Why do so many people moan about the uk rail network?

[Snapper]

Improve efficiency, dont think that one has worked, look at hull trains, a dedicated service which has to have a spare unit meaning 20% of the fleet lying idle, not very efficient. Under a nationalised operation spare stock would be available for which ever service it was suitable and was needed.Things were far from fine under BR but they could have been improved, instead past goverments sold the family silver

BR had little spare stock due to rationalisation. But your argument is contradictory - you can't complain about efficiency and not enough 'spare stock' at the same time.

 

[43021HST]

After just getting back from the best day ive ever had on the uk rail network today i am thinking to myself why do so many people moan about it?

I have travelled on 5 TOC with no problems at all and no delays at all and on 1 TOC the train run early(guess which TOC that was!!!)

Yes sometimes there are problems but hey there are worse pubic services out there.

Today the sun was out and all staff were great and all had a smile.

All staff do a great job from the drivers to the ticket office staff and the staff who clean up after us(we all seem to forget the staff who clean up all sorts of stuff after us)

By the way i dont work for any TOC.

Because us British like to moan but its not a bad rail system compared to other countrys but we could do a lot better.

 

[delt1c]

BR had little spare stock due to rationalisation. But your argument is contradictory - you can't complain about efficiency and not enough 'spare stock' at the same time.

Sorry but i think you can, under BR the spare stock requiered was less than under privatisation as it had more uses. Example prior to th new Great Eastern franchise both first GE and natex needed spare 315's, now with a bigger franchise less spare stock.
Also under BR if a loco failed prior to departure a replacement (not always the most suitable but a replacement) was found. I have known a service scheduled for a deltic leaving Edinburgh behind a 40 and getting a Deltic at Newcastle. Now if a 91 fails at Edinburgh chances are the service will be cancelled. Therefore spare stock can lead to efficiency. What I was reffering to is that more spare stock is requiered under privatisation , but in reality we have less.
Efficiency can be looked at from 2 sides, the profit for the shareholder or the efficiency of the service for the passenger.

 

[merlodlliw]

Anyhow, I note the point about crying out for four tracks, here in North Wales
we used to have 4 tracks between Junction & Colwyn, Rhyl & Chester etc. Now all are two track.

Due to politics, we have Wrexham to Chester single track where all the
main population lives to save a mere £165K , yet we have the line Junction to Llandudno double track, no complaint about that, but it feeds a small seaside resort, the single line to Wrexham is run to capacity, all talk of dynamic curves etc is on the back burner, some parts are excellent on the rails, some parts are like third world countries, thats my moan out of the way.

 

[gordonthemoron]

at least the track condition is somewhat better than Poland

 

[me123]

I think Wales is one of the places that's crying out for investment. Where there is investment, such as the WAG express, it doesn't appear to be worthwhile. Am I right in assuming that the Welsh Assembly has the same responsibilities as the Scottish Parliament? If so, maybe they should take a leaf out of our book.

I can see that Wales desperately needs investment in rolling stock (153s on the Heart of Wales line is diabolical) and in infrastructure as you've suggested.

 

[Metroland]

Most of the moaning comes from the press. Unfortunately bad news sells, good news does not. If the railways were that bad, they wouldn't have growing passenger numbers. But people like to exaggerate things out of all proportion, such as expensive fares.

For example according to the head of Virgin Trains, only 5% of people are paying the expensive tickets quoted by the press, often businessmen on expenses. The vast majority (around 80%) are travelling on reduced rate or advance tickets. I came back from Birmingham on Sunday for just £7 to London, which compared well with my bus ticket (frequently held up as a cheap form of transport) which was £4.10 for 8 miles. The average rail fare BTW is around £4.50.

It's not to say that the railways haven't got challenges. The West coast main line upgrade did an enormous amount of damage to the industry over questions of value for money. And looking at the WCML over the weekend, there is still an amazing about of work to do, with much 60s signalling remaining in the West Midlands, Stafford, Crewe, Bletchley, Watford Junction, Macclesfield, Stockport areas. The bottlenecks of Birmingham New Street, Stafford, Crewe still remain, and much of the line north of Weaver junction is as it was, save a few line speed upgrades (often by selective track replacement and moving the odd signal). The French built a whole HSL for 1/3 of the cost.

I would say roots of the problems are in political interference and red tape rather than a problem with the system itself. If that wasn't the case, the two countries with the biggest rail use in China and India wouldn't have that crown as wages are generally a fraction compared to here.

Timekeeping, certainly the railways have the best record, a very unreported fact and generally they have the best customer satisfaction too. Upwards of 80%, whereas some quite famous transport concerns its nearer 50%.

