DfT Interference in running railways.

[Surreytraveller]

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

I'm surprised they still have their loose seats. The Hidden Enquiry into the Clapham Junction crash I recall made comments regarding loose seating on one those trains

 

[30907]

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.

Indeed. But Virgin bid on the basis that their 4/5 coach trains would somehow bring in the fare income without bringing in the crowds - no wonder the DfT wouldn't play ball. Not good for the passengers, I agree.

 

[Greg Read]

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

Even more so if the U.S is involved ! (Defense )

 

[The Ham]

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.

Although the DfT hold the purse strings, the amount they provide for the day to day running of the railways is fairly small.

It equates to £178 million a year if you exclude infrastructure improvements. Although that wouldn't be a good scenario, it could be possible to stop all infrastructure spending and run the railways for not a lot.

Given that the infrastructure enhancements will be further reducing costs (such as electrification) or increasing income (such as allowing more trains to run), I wouldn't be surprised if in the next few years this figure turned to a positive.

However with 30 million tax payers that's £6 per tax payer to keep 1.7 billion trips ( many long distance and/or at peak times) off the road network, I would suggest that's a small price to pay.

 

[Bevan Price]

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.

They also cut back on the proposed number of Class 185s to be ordered, and restricted them to 2 1/4 coaches worth of standard class seating when I believe the then operators would have liked at least some to be 4 coaches.

The problem with DfT, along with other departments - and most governments - is that they are only interested in short term spending, and (from the outside) seem to lack the ability to realise that long term ("lifetime") costs might be lower if they adopted sensible long-term planning.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They also cut back on the proposed number of Class 185s to be ordered, and restricted them to 2 1/4 coaches worth of standard class seating when I believe the then operators would have liked at least some to be 4 coaches.

The problem with DfT, along with other departments - and most governments - is that they are only interested in short term spending, and (from the outside) seem to lack the ability to realise that long term ("lifetime") costs might be lower if they adopted sensible long-term planning.

The railway at the time (the SRA was in charge I think) faced a funding problem because of the fortune being paid to Network Rail for urgent renewals (after the Hatfield and gauge corner cracking issues).
That was behind the "no growth" franchises and cancelled expansion plans.
It also diverted the 350s to the WCML from their intended destination SWT, rather than placing a separate order.
Meridians to Leeds were also cut.

It's the same as cancelling/cutting back electrification schemes because earlier projects swallowed the budget.
You can only spend the money once.

 

[mpthomson]

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)

One of the issues with the MOD is actually the number of serving Officers in senior appointments. They are there on a 2-3 year tenure and many/most will be due for promotion at the end if they are successful. This leads to a tendency to fiddle with procurement (as one example) specifications in order to be seen to be 'doing something' that brings them to the attention of their seniors and increase the chances of promotion or OBE etc.

Defence procurement is littered with examples of this and it drives the people trying to fulfil the contract crackers.

 

[mpthomson]

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

No they aren't, it's important to understand how government works as a whole to answer your original post. You can't just extract transport/rail from this.

 

[RailWonderer]

The railway at the time (the SRA was in charge I think) faced a funding problem because of the fortune being paid to Network Rail for urgent renewals (after the Hatfield and gauge corner cracking issues).
That was behind the "no growth" franchises and cancelled expansion plans.
It also diverted the 350s to the WCML from their intended destination SWT, rather than placing a separate order.
Meridians to Leeds were also cut.

It's the same as cancelling/cutting back electrification schemes because earlier projects swallowed the budget.
You can only spend the money once.

It also meant 21 360s were ordered for First GE instead of 25, and other smaller batches elsewhere. This is my point, the ToCs wanted to improve railways but the then SRA refused to authorize these plans.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It also meant 21 360s were ordered for First GE instead of 25, and other smaller batches elsewhere. This is my point, the ToCs wanted to improve railways but the then SRA refused to authorize these plans.

Not a lot the SRA could have done with the Treasury (who, like the poor , are always there..) , shutting off the money supply. Everything was thrown at the "Railtrack in crisis / administration " side - which of course was a feeding frenzy of consultants second guessing every single item of expenditure whilst pretty much any projects bar WCML and power supply in the South were put on life support , if that.

Railfreight grants and the Rail Passenger Partnership fund stopped , and the rest of it.

Now the SRA did not help itself by getting too top heavy , but Bowker was no shrinking violet and would not have rolled over to have his tummy tickled (metaphorically) - we know what happened post 2005.....

 

[Glenn1969]

This is kind of why I oppose nationalisation. Heath, defence, education etc competing with transport for a finite public purse

 

[Ken H]

I havent forgiven the Dft for the hiatus in electrification. Loads of rubbish about self powered trains and discontinuous electrification. If they had just got on with it and done x miles each year to get the main network done, we would be in a far better place. They could have done Crewe Chester 10 years ago and got the voyagers off the WCML.
but now we have the nonsense of dragging diesel engines from London to Cardiff and London to Edinburgh, and putting diesels under ancient EMUs.

