Network Rail too big says Richard Branson

[Minilad]

But if Branston takes over we will finally get these steerable trains we so desperately deserve.

If Branston takes over we really will be in a pickle

 

[Senex]

Yes; British Rail was one of the most efficient railways in the world. Given the level of public funding the privatised railway gets today, it could have been one of the best as well.

Privatisation smashed up the best and most successful railway organisation we have had in this country since Grouping in 1923 -- an organisation that was really beginning to deliver a better system as well as a more efficient one, with great benefits for the passengers. It was seen by many of the operators on the European mainland as a leader to be followed, which was certainly not true of Britian's railways for many decades before. Privatisation did not have to take such a destructive (and expensive) form. That was a political decision.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed. This has always been my view. However, it's difficult to see how a Virgin trains, as it stands (i.e. purely Intercity) could support the break up of NR into what would inevitably be regional structures. Surely this would lead to vertical integration, which would lead to Virgin becoming custodians of local trains and commuter stoppers!

I suppose you'd have to do it by some sort of return to a Prime User/Sole User approach, where the Prime User assumed responsibility for the route. But there would need to be refinement of the form this took last time round (and I think there would be real problems in some areas if the Sole User approach were rigidly followed). Another problem would be who does the maintenance. Last time round all work was carried out by British Railways staff, at first by the Regions on behalf of the Sectors and then by the Sectors themselves, but it was all in house. It is surely inconceivable that we could see Virgin MaintCo working on behalf VT as Prime User of the WCML fast lines on one half of a crossover and LonMid MaintCo working on the other half of the same crossover for the Prime User of the slow lines -- think of the co-ordination chaos that could so easily result.

What is to be done? Railtrack and Network Rail both appear to have been disasters. Maintenance by TOCs on the principal main lines doesn't really seem a readily practicable proposition. Is there really any alternative to one or more track-owner-and-management companies, but if that is the road we are stuck with, how is it (are they) to be controlled so as to avoid a repeat of the fiascos we have grown to know and love over the last twenty years?

 

[LLivery]

Why is it that people in this country always say companies are getting too "big"? Its not that the companies are too big, but we've got the wrong people running it in a totally badly structured system. We've seen and are seeing how bad, multiple small companies have been to our network. This whole idiotic Tory system since the 90s has been a failure. Branson just wants to expand his empire and grab more money. Just imagine if Virgin got hold of running the ECML tracks? Overnight Hull and Grand Central would find life very difficult.

 

[HH]

Why is it that people in this country always say companies are getting too "big"?

Do they? I've not noticed it. But if they do then they're being unusually perspicacious.

I've worked for companies big and small and my observation is that once they get beyond a certain size they don't work very well. I liken them to the extra large dinosaurs, who needed a second (pea-)brain their tail because it was so far away from the main one. Basically they get too big (for one group of people) to control. Those at the centre have little idea what goes on away from the centre. What they think is happening is not usually what is actually happening on the ground.

There are multitudes of examples of this in practise, an obvious one being everybody's favourite whipping boys - the banks.

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

Privatisation smashed up the best and most successful railway organisation we have had in this country since Grouping in 1923 -- an organisation that was really beginning to deliver a better system as well as a more efficient one, with great benefits for the passengers. It was seen by many of the operators on the European mainland as a leader to be followed, which was certainly not true of Britian's railways for many decades before. Privatisation did not have to take such a destructive (and expensive) form. That was a political decision.

What better system? What great benefits for the passengers? What efficiency? Just repeating these things doesn't make them true. I agree that privatisation was done badly, but the worst thing that's happened since has been a huge increase in government interference. People seem to forget that 99.99% of the people running the railway before privatisation were there running it after privatisation. And the same would be the case if rail was brought back under full public ownership. The level of government interference wouldn't go away either...

What is to be done? Railtrack and Network Rail both appear to have been disasters. Maintenance by TOCs on the principal main lines doesn't really seem a readily practicable proposition. Is there really any alternative to one or more track-owner-and-management companies, but if that is the road we are stuck with, how is it (are they) to be controlled so as to avoid a repeat of the fiascos we have grown to know and love over the last twenty years?