The two challengers for the future remain PR (getting their message across which they do VERY badly) and costs.

That said, its often referred as the railways costs billions as if cost are way above anything else. IT databases (a bunch of code) is also costed in billions, and we spend around £250 billion on the road system per year in terms of vehicles, running costs, insurance and so on. Total revenue for the passenger rail system (including subsidy) is about the same as Tescos for 1 week, or British Airways for a year, an airline with the same number of passengers as Mersey Rail. So we're not spending the huge amount of money people think, indeed, even someone as pro rail as me, has probably spent 25 times more on cars than train tickets! tut tut!

 

[Snapper]

Sorry but i think you can, under BR the spare stock requiered was less than under privatisation as it had more uses. Example prior to th new Great Eastern franchise both first GE and natex needed spare 315's, now with a bigger franchise less spare stock.
Also under BR if a loco failed prior to departure a replacement (not always the most suitable but a replacement) was found. I have known a service scheduled for a deltic leaving Edinburgh behind a 40 and getting a Deltic at Newcastle. Now if a 91 fails at Edinburgh chances are the service will be cancelled. Therefore spare stock can lead to efficiency. What I was reffering to is that more spare stock is requiered under privatisation , but in reality we have less.
Efficiency can be looked at from 2 sides, the profit for the shareholder or the efficiency of the service for the passenger.

Sorry, but none of this stacks up.

Take the analogy of 315s Even BR had sectors and stock which was hardly universal (such as 315s).

As for if a 91 fails - it doesn't mean a train will be cancelled. The locos might well be swapped round or even a whole set 'stepped up' There are maintenance spares around. But the privatised companies are much better at using their assets than BR was.

I really don't see how you work out that more spare stock is required now - especially if you look at modern reliability compared to BR days. Many BR locos had a reliability of around 70% - which is a heck of a lot less than now. So BR had a lot of kit sitting around in bits earning nothing but costing a lot. That's certainly not true today.

Going back to the 91 analogy. Just by better utilisation of stock (and reliability improvements) GNER wass able to run twice as many services with the same fleet as BR was.

 

[delt1c]

Sorry, but none of this stacks up.

Take the analogy of 315s Even BR had sectors and stock which was hardly universal (such as 315s).

As for if a 91 fails - it doesn't mean a train will be cancelled. The locos might well be swapped round or even a whole set 'stepped up' There are maintenance spares around. But the privatised companies are much better at using their assets than BR was.

I really don't see how you work out that more spare stock is required now - especially if you look at modern reliability compared to BR days. Many BR locos had a reliability of around 70% - which is a heck of a lot less than now. So BR had a lot of kit sitting around in bits earning nothing but costing a lot. That's certainly not true today.

Going back to the 91 analogy. Just by better utilisation of stock (and reliability improvements) GNER wass able to run twice as many services with the same fleet as BR was.

I am reffring to when BR was 1 unit, pre sectorisation. The good old days when even double headed 20's were used on Inter City, I know it happened I was there. sectorisation was a pre lude to privatisation.
Some areas are suitable for privatistion, but not utilities or infastructure.

 

[The Planner]

Due to politics, we have Wrexham to Chester single track where all the
main population lives to save a mere £165K , yet we have the line Junction to Llandudno double track, no complaint about that, but it feeds a small seaside resort, the single line to Wrexham is run to capacity, all talk of dynamic curves etc is on the back burner, some parts are excellent on the rails, some parts are like third world countries, thats my moan out of the way.

Where does that figure come and info come from ?? How does the single line save £165K ?? Ive said in the past that the improvement scheme for the single line is at a fairly advanced stage with a final option decided by the end of the year. The WAG has ringfenced the cash for it.

 

[daccer]

I worked for BR in the 80's and despite it being run into the ground to save money it had very under used assets. there is some sort of misconception that BR was some sort of utopian railway running a system on a shoestring. It was basically managing the decline of the network in a methodical way. The workign conditions were entrenched in the fabric of the company and were prohibitively expensive to administer with jobs for life being the norm.

I worked at Leciester TOPS office and even at a small depot I was amazed at the kit and drivers that stood with little or no work. BR was designed to keep costs down whilst the railways withered to become a suburban network based around London with a very basic inter city system. There was little innovation or panache about anything done at BR and so much time was spent on penny pinching that the bigger pictures tended to go unnoticed.

the privatised railway is not by any means perfect. I dont think there will ever be a railway that is perfect. People point to Japan as being sujch a wonderful example of how to run a network but this was a country where people were employed to ram commuters onto rush hour trains. Try that here and youd get a good beating! Surely we must acknowledge that things are getting better, slowly maybe, but definitely better. Under BR things were going down the drain - we can pretend otherwise but it was a dismal company as most nationalised companies are and was a product of the time. I dont think BR could have been an expansionist business as it was simply not in the company's ethos and in a period of growth BR would probably have stifled the optimism gthat currently abounds.

