DfT Interference in running railways.

[RailWonderer]

I am unsure of the consensus here on the forums but I can assume the DfT is disliked plenty and I am not the only one. There are several reasons.
Generally speaking, they dictate to the ToC what sort of trains they can and cannot have, the type of seating, the density of the seating, the length and the frequency of services and much more. Isn't is so convenient for government to want to shun off all responsibility of running railways so that they have none of the burden, but dictate to private firms how they can and cannot run a railway? The point of privatisation to me is that firms should be responsive to consumer demand and wishes and not be micromanaged by a government body that thinks they know better how to run a railway.
I am specifically talking about the DfT demands for new franchises that resulted in the 700s, 707s, 800s, and the Aventra series abominations. If it were up to private firms to decide their own spec, I doubt we would be seeing such uncomfortable seating, cattle truck configuration, airline seating.
Admittedly it is sometimes the firm's idea to increase seating by fitting more people in, regardless of DfT demands, for revenue. (Think SWR new config, which is awful).
Health and safety is excessive, no one was ever injured or killed by bad seating, only by poorly maintained track/rolling stock.
Do you believe we would be seeing such awful new rolling stock if the DfT had no role in deciding these things?

 

[6Gman]

I am unsure of the consensus here on the forums but I can assume the DfT is disliked plenty and I am not the only one. There are several reasons.

Health and safety is excessive, no one was ever injured or killed by bad seating, only by poorly maintained track/rolling stock.
Do you believe we would be seeing such awful new rolling stock if the DfT had no role in deciding these things?

Actually, they were.

Some of us are old enough to remember loose seating in some dining cars. Which - in collision or derailment - could, and did, roll freely within the vehicle.

I would also refer the OP to the research of Liang Wei and Lele Zhang (2017) published in the International Journal of Crashworthiness Vol.23 Issue 5 (2018) which indicated that seat design was a major element in passenger safety.

 

[yorkie]

'Health & Safety' is nothing to do with DfT, surely?

 

[hwl]

Actually, they were.

Some of us are old enough to remember loose seating in some dining cars. Which - in collision or derailment - could, and did, roll freely within the vehicle.

Exactly - Plenty have been injured and killed fairly recently due to poor fixed seating design and many lives saved and injuries prevented by good seating design (390 derailment at Grayrigg and SWT455 vs flying cement mixer are to good recent examples of casualty reduction due to good seat design).

Good seat design includes:
Preventing injuries due to people and luggage flying down the carriage
Making trains less flammable to reduce fire deaths
Using material that don't structural degrade with time (e.g. 1970s and 80) GFRP so seat don't shatter on impact.

 

[hwl]

'Health & Safety' is nothing to do with DfT, surely?

Especially post Cullen Inquiry with the formation of RSSB, RAIB and ORR.

 

[hwl]

I am unsure of the consensus here on the forums but I can assume the DfT is disliked plenty and I am not the only one. There are several reasons.
Generally speaking, they dictate to the ToC what sort of trains they can and cannot have, the type of seating, the density of the seating, the length and the frequency of services and much more. Isn't is so convenient for government to want to shun off all responsibility of running railways so that they have none of the burden, but dictate to private firms how they can and cannot run a railway? The point of privatisation to me is that firms should be responsive to consumer demand and wishes and not be micromanaged by a government body that thinks they know better how to run a railway.
I am specifically talking about the DfT demands for new franchises that resulted in the 700s, 707s, 800s, and the Aventra series abominations. If it were up to private firms to decide their own spec, I doubt we would be seeing such uncomfortable seating, cattle truck configuration, airline seating.
Admittedly it is sometimes the firm's idea to increase seating by fitting more people in, regardless of DfT demands, for revenue. (Think SWR new config, which is awful).
Health and safety is excessive, no one was ever injured or killed by bad seating, only by poorly maintained track/rolling stock.
Do you believe we would be seeing such awful new rolling stock if the DfT had no role in deciding these things?

The railway need to be able to cope with growth and DfT is subsidising it so why shouldn't they have some control?
DfT is (slowly) responsive to consumer demand especially growth which can often involve taking some choices that are unpopular with some to maximise overall needs such as capacity and dwell times.
Well spaced airline seating typically enables about 16% more seats than well spaced bay seating for example.

 

[Bayum]

People on the forum have the ability to have hindsight. Very few of them are in charge of the purse strings to implement ideas they’ve formed up. Ultimately, the DfT are in charge of a variety of things, one of which include replacing favoured stock of enthusiasts, or whatever else they need to do. However, there are times when the DfT shows INCREDIBLE incompetence, just like any other department or group.