The 0.01% running Railtrack made some very bad, big decisions, mainly because they saw themselves as an asset owning company, rather than a railway company. NR haven't. Their problems the normal ones you get with most large non-profit organisations - without the profit incentive you often end up with a culture which is about empire building and arse protection, with everyone trying to grow their silo - the more you control the more senior your position and the more you get paid. Possibly very strong leadership could sort this for a while, but the problem is an inherent one with such organisations.

 

[Bodiddly]

If the things that were within the control of VT were perfect, I might be willing to believe that they'd maintain track and signaling properly. But do they have every station shiny and clean and looking smart? Are all of their staff friendly, approachable and relentlessly customer-focussed? Is their First Class service ambitious and delivers consistently? Do they offer good value travel at short notice? Do they manage yield effectively to reduce overcrowding, and expand capacity in every way they can? Do their trains have a comfortable, modern interior that's OK for 4 hour journeys even in Standard, with the features everyone wants: free wifi and sockets?

Just like most train companies, these are all areas that need work. Some more than other TOCs out there. So don't try and blame Network Rail, and don't tell me you value your reputation until we see some effort to get some of these things improving.

Agree, I loathe travelling with VTWC. Pendolino's may be fast but are truly awful for the 'customer experience'. I recently travelled on one and was totally unimpressed. Cramped and claustrophobic, overcrowded and I could not believe that for such a modern train there were no at seat sockets for charging. I also got the impression that the Train Manager saw passengers as an inconvenience.

Agreed..
I worked for BR between 1966-1994......
It was privatisation that is a failure. I joined Railtrack and they lasted less than 10 years..

Agree. Railtrack failed due to several key reasons, one of which was their almost God like status in the running of the railway. With no competition to push them they got greedy and complacent.

Do they? I've not noticed it. But if they do then they're being unusually perspicacious.

I've worked for companies big and small and my observation is that once they get beyond a certain size they don't work very well. I liken them to the extra large dinosaurs, who needed a second (pea-)brain their tail because it was so far away from the main one. Basically they get too big (for one group of people) to control. Those at the centre have little idea what goes on away from the centre. What they think is happening is not usually what is actually happening on the ground.

There are multitudes of examples of this in practise, an obvious one being everybody's favourite whipping boys - the banks.

Agree again. I have witnessed first hand how a small company is totally ruined by growth. Unless you are ready to grow you will ultimately fail. I went from being able to have a chat with my MD whenever I wanted to having to make an appointment through several layers of management. It was a disaster and I couldn't wait to get out.

 

[EM2]

It IS already far more fragmented than you guys realise. Just because it's all called Network Rail, doesn't mean everyone in NR is pulling in the same direction.

God forbid that I should actually know something about the company I work for...

 

[Clip]

Please, no more divisions and fragmentation! The railways are already fragmented enough, so leave it as it is at the very least but please no more!



It is 10% of East Coast, and 55% (or is it 51%?) of West Coast. Either way, even if you combined the two, he doesn't even own a whole company, and his main contribution to those is a brand and marketing unless someone can correct me! I am hence amazed (and thinkit's disgusting) that Mr Branson has or thinks he has so much control over the railways!

He probably doesn't think that at all but he is allowed to voice his opinion on the railways just as much as you and others do on here and he has a vested interest in it too.

 

[khib70]

He probably doesn't think that at all but he is allowed to voice his opinion on the railways just as much as you and others do on here and he has a vested interest in it too.

Of course he does. But this is too obvious an opportunity for a good old UK Rail Forums Branson bash. A great chance for people to make the pickle joke for the 400th time, and the silly Beardy jibes for the 4000th. And fling in the obligatory rants about Pendolinos and Voyagers, despite their being of no rele vance to the thread topic.

 

[glbotu]

The root cause of the problem was that the privatisation model was misguided. "Managed Decline" being the idea. The point being that the government didn't want to have to cope with a slowly collapsing railway while the economy was doing poorly (as whoever the beancounters were at the time would have them believe).

