The short-term future for rail in the UK

[daccer]

With the change in Govt there seems to be a prevailing feeling that things are going to change for the worse due in no small part to the loss of a very pro-rail transport minister. With a view to the pot being half full rather than half full I was hoping that we could maybe find some solutions that would keep the current state of rail expansion going whilst recognising the need for massive cost savings and fiscal prudence. It is so easy to just ring our hands and wail at the injustice of it all but it serves little purpose as the cuts are going to come.

here are some of my ideas for trying to ensure that we don't slip back to the dark days of the 70's and 80's when decline was the order of the day.

Apart from the current projects under way abandon or delay the mega projects which swallow up so much cash and take so long to complete. If we delay HS2 by 2/3 years will it make any real difference to the travelling public(we don't have it now so will we miss it if it is delayed). Divert a fraction of the cash that would have gone into HS in 2015/2016 into small scale reopenings/redoublings and electrification projects. There is more than one way to effect modal change.

Be creative with rolling stock. There is no doubt that DMU's are probably going to be a scarce commodity going forward especially if electrification is delayed. rather than waiting for the problem to occur and then worrying about it get ahead of the curve. We need to increase rail usage not curtail it by overpricing but rolling stock is expensive and lack of capacity will be an issue. I would suggest we look at LHCS now - MK2's are basically the only option and start planning for the day when we are going to have to use 67's and LHCS more widely or spend hundreds of millions on new units and /or electrification.

What we are talking about is cashflow. In the long term it is more expensive if the enhancements are delayed but there is a short term cashflow problem due to the debt mountain and we need to find ways of sustsaining growth without spending massive amounts now. I would suggest that some of CP4's work may hang over into CP5 and Thameslink etc may end up being another couple of years in completion.

Anyway your comments and suggestions on how we survive the funding blues would be appreciated as I worked for BR in the 80's and to see decline return to the railways would be a waste and a shame.

 

[Failed Unit]

Anyway your comments and suggestions on how we survive the funding blues would be appreciated as I worked for BR in the 80's and to see decline return to the railways would be a waste and a shame.

If a government can approve the replacement of the entire regional railways fleet and electrify a mainline in the 1980's, it sounds like we are worse of than in the 1980's

 

[merlodlliw]

It would seem any project, although approved, but not commenced on the railways in the UK with a cost of over say£10M or less, will be looked at again & many will be mothballed, or ditched.

A sad fact, but not unexpected.

 

[asylumxl]

It would seem any project, although approved, but not commenced on the railways in the UK with a cost of over say£10M or less, will be looked at again & many will be mothballed, or ditched.

A sad fact, but not unexpected.

Too true. I'd say that's the way of the Tories, but honestly it's the way of all 3 major parties.

 

[Oswyntail]

It would seem any project, although approved, but not commenced on the railways in the UK with a cost of over say£10M or less, will be looked at again & many will be mothballed, or ditched.

A sad fact, but not unexpected.

Too true. I'd say that's the way of the Tories, but honestly it's the way of all 3 major parties.

At the real heart of the problem has been the technique of the Labour government since 1997 to announce funding for projects with a big splash, but then cancel them with a much smaller splash a little time later, and reuse the funding without telling those engaged on the original project, which then continued.This was particularly the case in the NHS and was used to partly justify the claim of increased spending. I have seen ministers make two announcements on the same day committing the same pot of cash to two separate initiatives.

 

[Proud Salopian]

Can I remind people that it was the Tories who instigated HS1 & the Channel Tunnel, the DLR in London and the Manchester trams... amongst other projects in the 80s & 90s. Since 1997 Labour talked the talk but didn't really do much else. (Though I suppose they eventually got round to getting Crossrail going... ish.)

 

[mumrar]

Can I remind people that it was the Tories who instigated HS1 & the Channel Tunnel, the DLR in London and the Manchester trams... amongst other projects in the 80s & 90s. Since 1997 Labour talked the talk but didn't really do much else. (Though I suppose they eventually got round to getting Crossrail going... ish.)