 

[jagardner1984]

Personally I’d say the issue with DfT is mainly that it has executed these projects and responsibilities with very little competence. See Seaborne freight for details.

We are bad though, as a society, for deciding all problems have one simple cause, and will be solved by taking one action / set of actions.

In 92 we elected a Tory government who had privatisation in their sights. We listened to the nonsense that public = all bad and private = all good. A system was introduced with such a myriad of complexities it’s a wonder it did not fail immediately. The early 2000s saw large maintenance problems and huge capacity shortfalls (see Thameslink 2000). So again politicians meddle and we are told privatisation is working, it’s the complexity of the maintenance arrangements that’s the problem. Bundle it all into network rail, do some interesting accounting to keep clear public spending off the books, and off we go. Fast forward to the last decade when incremental capacity increases have only got us so far, the big decisions on GWML electrification and MML can be avoided no longer, and we keep voting for governments who say some of these nasty private companies bad, but system still good, they just need some assistance from wise old politicians to help with some big choices (eg specification of 700 and 800). We still have TOCs telling us it’s network rail’s fault, DfT signing up to contracts with vast payments to DfT, which companies walk away from when the going gets tough, the whole thing has the feeling of a group of primary school kids who’ve been caught doing something bad and are pointing the blame at one another.

As with our NHS, we have this strange British obsession that something will be excellent almost because of its Britishness. It won’t. We largely get what we pay for, and what we have is just about average. As the network is worked harder and harder, the big strategic choices our European neighbours made 50 years ago, spending the big taxpayers bucks on big beneficial investment, makes the cracks in our Victorian network look even wider, and the standard of political decision making over successive governments all the more pathetic. We have allowed ourselves to entertain the thinking that widening the M1 is a public interest project that taxes should be spent on, whilst the unmistakeable case for electrifying fully the MML is some sort of luxury that rail passengers should pay for, with the DfT and a lineup of various private companies acting as some sort of quasi tax collector to make parts of the network pay and others benefit at any one time. We’ve come to this point because ultimately the railways are too big to fail, and the consequences economically and socially of a company failing properly are too huge to consider, so like a baby being toilet trained, the DfT run around in a state of mild panic congratulating the private companies when something they produce goes vaguely near the bowl, but always on hand to clean up the carpet when it all goes horribly wrong. It’s almost as if some more politically accountable, unified, funded system might be a more honest way of identifying inputs and outputs, and what we needed to do to achieve the big shortcomings in our network without the accusatory finger of private gain / profiteering. Now what could we call that ....

 

[nickswift99]

Actually, they were.

Some of us are old enough to remember loose seating in some dining cars. Which - in collision or derailment - could, and did, roll freely within the vehicle.

I would also refer the OP to the research of Liang Wei and Lele Zhang (2017) published in the International Journal of Crashworthiness Vol.23 Issue 5 (2018) which indicated that seat design was a major element in passenger safety.

Loose seating. Like the lounge car on the current (soon to be replaced) Caledonian Sleeper Lounge car?

 

[swt_passenger]

In other news, the Ministry of Defence interferes with the armed forces, the Department of Health with the medical profession, the Department of Education with teaching...

 

[pdeaves]

In other news, the Ministry of Defence interferes with the armed forces, the Department of Health with the medical profession, the Department of Education with teaching...

and in all those cases, the relevant department would do well to set the overall vision/strategy (and stick with what they've decided) and let the delivery people, you know, deliver it.

(in my opinion)

 

[corfield]

One word. Accountability.

No manager/leader/politician who heads up a Dept and who is daily dragged through the media for every failing of that Dept is ever going to not interfere to try and influence those failings (and successes!).

You simply cannot expect people like Grayling or A N Other to be accountable, and them not try, competently or otherwise, to run the thing. I’d be exactly the same - and go further and say not interfering would be an abdication of responsibility.

 

[FGW_DID]

Please send your CV with a covering letter entitled “I am such an expert who could run the Railway sooooooooooooooo much better than you!” to:

Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 4DR
United Kingdom

 

[FGW_DID]

In other news, the Ministry of Defence interferes with the armed forces, the Department of Health with the medical profession, the Department of Education with teaching...

Exactly this ^ ( and I speak as ex-armed forces and the Mrs is ex-education)

 

[Megafuss]

Please send your CV with a covering letter entitled “I am such an expert who could run the Railway sooooooooooooooo much better than you!” to:

Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 4DR
United Kingdom

Makes you wonder if this is how Grayling and Adonis got such jobs at DaFT...