(IEP should have been all electric. if there is no overhead, drag with a 125mpg diesel loco. But someone told a minister it would take 9 minutes to attach a diesel at edinburgh and so bimodes were thought of.

Is there anywhere else in the world that has bi modes? Why not?)

rant over
sorry.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Is there anywhere else in the world that has bi modes? Why not?

They are heavily utilised in France.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

They are heavily utilised in France.

But some routes they are on , have been fully electrified. ! (since they came into service)

 

[6Gman]

I havent forgiven the Dft for the hiatus in electrification. Loads of rubbish about self powered trains and discontinuous electrification. If they had just got on with it and done x miles each year to get the main network done, we would be in a far better place. They could have done Crewe Chester 10 years ago and got the voyagers off the WCML.
but now we have the nonsense of dragging diesel engines from London to Cardiff and London to Edinburgh, and putting diesels under ancient EMUs.

(IEP should have been all electric. if there is no overhead, drag with a 125mpg diesel loco. But someone told a minister it would take 9 minutes to attach a diesel at edinburgh and so bimodes were thought of.

Is there anywhere else in the world that has bi modes? Why not?)

rant over
sorry.

Are you aware that there are a number of specific issues regarding electrification of those 21 miles ?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Are you aware that there are a number of specific issues regarding electrification of those 21 miles ?

Called Christelton Tunnel .....as a starter. Never mind immunisation.

What looks like an obvious , easy , quick win , "aint so"

Never mind the ongoing and forward service patterns. Not at all easy.

 

[Ken H]

Called Christelton Tunnel .....as a starter. Never mind immunisation.

What looks like an obvious , easy , quick win , "aint so"

Never mind the ongoing and forward service patterns. Not at all easy.

oh let all give up and just have diesels then!
engineers are paid to look for cost effective solutions. the old adage that engineers can do something for ten bob that any idiot can do for a pound still is true.

 

[Wolfie]

It also meant 21 360s were ordered for First GE instead of 25, and other smaller batches elsewhere. This is my point, the ToCs wanted to improve railways but the then SRA refused to authorize these plans.

Apparently budgetary constraints don't exist in your utopia. In reality all Depts of HMG operate under (all too often inadequate) budgets with severe constraints and HMT and NAO all over them. That is why a ministerial waiver was required to replace Pacers in Northern as doing so was not the most efficient in budgetary terms.

 

[pdeaves]

engineers are paid to look for cost effective solutions.

The word 'engineer' comes from the same root as 'ingenious'. Unfortunately not all engineers show any ingenuity and seem not to be able to find any solutions at all (not just cost effective ones!), just problems. I speak from experience of a scheme in which I am involved. Granted, there are some good engineers, too; again from experience of another scheme, they tend to need poking with a director's metaphorical sharp stick before rising to the challenge.

 

[Wolfie]

The word 'engineer' comes from the same root as 'ingenious'. Unfortunately not all engineers show any ingenuity and seem not to be able to find any solutions at all (not just cost effective ones!), just problems. I speak from experience of a scheme in which I am involved. Granted, there are some good engineers, too; again from experience of another scheme, they tend to need poking with a director's metaphorical sharp stick before rising to the challenge.

Too many engineers have zero sense of budget. They will come up with ingenious solutions that 'only' cost three, four or more times the budget..

 

[al78]

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

So nobody should criticize anyone unless they can demonstrate an ability to do a better job/make a better decision in the same situation?

By that logic, no-one should criticise any politician unless they are willing to put themselves up as an election candidate. No-one should criticise the England football team's performance in the world cup unless they can demonstrate an ability to play football at an international level.

How convenient to allowing the careless/incompetent in positions of responsibility to carry on being careless/incompetent without ever being called out. Perhaps it would be better to hold authorities to account for their actions as an incentive to do their job to the best of their ability.

 

[Alfie1014]

So nobody should criticize anyone unless they can demonstrate an ability to do a better job/make a better decision in the same situation?

By that logic, no-one should criticise any politician unless they are willing to put themselves up as an election candidate. No-one should criticise the England football team's performance in the world cup unless they can demonstrate an ability to play football at an international level.

How convenient to allowing the careless/incompetent in positions of responsibility to carry on being careless/incompetent without ever being called out. Perhaps it would be better to hold authorities to account for their actions as an incentive to do their job to the best of their ability.

Totally agree, having worked for OPRAF, SRA, DfT, TOCs and BR they all had their pluses and minuses. OPRAF and early SRA was very collective with lots of committees and collective resposibility. Then the SRA moved to more individual responsiblity for minor decision making, though big issues had to be taken to the various 'Boards'. At the end of the day any organisation with any connection to the public purse has to be mindful of of how it spends taxpayers money. For example the debate over 21 or 25 360s for FGE. The lower number was pretty much a like for like replacement for the slam door 312s which at the time were priority for replacement. Anything above this would have been considered at the operator's risk and unlikely to be underwritten by the taxpayer. With the operator unable to make a purely commercial case for any extra during the life of its franchise it was unlikely to go ahead.