Unfortunately, the railway had other ideas, with unprecedented(-ish)*** passenger growth putting a greater strain on the network than ever before.

The problem was it was too late. The horribly complex system, which would have done a good job of managing the decline of the railways, was already in place. At this point the best that can be done is to make the best of a bad situation. I can't imagine that re-nationalising the railways could be done soon in any way that wouldn't screw over either passengers or the taxpayer any time soon.

I think that in any private model, infrastructure should be kept separate from the operators, but with better communication/integration. I would dread to want to return to the days of the Nottingham blockade, where a Midland locomotive was blockaded by a Central one at Nottingham Victoria (might have been the other way round).

I do think that a more devolved approach to railway infrastructure would be welcome (although whether I'd want to see that in the hands of several private operators is another matter). Much like London and Scotland see good investment in its infrastructure, because a large part of it is devolved from Central Government, I can see that being a benefit to regional areas, which may prioritise rail infrastructure better than central government. I can't see Westminster being particularly interested in an hourly stopper, which could benefit from a passing loop to make it half hourly, but that could have huge ramifications for a small town.

***While passenger growth was arguably greater in the late 1890s, it was also a lot easier to build more railways then too, without H&S/Planning Permission to have to "worry" about.

 

[Clip]

Of course he does. But this is too obvious an opportunity for a good old UK Rail Forums Branson bash. A great chance for people to make the pickle joke for the 400th time, and the silly Beardy jibes for the 4000th. And fling in the obligatory rants about Pendolinos and Voyagers, despite their being of no rele vance to the thread topic.

Ahh yes my mistake

 

[yorksrob]

The root cause of the problem was that the privatisation model was misguided. "Managed Decline" being the idea. The point being that the government didn't want to have to cope with a slowly collapsing railway while the economy was doing poorly (as whoever the beancounters were at the time would have them believe).

Unfortunately, the railway had other ideas, with unprecedented(-ish)*** passenger growth putting a greater strain on the network than ever before.

The problem was it was too late. The horribly complex system, which would have done a good job of managing the decline of the railways, was already in place. At this point the best that can be done is to make the best of a bad situation. I can't imagine that re-nationalising the railways could be done soon in any way that wouldn't screw over either passengers or the taxpayer any time soon.

I think that in any private model, infrastructure should be kept separate from the operators, but with better communication/integration. I would dread to want to return to the days of the Nottingham blockade, where a Midland locomotive was blockaded by a Central one at Nottingham Victoria

Such infamous disputes whilst common on the early railway, were largely done away with in the twentieth century, with movements between companies organised by the clearing house.

With regards to a collapsing railway, it's hard to see why the Government of the day assumed such a thing as the railway hadn't been in anything like a decline since the early 1980's. Passenger growth had been known to regularly pick up with every economic recovery.

 

[HH]

With regards to a collapsing railway, it's hard to see why the Government of the day assumed such a thing as the railway hadn't been in anything like a decline since the early 1980's. Passenger growth had been known to regularly pick up with every economic recovery.

They hadn't been in significant decline it's true, but they hadn't been growing either; just a periodic rise and fall following a long period of decline. In any case, there was a general belief at the time that rail had had it's day.

 

[Railsigns]

In any case, there was a general belief at the time that rail had had it's [sic] day.

Evidence for this, please?

 

[HH]

Evidence for this, please?

My memory. Evidence otherwise?

 

[matt_world2004]

Yes the stretches of track managed by baa holdings is a fine example of letting track infrastructure being managed by smaller private companies. Tunnel collapses and £2 a mile ticket prices. Plus the horrendous bureurocracy when LU wants access for maintenance at T5 Piccadilly line.

 

[Railsigns]

My memory. Evidence otherwise?

I've read the debates on rail privatisation on Hansard and, while there was no shortage of false claims about how privatisation would deliver a better deal for passengers and taxpayers, I don't recall anyone ever expressing a view that rail had had its day. If you find such a reference, do let us know. Maybe your memory is defective.

