Why do so many people moan about the uk rail network?

[gordonthemoron]

and Beeching's statistics were highly suspect

 

[Snapper]

snapper ,you appear to have decided that you are correct and nothing will change your oppinion.
The economy of the nation is heavily reliant on the rail network, there for we need an efficient system, but that doesnt mean it has to be run at profit.
I understand that under BR there was waste , but under privatisation there is 1 major aim, Profit for the shareholder and the aim is to improve that profit year on year.
You quote a lot of figures, but as anyone knows figures can be made to say almost anything. Remember Beaching he managed to close many lines that should not have been closes using statistics (yes some had to close), what about the Settle and Carlisle when they tried to close that or thePennine route with the Tommies, .

Oh please. I argue my case. And I bother to support it with evidence. Admittedly that annoys some people - but c est la vie.

The whole line about figures can be made to say anything is often used as a cop-out when people either fail to provide any supporting evidence of their own - or cannot argue with someone else's. It's a lazy substitute for any reasoned analysis or cogent argument.

There are those who will always try and argue that the railways shouldn't be run for a profit. But it's a totally pointless argument because that is where we're at. (although only parts of it are: NR certainly isn't). The profits made by the TOCs and FOCs are miniscule compared to other businesses (FOCs margins are around 4% and even TOCs struggle to make 6%). And profit is no bad thing.

BR was heavily wasteful and the investment in infrastructure was poor. The reliability of the old fleets was also poor - which was why so many locos were sitting around. When you've got a reliability figure of around 70% you need to have a lot more machines on your books to cover the work than if you have a figure of 95%. That's why there were so many locos sitting around on depots - they were in reserve waiting for something to fail! One only has to look at old photos of works like Crewe to see ranks of engines in for heavy overhaul (thus soaking up money - not earning it - not to mention the cost of the works infrastructure) - modern vehicles and engineering techniques mean those wasteful scenes are a thing of the past.

It's a situation most older railwaymen will confirm.

The fact that MPC figures have improved dramatically means that less stock is needed for the job. It's not rocket science - it's simple mathematics*. One only has to look at the performances that some of the TOCs are putting in to see this. Under BR c2c was known as 'The Misery line' as it was a dumping ground for old EMUs with a poor service and appalling reliability. Under privatisation it replaced all its rolling stock with a brand-new fleet (not some else's cast-offs). Now it has the highest MPC figure of any EMU fleet and the highest PPM at over 95%. Needless to say this improvement in MPC means the fleet doesn't have to carry loads of spare stock.

It's the point being missed about my previous picture of Crewe. How many of those 47/7s were replaced by just 30 Class 67s?



* It's not the only advantage. The fact that modern locos like 66s don't need to go back to depots for many exams means that diagramming can be a lot tighter. Instead of lots of light engine movements and 'down time' it can be doe in the yard before the loco works its next train.

And that profit motive some decry is a powerful incentive which drives more efficient working. Something else BR was poor on.

 

[Metroland]

and Beeching's statistics were highly suspect

Which was fairly typical of the narrow angle anglo-saxon methodology we all see often applied, rooted in all sorts of cultural aspects such as attitudes to class, public investment, money and so on and is converse to French and Japanese thinking, or Scandinavian.

There is a particular problem in anglo-saxon economies with selfish-money grabbing short term attitudes, exemplified by some of our politicians and business leaders (especially in financial services).

 

[daccer]

It is sometime difficult to differentiate between being an enthusiast and being a user of the network. One thing that cant be denied is that progress will demand efficiency and we cant stand in its way. There are currently 5-600 active freight locomotives in the Uk moving around 100 million tonnes of traffic and revenues of getting close to a billion pounds. When i left BR in 1989 there was apporximatley 150 million tonnes being moved by a fleet of a couple of thousand locomotives. The wagon fleets show an even more extreme divergence on efficiency.

The modern network isnt ideal by any stretch of the imagination. However privatisation has freed up investment and we are heading in the right direction. Mistakes have and will be made but CP4 will see us getting the show on the road properly. Previous periods have been spent putting right the problems of the past. CP4 is all about expansion and capacity increases. BR was simply a vehicle used to manage the decline of the railways as cheaply as possible. It would never have been able to reverse this ethos to manage a growing network it was simply too entrenched.

