• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The final warning

Status
Not open for further replies.

Metroland

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Messages
3,212
Location
Midlands
Something many of us have been warning for some time and are becoming increasingly worried about (and indeed get our knickers in a twist on this very forum). Whether its a combination of profiteering, bonuses, unrealistic pay demands, lack of innovation, the structure, or just plain bad management, it looks the the chickens are coming home to roost very soon

THE man who has been given the task of assessing rail's value for money for the government has warned that continued taxpayer support of more than £5 billion a year cannot be sustained, and that closures are inevitable unless the industry can trim its costs.

Sir Roy McNulty was speaking at the annual conference of the Derby and Derbyshire Rail Forum, whose delegates were told that costs must come down. If not, there will be less investment and a 'smaller network'.

Sir Roy was appointed by the last government to carry out a review of rail spending, and his full report is due early next year. However, since the election the new transport secretary Philip Hammond has asked him to provide an interim report, which should be published later this month.

However, although Sir Roy warned that closures were possible, he said that was still Plan B, and that he was working on Plan A, which involves maintaining the momentum but reducing the amount the industry spends.

But he did deny reports that a list of possible closures had already been prepared. "That's not true," he insisted. "That would be Plan B, and we are concentrating on Plan A."

He also questioned whether the industry was perhaps too obsessed with 'standards', and whether there are too many bodies responsible for developing and maintaining them.

He revealed that his research this year had uncovered more issues than had been expected, and these were now being investigated in detail.

He had found that the industry was suffering from poor control of its costs, and was being hindered by a lack of clear objectives from government.

"There is also very little innovation," he added, "which surprised me in an industry where a substantial part is run by the private sector. We are investigating whether the present structure of the industry is stifling new ideas."

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/11/04-mcnulty-warns-costs-must-drop.html
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,611
Location
In the cab with the paper
More certainly needs to be done to incentivise the industry to protect it's revenue streams rather than relying on the government. Issues like removing or reducing revenue support would be a good start and might just help prompt the TOC's into doing more in the way of revenue protection.

O L Leigh
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Indeed, costs must come down. I would venture to suggest that this could include the delay attribution system we have discussed recently. Although it adds accountability, is it worth the cost? Similarly, NR has been warned for some time to control its costs in a more effective way.

I just hope that costs will be reduced without affecting the human beings that work on the railway too much. To my mind, its the structure that is unwieldy and expensive to operate, but all too often its the staff that are sacrificed on the alter of cost cutting.
 

Metroland

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Messages
3,212
Location
Midlands
THE chief executive of Stagecoach Group has made a strong plea for vertical integration to be restored on the railways. Speaking at the annual conference of the Derby and Derbyshire Rail Forum, Brian Souter said the present division of responsibilities between train operators and Network Rail leads to wasteful duplication of jobs.

Mr Souter said his group had stripped out £90 million of unnecessary expenditure at its rail franchises over the past two years, although he conceded that his company had made mistakes in the past.

"When we first took over South West Trains in 1996, we treated it like a bus company. Our reduction in the number of drivers and the resulting disruption scared us skinny, and after that we backed away from widescale economies.

"But we have learnt that there are substantial savings to be made, particularly among some middle managers who neither have a grasp of strategy nor know about the detail.

"However, we need to go further, and a major source of waste is the division between us and Network Rail. Everything takes so long: there are so many different people involved. Network Rail should not be operating the railway, but be reduced to a property company. We need a return to vertical integration if Sir Roy McNulty's ambition of a major reduction in railway costs is to be realised."

Mr Souter also accused the Department for Transport of helping to waste money.

"Instead of getting on with the job, we find we have to write essays for the DfT. We're not particularly good at writing essays: we run trains and buses. We reduced the number of reports we were supposed to produce by 40 per cent, and nobody questioned why they weren't being provided.

"innovation is very difficult, because there is no incentive. We introduced Megatrain discounted tickets, although they were technically illegal under the rules. When it succeeded everyone signed up to it.

"We are also proud to buy British whenever we can, and we have been buying British-built double deck buses that are world leaders. The railway supply industry needs to be at the cutting edge -- and sometimes it isn't."