 

[yorksrob]

They hadn't been in significant decline it's true, but they hadn't been growing either; just a periodic rise and fall following a long period of decline. In any case, there was a general belief at the time that rail had had it's day.

The overall trend since the mid 80's was one for slight growth, once the recessions had been taken into account. However widespread the general belief was, no one looking at the evidence objectively could have concluded that the railway was in a state of long term decline by the early 90's.

 

[EM2]

However widespread the general belief was, no one looking at the evidence objectively could have concluded that the railway was in a state of long term decline by the early 90's.

Especially as Inter-City and Network South-East were actually in profit before privatisation.

 

[Geezertronic]

Of course he does. But this is too obvious an opportunity for a good old UK Rail Forums Branson bash. A great chance for people to make the pickle joke for the 400th time, and the silly Beardy jibes for the 4000th. And fling in the obligatory rants about Pendolinos and Voyagers, despite their being of no rele vance to the thread topic.

Agreed, the discussion goes vastly downhill when people descend into that sort of farce...

 

[HH]

I'll refer to these again: http://www.railway-technical.com/statistics.shtml and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_...#/media/File:GBR_rail_passenegers_by_year.gif.

I'll remind you that the recession was officially 1990 Q3 to 1991 Q3.

You can tell me where this BR growth is, because I can't see it.

They didn't grow route mileage either: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/73093/rail-trends-factsheet-2010-11.pdf.

 

[Minilad]

Of course he does. But this is too obvious an opportunity for a good old UK Rail Forums Branson bash. A great chance for people to make the pickle joke for the 400th time, and the silly Beardy jibes for the 4000th. And fling in the obligatory rants about Pendolinos and Voyagers, despite their being of no rele vance to the thread topic.

Maybe some people just don't hang off his every word and believe everything the Virgin RP machine comes out with

 

[jon0844]

I think SRB has done and achieved many great things and is no idiot in business, which is precisely why I'm amazed people can't see when he's doing something for good PR. His whole life has been around good PR.

I've had many dealings with Virgin Mobile and later Virgin Media and even used to work for Virgin for a year or two in the early 1990s. I've also had the pleasure of meeting him and he's someone who could teach anyone lots of things.

But remember how he got to where he is. It wasn't from being all extra nice and sweet all the time!

 

[yorksrob]

I'll refer to these again: http://www.railway-technical.com/statistics.shtml and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_...#/media/File:GBR_rail_passenegers_by_year.gif.

I'll remind you that the recession was officially 1990 Q3 to 1991 Q3.

You can tell me where this BR growth is, because I can't see it.

They didn't grow route mileage either: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/73093/rail-trends-factsheet-2010-11.pdf.

If you look at the rail passengers by year, you'll see that the trough in about 1987 was less deep than the one in 1983. The trough in about 1993 was in turn considerably less deep than the 1987 one.

Similarly, the 1989 peak in passenger numbers was much higher than that in around 1985. That is an upward trend.

 

[HH]

If you look at the rail passengers by year, you'll see that the trough in about 1987 was less deep than the one in 1983. The trough in about 1993 was in turn considerably less deep than the 1987 one.

Similarly, the 1989 peak in passenger numbers was much higher than that in around 1985. That is an upward trend.

LOL. All you're describing is the different effect of different recessions. 1989 was about the same as 1970 and 1995 had dropped back to 1980 levels and below 1974. It was going nowhere. You can only make a trend by picking the right start and end years, and anyone who knows anything about trends knows that's flawed thinking.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Can the various TOCs be trusted to ensure maintenance is actually done even if it is to the detriment of their own train services?

Bearing in mind what happened at Hatfield and afterwards, yes. There is no way on earth they would risk the astronomic fines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Regardless of the fact that it's Beardy (who I trust no more than any of you), it has to be said that what he's saying here is essentially correct. When any entity gets too large then it tends to get out of control. It's the main reason why public ownership doesn't work; why banks are too big to fail; why Network is doomed to Fail.

These companies get too big, such that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Any operation has to split into reasonable size pieces in order to work.