The current system is what we have - it is time we found a way to make it work better. You can't write privatisation of as being a failure. Chiltern have invested millions in infrastructure and revitalised their system and yet they make profits. Noone seems to mind them making money when the service is improving. The issue then is not privatisation itself but the way it is administered. Profits are fine if service doe not suffer. This then is the govt's job - failing franchises must not be rewarded financially. However it would seem to me that the best franchises are those which invest heavily and then reap the rewards later from franchise extensions and increased usage. To me there should be a system of mandatory franchise extenion built into the system to reward good franchisees.

To hark back to the good old days of BR is firstly pointless (it aint never coming back) and secondly means we miss the opportunity to directly influence the new order of things. Privatised companies are very sensitive to bad press and publicity. They are directly answerable to their shareholders and so can be influenced more easily.

 

[me123]

The current system is what we have - it is time we found a way to make it work better. You can't write privatisation of as being a failure. Chiltern have invested millions in infrastructure and revitalised their system and yet they make profits. Noone seems to mind them making money when the service is improving. The issue then is not privatisation itself but the way it is administered. Profits are fine if service doe not suffer. This then is the govt's job - failing franchises must not be rewarded financially. However it would seem to me that the best franchises are those which invest heavily and then reap the rewards later from franchise extensions and increased usage. To me there should be a system of mandatory franchise extenion built into the system to reward good franchisees.

I couldn't agree more with this. I'd like to see franchises awarded over longer periods of time. This would allow investment, because they'll be able to reap the profits from new rolling stock and other improvements. Looking at the franchises, the best ones tend to have longer franchises.

Of course, for that to work, there'd have to be stringent mechanisms in place to ensure that the company's performance doesn't deteriorate and that they do invest (perhaps by making investment mandatory), but I think it could work. One of the main benefits of franchising is that these big companies can make a contribution, and I think giving them a longer time to see the profits from this would stimulate them to do so.

 

[alpha_9]

In all honestly Snapper, I was only having a little jibe at you back in that last post. I admit that in a lot of cases here you are right indeed, in terms of improved infrastructure, new trains, etc.... and certainly on the railfreight front, having a fleet of locomotives such as the 66's has indeed helped to deter the decline in freight traffic and are indeed as you say certainly a lot more efficient in terms of cost and maintenence, you only have to look at the likes of Ireland that such traction is proof in the pudding. But what I do object to however, is the mannerism you sometimes put across these sentiments in.

So while I agree and disagree on certain things coming from both perspectives, I shall remain neutral on this particular subject.

But one thing I will say, when the railways were first privatised back in the 90's. All of the assets (including Railtrack) should of have been divided into two and one half sold off to the Germans and the other to the Japanese:

All railfreight operators, regional/Northern PTE TOC's, Cross-Country and Great Western and a large of what made up Railtrack/Network Rail: German Railways (DB).

Other Intercity routes, HS lines and the operations and infractructures that made up these and London Transport and Network Southeast: To the Japanese, since this is where their main expertees lie.

There you would have probably an efficient system guaranteed.

 

[Snapper]

There you would have probably an efficient system guaranteed.

Sadly it's not that simple. The Japanese network operates in a very different way to ours it seems. According to colleagues who've visited, the Japanese operate a simpler network in that many of their trains run point-to-point. This makes timekeeping a lot simpler. I suspect they'd still have problems if we insisted on sticking to our patterns of running.

 

[Metroland]

BR was simply a vehicle used to manage the decline of the railways as cheaply as possible. It would never have been able to reverse this ethos to manage a growing network it was simply too entrenched.

It's amazing BR management did as well as they did, but there was certainly an attitude of burn and slash because the governments of the time simply did not want to put any money in - and that really was the problem, all the money went on roads until they realised it was no panacea. I dare say that would be the problem again, as stuff like health and education have always been given priorities over transport.

