If DFT didn't meddle (who would be winners/ losers)

[tbtc]

One of the most common reasons/ excuses for TOCs problems is that the Department for Transport have micro-meddled, whcih has imposed such strict conditions on TOCs that there is no room for manouvre (and they are stuck with the stock they have).

But, if they didn't do this, who would the biggest winners and losers be? For example, Northern have benefitted as they have the 158 centre cars from EMT due to DFT "orders"... but Northern have lost out as they've had to loan a few of their 158s to Scotrail.

If the TOCs were able to get on with their own business, then who would be the biggest winner/ loser?

 

[First class]

Personally I belive that the Merseyrail franchise should never have devolved to the Merseyside PTE, (Merseytravel).

I think the 507s and 508s would have or nearly would have been withdrawn. The PTE is now expecting these units to do 50 years of service because they don't have access to the same sort of funding as the DfT.

Additionally, the state of Merseyrail's underground stations has not improved for some time. Whether the DfT could have done anything about this is debatable, but the PTE certainly can't do it.

OK, so they got a long franchise, but all the benefits about the TOC being able to invest in their network- we're still waiting. They refurbished the train sets, (with PTE money), and built these new 'MtoGo' ticket offices, widely with other parties money. They're yet to take on any major risk themselves, despite a very lengthy franchise. In fact, despite a lot of criticism of Arriva Trains Merseyside, it has been strongly suggested that they were indeed the ones who masterminded the refurbishment programme, and then lost the franchise, with Merseyrail simply making themselves out to be the hero with regards to the 'improved trains'.

I believe that TOCs would still fail to invest proper funds into their network if they were allowed to do their own thing. In fact, many would probably make even more cuts, particularly to routes that do not make profit and the 'parly' trains would certainly stop.

 

[Old Timer]

If the TOCs were able to get on with their own business, then who would be the biggest winner/ loser?

Both the Industry and the passenger.

What we need is LESS interference from Government Ministers, placemen, and incompetent Civil Servants meddling with matters they are not qualified or competent to judge, and which they do not understand in any case.

The Privatised Railway now runs under commercial constraints and dictats that Civil Servants have never had any exposure to, and indeed were they competent to manage in that environment they would have been learning large sums of money in the Private sector.

 

[Metroland]

What is needed is a complete root and branch review of the whole industry and the most cost effective system possible needs to be put in (without political dogma) that takes into account steady long term investment.

It needs to make public transport more attractive to help with congestion and other social aims. It also needs to strip out overmanagement from within and outside the industry. More managers and civil servants are not the answer, more passengers, freight and professionalisation of staff, coupled with lower costs is.

 

[yorksrob]

I think what the railway is lacking most of all is a central management. Someone who can direct the railway in terms of operational decision making and mediate between the needs of it's different parts before it gets to departmental level.

 

[Oswyntail]

Both the Industry and the passenger.

What we need is LESS interference from Government Ministers, placemen, and incompetent Civil Servants meddling with matters they are not qualified or competent to judge, and which they do not understand in any case.

The Privatised Railway now runs under commercial constraints and dictats that Civil Servants have never had any exposure to, and indeed were they competent to manage in that environment they would have been learning large sums of money in the Private sector.

Wrong on so many levels. Yes, there should be less interference from anyone who is incompetent - and that includes some of the current railway management teams. But Civil Servants are remarkably competent, particularly at understanding new requirements, and many deliberately choose to take the lesser paid posts because they believe in public service. Many are actually also experienced in their specialist areas, and have either transferred across by choice or have been seconded. And i do love the idea of the "commercial constraints" - yeh, those where the parent company cannot really make a loss because the DfT will pick up the tab.
Where one of the biggest problems actually lies is in the split between operations and infrastructure. This has traditionally been a source of friction, but, in BR and previously, there has always been a company board above the warring parties willing and able to knock heads together. That is not there these days. If (as the tread asks) the DfT did not "meddle" then, IMHO, this war would get worse and everyone would lose

 

[Bellwater]

Well for a start, Northern wouldn't get the favouritism they are getting now, running 158s on half-empty Yorkshire Services whilst EMT are forced to put a 153 on a peak time Matlock/Crewe.

 

[Old Timer]

Oswyntail
Firstly remember it is good fun to be controversial at times ! Why do you always defend Civil Servants ? Some dark secret in the family ?

