BBC Two: The Passengers That Took On The Train Line

coppercapped · 15 Jun 2017

Starmill said:
Given the result of the investigation by the Transport Select Committee was that the franchising system remains unfit for purpose, I think the point is that that's the problem.

I assume you are referring to the Transport Select Committee report published on 30 January 2017. It goes into some detail of the background of the current situation (and incidentally starts from a false premise about the reasons for franchising in the first place) and makes recommendations for improvement but nowhere does it state that "the franchising system remains unfit for purpose".

RailUK Forums

Great_Western · 15 Jun 2017

Got 10 minutes in and couldnt bare to watch any more. Its all well and good wanting better, but they're just all going about it so wrong, their naievety was staggering. If you dont like it that much, vote on your feet and go by bus, then they will soon see.

Busaholic · 15 Jun 2017

You could say that Stagecoach started from such small beginnings and challenging incumbent operators, obviously in the bus field at first, but then....

ChiefPlanner · 15 Jun 2017

One of them commuted from Beckenham Junction to Brixton each day - hardly taxing on a a 15 min headway , .........there are bus options available.....

Starmill · 15 Jun 2017

coppercapped said:
I assume you are referring to the Transport Select Committee report published on 30 January 2017. It goes into some detail of the background of the current situation (and incidentally starts from a false premise about the reasons for franchising in the first place) and makes recommendations for improvement but nowhere does it state that "the franchising system remains unfit for purpose".

Au contraire, it said that the franchising system is "no longer fit for purpose". Which is essentially the same as what I said.

RPM · 16 Jun 2017

I think the problem was when they turned up at the DfT they forgot to put on their oversized shoes, red noses and make-up.

Old Yard Dog · 16 Jun 2017

Cloud cuckoo land. The programme was just embarrassing.

cav1975 · 16 Jun 2017

squizzler said:
I cannot recall the clip but I presume they could not play a clip of a steam train backwards. The steam and smoke would be going back into the funnel!

I think it was coasting, no steam, no smoke

squizzler · 16 Jun 2017

The dismissal of the programme out of hand suggests a wilful ignorance as to how large corporations are governed. There is a wide range of governance types, I am not an expert in this subject, however at the top of the company are usually executives who run things and the governing board. These duties of the board are primarily those of steering and oversight and will include hiring and firing the executives. The board would not concern itself with the day to day operation of the railway and the directors might have other interests. The constitution of the organisation can determine the make-up of the board to include a certain number of passenger representatives, etc.

I would find it helpful if somebody explained why a board of directors made up of the passenger representatives and the industry insiders that were alluded to in the programme, would be unfit to perform the duties of a board. And if no such reason can be found then their bid ought, I would think, be judged on its merits.

If a new franchise takes over the existing staff and trains don't just magically disappear. Existing staff who will mostly be absorbed into the new franchise actually run the railway. The trains they start out with will almost certainly be the same ones leased as before. The franchise bid sets out how the service will evolve over the lifetime of the franchise.

HLE · 16 Jun 2017

Because they knew sod all about how the railway works (even in general - they don't have to be masterminds but a decent understanding of railway operations would have been a start). All they did was list a load of improvements that they wanted, without offering a shred of evidence or insight in how they were going to deliver or fund it. They then used the Swiss railways as an example of how they'd want a railway to run - so a train every 30 minutes rather than every 3 like in London then.

The whole thing was ridiculous. They knew nothing about the railway apart from how to moan about it (and people who complimented it) and how to wave a clipboard.

Are passengers really that thick to think TOC's wouldn't increase the passenger capacity if they could? Do they think TOC's do nothing to try to minimise delays? And then they bring up the profit element - 2% is hardly a huge amount, and doesn't give much leeway if unforeseen costs occurred. If the revenue drops by even 1% things would be tight for a 'new' TOC.

Can see the headline - drivers on strike due to not being paid for months due to mismanagement of railways by passenger group who took on franchise.

Who would people then blame? The DFT of course!

squizzler · 16 Jun 2017

Passenger representatives sitting on the board would not be there to "know how the railway works" they are there to ensure the passenger voice is heard when steering the company. Incidentally their TOC could be constituted to have union representation on the board should they wish. I suggest you may wish to read Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful" and maybe find out about other interesting ways of making companies accountable to the communities they serve.

