Network Rail upgrade delayed by government (BBC News Article)

[Haydn1971]

Not quite on the same scale as major investment projects across the rail network, but this was announced yesterday.

Not really that earth shattering considering the High Street bridge is less than 200m to the east.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Whatever the faults of Mr Corbett, I suspect the far greater problem with Railtrack was that it was expected to be a profit making company paying dividends, when it was clearly in no position to do so requiring (as the railway still does) subsidy and substantial capital investment of a sort that the private sector couldn't manage. Jonny Major and his circus were to blame for that fiasco.

This is true and what probably led to Railtrack becoming a property company that did a bit of rail stuff on the side.

(Disclaimer - I am conservative leaning. ) Don't want to get too political but I agree with you. I know it sounds crazily ironic, but if Johnny Major had not privatized and continued the policies of a certain lady wrt railways, we actually would be in a better position right now.

 

[Senex]

(Disclaimer - I am conservative leaning. ) Don't want to get too political but I agree with you. I know it sounds crazily ironic, but if Johnny Major had not privatized and continued the policies of a certain lady wrt railways, we actually would be in a better position right now.

But the one privatisation that certain lady fought very shy of was the railways. And then Major had not only to shew that he was tougher than she was but also to ignore all the advice of the professional railwaymen and choose the worst possible model of privatisation. (I too lean to the right, but am very much in favour of state ownership of certain areas of the economy -- though, I hasten to add, not in the way it was set up and managed by the Labour Party in this country.)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But the one privatisation that certain lady fought very shy of was the railways. And then Major had not only to shew that he was tougher than she was but also to ignore all the advice of the professional railwaymen and choose the worst possible model of privatisation. (I too lean to the right, but am very much in favour of state ownership of certain areas of the economy -- though, I hasten to add, not in the way it was set up and managed by the Labour Party in this country.)

If you remember, the government view in the early 1990s was "anything is better than the current system" (ie BR as a monolithic arms-length state-owned corporation).
In many ways they are pretty much back where they started, certainly with Network Rail.

 

[Senex]

If you remember, the government view in the early 1990s was "anything is better than the current system" (ie BR as a monolithic arms-length state-owned corporation).
In many ways they are pretty much back where they started, certainly with Network Rail.

The Sir Robert Reid BRB had established a pretty good modus vivendi with the Thaatcher government and its transport minsters by the late 80s, quite a lot of good things were happening, and there was a BR structure that was probably the best organisation of the railway since Grouping. Sir Bob Reid held the course that had been set. Then came Major, with the view that you rightly describe. However, BRB was never a monolithic arms-length state-owned corporation -- very unfortunately. If it had been, it might have been able to get on with its own affairs much like the BBC (not that I would cite that as a model of good practice!). It was a statutory undertaking, subject to far too much interference from politicians and their civil servants. In that sense we are indeed with Network Rail right back where it all started. At least now the position seems quite clear: decisions are taken by the politicians and announced to parliament, where at least MPs have the opportunity to question them -- not that they're much good at achieving anything under our vote-fodder parliamentary system.

 

[HH]

You're forgetting 'Sir Humphrey' and his merry men.

 

[Senex]

You're forgetting 'Sir Humphrey' and his merry men.

Sorry! Sir Humphrey seems to continue to flourish whichever party is in office.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Yes I was very unsure about privatisation especially this daft idea of different parts of the railway competing with itself - cars, coaches, lorries and planes provided the competition already. I do remember thinking at least the railways will be removed from Government interference - how terribly naive I was.

I always felt that the vertically integrated railway was what was needed and it seemed to be working. The Tories reward was to throw all Bob Reid's good work away !.

What is pertinent to this thread is that as a result of the interference (privatisation) enough skilled staff seem to have up sticks and left (the country).

 

[HH]

An awful lot have retired. The problem is that no-one trained their successors...

 

[misterredmist]

I think people need to remember that the railways prior to privatisation were a hot potato that NO political party would invest in or manage properly - and one wonders, had the incumbents had any idea of the coming explosion in popularity of railway travel during the last two decades, what decisions would have been taken.

Thinking back to BR, the HST was a great success, partly because of the lack of investment in our railways meaning we had far less electrification of Inter City routes than our Continental contemporaries, yet the ATP was developed on a shoes string and had the rug pulled from beneath it just because a few "bevvied up" journo's felt a bit queezy on demo run from Euston to Glasgow...when you consider the amount the French were investing in their TGV programme in the 70's and 80's there was no comparison.

