Transport ministers who notably hindered or helped the railway industry

[DanNCL]

I'll offer another nomination for Andrew Adonis as a poor transport secretary. Thanks to him we have the IEP contract which is a disgrace to say the least. The idea behind IEP was sound and the HSTs did need replacing, but the contract itself is one of the worst rolling stock contracts the railway has, both in terms of quality and the financial arrangements of the contract.

Grant Shapps has mishandled more than the strikes. He has overseen cuts the railway not seen since BR.

 

[tbtc]

Chris Grayling was rubbish but probably gets a worse reputation on here than he deserves

Nothing seemed to go right under his tenure and he’ll be associated with the cancellation/ failure of various projects, but he got the job at a time when it was becoming too apparent that the promises of CP5 weren’t going to be delivered, and something had to be done to ensure that Network Rail had a line in the sand - a tricky time to be Transport Secretary

Perversely, I would suggest Lord Adonis as the worst, after Barbara Castle.

After 12 years of his Party running down Network Rail with no new electrification, he announced about six schemes just before his Party lost power, for an industry both public and private that had been stripped of its technical capability. Give a starving man a seven course meal....

I was about to agree with you about Adonis’s reputation being too high, I find it surprising how he gets credited for making lots of promises in a short period which he was never going to be able to deliver

However the idea that Labour had spent the previous twelve years of running down Network Rail?

I’d argue that too much time had to be spent on tackling the huge infrastructure failings identified post-Hatfield, rather than getting ambitious about new things - but it was necessary to focus instead on doing the work that should have been done properly in British Rail/ Railtrack days

This was the era where the industry was even discussing taking down the unreliable wires on the ECML north of Newcastle - not to upgrade them, just to get rid because they were more of a disbenefit…. Unthinkable nowadays!

(I know Railtrack make for villains but let’s not pretend that all of the outdated infrastructure problems was only due to decisions taken on their watch, given the organisation was around for less than a decade)

However there was lots of very important electrification still done, it’s just that four tracking of sections of the WCML doesn’t seem to count as much as approval for some branch lines

Grant Shapps has mishandled more than the strikes. He has overseen cuts the railway not seen since BR.

Shapps feels like the only transport Secretary who has deliberately provoked and antagonised, he’s more interested in getting headlines acting “tough” with Khan/ Unions/ Labour than genuine improvements

Shapps has been very lucky, since the cuts imposed under him seem “hidden”, enthusiasts would be outraged if a private company wasn’t delivering everything in the TOC contract but now that such franchises are over there’s freedom to make cuts with no benchmarks/ accountability (again, it’s seemingly okay for these cuts to be made, as long as it’sa public sector decision)

 

[davidknibb]

Were any of them of much benefit or positively harmful to the rail industry?

I know that this is a railforums web site - but in itself is maybe not too helpful answering the original question.

For my money - the question should really be

Were any of them of much benefit or positively harmful to the public transport industry? That is encouraging a much more integrated and coordinated system between the different modes that we currently have.

 

[WAO]

However the idea that Labour had spent the previous twelve years of running down Network Rail?

I’d argue that too much time had to be spent on tackling the huge infrastructure failings identified post-Hatfield, rather than getting ambitious about new things - but it was necessary to focus instead on doing the work that should have been done properly in British Rail/ Railtrack days

This was the era where the industry was even discussing taking down the unreliable wires on the ECML north of Newcastle - not to upgrade them, just to get rid because they were more of a disbenefit…. Unthinkable nowadays!

IIRC, One part of recovery from the Railtrack failure was financial; that is NR had to cut its staff which included its experienced engineers. It's true that the rot had set in before privatisation - John Edmonds' dislike of Engineers, for instance.

The niggles about wires north of Newcastle dated back to the '80's and it was Tory SoS Nicholas Ridley (Civil Engineer) who pushed it through. It was probably similar to Cardiff - Swansea with only a moderate service interval but also with supply problems at Marshall Meadows (only now being solved with PFC's), so not really narrowly justified at the time.

My Labour hero of the time would be John Prescott who pushed through TPWS against marginal predicted benefits - now widely exceeded. I would also include my own MP, Jane Griffiths who badgered the DfT over Thames Valley electrification.