Here are some quotes from the BR 1968 report on northern WCML electrification:

'The physical situation on the route is archaic, and is aggravated by the permanent difficulty in obtaining signalling staff in key areas'

'The lines pass through areas prone to fog and snow so that punctuality suffers with the present signalling. Many important junctions exist on the routes concerned and delays arising from inadequate signalling and control have widespread effects on a l l r a d i a t i n g routes, There is great scope for route and track rationalisation. Shortages of signalmen are made evident by over 100 unfilled vacancies in the areas concerned and the situation shows no sign of easing'

'The routing for freight traffic accords with existing policies, It has been assumed that the line to Edinburgh via Hawick will no longer be required for through freight service in any event, and that the Settle - Carlilse can be dispensed with on completion of the main line signalling and electrification.'

'Similarly, for simplicity of calculation and to maintain conservative estimates-of revenue, no rise in in earnings is claimed beyond 1983'

'Under this last assumption, the new timetable would not include the ultra - fast trains between London and Glasgow: day traffic would cease entirely by 1990. In spite of
the improvements between Birmingham and Glasgow, after an intail increase, the revenue is assumed to fall away progressively.

Similar but more drastic declines must be assumed in the cases of no significant improvements or limited improvements over the services today. It is assumed t h a t London to Glasgow traffic would disappear by 1985 and Birmingham to Glasgow by 1990.'

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BRB_WCML001.pdf

And so it goes on, no wonder BR was always making cuts and the workers were on strike. Nothing to do with political motivations as often depicted in the media, it was because under BR pay was so low, people went to work in factories, haulage companies etc.

So what actually happened?

Britain is now better connected and rail passengers across the country are benefitting from quicker journeys and more frequent services as Rail Minister Andrew Adonis officially opened the upgraded £8.9bn West Coast Mainline.

The line, which runs from London to Glasgow serving destinations including Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, has been completely overhauled over the past five years. The upgrade sees journey times fall by up to 30 per cent and a 45 per cent increase in long distance train services on the line.

"It is easy to lose sight of how this work has changed the transport map of Britain and brought real improvements for rail passengers. Five years ago, Manchester was nearly three hours from London and was served by barely one train an hour. Today trains reach Manchester in two hours and run every twenty minutes throughout the day.

"This project helps to better connect Britain. Businesses rely on it both to move their people and to move their freight, giving them the connections they need to help our economy through these difficult times."

Passenger numbers on the line have doubled since 2004 while improved journey times have caused a massive shift from air to rail on the busy Manchester to London route with rail now accounting for two-thirds of journeys, up from one third in 2004.

http://www.wired-gov.net/wg/wg-news-1.nsf/0/6A85C67E84B0D7CC802575B5003081F5?OpenDocument


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sadly it's not that simple. The Japanese network operates in a very different way to ours it seems. According to colleagues who've visited, the Japanese operate a simpler network in that many of their trains run point-to-point. This makes timekeeping a lot simpler. I suspect they'd still have problems if we insisted on sticking to our patterns of running.

And also Japan is much more densely populated, which makes rail far more competitive.

 

[Geezertronic]

I have to say that for all the critisism that VirginTrains get, the WCML upgrades combined with their VHF services on the WCML have certainly improved rail services no end on the WCML. While people can moan about long distance trains no longer calling at certain stations along the route, what seems to have been implemented suits the majority of rail users along that path.

Combined with the Pendolino's which I think are good trains and the lengthening improvements they will see over the coming years, I hope VirginTrains continue with the francise longer term.

Locally for me, London Midland have also improved services around the Birmingham area for the critisism they get, should also be applauded.

There is always room for improvement and you cannot please everyone, but I for one am pleased with the services I use

 

[delt1c]

Oh please. I argue my case. And I bother to support it with evidence. Admittedly that annoys some people - but c est la vie.

.

Sorry but doesnt annoy me. Everyone is allowed to have their own views and opinions, doesnt mean you are right and i am wrong. I respect others opinions and I expect others to respect mine.
Yes there are areas where privitisation improved things, but also there are areas where they have failed.
Yes BR could have done better and goverment should have stepped in and ensured they did. But the system was allowed to deteriorate , then privatisation was guaranteed to make things look better.

 

[thefab444]

Under privatisation it replaced all its rolling stock with a brand-new fleet (not some else's cast-offs).