Yes, but they also sold off the railways very cheap, to lots of companies that they themselves got in to. The claims were that privitisation would bring private sector investment (that'll be rolling stock, and that is 100% true) and private sector efficiencies! How by splitting up one body in to 27 (was it originally 24 TOCs, 2 FOCs and Railtrack?) going to do that, when each of those 27 bodies will want to make profit for themselves and their shareholders, rather than just one body doing the same??

 

[Proud Salopian]

The way privatisation was done was a shambles. But then it really could have been sorted out by Labour in their 13 years, which it wasn't (well, 20% maybe, but not fully). And privatisation in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, just the way it is done and run/regulated afterwards.

 

[A60K]

Yes, but they also sold off the railways very cheap, to lots of companies that they themselves got in to. The claims were that privitisation would bring private sector investment (that'll be rolling stock, and that is 100% true) and private sector efficiencies! How by splitting up one body in to 27 (was it originally 24 TOCs, 2 FOCs and Railtrack?) going to do that, when each of those 27 bodies will want to make profit for themselves and their shareholders, rather than just one body doing the same??

A lot more than 27 in fact - I believe it was around 95 companies. Even more 20% margins being paid for by the government and the passengers - boiling frogs galore.

 

[Drsatan]

Be creative with rolling stock. There is no doubt that DMU's are probably going to be a scarce commodity going forward especially if electrification is delayed. rather than waiting for the problem to occur and then worrying about it get ahead of the curve. We need to increase rail usage not curtail it by overpricing but rolling stock is expensive and lack of capacity will be an issue. I would suggest we look at LHCS now - MK2's are basically the only option and start planning for the day when we are going to have to use 67's and LHCS more widely or spend hundreds of millions on new units and /or electrification.

I agree with some posters on this forum who believe that around 70-80 Irish Rail Mk3s should be repatriated to the UK as a low-cost way of increasing capacity. However, this would be conditional on:

a) enough locos being available to haul them
b) enough drivers with the right traction and route knowledge to drive them
c) track access charges which make LCHS trains more expensive to run than MUs

If enough heads were banged together then LCHS trains might be used on routes with chronic overcrowding e.g. Liverpool-Norwich. Alternatively, keep on using LCHS trains on routes where they currently operate. For instance, FGW's 57/3 hauled Cardiff-Taunton trains are scheduled to stop running when the cascade of LOROL/LM 150s happens - why not keep them running (while returning the four 150s on loan from ATW) allowing more 150s to be used on Devon Metro services? Seems common-sensical to me, unless FGW doesn't want to pay higher track access charges.

If the DfT were to allow the order of 350s for Manchester Airport-Glasgow services, then 185s currently used on that route (entirely under the wires) could be cascaded onto Trans-Pennine services.

 

[moggie]

Like it or not what the last govenment did was complete the schemes put on the board by the previous government, What the tories are goood at is finnishing them off - for good!

West Coast cost the railways a packet but only after the scheme started by the tories imposed cost savings leading to a signalling system being specified that wasn't even invented - which millions of quid later was canned and replaced by a workable system that probaly cost a lot more than if the technology that was there and waiting (and still being specced for new works) was used from the start. The delay this imposed cost millions more in compensation to the TOC's and the manic delivery schedule for the re-scheduling of the works.

What the industry needs more than anything else is continuity of work to keep the teams in together with a steady workload. Boom and bust which we look like we're returning to if the major projects are cancelled or continually re-specified will once again lead to loss of skills and reduction in capability. When the work starts up again, as it must, the skills are in short supply and therefore at a premium which iin turn inflates costs and creates major inneficiencies - just like West Coast all over again. I agree HS2 is the luxury we can't afford just now.

I would imagine that GW electrification would also deal with many renewals - again like West Coast did. Unfortunately clapped out equipment doesn't go away just because the wires are cancelled - it will need big money to replace or keep patched up. Short term thinking - long term pain - again!

PS Labour may not have many big schemes to crow about but I've seen more S&C renewal works than at any time in recent years - just take a look at the shiny new / renwed junctions up and down the network.