WAO

 

[GordonT]

In Waterstone's skimming through Wolmar's recent book on BR. The deployment of Chris Green to set up and run what became Network SouthEast was attributed to Nicholas Ridley bending then BR chairman Bob Reid's ear about the inadequacies of BR services in the London area.

 

[Trestrol]

I can't see David Mitchell MP 1986-87 on the list. He was of course a NYMR member.

 

[tomuk]

So I'm not sure another 5 years of Adonis would have worked for the railway, despite his undoubted industry knowledge and management skills.

What industry knowledge and management skills? He was an academic and then in various political think tanks before becoming Blair's head of policy.
He came up with Academies and Tuition fees which I'm sure are popular with other posters on here. I assume as one of the New Labour brains he had his hand in PPPs too.

 

[GordonT]

I can't see David Mitchell MP 1986-87 on the list. He was of course a NYMR member.

He was a Minister of State in the Dept. of Transport - the listing was specifically the Secretaries of State. Perhaps Ministers with specific rail responsibility could have been included but only a few such as David Mitchell and Michael Portillo showed much interest in their brief.

 

[A0wen]

John Prescott certainly worked wonders for the Welsh Highland Railway in 1999.

Despite being on the opposite side of the political tracks to me I will gratefully acknowledge his positive role in over ruling the recommendation that the railway should not be rebuilt, I am sure many others do too.

As the FWHR already has two "political" locomotives PALMERSTON and DAVID LLOYD GEORGE I have often thought it would be a nice touch if one of Garratts gained the name LORD PRESCOTT in recognition.

In the case of a loco named after Prescott it would have to be one which is overweight, underperforms, makes alot of noise whilst doing nothing very much. But given the opportunity of running light and doing no work seems to work very well.

One of the worst individuals to hold high office since 1945 - and there's no shortage of competition.

I'm going to give Peter Walker who held the role 1970-72 a mention (Transport was part of the Environment department at that time) for authorising the Great Northern electrification which was the first dual voltage scheme in the UK. The GN hadn't really seen any of the investment / updates that other London routes had in the 1950s and 1960s beyond replacing the steam locos with diesel locos and then DMUs.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'll offer another nomination for Andrew Adonis as a poor transport secretary. Thanks to him we have the IEP contract which is a disgrace to say the least. The idea behind IEP was sound and the HSTs did need replacing, but the contract itself is one of the worst rolling stock contracts the railway has, both in terms of quality and the financial arrangements of the contract.

Grant Shapps has mishandled more than the strikes. He has overseen cuts the railway not seen since BR.

I think the IEP contract was as much down to the Treasury as the DfT, and the successor Tory/Lib Dem cabinet approved the deal after an in-depth review.
The IEP deal also got manufacturing in the UK, the alternatives didn't.
The deal was expensive but the subsequent flow of AT300 orders made it much more efficient, and with HS2 rolling stock to come.
The Treasury austerity context didn't make it easy either.
We will be getting more of that with the impending recession.

Shapps is deservedly unpopular for many reasons, but he did get HS2 started on the ground and funded, got the Phase 2a bill through parliament and got £96 billion out of the Treasury for that and NPR.
In a very haphazard way he has also restarted some of the electrification schemes blocked by Grayling, now NR is not spending like there's no tomorrow.
For the nationalizers, thanks to Covid he's also done most to bring the railway back into direct public control, for good or ill.

 

[WAO]

The IEP deal also got manufacturing in the UK, the alternatives didn't.
The deal was expensive but the subsequent flow of AT300 orders made it much more efficient, and with HS2 rolling stock to come.
.

The IEP deal brought assembly (some) to the UK rather than manufacturing as all the high value traction and suspension items came from Japan, apart from necessary European sub-systems. Oh, and some assembly took place in Italy! I believe it was influenced by the sale of Airbuses to Japan and also warplanes (which Japan bought from the US after the train contracts were signed). It raised eybrows in France and Germany who would not normally source public capital equipment from abroad (or outside the EU).

The IEP deal probably ended Intercity rolling stock design and manufacture in the UK. It's no wonder we struggle with a simple 769 adaptation!

WAO

 

[Western Sunset]

Probably the one best known generally, as his name lives on, was Leslie Hore-Belisha (1934-37).

