointed the quote blamed the supposed difference in cost.   

[moonrakerz]

This is quite well timed - at the moment I am reading a book called "Global Warming and Other Bollocks" - there is a very interesting chapter, "Road versus Rail", in there, comparing car, coach and rail travel. Well recommended.

To be quite honest it is very difficult to put up a really cogent argument against many of the points made in this book about rail transport.

"........and ...........the sentimentality surrounding the great age of (extraordinarily dirty) steam, have elevated rail to a kind of religion, virtually beyond criticism, failing only because of man's failure"

Don't get me wrong ! I like travelling by train and hate coaches - BUT - give me another couple of inches legroom, a straight, fast run into (say) Temple Meads down a tarmac'd over old railway line ....................


discuss !..........

[Tim]

3000 people die every year on UK^▸ (United Kingdom) roads.  About 3000 passengers have ever died on the UK's railways (including during the early period where it was a lot less safe than it is now).

IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), this is the strongest arguement in favour of rail over road (that and the fact that a rail passenger can stretch his legs, read a book, do some work, have a pint or a meal none ofwhich a car driver can do)

[eightf48544]

Coach will always be the best way for large groups of people to travel. Perfectly understandable decision,

That's a bit defeatest there, Devon Metro.  If you can get the capacity on the train and the right fares, and you're not going far from the station at the other end, train is best.

It can be done - though of course I'll admit, it can be tricky on the busiest routes.  As has been said, 200 from Reading to Coventry would have meant a special train or Voyager added to a service train (yes, I know that's not at all easy).

I hope they at least tried to do it by train and am disappointed the quote blamed the supposed difference in cost.  

[eightf48544]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8354358.stm

Network Rail is transporting 200 staff by coach from Reading to Coventry for a conference because of the high cost of train tickets, it has emerged.

The rail operator has opted to shun train travel for road transport as it is more than ^24,000 cheaper.

If open return tickets were bought for all the staff it could cost up to ^27,000 - ^135 each. But coach travel, at ^12 a head, will cost just ^2,400.

The firm said it made no apologies for getting the "best value" for taxpayers.

Richard B makes an interesting point abut adding an extra Voyager onto a normal service train.

In BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) loco haules days extra coaches were often added to service trains to cater for large parties. These were taken from a pool of coaches most large carriage siding had up ther sleeve.

When Beeching did his audit BR were rightly criticised for having ovr 5000 + coaches that only moved a few times a year. Now we seem to have gone to other extreme and have less coaches/trains than the total service requires hence all the cancellations due to shortage of stock.

Whilst 5000 extra would be excessive 1 or 3 totally spare units sets in each fleet would firstly ensure the total service can be run when there unexpected breakdowns and provide extra capacity  when required for parties such as this.

Having totally spare units will also impiove maintenace and reliability of the whole fleet as there will be more time in the depot to do more through maintenace rather than hasty patches to get the train back in service.

Hull trains proved this when their fleet of 5 (1 spare) Meridians which recorded the highest miles per failure of any DEMU^▸ (Diesel Electric Multiple Unit) fleet was reduced to 4 the reliability fell dramatically.

Ordering spare units in teh initial order also caters for growth further down the line.

The trouble is the " bean counters" can't do the sums and only see under utilised assets.

[Tim]

I agree with you eightf, but it is slightly more complicated (or rather the way the bean-counters count their beans is more complicated).

When BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) brought new stock it was depreciated in their accounts over a fixed period of time (typically 20 or 30 years).  This meant that stock older than that was effectively "already paid-for" and there was no cost associated with using it other than maintenance, fuel, crewing etc.  Now stock is owned by the ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about).  Although the rental on old stock is lower than for new stock it is still significant (a cynic might suggest that the ROSCOs do this not only to make more money but to make the purchase and use of more profitable new stock more attractive to the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company)). 

Also keeping spare units must but much more expensive than a few old coaches.  A unit will need regular maintenaince in storage or you will find that it will not start when needed.  An old coach (especially one without modern improvemnts like retenstion toilets, push button doors, SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening), passenger information displays etc) doesn't cost half as much to store. 

BUT on a positive note, there is a reasonable amount of old but still decent stock in storage or light use.  It is owned by the charter companies and could (and sometimes is) pressed into use a lowish cost for "specials".  The problem is really the demise of loco and coach working, because you can no longer just couple an extra couple of carriages on. 

[moonrakerz]

3000 people die every year on UK^▸ (United Kingdom) roads.  About 3000 passengers have ever died on the UK's railways (including during the early period where it was a lot less safe than it is now).

IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), this is the strongest arguement in favour of rail over road (that and the fact that a rail passenger can stretch his legs, read a book, do some work, have a pint or a meal none ofwhich a car driver can do)

I'm afraid, just as the bit I quoted said, sentimentality is taking over from sense. Most people want to get from A to B, in a sensible combination of speed, comfort and price - not many want to read a book, or whatever, on route. Look at the figures, people vote with their feet (wheels) - even on long distance journeys the car wins on popularity, hands down. Journeys of 350 miles +: Cars 42%, Air 39% and train 12%. On shorter journeys, air drops hugely to 5%, trains increase to 14%, coaches are at 8%, the car is at 72%.

Another problem with the rail network is that 70% of journeys are made within London and the South East. These numbers are then used within the UK-wide context and give exaggerated and skewed figures.

On the subject of deaths, you are not comparing like with like. If I decide to commit suicide by standing in the middle of the M4, that is a "road death" and is added to the 3000 odd that die on the roads every year.
If I stand in the middle of the main line from Paddington, that doesn't appear as a "passenger" death (which you quote), it probably doesn't even appear as a railway death of any sort except in detailed figures.

"Every year about 200 people choose to die on the railways - a further 50 kill themselves on the London Underground." (RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board) figs)

Rail is about 6 times safer than travelling by car - BUT air is 10 times safer than rail. Strong argument to fly more ?

Perhaps most telling all - an excerpt from Hansard 16 Jan 2001:

"Railway Accidents

Mr. Bradshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the annual average figure was of serious injuries and deaths on the railways per passenger mile travelled in the two decades preceding privatisation; and what has been the annual average figure since privatisation. [144823]

Mr. Hill: This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost."

This would appear to make even the passenger death figures somewhat suspect.

[Electric train]

When BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) brought new stock it was depreciated in their accounts over a fixed period of time (typically 20 or 30 years). 

BR were not allowed depreciation by the DoT they BR had to fund the full cost of new stock, but having said that BR did have spare stock, the current franchise system does actively encourage the only just enough stock after all the share holders will only fund to the point where they get the maximum return