 

[Failed Unit]

The way privatisation was done was a shambles. But then it really could have been sorted out by Labour in their 13 years, which it wasn't (well, 20% maybe, but not fully). And privatisation in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, just the way it is done and run/regulated afterwards.

Exactly. Not a single franchise from the 1990s exists today even Virgin could have been terminated while it was just a management contract. There is a lot of critism about network rail. Labour could have certain done more to reduce franchise numbers. Recreated regional railways. Ic etc? A lot of shambles gave taken place with good rolling stock in store for long periods while passengers stand. Again both parties have been as bad. Tories started the problem but labour haven't made it any better. Many argue it is worse now as franchises are too tightly specified.

It is also interesting that many times on this forum I see "without privatisation we would never have got the increased frequency on many routes like London to Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham" although that is a different debate you can't have it both ways.

Adonis was a good transport minister. We have had many bad one Darling and Byres spring to mind. Adonis would have been moved to a better post at some point.

 

[Old Timer]

Yes, but they also sold off the railways very cheap, to lots of companies that they themselves got in to.

THat is an inaccurate and somewhat disingenuous statement to make, Mumrar.

It is however what certain people, who have tried to rewrite history, would like you to believe.

Fistly, the value of the Railway assets was calculated by independent city institutions. Their valuation were un-deniably low HOWEVER they have to be seen against consistent and repeated statements from Bliar, Brown, Prescott, et al, even as late as the wek of the General Election that they would immediately re-nationalise without compensation. You can also check Hansard.

This was a cynical Political ploy, as it has now been proven, to keep the Railway Trade Unions "on-side" during the run up to the GE. You may or may not recall that within days Bliar was stating that Labour would NOT re-nationalise.

The impact of Labour's public stance on re-nationalisation was to put off a number of large Companies who were interested in the longer term outlook. Had they been in the game then I think things would look somewhat different now.

Instead if you take a look at those who took control of the various parts of BR, you will see a very unhealthy correlation between Labour Donors and supporters, who have since become extremely wealthy.

Those and gamblers who made a very quick profit indeed, became mmillionaires once Bliar admitted that re-nationalisation was off, and quickly sold off and buggered off

Some of the decisions of certain people and Companies at the time looked risky, with the hindsight of subsequent Labour corruption and illegalities, it all looks much different now and suggests a great deal.

You could also look at how Labour supporters were moved into key positions post the GE and during Bliar's time, even though they were manifestly incapable of managing their portfolio, and the outcome of their fiddling was to damage the Industry for generations. At least one of these has been a disaster in every role he has ever undertaken.

The greatest part of BR was sold off under Labour, who went into every corner of the business to find anything at all that could be sold off.

Indeed there has been wholesale Privatisation of the whole of the Country's assets under Labour, try finding something that is now nationalised, even our Defence capability is predominantly supported by private contractors, even moving tanks around the Country.

You made the allegation that Conservative Ministers/MPs "got themselves into it".

This is actually not accurate for the reasons I have already pointed out. It is however a sliur that I notice is once again being bandied about. A check of MPs interests (at least those declared) will demonstrate the number of Labour Ministers who took on non-executive roles in Companies which had done well when they were in charge of the portfolio. A look at the situation today would certainly open your eyes I suggest. The one thing that remains constant is Labour (and Leftist) hypocrisy.

A good example is that of being lectured on "fairness" and "equality in education" by the daughter of an Earl, who went to the best public all Girls school in the Country. Another is that of Marxist MP who professes to be totally opposed to middle class parents being able to send their children to a school of their choice, whilst actually sending her own children to a private school :roll:

Slightly off-topic I appreciate but it demonstrates the difference betwen truth and reality as practiced by labour, their MPs and their fellow travellers.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Left will sortly be trying to re-write recent history, no doubt blaming the Conservatives for the last round of Franchise awards. Sadly there will be those who would believe that and spout it off as fact.