 

[Taunton]

Adonis always came over as something of a trainspotter. Which, unfortunately, is not something that fits people to head up government policy.

Probably the one best known generally, as his name lives on, was Leslie Hore-Belisha (1934-37).

I suspect you probably have to be past a certain age to still call them Belisha Beacons. 1935 I believe, previously crossings only had silver road studs, difficult to see, Belisha brought just the flashing yellow beacons. Only after WW2 were the black/white stripes added, and they then equally became known as "Zebras". Late 1960s the zig-zag approach markings were added (the Beatles Abbey Road picture does not have these).

My grandfather had the dubious distinction of breaking down right on top of the first one in Taunton, presumably 1935, in The Parade. Town policeman : "Zir, you can't stop there, this be one of them new Belisha crossings". Grandfather : "Nothing I can do about it, it's broken down, gears jammed, I need to go for my spanners. Look after it". And off he went.

 

[richw]

I think it notable that few actually seemed interested in railways. Lord Adonis at least wanted to do the right thing and made an effort.

This is an interesting point. Adonis seemed to care about what he was doing and made a good effort. Maybe not always the best outcomes but at least he tried.

It draws similarities to my local authority, one of the transport leaders is very enthusiastic about using transport himself- I believe medically he can’t hold a car driving licence, so is a frequent user, who has a lot of passion. He appears to have a some understanding of the services even if he lacks background understanding. We currently have the best bus network in living memory, some services seem over frequent and a waste of money but clearly a lot of thought has gone into the subsidised network.

 

[BrianW]

He was a Minister of State in the Dept. of Transport - the listing was specifically the Secretaries of State. Perhaps Ministers with specific rail responsibility could have been included but only a few such as David Mitchell and Michael Portillo showed much interest in their brief.

I wonder whether the true 'villains' should be Chancellors of the Exchequer?

Or the Great British public- for voting this way and that in response to political 'promises' and the abiding 'stop-go' as economic and financial 'constraints' are realised, halting the vanity projects of predecessors.

The rush to start without proper ground investigation is at least partly responsible for the shambles of GW Electrification. Some will be familiar with PPPPPP- perfect planning prevents very poor performance.

Changing the brief along the way rarely saves money.

I sense no great enthusiasm for commitment to long-term programmes that would give continuity of employment, skills, value- like a programme for electrification, or home insulation, wind turbines, ...

 

[Taunton]

The rush to start without proper ground investigation is at least partly responsible for the shambles of GW Electrification. Some will be familiar with PPPPPP- perfect planning prevents very poor performance.

If you have worked with public authority procurement you will know that a key item, once you get an approval, is to start obvious work with spades in the ground, as there is such a long history of projects being cancelled shortly afterwards, while its still at the planning stage. Get a small contract, at least, let straight away, so if you are pipped at the post next week by a different item with more political clout, you can point to "contract let, we were ready, they have started on site". There is of course a certain skill in doing this nevertheless efficiently.

Gerry Fiennes wrote about a small version of this. An upset over poor welfare facilities had come to a head, so he sent a labourer round to mark out the foundations, whereupon "they've started" was taken on board. Some weeks on the proper builders started.

 

[BrianW]

If you have worked with public authority procurement you will know that a key item, once you get an approval, is to start obvious work with spades in the ground, as there is such a long history of projects being cancelled shortly afterwards, while its still at the planning stage. Get a small contract, at least, let straight away, so if you are pipped at the post next week by a different item with more political clout, you can point to "contract let, we were ready, they have started on site". There is of course a certain skill in doing this nevertheless efficiently.

Gerry Fiennes wrote about a small version of this. An upset over poor welfare facilities had come to a head, so he sent a labourer round to mark out the foundations, whereupon "they've started" was taken on board. Some weeks on the proper builders started.

Been there, got the t-shirt. Spades in the ground before elections. Hundreds of small contracts let within approval limits of standing orders. Understandable- ends justifying means. Not sure looking back about the ethics of it, knowing what's best for folk! Admirer of people who get things done; know the strings to pull; how to win friends and influence people aka Machiamellian, manipulation, I have Fiennes' How to run a railway' on the shelf.