I think the vitriol expressed here comes from the fact that the model they proposed is threatening to both those who wish to retain the status quo and also those who think the railways need to be nationalised to be publicly accountable.

theironroad · 16 Jun 2017

As taxpayer subsidy was brought in the programme, I've got to question how much taxpayer subsidy the BBC spent to commission this programme.

I forced myself to get to the end but was cringing most of the time.

At least they were honest to viewers when they left the dft after failing passport when the dft said they had consulted their legal team and were obligated to see them. More waste of taxpayer money.

Shame their effusive praise of the the mid hants profitability and efficiency failed to acknowledge that heritage railways wouldn't exist in the abundance they do without the thousands of hours of unpaid volunteer labour.

I'm all for changing the franchise system, but this was a naive waste of BBC money .

ian959 · 16 Jun 2017

squizzler said:
I think the vitriol expressed here comes from the fact that the model they proposed is threatening to both those who wish to retain the status quo and also those who think the railways need to be nationalised to be publicly accountable.

No, the vitriol comes from the fact that they had no f****** idea what was involved in not only getting hold of a franchise but how to actually effect change once you have the franchise.

ejstubbs · 16 Jun 2017

theironroad said:
As taxpayer subsidy was brought in the programme, I've got to question how much taxpayer subsidy the BBC spent to commission this programme.

...

I'm all for changing the franchise system, but this was a naive waste of BBC money .

The BBC didn't spend any money on the dismal franchise "bid". They made a documentary about a group of people trying - not very well - to change the way that the privatised but tightly government regulated services that they use are operated.

It wasn't supposed to be "this is how to win a railway franchise". It was a current affairs programme about stuff that is going on which reflects certain aspects of the current political and social climate. Whether the franchise bid had been successful or not, the programme was relevant in those terms. As it turned out, because of the ineptness of the group attempting to bid for the franchise, it arguably also has a useful educational purpose for anyone who might be thinking of doing something similar by illustrating some of the mistakes that can be made.

The BBC's remit is to make programmes that "inform, educate and entertain". I honestly don't see how this programme doesn't meet at least one of those criteria.

NSEFAN · 16 Jun 2017

ian959 said:
Passenger representatives sitting on the board would not be there to "know how the railway works" they are there to ensure the passenger voice is heard when steering the company. Incidentally their TOC could be constituted to have union representation on the board should they wish. I suggest you may wish to read Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful" and maybe find out about other interesting ways of making companies accountable to the communities they serve..

Having fair representation is not the same as being run by a group of passengers who have not a clue about how the railway works. Rail franchises aren't small businesses, you can't just have a go at it and shrug your shoulders if it all goes sour. Public money is put into the railways, so you have to demonstrate you can competently run a service and get people to work on time. Being well meaning is not good enough where you risk causing economic damage by completely running into the ground the train service of the region.

ScotGG · 16 Jun 2017

Great_Western said:
Got 10 minutes in and couldnt bare to watch any more. Its all well and good wanting better, but they're just all going about it so wrong, their naievety was staggering. If you dont like it that much, vote on your feet and go by bus, then they will soon see.

Not this old nonsense about take a bus. Even from Zone 4 in London it'd be 2-3 hours each way on many days. You'd never see your family.

It's not too much to expect that people, priced ever further out of London due to rising house prices and rents yet needing to work in central London as employment is increasingly centralised, have a rail system that can do that.

Those that say "take a bus" are often just as ignorant and naive as though they criticise. It's often older people who have no idea how the housing situation has become far more expensive and employment far different. Do some research. Look at employment location stats and changes, and housing costs related to wages over the past few decades.

Many have no choice. It's train only.

HLE · 16 Jun 2017

squizzler said:
Passenger representatives sitting on the board would not be there to "know how the railway works" they are there to ensure the passenger voice is heard when steering the company. Incidentally their TOC could be constituted to have union representation on the board should they wish. I suggest you may wish to read Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful" and maybe find out about other interesting ways of making companies accountable to the communities they serve.

I think the vitriol expressed here comes from the fact that the model they proposed is threatening to both those who wish to retain the status quo and also those who think the railways need to be nationalised to be publicly accountable.

If they are serious enough to submit a bid to run a franchise they need to know how a railway works.

When they were asked who had joined with knowledge etc, they said a marketing manager and a HR director.....

The vitrol comes from people on here who can see it was just a group of passengers who had a wish list, but basically didn't have much else. They aren't after passenger representation on the board - they want to be the board!!