Electrification turned out to be a collective can of worms. The DfT became seduced by NRs promises on delivery and got carried away with its own, (in many cases fuelled by local political expedience), ambitions. However it was NR's inability to control costs and as has been so often the case over engineering the assets that has, (hopefully only temporarily), made it un-affordable.

 

[FGW_DID]

So nobody should criticize anyone unless they can demonstrate an ability to do a better job/make a better decision in the same situation?

By that logic, no-one should criticise any politician unless they are willing to put themselves up as an election candidate. No-one should criticise the England football team's performance in the world cup unless they can demonstrate an ability to play football at an international level.

How convenient to allowing the careless/incompetent in positions of responsibility to carry on being careless/incompetent without ever being called out. Perhaps it would be better to hold authorities to account for their actions as an incentive to do their job to the best of their ability.

Nowt wrong with criticism at all and especially where it’s due but my post was aimed more at the army of “armchair experts” who do think they know it better than the people actually doing the jobs or involved in the industry. It usually starts with a rant about an organisation and why don’t they do this, why do they do that. I would do this, I would do that, quite a lot of the time displaying very little understanding of the subject! It’s usually followed by a good number of people who explain why it’s exactly like that or why their way wouldn’t / couldn’t work!

Certain parts of this forum do tend to attract them (but I’m sure this forum is not unique in that respect! )

Your football analogy is particularly good, I think everybody who has been to football matches has seen (or more likely heard) the berk sat three rows behind the dugout incessantly yelling at the manager about which tactics he should adopt or which player(s) he should sub etc etc.

 

[6Gman]

oh let all give up and just have diesels then!
engineers are paid to look for cost effective solutions. the old adage that engineers can do something for ten bob that any idiot can do for a pound still is true.

It's not a case of "give up". It's a case of there being real issues that are very, very difficult to address.

When you have a tunnel where the water table, the dimensions of the tunnel and the fact that a canal runs over the top of it you simply have a very difficult problem.

There are also - I believe - a number of bridges which create problems. The solution used in the 1950s on the Manchester line: blow it up on Friday night, clear the rubble on Saturday, stick the new bridge in on Sunday, reopen on Monday: ain't a runner any more.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It's not a case of "give up". It's a case of there being real issues that are very, very difficult to address.

When you have a tunnel where the water table, the dimensions of the tunnel and the fact that a canal runs over the top of it you simply have a very difficult problem.

There are also - I believe - a number of bridges which create problems. The solution used in the 1950s on the Manchester line: blow it up on Friday night, clear the rubble on Saturday, stick the new bridge in on Sunday, reopen on Monday: ain't a runner any more.

That sums it up nicely - and in any case , there is really an hourly EUS - Chester service which could go electric (an excellent and very well patronised service - but some of these go further west to Holyhead, and would need to be either bi-mode or 22x) , plus maybe an electric shuttle to Crewe - which is not really the realm of TfW in the North of Cardiff .....

And as for wiring the North Wales Coast - numerous studies from 1996 onwards fail to make a real case - not that there is any likelihood of European money as a "key route" to Ireland - trust me , that has been explored several times , regrettably - the further west you go , the economics tumble.

 

[bobbyrail]

There are also - I believe - a number of bridges which create problems. The solution used in the 1950s on the Manchester line: blow it up on Friday night, clear the rubble on Saturday, stick the new bridge in on Sunday, reopen on Monday: ain't a runner any more.

Indeed there were a number of road bridges on the Chat moss and Bolton lines that were closed to road traffic for weeks/months a few years ago, purely because new bridge supports needed to be put in to allow for the new OHLE. It would have been very pleasing to the driving public of Manchester and Salford if the 1950's tactics were used but unfortunately we now live in a different world.

 

[Class 170101]

Electrification turned out to be a collective can of worms. The DfT became seduced by NRs promises on delivery and got carried away with its own, (in many cases fuelled by local political expedience), ambitions. However it was NR's inability to control costs and as has been so often the case over engineering the assets that has, (hopefully only temporarily), made it un-affordable.

There are some in the DfT (and elsewhere in government) that are unable to control costs either! Pot calling Kettle me thinks.

 

[sprunt]

It usually starts with a rant about an organisation and why don’t they do this

Frequently, "this" is "run the services that they're contracted (and in some cases paid billions of pounds of public money) to run".

 

[The Ham]

Frequently, "this" is "run the services that they're contracted (and in some cases paid billions of pounds of public money) to run".

Can you cite an example of a TOC which is paid billions of pounds of public money to run train services (I'll even allow you to include the full life of a franchise).

 

[sprunt]

Yes I can. National Audit Office chief says £8bn Govia Thameslink Railway offers “the worst performance on the network”

I don't see why "allowing" me to include the full life of a franchise should be any kind of favour, since I didn't specify a timescale but for what it's worth, that's £1.14 billion a year.