We've been playing catch up ever since, archaic Victorian infrastructure in many cases, a lack of will to invest and upgrade , and in many cases, being reactive rather than proactive , a problem we've had generally in our Nation.

The irony is of course, that "Joe Public" is probably paying far more in railway subsidies than ever...... we'll always be playing catch up though, however the railways are run, the necessary upgrades and improvements just can't be delivered as required

 

[HH]

You can spend a lot more money fixing old stuff that continually goes wrong than you would have if you'd have replaced it in the first place...

 

[yorksrob]

You can spend a lot more money fixing old stuff that continually goes wrong than you would have if you'd have replaced it in the first place...

Indeed.

BR developed the Total Route Modernisation concept of improving stations trains and signalling in one go to combat such problems and provide a step change improvement to the travelling public. This has been continued to varying degrees by the privatised railway.

 

[Taunton]

Thinking back to BR, the HST was a great success, partly because of the lack of investment in our railways

Hmmm - BR managed a continuous rolling stock investment from the 1960s right through to 1990, keeping two works, Derby and York, fully occupied with passenger vehicle construction, plus additional work contracted out to Met-Cam and others.

There were continuing electrification projects, not only infill for existing schemes but freestanding St Pancras to Bedford (and later Thameslink Mk 1). And it didn't take an age per mile to wire up like it does nowadays.

On permanent way there was continuing investment in easing curves to reduce journey times, notably done in some regions more than others (the ER in particular). This seems to have pretty much stopped and the infrastructure is now set in stone. In 1990 the PW of main routes looked neat and manicured throughout, with an absence of the weeds that characterise even our mainstream routes today.

 

[misterredmist]

You can spend a lot more money fixing old stuff that continually goes wrong than you would have if you'd have replaced it in the first place...

Which is what France, Spain & Germany have done, and to a lesser extent,
The Benelux and Italy - but we've never had the will to invest in such projects apart from the Chunnel route, and NIMBYism will do it's best to bring down HS2......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hmmm - BR managed a continuous rolling stock investment from the 1960s right through to 1990, keeping two works, Derby and York, fully occupied with passenger vehicle construction, plus additional work contracted out to Met-Cam and others.

There were continuing electrification projects, not only infill for existing schemes but freestanding St Pancras to Bedford (and later Thameslink Mk 1). And it didn't take an age per mile to wire up like it does nowadays.

On permanent way there was continuing investment in easing curves to reduce journey times, notably done in some regions more than others (the ER in particular). This seems to have pretty much stopped and the infrastructure is now set in stone. In 1990 the PW of main routes looked neat and manicured throughout, with an absence of the weeds that characterise even our mainstream routes today.

Your reply is very informative, however, it goes without saying any industry, especially one that was nationalised like BR should and must support national industries in supplying it's needs .

However, my point was not trying to discredit BR but the UK Rail Transport policy as a whole, which was not supported to the extent that it deserved and could not be compared to the State support mainland European railway operations received.

 

[Taunton]

Yes, but that investment by BR was with funds which ultimately were controlled by the government.

We also have the situation that passengers have pretty much doubled in the last 15 years, plus fares have risen ahead of inflation. Some of us want to know why there is not therefore a great surplus of funding compared to the long term budget from all this additional revenue. You could also just turn up at the ticket office and buy a reasonably-priced ticket for the next train, a concept which has disappeared on a number of main routes. Meanwhile, as commonly reported, government support/subsidy for the industry has about tripled from the old BR levels as well. There is a considerable belief among MPs and the wider world that the current UK rail structure is Taking the Mickey on both costs and fare charges.

 

[Starmill]

Yes, but that investment by BR was with funds which ultimately were controlled by the government.

We also have the situation that passengers have pretty much doubled in the last 15 years, plus fares have risen ahead of inflation. Some of us want to know why there is not therefore a great surplus of funding compared to the long term budget from all this additional revenue. You could also just turn up at the ticket office and buy a reasonably-priced ticket for the next train, a concept which has disappeared on a number of main routes. Meanwhile, as commonly reported, government support/subsidy for the industry has about tripled from the old BR levels as well. There is a considerable belief among MPs and the wider world that the current UK rail structure is Taking the Mickey on both costs and fare charges.

I agree with this so much. We're paying well over the odds once in our fares and a second time from tax revenue and are getting solid mediocrity in return. £9billion in fares we paid last year, that must be able to yeild better results than we are currently getting.

 

[NSEFAN]

I agree with this so much. We're paying well over the odds once in our fares and a second time from tax revenue and are getting solid mediocrity in return. £9billion in fares we paid last year, that must be able to yeild better results than we are currently getting.