 

[HH]

One word. Accountability.

No manager/leader/politician who heads up a Dept and who is daily dragged through the media for every failing of that Dept is ever going to not interfere to try and influence those failings (and successes!).

You simply cannot expect people like Grayling or A N Other to be accountable, and them not try, competently or otherwise, to run the thing. I’d be exactly the same - and go further and say not interfering would be an abdication of responsibility.

There is a difference in bring accountable and therefore maintaining a firm grip on policy and a close eye on performance, and micro-managing everything and taking politically motivated decisions that cost millions for no benefit.

 

[bobbyrail]

I am unsure of the consensus here on the forums but I can assume the DfT is disliked plenty and I am not the only one. There are several reasons.
Generally speaking, they dictate to the ToC what sort of trains they can and cannot have, the type of seating, the density of the seating, the length and the frequency of services and much more.

Please let me know when you get the top job at the DfT as i would like to bid for a franchise. I just happen to know were i can get my hands on some Class 142 stock, yes i know PRM and all that but i have some cunning ideas. First i will remove two seats and attach some lashing eyes to the carriage side people in wheelchairs can then lash themselves down with their own bungee cord as i wont be going to the expense of buying them, a third seat will be ripped out and a "Porta-potty" will be installed to provide a toilet. My trains will only run during peak times when the most profit sorry i mean passengers will fill my trains, i will not be operating Evening, Sunday or daytime services between the peaks. I will also only be operating the most profitable routes as you at the DfT won't be able to tell me to do otherwise. Going forward into the future i am also looking at POO (passenger only operation) this will save me a fortune in drivers wages and i am sure their will be someone on each train that would love to have a bash at driving it, heck i might even charge untrained enthusiasts to drive them for me.

 

[coppercapped]

Especially post Cullen Inquiry with the formation of RSSB, RAIB and ORR.

Cough!
The ORR pre-dates Cullen. It was set up by the 1993 Railways Act as the Office of the Rail Regulator to act as proxy competition to the monopoly private supplier of the railways' infrastructure.

As it has no real job to do now that the infrastructure monopoly is state owned and controlled - one branch of Government telling another branch of Government what it should be doing - it has morphed into the Office of Rail and Road via the Office of Rail Regulation. The initials were left the same in the hope that nobody would notice.

 

[hwl]

Cough!
The ORR pre-dates Cullen. It was set up by the 1993 Railways Act as the Office of the Rail Regulator to act as proxy competition to the monopoly private supplier of the railways' infrastructure.

As it has no real job to do now that the infrastructure monopoly is state owned and controlled - one branch of Government telling another branch of Government what it should be doing - it has morphed into the Office of Rail and Road via the Office of Rail Regulation. The initials were left the same in the hope that nobody would notice.

Yep brain fade on my part I was thinking of the dismemberment of the SRA at that point some of its remit went to the existing ORR with and added remit.

 

[RailWonderer]

In other news, the Ministry of Defence interferes with the armed forces, the Department of Health with the medical profession, the Department of Education with teaching...

Except this is a rail forum - health and defense are irrelevant.

 

[RailWonderer]

Please let me know when you get the top job at the DfT as i would like to bid for a franchise. I just happen to know were i can get my hands on some Class 142 stock, yes i know PRM and all that but i have some cunning ideas. First i will remove two seats and attach some lashing eyes to the carriage side people in wheelchairs can then lash themselves down with their own bungee cord as i wont be going to the expense of buying them, a third seat will be ripped out and a "Porta-potty" will be installed to provide a toilet. My trains will only run during peak times when the most profit sorry i mean passengers will fill my trains, i will not be operating Evening, Sunday or daytime services between the peaks. I will also only be operating the most profitable routes as you at the DfT won't be able to tell me to do otherwise. Going forward into the future i am also looking at POO (passenger only operation) this will save me a fortune in drivers wages and i am sure their will be someone on each train that would love to have a bash at driving it, heck i might even charge untrained enthusiasts to drive them for me.

Then people would just not use railways at all and drive so ToCs would lose revenue by running a 2 car pacer only at the peaks. Businesses aren't going to cut so many corners that they bankrupt themselves. Thats counterintuitive. Try and understand business a bit better. DfT has to demand things like a certain frequency of services but all I am saying is that their demands can be excessive, not that they are all unnecessary. Passengers outnumber drivers. That's just business. Drivers unions are there to protect them from business tyranny as you seem to see it.