Civil Servants effectively have a job for life in much of their Empire and if you recall "Yes Minister" it was definitely accepted by the Civil Service especially that how it was portrayed was extremely accurate. We are not talikng about front line Civil Servants (are there any these days ?) but with those who occupy the various backroom posts in the various Departments.

The Civil Service has never been known for commercial acumen nor for making brave or informed decisions which import risk. Progression within it is based upon fitting in and not taking chances. Every decision has to be the "safe" one. You only have to read the Press daily almost to see examples of poor and maladministration in everything from the Fraud Office to the MOD, Prison Cervice, Home Office (not fit for purpose as famously expressed). These are all examples of the Civil Service in operation.

Whilst in some cases I was impressed by what the various Country Desk Officers used to be able to bring to the party at the old Dept of Trade and Industry in terms of knowledge and business contacts, you could still see a large amount of sedentary administration, and people who could not see the Commercial imperative.

However can you honestly say that much of what the DfT has done has been beneficial to the Railways ?




Metroland / yorksrob
I fully agree that what we need is a major step change in the way the Industry is both structured, run and Regulated. This will NOT happen under Labour who regard the Industry as simply an extension of the Treasury. I doubt the incoming Conservative Government will have much room for manouvre in the first few years, so radical change is not going to be on the cards for a little while yet I fear.

 

[glynn80]

Oswyntail
Civil Servants effectively have a job for life in much of their Empire and if you recall "Yes Minister" it was definitely accepted by the Civil Service especially that how it was portrayed was extremely accurate. We are not talikng about front line Civil Servants (are there any these days ?) but with those who occupy the various backroom posts in the various Departments.

Whilst Yes Minister was commended for its accurate portrayal of the higher echelons of the Civil Service, it was portraying the Civil Service of 30 years ago. The Civil Service reforms of the 1980s have removed most of the clout of powerful civil servants like Sir Humphrey and therefore the caricature of the civil service in Yes Minister is now for the most part out-of date.

The Civil Service has never been known for commercial acumen nor for making brave or informed decisions which import risk. Progression within it is based upon fitting in and not taking chances. Every decision has to be the "safe" one. You only have to read the Press daily almost to see examples of poor and maladministration in everything from the Fraud Office to the MOD, Prison Cervice, Home Office (not fit for purpose as famously expressed). These are all examples of the Civil Service in operation.

Certainly within the DfT, I have the impression the opposite is the case with regard to brave decisions. It seems that it is in the most part, the ministers that refuse to make the sensible informed decision because it is not politically acceptable for whatever reason.

 

[Waverley125]

Well for a start, Northern wouldn't get the favouritism they are getting now, running 158s on half-empty Yorkshire Services whilst EMT are forced to put a 153 on a peak time Matlock/Crewe.

would these be the same yorkshire services where its often hard to get on the train, let alone get a seat? the same Northern that's got double-digit passenger growth?

 

[Burkitt]

The first round of franchises, commencing in the mid 1990s, had much less micro-management by DfT. Were they any better than the current generation? Connex for one had both of its franchises terminated early due to poor performance, and other operators were also pretty poor.
The problem is that the electorate hold the government responsible for the performance of the railways, so they can't just leave them to the franchise holders' initiative if they want to get re-elected.

 

[merlodlliw]

One of the most common reasons/ excuses for TOCs problems is that the Department for Transport have micro-meddled, whcih has imposed such strict conditions on TOCs that there is no room for manouvre (and they are stuck with the stock they have).

Interesting points you make TBTC.

We now have it from Chairman of passenger focus, they are now obliged to
canvass,passengers & Local Groups before any new TOC can be licensed, this info is to be passed to DFT(and WAG if in the all Wales franchise areas).
Previous no passenger comment was ever sought by DFT in their dealings cloaked in secrecy.As for civil Servants, a few need to read the book of common sense, no growth comes to mind.

M

 

[tbtc]

Well for a start, Northern wouldn't get the favouritism they are getting now, running 158s on half-empty Yorkshire Services whilst EMT are forced to put a 153 on a peak time Matlock/Crewe.

True. But, as I said, whilst Northern received the middle cars for the 158s, they also lost a few 158s to Scotrail, so are they a net winner or a net loser from DFT's involvement?