Firstly, weren't those stock orders, like virtually all the others, underwritten by the government anyway? And secondly, the replacement occured to replace the unfit for purpose Slamdoor stock, I suspect if the safety issues regarding such stock hadn't been raised, the units may well have still been around in some form today with privatised companies, albeit overhauled and refurbished, especially in the cases of the Mark 2 based units (Class 310s?). Likewise, had BR been still in existance, the line would probably be using new units. Having private companies try to maximise profit out of a public service is wrong in my opinion, for example I am against current proposals for privatisation of Royal Mail or the NHS (good old socialist Labour eh?). Whether you class railways as a public service anymore, is open to debate.

Perhaps the passenger sector should be renationalised, but keep the freight sector under private ownership as the sector seems to be working relatively successfully, with at least some competition going on between the incumbent if you like (EWS/DBS) and some of the newer bods on the block, which was what privatisation was supposed to achieve wasn't it? (Other than raising funds for the Tory government of the day of course)

 

[Snapper]

I suspect if the safety issues regarding such stock hadn't been raised, the units may well have still been around in some form today, albeit overhauled and refurbished, especially in the cases of the Mark 2 based units (Class 310s?).

Such stock may bring a tear to the eye of the enthusiast. But fare-paying passengers are glad to see the back of them.

The railways can't expect to increase the number of people it carries if it doesn't modernise. Offering an old, tired product would only show the railways up when its competitors (coach, car and airline) are offering something much more modern, more comfortable and also quicker.

 

[Metroland]

I don't think there is any wrong or right answer, there are examples of good nationalised networks (German, Swiss etc) and some very nice private networks like Japan and US freight. Of course freight is easier to make profits with, given the right distances, speeds etc, but passenger railways are hard because of the need to support off peak and rural traffic. The road network also has very little traffic on minor roads, but we don't hear about road closure programmes!

There is a syndrome in this country where profits are deemed to be bad (and conversely public service is bad and doesn't add anything!) but has Snapper has already pointed out the TOCs have wafer thin profits - no wonder when the DfT is specifying timetables and there is an outcry when a TOC wants to start charging for seat reservations.

A certainly amount of profit is good. It proves the business is successful at attracting custom and and is capable of attracting investment. *Excess* profits I would say are bad, when it comes to public services or things people need, or when companies try to monopolise markets leading to less choice, or interfere with political systems: Examples might include, where an electricity company is making large profits, and people can hardly pay the bills, or when supermarkets are sending farmers out of business, so farmers have to exploit animals, or a company is making large profits or expanding and doesn't give a fig about environmental impact. This is why we have regulators and regulation, although too much can be just as bad!

In the end, its all about what is fair.

A nationalised network would work only if we had a more mature attitude to long term investment and why public transport is important. I sadly see little evidence of this, even enthusiasts slag off the system, so why should anyone else support government investment? There's lots of people pretend to know about transport and have a lucid understanding, unfortunately most of the time it reverts to emotive cherry picked arguments. There's far to much of the tabloid readers, Clarkeson mentality in this country for me to believe anything else.

So then its left to the private sector, who MUST perform else they are kicked out. Only in recent years has the rail system started to get respect which it certainly hasn't in the last 40 years.

To my mind, without a cultural change its the only thing that's going to work, we need the drive of the private sector. Okay, there are problems in which they way it was privatised, but some of the messages pushed by railway commentators are not reality insomuch if it was nationalised, people would sneer at it being government run (like they do with anything government run, especially from the right wing press). Government wouldn't put any money in, sending it all to the bottomless pits of education and health, so service would become average at best, we'd be back to square one, especially as the private bus, coach and airlines start peeling away traffic! Ultimately people would revert back to their cars on overcrowded roads (where 2/3 of the congestion is around cities where they can't be expanded due to space) as especially as people don't generally find buses attractive, far to slow for a start. Airlines just offer limited services which make money on key routes between large centres and people hate the environmental impact.

Perhaps there is an argument for some sort of not for profit companies like Network rail, but NR so far has not proved itself just yet (though its getting there) as a good user of tax payers money, what with massive bonuses and too many middle management.

I especially hate this idea you have to pay big money to motivate people, what happened to work ethic and pride in what you do?