Examples of that can be seen elsewhere on the Forum concerning investment where despite having demonstrated conclusively the amount of spending on the Railways in the 1980s, we still have people who will try to suggest otherwise :roll::roll::roll:

Incidentally, during the 1980s public spending on health, educuation was NOT cut but increased year on year. Source Office of National Statistics. The uninformed with a Political grudge would have people believe otherwise.

 

[yorksrob]

I suppose the cardinal error of privatisation was to assume that increased investment and passenger numbers would automatically lead to the network becoming profitable (which it needs to be if it is to support private companies operating every aspect without the public subsidy increasing). The other was to assume that it would be possible to accurately judge how much profit a franchise should keep and how much should be claimed back to offset subsidy elsewhere on the network.

 

[northwichcat]

If a government can approve the replacement of the entire regional railways fleet and electrify a mainline in the 1980's, it sounds like we are worse of than in the 1980's

The first generation DMUs did need replacing. However, if there weren't budget problems we would have got the prototype 150s and 151s built and likely a large 150 order in 1984, followed by a large 151 order instead of Pacer orders.

However, the whole RR fleet was not replaced. 1st generation DMUs remained in operation until the year 2000 when the remaining 101s which were with First North Western were replaced by 175s, which cacasded down Sprinters to replace the 101s.

passenger numbers would automatically lead to the network becoming profitable

Part of the reason for it not being is the cost of maintaining some of the older trains (like 507s, 508s, 150s and 142s) and investing in newer stock needs government funding unless the franchise lengths are 20 years and even then there could be instances of operators like First, Arriva etc. moving trains around between franchises to ensure they keep the most cost effective units and leave the new operator with the least cost effective.

 

[Failed Unit]

The first generation DMUs did need replacing. However, if there weren't budget problems we would have got the prototype 150s and 151s built and likely a large 150 order in 1984, followed by a large 151 order instead of Pacer orders.

However, the whole RR fleet was not replaced. 1st generation DMUs remained in operation until the year 2000 when the remaining 101s which were with First North Western were replaced by 175s, which cacasded down Sprinters to replace the 101s.

I am sorry. Br replaced the entire regional railways fleet bar two class 101 dmus. 2 sprinters coaches were written off in acidents. I wonder if these 2 were related. In the West midlands they even electrified a route fancy that? Would never happen today. The cross city line in case you were wondering.

 

[Greenback]

I recall reading in the 1980's that the old fleet was replced by 2 new vehicles for every 3 old ones to save money. We are still feeling the effects of this policy today.

 

[Failed Unit]

I recall reading in the 1980's that the old fleet was replced by 2 new vehicles for every 3 old ones to save money. We are still feeling the effects of this policy today.

Unfortunately it was the right thing to do at the time, regional railways were managing for decline, I don't think even in the 80's boom that we could have seen this coming. Even in the early 90's when the 153 came along we were thinking smaller. If only we had known as you said we are still suffering from it now. Likewise the Networkers in Kent would have been longer if it wasn't for the early 90's recession.

 

[Greenback]

I agree. It was the only way to get the RR fleet replaced. Better that than no second generation stock at all!

 

[yorksrob]

I think one of the main problems is that when they had a chance recently to build stock to cope with the increase, they were forced to replace slammers which still had 5 - 10 years left in them. That said, it was still a big failure (of Government policy rather than BR) to cut back on the replacement stock in the 1980's when passenger numbers were growing.

 

[Ivo]

I recall reading in the 1980's that the old fleet was replced by 2 new vehicles for every 3 old ones to save money. We are still feeling the effects of this policy today.

The latter posts agree with this as being effective but I must question that.

How can you justify "2 new coaches for every 3 old coaches" when many of the lost coaches would have been replaced by Pacers? In that sense you are effectively halving the capacity due to the length differences (3x20m=60m; 2x15m=30m). Similarly, I know that 101s used to appear on the North Downs Line; could they really justify replacing them with 2-car 165s given the extension of the route to the then-growing Gatwick? Honestly speaking, because obviously I'm too young for virtually all First-Generation stock (the only real exceptions being 302s, 310s and 312s), how many of the Second-Generation or later units replaced the units before them with no worse than little negative impact on capacity, without the replacement having been undertaken by a private TOC?