 

[merlodlliw]

Where does that figure come and info come from ?? How does the single line save £165K ?? Ive said in the past that the improvement scheme for the single line is at a fairly advanced stage with a final option decided by the end of the year. The WAG has ringfenced the cash for it.

Well you forget, the line was singled due to the Wrexham to Chester by pass
and to leave the line doubled would cost an extra £165K to put up a double track bridge and underpass on the new bypass, the decision was taken to single the line to save this £165K by Clwyd County Coun cil(now gone thank
God) and National Govt.

As for ring fencing the money, then why as it gone all quiet,when the current move is to get all work possible going, why is there not a move,and who is ring fencing the money? and can it be trusted to ring fence it, and what gives you such trust in WAG to spend in North East Wales with as you say final decision at the end of the year, what is this final decision

 

[Snapper]

I am reffring to when BR was 1 unit, pre sectorisation. The good old days when even double headed 20's were used on Inter City, I know it happened I was there. sectorisation was a pre lude to privatisation.
Some areas are suitable for privatistion, but not utilities or infastructure.

Hardly 'good old days' from an operating perspective when you had to use two locomotives (ie twice the cost) just to haul one train.The reason you could was because a lot of the time they'd be sat around doing nothing.

Take a look at this picture as it's a graphic illustration:

http://www.paulbigland.fotopic.net/p6734286.html

To an enthusiast its a lovely picture. For the railways its a nightmare - lots of expensive assets sitting round costing money instead of earning it. It's a sight you won't see in many parets of the UK now because fleet utilisation is so much higher.

On that vein, you also fail to deal with my point about the 91s and the difference between BR and GNER.

I'm afraid your final quote makes no sense at all. The railways have proved that privatisation will worl perfectly well. Not just here but in Europe too.

 

[87015]

Take a look at this picture as it's a graphic illustration:

http://www.paulbigland.fotopic.net/p6734286.html

What time and day of week is that taken? Looks like a bunch of duffs between parcels duties and electrics spare off liner traffic. Still get the latter in Basford Hall, must be a good chance some of the cans in that phot are sitting there now....

Don't really see how locos between diagrams extolls privatisation, EWS have cut things so tight trains are reputedly cancelled on a fairly regular basis due to lack of available engines.

 

[merlodlliw]

I think Wales is one of the places that's crying out for investment. Where there is investment, such as the WAG express, it doesn't appear to be worthwhile. Am I right in assuming that the Welsh Assembly has the same responsibilities as the Scottish Parliament? If so, maybe they should take a leaf out of our book.

I can see that Wales desperately needs investment in rolling stock (153s on the Heart of Wales line is diabolical) and in infrastructure as you've suggested.

Yes same responsibilites, as for the Wag Express,a pure political move,it is called the one Wales Express, a total joke,but hey we are in a resession so
WAG Minister Ieuan Wyn Jones in Charge of Rail in Wales can find £2M to send an extra train to Crewe, first class with a diner, no one on the ground
employed by ATW seems to have a good word for it.

 

[Snapper]

What time and day of week is that taken? Looks like a bunch of duffs between parcels duties and electrics spare off liner traffic. Still get the latter in Basford Hall, must be a good chance some of the cans in that phot are sitting there now....

It was a Saturday. The point is that Crewe looked like that most days of the week. The holding sidings were always full of locos with nothing to do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't really see how locos between diagrams extolls privatisation, EWS have cut things so tight trains are reputedly cancelled on a fairly regular basis due to lack of available engines.

- and Freightliner and GBRf?

The fleets are better utilised than in the days of BR. And reliability is better so fewer locos are needed (or are sitting around under repair). All of this makes a nonsense of the idea that the privatised railways need a bigger fleet.

 

[clagmonster]

It is a fact of more modern locos that reliability and availability will be higher. When BR introduced the class 60s, I am quite sure that there will have been less new locos introduced than there were old ones replaced. Similar at the end of steam.
As for 91s on the ECML, at the time of introduction there wasn't the demand for all these extra services. Indeed, at times I am not sure there is demand for the full half-hourly Leeds services, having seen some of the loadings.
It is probable that BR would have conducted at heavy overhaul on the 91s, whether this would have included the reliability mods we will never know.
As for the loco borrowing, I believe it is also less know, not only because there aren't the spare locos available all the time, but with increasing numbers of multiple units with different couplings and/or different electrical systems, it simply isn't physically possible. In the Virmin days before introduction of units, freight locos regularly worked on both cross country and west coast services. That was hiring of locos between two private companies, and it worked, regularly.