Is the GW OHE train in a siding somewhere, or has it been 'fire-saled' in a job lot including water-cannons, phase 1 diesels, TSR2, garden bridge and Heathrow Expansion plans, EW arc, 40 new hospitals, ...?

 

[Taunton]

The rush to start without proper ground investigation is at least partly responsible for the shambles of GW Electrification.

The issue with planting OHLE foundations is that the ground conditions can vary so much from one pole to the next. An engineer on such described pile driving, they hammered away for 20 minutes to get one in, moved on to the next one, one blow and it disappeared from sight. By the time you have investigated each foundation you may as well have installed it. You are working on 175 year old made ground. Seemingly none of the "High Output Train" idealists knew this.

 

[BrianW]

The issue with planting OHLE foundations is that the ground conditions can vary so much from one pole to the next. An engineer on such described pile driving, they hammered away for 20 minutes to get one in, moved on to the next one, one blow and it disappeared from sight. By the time you have investigated each foundation you may as well have installed it. You are working on 175 year old made ground. Seemingly none of the "High Output Train" idealists knew this.

Were there no 'lessons to learn' from eg WCML or ECML? Are they being applied to MML?

From

Modernising the Great Western railway - National Audit Office (NAO) report

The cost of modernising the Great Western railway is currently estimated to be £5.58 billion, an increase of £2.1 billion since 2013, and there are delays to the electrification of the route of at least 18 to 36 months. Delays to the electrification programme will cost the Department up to £330...

www.nao.org.uk

Network Rail’s 2014 cost estimate was unrealistic. It was too optimistic about the productivity of new technology. It underestimated how many bridges it would need to rebuild or modify and also the time and therefore costs needed to obtain planning permission and other consents for some works. Failings in Network Rail’s approach to planning and delivering the infrastructure programme further increased costs. It did not work out a ‘critical path’ – the minimum feasible schedule for the work, including dependencies between key stages – before starting to deliver electrification. It also did not conduct sufficiently detailed surveys of the locations for the structures, which meant that some design work had to be repeated.

Some passengers in the north and west of England may have to wait longer, some nine months and up to two years respectively, to see improvements such as increased capacity in services because of the delays to the programme.

 

[John Luxton]

In the case of a loco named after Prescott it would have to be one which is overweight, underperforms, makes alot of noise whilst doing nothing very much. But given the opportunity of running light and doing no work seems to work very well.

One of the worst individuals to hold high office since 1945 - and there's no shortage of competition.

Though I tend to be on the right hand tracks I still think Prescott did some good at least for the WHR. Also have a bit of respect for him for fighting back when he was egged in Rhyl. If more politicians fought back there might be less antisocial behaviour!

 

[Helvellyn]

Actually, you have to credit the Conservative holders up until 1992 with the fact that they didn't keep ripping things up. We had BR progressively reorganise itself, sectorisation, a move towards a more fully business led railway and rolling electrification, and mass rolling stock replacement and refurbishment.

Fowler was mentioned as bad for signing off on excess Sleeper stock, but that would have been based on BR's own estimates. I think that if in 1982 someone had offered BR the option to cancel even the last 30 Sleepers (out of a build of 210) in order to get the extra three HST sets they wanted for the ECML (they jad wanted seven extra sets; got four) they might have jumped at it!

After 1992 we had five years of upheaval for privatisation. The model wasn't even the one favoured by Major, and the splintering into so many companies felt in part a scorched earth policy. Under Prescott there was little opportunity to change much, but from Byers onwards we had the forced collapse of Railttack, franchises being pushed as cash cows (thanks to the Treasury), a move to increase fare box support from 50% to 75% of costs, and increasing micro-management by DfT.

The Coalition didn't seem interested in Transport, and with the Lib Dems having certain Departments ring-fenced it felt like Cameron used Transport as a holding post for those on the way up/down.

It's said that Transport was Grayling's dream job, but he probably got it at totally the wrong time! Not only was Brexit taking up so much time but May was a micro-manager, so everything had to go through Downing Street.

Shapps... well not great, but his ability to implement Shapps was completely hammered by COVID effectively knee-capping the industry. A more adroit SoS might have handled the unions better coming out of it, and made more of the fact there was no formal furlough and thus staff were paid in full throughout. As a whole we've avoided the chaos of the aviation world that did lay off so many, and whilst we have the ongoing disputes it could have been a whole lot worse.