This is why the "Alliance" principle was a good idea in theory. Why hasn't it worked? The usual reasons - those who can't trying to protect their fiefdoms from those that can.

Not so. Big organisations can and do work in practice (Toyota being a very good example). However they need very skilled management.

The idea that public ownership doesn't work is also ludicrous. East Coast, when it existed, was profitable and managed itself like a private organisation.

British Rail was even doing that in its final years, and parts of it were successful.

That said, bad management generally finds its way into publicly owned organisations or large companies.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And your proof of this assertion is? (A rhetorical question, because I know that you don't have any).

What it could manage on a subsidy per route mile that is a pittance compared to todays.

The fact it could modernise a route completely (Chiltern) or electrify a route, on time (East Coast) and on budget despite having the pips squeezed out of even that budget.

 

[CockneySparrow]

On the WCML (south) Virgin could manage the Fast Lines; LM could manage the Slow Lines.

That should work.

Yes until LM close a section one week for maintenance, then Virgin close the track next to it the following week for the same reason when both bits of work could have been done the same time but as nobody talks to anybody......

 

[cjmillsnun]

My memory. Evidence otherwise?

and yet YOU have the audacity to ask for evidence that BR was efficient. Go check on subsidy levels and what BR actually got in real terms compared to what the TOCs and Network Rail get.

Now wonder how they ever managed to run a service at all, let alone design and buildthe world's fastest diesel train, that was meant to be a stop gap, and yet is still in mainline service today, 39 years after introduction.

How they modernised Chiltern (who are still living on that legacy), turning a route that many thought would be closed into the pride of Network SouthEast.

How Intercity became one of the UK's leading brands, and was profitable.

The figures are available. It's public information.

 

[Railsigns]

Annual government support to the rail industry (official figures):

http://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/0913a84d-b740-4111-b6f8-bf6470e2d7b7

I have to say, I'm having some difficulty squaring those figures with this:

I anticipate the level of subsidy will be about the same. It’ll then fall, because we’re getting better value for money from the people who bid for the franchises than we got from British Rail, so the taxpayer will eventually save money, not lose money.

 

[yorksrob]

LOL. All you're describing is the different effect of different recessions. 1989 was about the same as 1970 and 1995 had dropped back to 1980 levels and below 1974. It was going nowhere. You can only make a trend by picking the right start and end years, and anyone who knows anything about trends knows that's flawed thinking.

Poppycock.

It's well known that rail passenger numbers were in decline until the early 1980's. The figures in the graph bear this out, just as the figures bear out the longer term recovery of passenger numbers after the date.

One can only make a trend by picking the right start and end years? I guess that would be wherever that suits your pre-decided argument.

You could argue that the recessionary lows correspond with the depth of particular recessions just as I could argue that the decline before 1983 was heavily influenced by the growth in popularity in motoring. However this is speculation because we don't know the exact relationship between recessions and drops in passenger usage or to what extent that relationship may have been causal or not.

The only thing that we do know is the evidence we have in front of us. This clearly shows that in spite of recessions, passenger numbers have been recovering since the early 1980's. Just because you go to such extraordinary lengths to ignore this to fit your opinion, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

[lincolnshire]

I think SRB has done and achieved many great things and is no idiot in business, which is precisely why I'm amazed people can't see when he's doing something for good PR. His whole life has been around good PR.

I've had many dealings with Virgin Mobile and later Virgin Media and even used to work for Virgin for a year or two in the early 1990s. I've also had the pleasure of meeting him and he's someone who could teach anyone lots of things.

But remember how he got to where he is. It wasn't from being all extra nice and sweet all the time!

As you say it was not from been all extra nice and sweet all the time, but it also helps if you can have a good legal team behind you, as in the case of the West Coast Franchise mess where the legal team was wheeled out to put the Virgin case.

Cheap publicity for his brand of Virgin, but just how much of it does he actually own? and I often wonder what the partners who trade under the Virgin brand think about what he says.

Its the usual make a comment and retreat, if he,s so good then he should offer his services ( free of charge) to assist and help solve the problems.