 

[bobbyrail]

Then people would just not use railways at all and drive so ToCs would lose revenue by running a 2 car pacer only at the peaks. Businesses aren't going to cut so many corners that they bankrupt themselves. Thats counterintuitive. Try and understand business a bit better. DfT has to demand things like a certain frequency of services but all I am saying is that their demands can be excessive, not that they are all unnecessary. Passengers outnumber drivers. That's just business. Drivers unions are there to protect them from business tyranny as you seem to see it.

I was actually thinking of running them as 3x2 car units on the busiest routes, but seriously the TOC would not go bump as commuters rely on trains and that is where the core market for the likes of Northern and Southeastern are these companies have some of the lowest passenger satisfaction ratings at 72% and 78% yet commuters still cram into carriages like sardines because they would rather that than the drive.
If the DfT did not insist on TOCs running the other loss making services and subsiding them then the TOCs would not run them because if they did they would lose money hand over fist.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Except this is a rail forum - health and defense are irrelevant.

Not when they are funded and regulated in the same way, use the same processes and compete for the same investment funds.
The current government departmental spending review has the potential to impact rail budgets directly (and things like HS2).
How government services are franchised/outsourced and "micromanaged" is also relevant to rail, as are all the Health & Safety and EU regulations.

To the OP, he seems to have forgotten that the government owns the railway (except the bits it has sold off like freight and the rolling stock).
Franchises are short-term management contracts: no assets change hands, and they revert to government control afterwards.
So it's no surprise that the DfT chooses to interfere in how these assets are being deployed (as per the franchise contract).
Most of this stays the same whatever flavour of government is in power - it's how central government works.

 

[30907]

Before it was the DfT, BR managers grumbled at the Treasury turning their plans down (how many HSTs were cut from the programme?). Before that - well, ask yourself why BRB HQ was called the Kremlin... - and I imagine local managers regarded regional/company HQs as interfering so-and-sos (the word micromanagement not being in common use then...). It's human nature to do so.

The grumbles have some justification - but in the early days of privatisation when the DfT (etc) were more hands-off things didn't always pan out well. Think Virgin XC.... So there are two sides to this.

 

[yorksrob]

Price gouging seems to be a policy of this Government - so much so that it feeds into every new franchise.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Price gouging seems to be a policy of this Government - so much so that it feeds into every new franchise.

Across the board there were far more ‘real’ fare increases in the BR era.

 

[yorksrob]

Across the board there were far more ‘real’ fare increases in the BR era.

That was as a result of Government policy as well.

 

[corfield]

There is a difference in bring accountable and therefore maintaining a firm grip on policy and a close eye on performance, and micro-managing everything and taking politically motivated decisions that cost millions for no benefit.

That’s the point - there isn’t really. To try and have some effect on what they are being criticised for inevitably results in micro management, as for motivations/costs/benefit - that’s politics, Govt isnt a business, it is there to push and pull in directions as competing ideas gain and lose traction and key people come and go with all the agendas of a myriad of people at many levels. I often think (as a public servant) that trying to run ourselves as a business is doomed to failure as it is fatally flawed by not being one and not having the same inputs and outputs.

We would demand Grayling’s head on a plate for the timetable mess, for overrunning engineering etc. regardless of what level of grip he exercises upon those issues. In those circumstances any human (let alone an ambitious wannabee leader type) is going to default to more interferance rather than less in the hope they can control their fate.

This is why full nationalisation would again be the worst thing to befall the railway as all the power (rather than just most) would be in those hands...

 

[class 9]

Before it was the DfT, BR managers grumbled at the Treasury turning their plans down (how many HSTs were cut from the programme?). Before that - well, ask yourself why BRB HQ was called the Kremlin... - and I imagine local managers regarded regional/company HQs as interfering so-and-sos (the word micromanagement not being in common use then...). It's human nature to do so.

The grumbles have some justification - but in the early days of privatisation when the DfT (etc) were more hands-off things didn't always pan out well. Think Virgin XC.... So there are two sides to this.

Well, they did stick their nose into Virgin XCs plan to increase all voyagers to 6 cars, citing 'no business case'.
Hence no B & E coaches in a 220 and no E coach in a 221.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The point of privatisation to me is that firms should be responsive to consumer demand and wishes and not be micromanaged by a government body that thinks they know better how to run a railway.

How dare the organisation paying the bills demand a say in how their money is spent.

There isn't a single TOC that doesn't require subsidy, after Network Rail costs are taken into account.