 

[The Planner]

As for ring fencing the money, then why as it gone all quiet,when the current move is to get all work possible going, why is there not a move,and who is ring fencing the money? and can it be trusted to ring fence it, and what gives you such trust in WAG to spend in North East Wales with as you say final decision at the end of the year, what is this final decision

It all goes quiet as NR have to finalise the various options for the scheme which are evaluated on their merits and long term benefits, it then goes through to a final option to be progressed which wont be until the end of the year. All schemes within NR are progressed in this manner, no matter what they are, a simple IB signal to a massive scheme such as Reading.

 

[Snapper]

That was hiring of locos between two private companies, and it worked, regularly.

You forget to mention why Virgin had to hire in locos - because the 47s had appalling reliability and should have been pensioned off before. This led to a lot of cancellations.

A problem they no longer have.

Hardly a great advert for BR.

 

[clagmonster]

Indeed. We will never know what BR, or even a different private company would have done. I suspect that in any case, especially given BRs methods of sprinterisation and fixed formation rakes something similar would have happened here. The 47s did need replacing, but I would be far happer if it was by something better than the DMUs we know have. And I mean better in the sense of being more comfortable, not having the stench from the toilets, less/no rattling from the underfloor engines, and having sufficient capacity.
Anyhow, my point about the hire ins was merely that they were possible, and I am sure could be today, if there was compatible stock around and a requirement.

 

[asylumxl]

The 47s did need replacing, but I would be far happer if it was by something better than the DMUs we know have. And I mean better in the sense of being more comfortable, not having the stench from the toilets, less/no rattling from the underfloor engines, and having sufficient capacity.
Anyhow, my point about the hire ins was merely that they were possible, and I am sure could be today, if there was compatible stock around and a requirement.

Which DMUs are you referring to? Stinky toilets makes me think Voyager. If you mean the 22x they are DEMUs. I might be getting the wrong end of the stick anyway. As far as the 22x series goes, the 222 was a big improvement from the 220/221 and the 180 is also a decent train. They just need to be in longer formations.

 

[87015]

You forget to mention why Virgin had to hire in locos - because the 47s had appalling reliability and should have been pensioned off before. This led to a lot of cancellations.

A problem they no longer have.

Hardly a great advert for BR.

And if BR/Sectorisation had had billions thrown at it like VXC etc has, the 47s probably would have been pensioned off long before. Its not as though XC has a spectacularly high PPM these days either.

The 47s, 86s and Mk2s were knackered, I rarely see any sane denial of that, but what came afterwards could, IMO at least, have been so much better. The minibus thepry didn't work for buses and hasn't worked on railways. I certainly don't think hourly Voyagers leaving Euston with about 20% loading north of MK is a success and quality use of a WCML path.

 

[Metroland]

Though money never would be thrown at it - Treasury rules.

 

[Snapper]

And if BR/Sectorisation had had billions thrown at it like VXC etc has, the 47s probably would have been pensioned off long before. Its not as though XC has a spectacularly high PPM these days either.

Err, XC hasn't had 'billions' thrown at it. And Their PPM is higher than it's ever been (and miles better than BR days).

 

[merlodlliw]

It all goes quiet as NR have to finalise the various options for the scheme which are evaluated on their merits and long term benefits, it then goes through to a final option to be progressed which wont be until the end of the year. All schemes within NR are progressed in this manner, no matter what they are, a simple IB signal to a massive scheme such as Reading.

All due respect,an expensive fiesability study by independent experts showed
the long term benefits of doubling some of the line, or all of it.

I do not have a lot of faith in some of the practices of Network Rail, who add
a massive 30 to 35% ,management charge to the cost, NR being the only
one to set costs,nothing learned it would seem about monopoly charges yet.

Anyhow with the recession now full blown and WAG having to face cuts, I do not have much faith in the ring fenced money strategy of the current WAG Govt, as they appear to be cutting ringed fences already, the longer NR take the more the money becomes at risk.

The old politicians of Clwyd County Council & Westminster robbed Wrexham
of its double track to save £165K 20 years ago, now it is £millions to put it
right, £27m was the last I heard, then we will have NRs management charge
on top.