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/11/04-stagecoach-chief-condemns-wasteful-job.html
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
Dear me, Mr Souter. That sounds like a schoolkid making poor excuses. "No incentives"? I thought you were a businessman, with profit the incentive. Instead of whinging about how everyone else gets in the way, why not take the lead, shake up ATOC to work together on, well, working together. Faced with a co-ordinated ATOC, DfT would more than welcome not having to micro-manage evrything, which they do because of the poor record of TOCs on just about everything. And as for buying British? Don't see much of that on your franchises (though, to be fair, there ain't much in the way of British rail industry left). There are pros and cons for vertical integration, but I would hate to be a freight or open-access operator on your patch.
One of the chief problems with the companies in the rail industry today (apart from customer relations) is that there seems to be little evidence of trust between the various players, with everyone trying to get one over on everyone else. For heavens sake, all work together, get the interfaces right instead of moaning - and don't look to teacher to give you a sweet before you do your homework.<(
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,125
Location
Yorks
Why is McNulty stating that closures are even plan B ! Even a cursory glance at our Western European neighbours confirms that there is nothing remotely excessive about the extent or coverage of our network, and none of them are even contemplating closures. This problem is about the way the railway is organised and not it's physical extent. McNulty should make that clear in his report.
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
....I just hope that costs will be reduced without affecting the human beings that work on the railway too much. To my mind, its the structure that is unwieldy and expensive to operate, but all too often its the staff that are sacrificed on the alter of cost cutting.
Sadly, even if the structure is made wieldy and cheap, that will mean staff cuts - after all, the office staff are railway staff as well. What worries me, though, is that there will simply be a knee-jerk "20% off everything" without first examining everything and seeing what actually contributes value. As a model, I would look at the "Quango" review, where all of them were looked at, some removed, some merged, and some even enhanced. A very sensible and well run process, though that did not stop people getting on the bandwagon and saying "This quango is essential".
 

TDK

Established Member
Joined
19 Apr 2008
Messages
4,155
Location
Crewe
quick way to reduce costs, bring back BR ;)

And BR never cost the taxpayer? I believe that the TOC's could doamuch betterJob than NR and concentrate on theur own areas, if longer franchises were a norm more investment would be forthcoming, the subsidies giver to NR would be better off with the TOC's
 

thefab444

Established Member
Joined
27 Oct 2006
Messages
3,688
Location
The New Forest
And as for buying British? Don't see much of that on your franchises (though, to be fair, there ain't much in the way of British rail industry left).

We are also proud to buy British whenever we can, and we have been buying British-built double deck buses that are world leaders. The railway supply industry needs to be at the cutting edge -- and sometimes it isn't

I imagine if the Junipers hadn't been so damned awful, he might have had a bit more confidence in the British train building industry!
 
Joined
2 Jan 2009
Messages
517
The Tories keep wailing - why are our railways so expensive?

Could it have anything to do with the various companies who take profits out of the operating costs? Or the huge amount of admin needed to run so many contracts?
 

Metroland

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2005
Messages
3,212
Location
Midlands
Why is McNulty stating that closures are even plan B ! Even a cursory glance at our Western European neighbours confirms that there is nothing remotely excessive about the extent or coverage of our network, and none of them are even contemplating closures. This problem is about the way the railway is organised and not it's physical extent. McNulty should make that clear in his report.

I think if the Tories tried to do that, they would be accused of 'coming back to finish their dirty work'. And who wants to invest in Britain if it's a place where moving people and freight about is hopeless because of lack of investment in transport?

It's fairly obvious the current costs are down to:

- A large amount of players taking a profit
- too many interfaces and middle management to administer them
- duplication of roles
- past underinvestment
- short term franchises that don't want to invest, and the costs involved in re-branding and retraining
- H&S paranoia and risk adversity
- monetising things that weren't monetised before
- over prescriptive standards and lack of innovation
- compensation payments
- NRs debt mountain because of the way its funded to keep it off the public books

Much of this is the result of the 'competition' they wanted to put into the industry (even though there is plenty of competition from other transport), the red tape because essentially the private sector are not trusted, and the media scare stories over various mishaps.
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,125
Location
Yorks
I think if the Tories tried to do that, they would be accused of 'coming back to finish their dirty work'. And who wants to invest in Britain if it's a place where moving people and freight about is hopeless because of lack of investment in transport?

It's fairly obvious the current costs are down to:

- A large amount of players taking a profit
- too many interfaces and middle management to administer them
- duplication of roles
- past underinvestment
- short term franchises that don't want to invest, and the costs involved in re-branding and retraining
- H&S paranoia and risk adversity
- monetising things that weren't monetised before
- over prescriptive standards and lack of innovation
- compensation payments
- NRs debt mountain because of the way its funded to keep it off the public books

Much of this is the result of the 'competition' they wanted to put into the industry (even though there is plenty of competition from other transport), the red tape because essentially the private sector are not trusted, and the media scare stories over various mishaps.

Indeed. Any report on the future of the railways which contemplates the "nuclear option" of closures without sorting out all of these first won't be worth the paper it is written on. I would hope that McNulty will be aware of this if he wishes to retain any credibility.
 

WillPS

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2008
Messages
2,421
Location
Nottingham
And BR never cost the taxpayer? I believe that the TOC's could doamuch betterJob than NR and concentrate on theur own areas, if longer franchises were a norm more investment would be forthcoming, the subsidies giver to NR would be better off with the TOC's

Government rail expenditure has increased rapidly since privatisation - and a very very large chunk of that expenditure will have gone not to improving the railways, but improving the bank balances of shareholders.

If the railways as a whole can not turn a profit it does not make sense for the industry to be privatised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top