Who runs the railways?

[LNW-GW Joint]

The 700 and IEP programs looked like they were competitions to see how long and drawn out you could possibly make a rolling stock procurement program. Neither of them are anything to be proud about.

I think it was the financing which made life difficult, and the changing of the IEP spec for GW electrification, with repeated value for money reviews (which didn't really change anything in the end).

And that's one thing I'm glad he did as they were completely clueless, although I have to say that the DFT of today are hardly much better.

The SRA was an attempt to provide a "guiding mind" for the railway, which is what everybody seems to say they want.
They did pretty much sort out WCRM after the bungling of Railtrack and early NR (an "informed client"), but also gave us several "no growth" franchises.
They were abolished because Darling didn't like the way they spent his money.

 

[HowardGWR]

The SOS can only correct failed performance of appointees after they have failed. Even then the replacement will be subject to received advice (from civil servants, the same people who presumably made a mess of the last appointment advice).

I think folk here have a very peculiar notion of what an SOS is supposed to do.

 

[tbtc]

Add - "With Railway background!

Their decisions suggest not, if you define 'railway people' as 'people who know how to run a railway competently'

So, do "railway people" have to evidence that they've got their hands dirty in engineering roles?

Or are they allowed to be competent white collar Civil Servants who work full time on the railway?

The inconvenient truth is that the same Civil Servants who people criticise as "DafT" are the ones who'd end up running even more of the railway if it were ever nationalised.

 

[daikilo]

I have always assumed that the term "railway people' applies to operating staff. This includes those who issue the schedules for the rolling stock and for the crew. These people will know that a departure schedule may be delayed by say a minute if a passenger tries to board late or if the track is wet leading to loss of grip. It took me several years to understand enough about how BR operated to even begin thinking I had become a railway person.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A significant issue is the lack of leadership currently. Under a franchise system even the best manager can do no more than look out for their own patch. And at the moment the top people at GWR, ARN, TPE are doing their absolute best to be as inconspicuous as possible despite the sometimes shambolic state of their TOC's operations. Ultimately it needs someone at the centre to start leading from the front. But the DfT's senior person is more interested in having a war with the unions and the SoS appears to simply not care. I have no love for BR but it did, from time to time, have some good leaders.

 

[B&I]

So, do "railway people" have to evidence that they've got their hands dirty in engineering roles?

Or are they allowed to be competent white collar Civil Servants who work full time on the railway?

The inconvenient truth is that the same Civil Servants who people criticise as "DafT" are the ones who'd end up running even more of the railway if it were ever nationalised.

Where did I say anything about them having to have engineering experience ? All I was asking was that the relevant staff be competent. What do you wish to argue with about that ?

You might find that, if you spent more energy responding to what people have actually written, rather than continually setting up straw men, you might get more out of this process.

 

[B&I]

A significant issue is the lack of leadership currently. Under a franchise system even the best manager can do no more than look out for their own patch. And at the moment the top people at GWR, ARN, TPE are doing their absolute best to be as inconspicuous as possible despite the sometimes shambolic state of their TOC's operations. Ultimately it needs someone at the centre to start leading from the front. But the DfT's senior person is more interested in having a war with the unions and the SoS appears to simply not care. I have no love for BR but it did, from time to time, have some good leaders.

This is it in a nutshell. Another depressing result of fragmentation of the railway system.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

This is it in a nutshell. Another depressing result of fragmentation of the railway system.

But the state of near conflict between railway and department existed in BR days too. In spite of free-market dogma having led to the current set-up the politicians, national and local, regardless of party, still seem to see the railway as a suitable political plaything. It's less about fragmentation of the railway system and more about the unwillingness of politicians to devise policy by consensus rather than dogma. Both main parties are as bad and behave equally ineffectively in other areas (health, education). In that respect those nasty Europeans are often doing things very much better than us.

 

[Senex]

But the state of near conflict between railway and department existed in BR days too. In spite of free-market dogma having led to the current set-up the politicians, national and local, regardless of party, still seem to see the railway as a suitable political plaything. It's less about fragmentation of the railway system and more about the unwillingness of politicians to devise policy by consensus rather than dogma. Both main parties are as bad and behave equally ineffectively in other areas (health, education). In that respect those nasty Europeans are often doing things very much better than us.

I fear it's that lack of political consensus pretty well across the board that has been so much of a problem for Britain since the Second World War, and it is absolutely down to both parties. In addition, we don't seem to be served well by those people who want to become professional politicians in this country. And now any sense of "honour" (if that's what it was), of taking the ultimate responsibility for the actions of those in your department or in the great state industries affected by your department (e.g. railways and health), seems to have vanished, with the politicians sticking to their offices at all costs.
As to the state of near-conflict between BR and the department, that was indeed true for long periods. But it was no accident that when there was a really good relationship, as with Bob Reid and the then SoS (wasn't it Ridley?), things went well and major investment programmes were no only authorised but were also delivered (though even then with the civil servants doing their best to cheese-pare everything).

 

[B&I]

But the state of near conflict between railway and department existed in BR days too. In spite of free-market dogma having led to the current set-up the politicians, national and local, regardless of party, still seem to see the railway as a suitable political plaything. It's less about fragmentation of the railway system and more about the unwillingness of politicians to devise policy by consensus rather than dogma. Both main parties are as bad and behave equally ineffectively in other areas (health, education). In that respect those nasty Europeans are often doing things very much better than us.

I was thinking of your point about the lack of an identifiable chain of command in the railway system, post-privatisation. If you have an absentee SoS, who else is goimg to take charge ?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I think it was the financing which made life difficult, and the changing of the IEP spec for GW electrification, with repeated value for money reviews (which didn't really change anything in the end).


The SRA was an attempt to provide a "guiding mind" for the railway, which is what everybody seems to say they want.
They did pretty much sort out WCRM after the bungling of Railtrack and early NR (an "informed client"), but also gave us several "no growth" franchises.
They were abolished because Darling didn't like the way they spent his money.

The SRA started well from the remains of OPRAF , but grew too fast and too quickly. A veritable pile of people joined from TOC's and FOC's , glad to get a bigger picture etc.

Unfortunately - the major spat between Windsor of the ORR / Railtrack / led to a serious depletion of available cash for franchises - on top of some overambitious first round bidding towards the end of letting stage one (think Northern Spirit and FNW etc) , led to an austerity regime where not much could be afforded as what became NR took the Lions share. Not , what the SRA wanted - and of course they were abolished as we all know.

Ex SRA members at the DfT were not exactly welcomed with open arms. Not many left now.

 

[AndrewE]

I was thinking of your point about the lack of an identifiable chain of command in the railway system, post-privatisation. If you have an absentee SoS, who else is going to take charge ?

I think that is the whole point: The politicians in the Westminster bubble, i.e. those in the cabinet or looking after the south-east, don't really care about UK infrastructure, decarbonising the economy, the poor or regional deprivation. The current structures are designed to allow them to shut down the state provision that we have come to think goes with being part of the developed world (and requires progressive taxation to deliver) and avoid any blame on the basis that "it was the incompetent suppliers who made an inept bid!" (See Carillion...)

 

[B&I]

I think that is the whole point: The politicians in the Westminster bubble, i.e. those in the cabinet or looking after the south-east, don't really care about UK infrastructure, decarbonising the economy, the poor or regional deprivation. The current structures are designed to allow them to shut down the state provision that we have come to think goes with being part of the developed world (and requires progressive taxation to deliver) and avoid any blame on the basis that "it was the incompetent suppliers who made an inept bid!" (See Carillion...)

Spot on