Now if this was South Wales, work would be ongoing now, but we in the North East are of course forgotten by the WAG Govt.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
. I certainly don't think hourly Voyagers leaving Euston with about 20% loading north of MK is a success and quality use of a WCML path.[/QUOTE]

The Chester trains ex Euston, 20% loading is very generous, we hear reports
of less than ten on some voyagers ex Euston, with the majority getting on at Crewe as a local service to Chester.

The hourly service to Chester ex Euston, will it last.

 

[Snapper]

The Chester trains ex Euston, 20% loading is very generous, we hear reports of less than ten on some voyagers ex Euston, with the majority getting on at Crewe as a local service to Chester.

The hourly service to Chester ex Euston, will it last.

Hmm - it doesn't seem to be that bad. Here's one calling at Crewe on Sunday:

http://www.paulbigland.fotopic.net/p58140306.html

http://www.paulbigland.fotopic.net/p58165194.html

 

[The Planner]

All due respect,an expensive fiesability study by independent experts showed the long term benefits of doubling some of the line, or all of it.

I do not have a lot of faith in some of the practices of Network Rail, who add
a massive 30 to 35% ,management charge to the cost, NR being the only
one to set costs,nothing learned it would seem about monopoly charges yet.

Again, where is this info sourced from ?? All feasability studies would have been signed off by NR or Railtrack depending on who the incumbent was at the time. Ive seen what is proposed for the single line and the costs of it and it is what I have posted previously on the subject.

Id also ask for evidence of the 30-35% management charge that NR charge ?? so the £27-30 million the job will cost will rise to nearer £40 million because NR say so ?? and as for the monopoly, what nonsense, NR maintain and own the infrastructure so what else do you suggest ??
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Err, XC hasn't had 'billions' thrown at it. And Their PPM is higher than it's ever been (and miles better than BR days).

91.3% for period 1 and a MAA of 90.1%, even ATW are managing 95.5% for period 1 and a MAA of 93.2%

 

[merlodlliw]

Again, where is this info sourced from ?? All feasability studies would have been signed off by NR or Railtrack depending on who the incumbent was at the time. Ive seen what is proposed for the single line and the costs of it and it is what I have posted previously on the subject.

Id also ask for evidence of the 30-35% management charge that NR charge ?? so the £27-30 million the job will cost will rise to nearer £40 million because NR say so ?? and as for the monopoly, what nonsense, NR maintain and own the infrastructure so what else do you suggest ??
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The feasability study is a fact, it occured, is in the hands of the two County Councils,traith and I presume NR.

The management charge is typical of all Companies, where do I get the
amount from, have a look at the costings from NR for the Bidston to Wrexham
line electrification, double that of the estimate of Merseytravel.

OK who else but NR will do the job,there is no competition.

 

[alpha_9]

Hardly 'good old days' from an operating perspective when you had to use two locomotives (ie twice the cost) just to haul one train.The reason you could was because a lot of the time they'd be sat around doing nothing.

Take a look at this picture as it's a graphic illustration:

http://www.paulbigland.fotopic.net/p6734286.html

To an enthusiast its a lovely picture. For the railways its a nightmare - lots of expensive assets sitting round costing money instead of earning it. It's a sight you won't see in many parets of the UK now because fleet utilisation is so much higher.

On that vein, you also fail to deal with my point about the 91s and the difference between BR and GNER.

I'm afraid your final quote makes no sense at all. The railways have proved that privatisation will worl perfectly well. Not just here but in Europe too.

Well Snapper I have to say I am most impressed with this brand of indoctrination you like feed to us here and elsewhere. I'm surprised you haven't already considered the idea of a full time career as a PR spokesperson or spin doctor. You would have also done very well in writing such propaganda for certain regrimes we had back in the 1920's-1940's. Gobbels eat your heart out! :P.

Sorry I couldn't resist!^.

But seriously speaking purely from a passengers point of view, really all I care about is that whatever train I am on gets me from A to B and on time, the fare is sensible enough and being able to get a seat and not going to squashed in like a sardine. The last thing I am concerned as to type of train that it is or the operator might be.

 

[delt1c]

snapper ,you appear to have decided that you are correct and nothing will change your oppinion.
The economy of the nation is heavily reliant on the rail network, there for we need an efficient system, but that doesnt mean it has to be run at profit.
I understand that under BR there was waste , but under privatisation there is 1 major aim, Profit for the shareholder and the aim is to improve that profit year on year.
You quote a lot of figures, but as anyone knows figures can be made to say almost anything. Remember Beaching he managed to close many lines that should not have been closes using statistics (yes some had to close), what about the Settle and Carlisle when they tried to close that or thePennine route with the Tommies, .