Complete waste of time

squizzler · 16 Jun 2017

NSEFAN said:
Having fair representation is not the same as being run by a group of passengers who have not a clue about how the railway works. Rail franchises aren't small businesses, you can't just have a go at it and shrug your shoulders if it all goes sour. Public money is put into the railways, so you have to demonstrate you can competently run a service and get people to work on time. Being well meaning is not good enough where you risk causing economic damage by completely running into the ground the train service of the region.

National Express had a go at the East Coast franchise and "shrugged its shoulders" when the revenue failed to meet projections.

Govia Thameslink "risk causing economic damage by completely running into the ground the train service of the region" albeit egged on by DfT

You would say neither of these two operators are "proper" transport concerns?

HLE said:
If they are serious enough to submit a bid to run a franchise they need to know how a railway works.

When they were asked who had joined with knowledge etc, they said a marketing manager and a HR director.....

The vitrol comes from people on here who can see it was just a group of passengers who had a wish list, but basically didn't have much else. They aren't after passenger representation on the board - they want to be the board!!

Complete waste of time

I am not by any reason suggesting their bid would win on its merits. The simple fact is that I have no idea how serious they were about the whole business. However they were able to complete a pre-qualification or "passport" questionnaire so clearly they were doing more behind the scenes than goofing about on the watercress line. I got the impression they had some rail industry figures in the background but there are many reasons why those might choose not to be on the telly. There was also the small matter of raising 15 million deposit, which suggests people in the real world of business with access to that sort of money were more impressed than some of our armchair pundits.

I am enjoying the indignation this programme seems to have raised but puzzled at the same time. Are we that concerned about Very Serious People at DfT having their precious time wasted by mere commuters?

NSEFAN · 16 Jun 2017

squizzler said:
National Express had a go at the East Coast franchise and "shrugged its shoulders" when the revenue failed to meet projections.

Govia Thameslink "risk causing economic damage by completely running into the ground the train service of the region" albeit egged on by DfT

You would say neither of these two operators are "proper" transport concerns?

They are very serious concerns, which is frankly why we need competent people running the railways and not a bunch of passengers who reckon they know better. Compared to that, the DfT are a shining beacon of knowledge, organisational skills and leadership! :lol:

HLE · 16 Jun 2017

squizzler said:
National Express had a go at the East Coast franchise and "shrugged its shoulders" when the revenue failed to meet projections.

Govia Thameslink "risk causing economic damage by completely running into the ground the train service of the region" albeit egged on by DfT

You would say neither of these two operators are "proper" transport concerns?

I am not by any reason suggesting their bid would win on its merits. The simple fact is that I have no idea how serious they were about the whole business. However they were able to complete a pre-qualification or "passport" questionnaire so clearly they were doing more behind the scenes than goofing about on the watercress line. I got the impression they had some rail industry figures in the background but there are many reasons why those might choose not to be on the telly. There was also the small matter of raising 15 million deposit, which suggests people in the real world of business with access to that sort of money were more impressed than some of our armchair pundits.

I am enjoying the indignation this programme seems to have raised but puzzled at the same time. Are we that concerned about Very Serious People at DfT having their precious time wasted by mere commuters?

I'm more concerned that a group of passengers with no rail knowledge whatsoever were even allowed near an application for a rail franchise. Thankfully the DFT laughed them out of Whitehall or wherever their headquarters are. I'm also annoyed that this 'bid' was allowed to have licence payers money wasted on it.

How I wish someone with a shred of common sense (+ rail knowledge) had appeared on the programme and just laughed in their faces, whilst informing them of just how ridiculous they sounded and why.

No one likes the idea of the Germans/Dutch benefiting from our rail fares, but who else would run the railways - the same people whose railways clueless passengers like those in the programme compare British ones too!

In that sense, ideally qualified.

GusB · 17 Jun 2017

HLE said:
I'm more concerned that a group of passengers with no rail knowledge whatsoever were even allowed near an application for a rail franchise. Thankfully the DFT laughed them out of Whitehall or wherever their headquarters are. I'm also annoyed that this 'bid' was allowed to have licence payers money wasted on it.