We're not going to get a great SoS though until we get a PM who is prepared to appoint someone to take a holistic view of Transport and start some long-term planning again. I know this is about rail, and long-term rail planning was shot with privatisation. But long-term road planning was shot by Labour abandoning the ongoing roads programme in 1997 in the name of the environment but in many ways to reallocate the money due to promising not to splash the cash (that would come after 2001).

 

[nw1]

I suspect this thread will very much fit the category of worm cans! My initial reaction is that all of them were either poor or downright awful but actually reading the list it's clear that isn't really fair. It's rather sad that the current incumbent and his immediate predecessor both belong on the truly appalling list but perhaps the worst of all was Nicholas Ridley thanks to his Buses Deregulation Act.

Ridley: he made a bad impression on me when I was still very young, probably early teens. Nothing to do with public transport, and this was before I was politically aware (so didn't support, or dislike, any of the parties) but I recall Ridley and Heseltine having a bit of a quarrel. Something to do with preserving green spaces, Heseltine came across much softer and saw the value of green space, while Ridley was (if I remember right) a hard Thatcherite and was quite happy to build on anything.

This may not be completely correct though, I am recalling a very early political memory!

 

[GordonT]

Ridley: he made a bad impression on me when I was still very young, probably early teens. Nothing to do with public transport, and this was before I was politically aware (so didn't support, or dislike, any of the parties) but I recall Ridley and Heseltine having a bit of a quarrel. Something to do with preserving green spaces, Heseltine came across much softer and saw the value of green space, while Ridley was (if I remember right) a hard Thatcherite and was quite happy to build on anything.

This may not be completely correct though, I am recalling a very early political memory!

Came across as a very gruff and dogmatic man. Also an (almost) chain-smoker which may have brought about his terminal demise in his sixties by which time he was Lord Ridley.

 

[Western Sunset]

Wonder if Arnold Ridley (author of The Ghost Train and Dad's Army actor)) was related to Nicholas Ridley in some way?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Wonder if Arnold Ridley (author of The Ghost Train and Dad's Army actor)) was related to Nicholas Ridley in some way?

Arnold Ridley's son was indeed Nicolas Ridley. FACT.

 

[Gloster]

Came across as a very gruff and dogmatic man. Also an (almost) chain-smoker which may have brought about his terminal demise in his sixties by which time he was Lord Ridley.

I believe he was the politician who was later known in some quarters as Lord Fag-ash.

Wonder if Arnold Ridley (author of The Ghost Train and Dad's Army actor)) was related to Nicholas Ridley in some way?

No idea. However, his nephew was chairman of Northern Rock up to 2007.

 

[WAO]

Are we talking about the late Baron Liddesdale, Nicholas Ridley, 2nd son of 3rd Viscount Ridley, Matthew White Ridley and Ursula, daughter of Sir Edwin Lutyens?

WAO

 

[BrianW]

Came across as a very gruff and dogmatic man. Also an (almost) chain-smoker which may have brought about his terminal demise in his sixties by which time he was Lord Ridley.

Known for the 'Ridley Doctrine'- Broadly if land was not designated as Green Belt or a National Park it could, and should, be 'developed', thus supporting economic activity.
OK for him in his Cotswold constuency.

And this 'offensive' stance:

Thatcher’s civilising offensive: The Ridley Plan to decivilise the working class

His entry in Wikipedia has many example of why he may be thought offensive;

Nicholas Ridley, Baron Ridley of Liddesdale - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Feeling very much for his father who may well have asked to be excused regarding his son's career and wish to not spend more time with his family.

Are we talking about the late Baron Liddesdale, Nicholas Ridley, 2nd son of 3rd Viscount Ridley, Matthew White Ridley and Ursula, daughter of Sir Edwin Lutyens?

WAO

We are, sadly ...

 

[Purple Train]

Out of the list, Shapps and perhaps Marples are the only Ministers I can think of who seem openly antagonistic towards the railways.

 

[GordonT]

Ridley also presided over bus deregulation and was roundly reviled throughout much of the bus industry of the day for his efforts. Having increased car dependency as transport SoS he moved on to the Department of the Environment and allowed through on appeal a large number of car-based out of town shopping centres and housing developments.