Can this country never think forward? Why must we always concentrate on the present during recessions? Yes, I accept that not doing so would only harm us, but surely delaying renewing stock by a couple of years would make more sense - both in real terms and financially - than introducing shortened examples of units such as the afore-mentioned SE Networkers, or worse none at all?

I might come from a blue area, and I might align myself in the same way, but I have to admit, the Tories would never give us another Lord Adonis even if he was right under their noses. We would have an anti-rail Transport Minister, while the "Adonis" would be allocated to an alternative post. On transport policies alone, I could never vote Tory.

I seem to recall reading that even Maggie felt that privatising the railways was a step too far. Was she right all along? We would certainly have a more open InterCity service, if nothing else...

 

[yorksrob]

I haven't travelled much on South Eastern suburban lines after the mid 1990's, but I always assumed that the Networkers were introduced to work as 12 carriage trains during peak hours (as opposed to 10 carriage trains brought in in 1958 ) and can remember the works to extend the platforms to accommodate these. I don't recall any reference to anything longer than this in the run up to the TRM (I can imagine that there would have been several difficulties in achieving this at many locations anyway owing to restricted layouts etc).

Perhaps if they were having to scale down stock orders, they should have refurbed some of the younger BR designed EPB's for peak services, which even after the Cannon Street crash were acknowledged to be structurally stronger than their Bullied designed counterparts.

 

[Greenback]

The latter posts agree with this as being effective but I must question that.

How can you justify "2 new coaches for every 3 old coaches" when many of the lost coaches would have been replaced by Pacers? In that sense you are effectively halving the capacity due to the length differences (3x20m=60m; 2x15m=30m). Similarly, I know that 101s used to appear on the North Downs Line; could they really justify replacing them with 2-car 165s given the extension of the route to the then-growing Gatwick? Honestly speaking, because obviously I'm too young for virtually all First-Generation stock (the only real exceptions being 302s, 310s and 312s), how many of the Second-Generation or later units replaced the units before them with no worse than little negative impact on capacity, without the replacement having been undertaken by a private TOC?

Can this country never think forward? Why must we always concentrate on the present during recessions? Yes, I accept that not doing so would only harm us, but surely delaying renewing stock by a couple of years would make more sense - both in real terms and financially - than introducing shortened examples of units such as the afore-mentioned SE Networkers, or worse none at all?

I might come from a blue area, and I might align myself in the same way, but I have to admit, the Tories would never give us another Lord Adonis even if he was right under their noses. We would have an anti-rail Transport Minister, while the "Adonis" would be allocated to an alternative post. On transport policies alone, I could never vote Tory.

I seem to recall reading that even Maggie felt that privatising the railways was a step too far. Was she right all along? We would certainly have a more open InterCity service, if nothing else...

Money, money, money!

The decisions about the 150's and Pacers had to be taken in the early 1980's when the UK was in recession. Opinion about railways were not as positive as they are now; environmental concerns were not high on the agenda, and many people viewed the Green Party as 'hippies' and 'weirdos' who were not much more sensible than the Monster Raving Loony Party.

I have an old Modern Railways from 1983 in which a Tory MEP proposes the closure of ALL non profitable railway lines and their conversion to dedicated bus routes. It was also proposed to close Marylebone, convert it into a coach station and divert trains to Paddington.

In this context, it;s something of a miracle that so many ehicles got built at all. It may be difficult to believe now, but at the time, rail users were grateful for any new trains at all, whether they were Pacers or not! As rail travel was still in decline year on year, the problem with fewer seats did not really appear to be a problem at that time!

My own opinion is that privatisation was a mistake, and that the method chosen compounded that mistake by introduicng an industry structure that was basically unworkable in practice, however good it may look on paper. I don't subscribe to the belief that anything publicly owned is necessarily more inefficient or in some way worse than anything privately owned. There are some very poor private companies around!