It was a one-off, hour-long programme on one of many BBC channels. I'm not going to complain about wasting licence-payers' money when there are so many other, more regular, programmes worthy of criticism.

dk1 · 17 Jun 2017

I thought the whole programme hilarious. Not even done their homework & seemed stumped when asked for £50m assurance. In another way if they where successful in gaining the franchise I would have enjoyed watching them be gradually hated by their own kind :lol:

MadCommuter · 17 Jun 2017

If the initial approach to the commuters was more specific such as "do you want to bid through a public procurement exercise to manage a Train Operating Company" the responses may have been different.

daikilo · 17 Jun 2017

ejstubbs said:
The BBC didn't spend any money on the dismal franchise "bid". They made a documentary about a group of people trying - not very well - to change the way that the privatised but tightly government regulated services that they use are operated.

The BBC's remit is to make programmes that "inform, educate and entertain". I honestly don't see how this programme doesn't meet at least one of those criteria.

Whilst I am pretty sure the BBC did actually spend money on making the programme (if not the franchise bid) I seem to recall that after the first few minutes it switched from "running a train" (open access?) to "running a huge TOC". It then became a sort of reality show so I am guessing at least some of the participants had some of their costs covered and probably appropriately worded contracts.

Maybe the BBC would like to make a sequell called something like "what it really takes to run a railway" (or a TOC) or "why privatisation of a public service can be a mirage."

hwl · 17 Jun 2017

daikilo said:
Whilst I am pretty sure the BBC did actually spend money on making the programme

Probably some of the lowest programme cost going so they will be delighted!

TheEdge · 18 Jun 2017

Well this is great entertainment. Although 59:30 minutes is utterly pointless. Can commuters run a train line? No. Credits roll

Lukespenceruk1 · 18 Jun 2017

So its complete rubbish. People who think they know how to run trains. At the start of the day of a new franchise the public need to realise that the trains will be the same, timetable stays the same, staff stay the same. nearly 99% of it stays the same. Things might change but it won't be that quick!

Andrewlong · 18 Jun 2017

The concept of the programme was a good one - disgruntled passengers wanting to get a better service by running their own franchise - but the title or programme and its execution left a lot to be desired. There was a lot of political sloganising in there - profits going to foreign state railways (check), if it was not for profit we would have £25m to invest in new carriages - not many and as long as they weren't converted diesel tube trains! Those taking part were very naive and underprepared. I was glad the £50m put them out of their misery and stopped their journey.

TheEdge · 19 Jun 2017

I got the impression it was implied that with the query for £50m backing was given to them it was someone in the DfT wringing their hands trying to think of a way of stopping it. When in reality I guess the system is designed to expect bids only from Arriva, First, Abellio, Stagecoach, Virgin and the likes where access to a sum as small, in their scales, as £50m is just a given.

The scene at Vivarail made me laugh. "We have £25m to play with, how many trains can we get?" Adrian Shooter, "One ten car train but not enough change for a second"

Also their ideas were just naive. Those standard ones, new trains, cheap tickets, thats a difficult business proposition. More trains but a more robust timetable. Again, dumping one will help solve the other. Spare stock and staff, if I recall the Metro and ES were busy bashing staff and trains sat around being paid doing nothing just in case throughout the Southern debarcle.

daikilo · 19 Jun 2017

TheEdge said:
I got the impression it was implied that with the query for £50m backing was given to them it was someone in the DfT wringing their hands trying to think of a way of stopping it. When in reality I guess the system is designed to expect bids only from Arriva, First, Abellio, Stagecoach, Virgin and the likes where access to a sum as small, in their scales, as £50m is just a given.

The scene at Vivarail made me laugh. "We have £25m to play with, how many trains can we get?" Adrian Shooter, "One ten car train but not enough change for a second"

Also their ideas were just naive. Those standard ones, new trains, cheap tickets, thats a difficult business proposition. More trains but a more robust timetable. Again, dumping one will help solve the other. Spare stock and staff, if I recall the Metro and ES were busy bashing staff and trains sat around being paid doing nothing just in case throughout the Southern debarcle.

My recommendation is to not take this show too seriously, which is a pity for BBC2. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that a TV producer or script-writer was behind a lot of the ideas so I suggest we refrain from bringing judgement on the "actors". Note that in the credits at the end, the show was not made by BBC2.

A comment about what Adrian Shooter said, does that mean he is trying to flog that stuff at say 15M a copy, or was he refering to a brand new train?

BBC Two: The Passengers That Took On The Train Line

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member