I do wonder if BR's efficiency level towards the end of its life was brought about by such a lack of funds, forcing it to do the best it could with the money it had. My gut feeling is that it was certainly a factor, but then I'm by no means an expert! If BR had instead been propped up with a lot more money, I wonder if we would have seen more productivity, proportion wise? I'd like to think so but I guess we'll never know.

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree with this so much. We're paying well over the odds once in our fares and a second time from tax revenue and are getting solid mediocrity in return. £9billion in fares we paid last year, that must be able to yeild better results than we are currently getting.

Well yes, but the country is getting a lot more railway than it did in the 80s and 90s.

There are a lot of services that operate now that did not operate back then, and pretty much all of them lose money on a pure commercial basis.

New Sunday service? Loses money
Additional late night services? Loses money
Extra frequency off peak? loses money
HS1? Loses money
All the reopened lines? lose money
Open every station first till last and have much higher standards of customer info / care like London Overground? Loses pots of money.

At the same time, the standards expected of the railway have increased considerably. Vastly improved safety has come at a price (quite necessarily) both in terms of upfront cost and maintenance. The quantity of renewal work being delivered is roughly double what it was 20 years ago, and it is all done in a much stricter workforce safety environment.

And finally, most of those working on the railway get paid much more than they did in 1994 allowing for inflation.

But those funding the railways have decided that these are all the right things to do for the country. Or at least they did decide. They may change their minds.

 

[yorksrob]

All the reopened lines? lose money

Still waiting for all of these reopened lines. Particularly in England.

 

[Bald Rick]

Still waiting for all of these reopened lines. Particularly in England.

For starters...

Snow Hill - Smethwick
Robin Hood II
Hednesford - Rugeley
Robin Hood III
Huddersfield - Halifax
Aylesbury - Aylesbury Vale
Kettering - Corby
Bicester - Aylesbury Vale

All of which lose cash. Except the last one, which will make money (probably), albeit at the cost of reducing the money made on the existing Oxford - London route.

 

[yorksrob]

For starters...

Snow Hill - Smethwick
Robin Hood II
Robin Hood III
Huddersfield - Halifax
Aylesbury - Aylesbury Vale
Kettering - Corby
Bicester - Aylesbury Vale

All of which lose cash. Except the last one, which will make money (probably), albeit at the cost of reducing the money made on the existing Oxford - London route.

Too little, too late IMO. We've had fifteen years in which passenger usage has apparently doubled. A pathetic lack of progress in that context.

 

[The Planner]

Chase Line, or do semantics over it being freight only not count.

 

[Bald Rick]

Chase Line, or do semantics over it being freight only not count.

Good point! Edited accordingly.

(Almost all the Welsh re openings and many Scottish routes were freight only, yes they do count).

 

[al.currie93]

I agree with this so much. We're paying well over the odds once in our fares and a second time from tax revenue and are getting solid mediocrity in return. £9billion in fares we paid last year, that must be able to yeild better results than we are currently getting.

I agree too, our railways seem obscenely expensive. Personally I believe that at least one major contributor to this is the fragmentation of the system; I'd hate to think of what the cost of the bureaucracy that is required to keep such a fragmented system operational is!

New Sunday service? Loses money
Additional late night services? Loses money
Extra frequency off peak? loses money
HS1? Loses money
All the reopened lines? lose money
Open every station first till last and have much higher standards of customer info / care like London Overground? Loses pots of money.

At the same time, the standards expected of the railway have increased considerably. Vastly improved safety has come at a price (quite necessarily) both in terms of upfront cost and maintenance. The quantity of renewal work being delivered is roughly double what it was 20 years ago, and it is all done in a much stricter workforce safety environment.

And finally, most of those working on the railway get paid much more than they did in 1994 allowing for inflation.

True that these account for extra costs, but (only considered simply) if passenger numbers have doubled since BR then revenue should have too. I can't believe that the above alone account for all the extra revenue that the railways are taking in now.

 

[67018]

Well yes, but the country is getting a lot more railway than it did in the 80s and 90s.

There are a lot of services that operate now that did not operate back then, and pretty much all of them lose money on a pure commercial basis.

New Sunday service? Loses money
Additional late night services? Loses money
Extra frequency off peak? loses money
HS1? Loses money
All the reopened lines? lose money
Open every station first till last and have much higher standards of customer info / care like London Overground? Loses pots of money.