There also needs to be a mature attitude to Health and Safety. Nobody wants to see accidents, even private companies. But its no good throwing money at things with little risk to such an extent it makes it so expensive, traffic just shifts to less safe forms of transport. Railtrack was just badly run because it was overcomplex thanks to the structures in place, its not to say NR is any more safe because much the same structures exist, hence the Grayrigg accident. In the end, its all down to good management and the right investment which has to come from somewhere.

 

[thefab444]

Such stock may bring a tear to the eye of the enthusiast. But fare-paying passengers are glad to see the back of them.

Indeed, couldn't stand the Slamdoor units myself and am glad they are gone. But this was mainly due to safety concerns and the stock was underwritten by the government for the ROSCOs, very little investment from the TOCs.

 

[daccer]

Many of the big public offerings of nationalised industries were very unpopular at the time as they were seen as 'selling off the family silver' or just making some city fat cats very rich. it just so happened that the railways were basically the last big privatisation and so we are only just coming to the end of the bedding in period where mistakes have been made and are now being rectified. Competition is starting to come, slowly but surely. If you look at Gas and Telkom it took awhile for other operators to get involved, the same for electricity. However now as more entrants have entered the market there is an element of competition to be had.

These are service industries every bit as vital as the railways to their users and are also regulated by Govt. The key thing is that they have had more time to get the systems right and are further down the road.

Renationalisation I think is a very very unlikely occurence. If a TOC is taken back by the Govt they unload it as soon as they can. For all the arguments made for and against BR there is no way it could be created again without costing a fortune and putting us back to where we were in 1994.

I think the issue of cost to the Govt is also slightly skewed. Sure more money is being spent now than during BR's time. And even on a pro-rata basis per passenger it does cost more now. However BR was a network being pruned down to a basic London and South east commuter system i.e a captive customer base. what rail is now doing is picking up custom from passengers who have viable alternatives - car and plane. These people have a choice and so will select the one that suits their wallet and also more importantly fits in with their requirements. To get these people onto trains we need new stock (by and large we have this now) running more frequently and more punctually. This costx a lot. The TOC's make a wafer thin margin (and it is regulated at this level). Sure some are better than others but the key thing now is not to take the last 15 years of hard graft and throw it away but to refine the product - railways are back in vogue again. HS2 will give a boost as HS 1 did and we are entering a prolonged period of growth and increased investment (govt and private). I think to look back is a mistake - the future is much brighter than the past ever was - rose tinted glasses or not.

 

[Snapper]

Indeed, couldn't stand the Slamdoor units myself and am glad they are gone. But this was mainly due to safety concerns and the stock was underwritten by the government for the ROSCOs, very little investment from the TOCs.

Investment no - but the TOCs still have to pay increased leasing charges compared to the older stock. And in some cases higher track-access charges.

 

[clagmonster]

On the LTS matter, BR were had intorduced a large number of Networker units in the former NSE area, replacing slam door units. Had privatisation have not happened, I am sure that this would have continued, indeed BR had proposed building new units for the LTS line. Remember, privatisation led to the huge gap in production of new units, which subsequently caused the clsure of York works.
With loco reliability, again I maintian that it is inevitable that when new locomotives are introduced, reliability will increase. The class 60s, introduced by BR are an example of this (once intitial teething troubles where overcome). On mgr coal trains for example, single class 60s replaced pairs of 20s.
As for profits, personally I would prefer that all profits are pumped back into the system, allowing profitable lines to subsidise loss making ones. I also find it ridiculous that a company who receives a subsidy, can then go on to make a profit, wether greater than or less than the profit levels. However, I do accept that, given long term franchises, innovation and private investment can be seen on the railways, as seen on Chiltern.

 

[alpha_9]

Such stock may bring a tear to the eye of the enthusiast. But fare-paying passengers are glad to see the back of them.

The railways can't expect to increase the number of people it carries if it doesn't modernise. Offering an old, tired product would only show the railways up when its competitors (coach, car and airline) are offering something much more modern, more comfortable and also quicker.

You are spot on there but that of course is just common sense. In regards to new trains one thing I will say is that Desiro's are among the finest looking units to have run on our metals, a lot more so than the ones they have replaced and that is speaking both as an enthusiast and as a customer.

 

[Snapper]

You are spot on there but that of course is just common sense. In regards to new trains one thing I will say is that Desiro's are among the finest looking units to have run on our metals, a lot more so than the ones they have replaced and that is speaking both as an enthusiast and as a customer.