(genuine question, I can't remember how many coaches/ units we are talking about)

 

[Oswyntail]

...
Certainly within the DfT, I have the impression the opposite is the case with regard to brave decisions. It seems that it is in the most part, the ministers that refuse to make the sensible informed decision because it is not politically acceptable for whatever reason.

Same is true of Health (That give you a clue, OT? )

 

[Royston Vasey]

would these be the same yorkshire services where its often hard to get on the train, let alone get a seat? the same Northern that's got double-digit passenger growth?

Add to that by far the largest Pacer fleet in the country!

Wouldn't the Voyagers and 185s have been extended by now?

All this costs money however and I fear that without interference (i.e. regulation) of fares, they'd be higher than they are now to pay for all this.

 

[route:oxford]

Wouldn't the Voyagers and 185s have been extended by now?

Would the voyagers have been so short in the first place?

 

[Snapper]

Would the voyagers have been so short in the first place?

Yes, because that decision was made long before the DfT got involved. That decision was more about the business case that could justify ordering a whole new train fleet.

 

[Burkitt]

Wouldn't the Voyagers and 185s have been extended by now?

Nope, because it's the DfT that provides the money to Cross Country and Trans Pennine that would pay for the stock. They didn't give them the money, so there's no new stock.

 

[northwichcat]

Well for a start, Northern wouldn't get the favouritism they are getting now, running 158s on half-empty Yorkshire Services whilst EMT are forced to put a 153 on a peak time Matlock/Crewe.

Explain. In the last few months of the Central Trains franchise (after CT got some old TPE 158s) almost all Liverpool-Norwich services were 3 car or doubled up 2 cars with a few exceptions. Now about half are 2 car, so that is where the 158 centre cars have directly come from.

While the 158 centre cars were intended for York-Blackpool they actually seem to be used on Leeds-Nottingham services more now (Is Nottingham not in the East Midlands?)

The main reason for 153s on Crewe-Matlock is that London Midland are now using 170s on routes where a 150 or a 153 could be used, such as the service through Hednesford.

 

[dfishw]

i think it would be worse actually! TOC will only run services that generate big profit so where as trains to london wil do well, many local services would be scrapped as they are actually subsidised by govt. In nottingham (where i live) all london and birmingham trains would be fine but you would probably lose all trains to worksop, matlock and possibly skegness and lincoln forcing people to travel by car or change more then already. I dont know what would happen to the cross country network and other long distance services in the uk, suspect it would get scrapped meaning that if you wanted to go plymouth to edinb (for example) you'd have to change at birmnigham whereas now you can do it direct.

 

[fgwrich]

Explain. In the last few months of the Central Trains franchise (after CT got some old TPE 158s) almost all Liverpool-Norwich services were 3 car or doubled up 2 cars with a few exceptions. Now about half are 2 car, so that is where the 158 centre cars have directly come from.

While the 158 centre cars were intended for York-Blackpool they actually seem to be used on Leeds-Nottingham services more now (Is Nottingham not in the East Midlands?)

The main reason for 153s on Crewe-Matlock is that London Midland are now using 170s on routes where a 150 or a 153 could be used, such as the service through Hednesford.

I belive the 3rd coach from the ex TPE 158s were swapped between Northern Rail and East Midlands Trains for extra Class 153s, northern wanted the 3rd coach and i belive EMT were after more 153s, so the swap was also agreed with the leaser…

Also, I remain mixed about the DFT and its ‘wonderfull’ micromanagement of franchises…

FGW Would still be running largely the ex Wessex fleet and wouldn’t be needing to hire in LHCS, but the failure that is National Express would still no doubt somehow, be running the east coast.

 

[Metroland]

Micromanagement, like all red tape, occurs because of lack of trust. The Government simply doesn't trust the private rail companies to deliver rail services not helped by the short term franchises where there is little reason to invest.

This is what happens when government is run through the media, and takes political decisions to appease the public based on perception rather than reality. They get so worried about train services which run 90% plus on time, and the odd train accident (even though rail is the safest form of transport), this is the principal reason for the bureaucracy driven by bad headlines. If it was run on an evidence based approach other transport would be far more regulated, because it consistently fails to deliver the service, punctuality and safety rail does.

It's the lack of personal and corporate responsibility that is actually the cause of many of the problems in society, and throwing money at it and top down management very often doesn't change a thing. Longer term what's needed is cultural change.