At the same time, the standards expected of the railway have increased considerably. Vastly improved safety has come at a price (quite necessarily) both in terms of upfront cost and maintenance. The quantity of renewal work being delivered is roughly double what it was 20 years ago, and it is all done in a much stricter workforce safety environment.

And finally, most of those working on the railway get paid much more than they did in 1994 allowing for inflation.

But those funding the railways have decided that these are all the right things to do for the country. Or at least they did decide. They may change their minds.

Excellent post - can we make this a 'sticky' on every thread where this discussion breaks out?

Regardless of anyone's views on nationalisation, the BR era is ancient history and so much has changed that any comparison is going to be arguable.

I don't buy the 'fragmentation' argument either. Many organisations manage perfectly well with far more contractual interfaces and complex supply chains, often spanning multiple languages, time zones and legal jurisdictions.

It all seems to boil down to:
- Nobody foresaw the massive increase in rail usage from the mid-90s - a result of numerous factors including road transport reaching saturation point, changes in employment patterns, house price inflation and growing environmental awareness
- Reacting to that increase is hard because building new railways takes a long time and costs a lot of money. This, like building anything in this country, is due to planning laws, high standards of safety and high cost of skilled workers (yes, China can do it quicker because they don't mind more fatalities, including any NIMBYs that get in the way)
- Changing things causes short term disruption and pain, and mitigating that means even more expense and longer timescales. The trade off is difficult as there are no pain-free answers (see the 'London Bridge' thread...)

I don't doubt that Network Rail could improve its performance, but anyone who thinks there is a quick fix is likely to be disappointed.

 

[HH]

Excellent post - can we make this a 'sticky' on every thread where this discussion breaks out?

Regardless of anyone's views on nationalisation, the BR era is ancient history and so much has changed that any comparison is going to be arguable.

I don't buy the 'fragmentation' argument either. Many organisations manage perfectly well with far more contractual interfaces and complex supply chains, often spanning multiple languages, time zones and legal jurisdictions.

It all seems to boil down to:
- Nobody foresaw the massive increase in rail usage from the mid-90s - a result of numerous factors including road transport reaching saturation point, changes in employment patterns, house price inflation and growing environmental awareness
- Reacting to that increase is hard because building new railways takes a long time and costs a lot of money. This, like building anything in this country, is due to planning laws, high standards of safety and high cost of skilled workers (yes, China can do it quicker because they don't mind more fatalities, including any NIMBYs that get in the way)
- Changing things causes short term disruption and pain, and mitigating that means even more expense and longer timescales. The trade off is difficult as there are no pain-free answers (see the 'London Bridge' thread...)

I don't doubt that Network Rail could improve its performance, but anyone who thinks there is a quick fix is likely to be disappointed.

This is an excellent post as well.

Think about roads; lots of good parallels there. Much more spent on them than rail, but the proportion of new roads is equally small. They certainly are not vertically integrated. Do they cost more than they used to? You betcha.

Not just the railways; the UK has changed in the last 20 years. Just ask London about bus usage...

 

[transmanche]

Not just the railways; the UK has changed in the last 20 years. Just ask London about bus usage...

I see that London now accounts for more than 50% of all bus journeys in England.

Source

 

[Robertj21a]

I see that London now accounts for more than 50% of all bus journeys in England.

Source

Not really surprising given the vast amounts of money spent subsidising it. The rest of the country is left to cope with largely commercial services.

 

[WatcherZero]

13p per passenger journey in rural areas
8.6p per passenger journey in metropolitan areas
16p per journey from TFL plus 1.8p from national government in Greater London.

Figures include investment in infrastructure (bus stations, bus stops, bus lanes, etc...) outside London as well as operating services, Dft doesn't separate the two. Average of 6.3p per journey nationally is via BSOG.

As of year ending March 2014

 

[transmanche]

Not really surprising given the vast amounts of money spent subsidising it. The rest of the country is left to cope with largely commercial services.

13p per passenger journey in rural areas
8.6p per passenger journey in metropolitan areas
16p per journey from TFL plus 1.8p from national government in Greater London.

Figures include investment in infrastructure (bus stations, bus stops, bus lanes, etc...) outside London as well as operating services, Dft doesn't separate the two. Average of 6.3p per journey nationally is via BSOG.

As of year ending March 2014

And if you look at the total government support per passenger journey the difference is even starker:

English Metropolitan Areas = 50.7p
English Non-Metropolitan Areas = 66.3p
London = 34.7p

Total net government support per passenger journey 2013/2014 (comprising Public Transport Support, Bus Service Operators Grant and Concessionary Travel Reimbursement).

Source: DfT