It's surprising how often that common sense is anything but - especially when we're dealing with nostalgia!

 

[thefab444]

You seem determined to tar me and my argument with the nostalgia brush. As I said, I'm glad the Slamdoors have gone, they were awful units - probably good in their time, but that time had passed. I appreciate, however, that you may have made a lot of money out of the "sexing up" of the railways, and (without wishing this to turn personal) you probably vote Conservative.

Anyway, the government allowing private companies to essentially extort money out of passengers is surely a step to far, I think privatisation could be a lot more acceptable if the government department which actually specifies in minute detail each part of the franchise, actually stood up for the passengers (or at least get the regulator to do so). Despite deflation, rail fares are still going up at inflation target levels?!

 

[jon0844]

Competition is starting to come, slowly but surely. If you look at Gas and Telkom it took awhile for other operators to get involved, the same for electricity. However now as more entrants have entered the market there is an element of competition to be had.

I think generally speaking, privatising the rail has worked - but I do think it may have been better to have private operators running routes under a single brand, with standardised ticketing.

Telecommunications was definitely a good thing to privatise. There are different phone networks, different technologies and genuine choice (although there are of course still problems with cartels and price fixing).

As for gas and electricity, or water and sewage. I still to this day cannot understand how you can privatise this. It's pretty much one source, with middle men charging different amounts for the same thing(s). It doesn't seem possible to have real competition here!

Mind you, to a certain extent the same is true for many rail routes where not wanting to use a particular TOC probably means you move house!

 

[90019]

As for gas and electricity, or water and sewage. I still to this day cannot understand how you can privatise this. It's pretty much one source, with middle men charging different amounts for the same thing(s). It doesn't seem possible to have real competition here!

For those, you have to include the service if something goes wrong, and things like that. I think that's where the competition is

 

[Metroland]

On the water front they are regional monopolies, the water is sources from different places, but the reservoirs/boreholes plus pipes are all owned by the same people. It's all vertically integrated.

On the electricity front, its more like the railways are today. National Grid owns the main grid infrastructure, the power stations are owned by different companies and sell electricity to the grid. The local distribution networks are owned by other companies, who sometimes sell direct to customers, and there is another layer of middle men that are in competition with the local networks.

Telecoms is more complex, BT owns a lot of the core infrastructure, but other companies own parts of the network, such as certain cable or microwave links, routers, and so on. Other companies manage the interface between the customer and provider. It gets more complex when you consider ISPs are also involved, as parts of the internet run over the telephone network, also stuff like TV and radio links to transmitters, as well as some of Network Rail's signalling systems and remote control for other utilities.

 

[Snapper]

You seem determined to tar me and my argument with the nostalgia brush. As I said, I'm glad the Slamdoors have gone, they were awful units - probably good in their time, but that time had passed. I appreciate, however, that you may have made a lot of money out of the "sexing up" of the railways, and (without wishing this to turn personal) you probably vote Conservative.

Not at all. As you admit yourself, you see the sense in getting rid of the slammers. Now I have a soft spot for them. But I wouldn't dream of using that soft spot to suggest that the railways should keep them and that anything that comes after them is 'plastic' - it's that type of nostalgia that I believe is damaging.

As for voting Conservative - you couldn't be more wrong (but I promise not to take it personally!)

 

[Geezertronic]

As for voting Conservative - you couldn't be more wrong (but I promise not to take it personally!)

I hope to god it's not Labour then?

 

[90019]

I hope to god it's not Labour then?

Better that than BNP

 

[thefab444]

You don't sound like a Liberal... so must be UKIP then.

 

[Snapper]

You don't sound like a Liberal... so must be UKIP then.

You're getting colder...

 

[90019]

You're getting colder...

We should turn this into a forum game!

"Guess who Snapper votes for"!

 

[theblackwatch]

Offering an old, tired product would only show the railways up when its competitors (coach, car and airline) are offering something much more modern, more comfortable and also quicker.

Just like the Northern 158 I saw at York on Tuesday evening, complete with seating and moquette as delivered when new in the early 1990s. I wonder how many people have urinated or been sick on those seats!