Any ideas what the Government is going to suggest?

[jon0844]

There are a lot of people who would prefer Labour to be in power and do nothing than the Tories to be in power and do anything.

Where's Old Timer to remind people which party has generally done the most for the railway?

 

[Greenback]

Well, as ever when governments release white papers or command papers, any pretence of level headed thinking goes out of the window and in comes platform end frothing as the dreams take over reality.

There are some crackers - "pathetic government". In terms of the railways? Well, perhaps I have been around far too long but I cannot remember a single government in the last 40 years authorising some of the schemes which are now before us; electrification (tick), HS2 (tick), Crossrail (yep, continue), some more rolling stock (yep). Any government faced with a stonking deficit could have quietly pushed a lot of these enhancements into the long grass. But no. They have got on with it.

And before we get any "conservatives are swines" nonsense either, there was a Labour government for 13 years before this. Strangely they could have restructured the railway - they didn't; fully nationalised it after Railtrack (they didn't), removed the ROSCO's (they didn't); nay even produced a green paper, followed by a white paper and legislation forecasting a new brave world of track and train....they didn't.

So, let us move onto the next nonsense. Greedy TOC's. Ok - here is a starter question for 10 - how may Train Operators are currently making a margin of 5% and how many are actually making a profit? Any ideas - ok, none. So, here is a really simple question - how many train operators are currently on revenue support from Daft because they are suffering? Hmmm. Plentry - SWT being one, FGW being another...so yes such is the culture of greed that train operators are actually loosing money.

And now onto ROSCO's - ok - how many on here buy a new car and then pay cash upfront? Hmm - not many hands I see. So to draw a parallel out - successive governments have decided that in essence Hire purchase is the way forward. This goes for new schools, hospitals and trains. Possibly because, in their eyes the risk is transferred to the private sector - so in 10 years time it is decided that we don't like that train then we can bin it. Ok, so it doesn't actually work like that - but to the governments eyes the money is not committed up front. And besides the rolling stock was not actually gifted to the ROSCO's in the first place - strangely enough it was sold and the proceeds used to bribe the electorate, spend on trident or fill a pothole. And again, was there any attempt to take back the stock after 1997? Nope.

Has anybody actually read the command paper and McNulty's report to go with it; or have you all swallowed the bullexcrement pumped out from the likes of the RMT hook, line and sinker?

I don't see very much of anything you refer to in the above post in this thread. What I do see is an attempt to discuss the problems in trying to obtain savings from the railway industry in light of the government's statement yesterday. Naturally, that will attract a certain amount of comment about this government's policy, and also about its ideology.

I don't think that raising concerns about the impact of staff reductions on the customer experience cna be classed as swallowing the RMT line without question. Nor do I think that questioning how smartcards will be introduced, and how they will work counts as platform end frothing either. I'm afraid that your post contains as much frothing as any I have seen in this thread!

 

[WestCoast]

Well you must have been the most unlucky Person going, I personally go out on almost every trip, make myself known, have a laugh and a joke with the passengers and make my day happier and hopefully the passengers, the only trains I don't go out on are either full and standing or when I feel unsafe, the majority of us are professionals and 7 years without seeing a guard (apart from the back cab)..yeah right

Ah, but what happens at Northern is not representative of what may happen during the rush hour on, for example, inner London routes with non-commercial guards.

 

[Oswyntail]

I might be an old cynic, but why, when some people say 'redundancies are inevitable' is it always the frontline staff, those who can give a human face to the railways.

Instead, why not think about the massive profits of the TOCs and ROSCOs, the consultants, the admin working out who blames whom if a train is late, the IT boffs who charge a fortune and only get things half right. These are the areas in which savings could be made.

Agreed...to an extent. Too often, when asked to make "savings", organisations look to make %age cuts in the largest part of the workforce. However, it is equally knee-jerk for the "workers" to look at the "management" and say "They should be cut". So: are the profits "massive" when measured as return on capital (I don't know) - if not, there is the danger of organisations removing that capital to get a better return; are the "consultants" actually doing a necessary job cheaper than in-house (I don't know, do you?); blame management is apparently expensive, but what is a sensible alternative; IT is also expensive - something companies rarely admit - but becomes more expensive and likely to produce unsatisfactory results if the company specifies the wrong thing and changes its mind. My point being that, to cut out or reduce one operation as "expensive" can fatally damage the whole - but working smarter can drastically reduce costs.

Railways should not be a business. They should be a service. They can ease congestion; they can bring about social mobility; people should enjoy using them......

There is no reason why Railways should not be an efficient service business. Like everything else, start with getting the product right for the customers, get the right staff in the right places, and the money will flow.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I hope you noted the many glowing references to the IEP programme in the DfT Review documents.
It's now inconceivable they would cancel it as unsuitable or too expensive.
Looks like we will have to put up with the thing.

 

[cogload]

Fair enough. All I see is froth and plenty of it. There is talk of huge profits, greedy ROSCO's and the rest of it without a lot of proper analysis really.

However it is a command paper. I am sure that all those concerned will now be tapping away and producing their replies to Ms. Greening and Daft. It is flawed I grant you, however there is finally an acknowledgment that really the railway costs far too much to run and how can it be tackled.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Ah, but what happens at Northern is not representative of what may happen during the rush hour on, for example, inner London routes with non-commercial guards.

to be honest I have never understood the concept of non-commercial guards, in an age where we have to fight for our jobs you would think that the more we do the better, not less and bringing in revenue id one of the better things under our belt

 

[Darandio]

Taking your figures, why is £34million being paid for train leasing?

This is the third time I have seen this now, Hydro hit on it twice but it is a point that has been largely ignored.

If a discussion has to be made about cutting costs, why is the biggest travesty of them all ignored with preferred discussion towards cutting frontline staff as the main measure?

Why are Northern Rail paying £34million per year for a fleet of trains which in their majority were built in the 1980's and have already been paid for in full?

Surely the only way to make real and instant savings for any TOC would be to remove this stupid situation of rosco's owning and leasing the stock and giving more power to the TOC's to become involved with owning and replacing ageing fleets.

 

[Greenback]

Fair enough. All I see is froth and plenty of it. There is talk of huge profits, greedy ROSCO's and the rest of it without a lot of proper analysis really.

However it is a command paper. I am sure that all those concerned will now be tapping away and producing their replies to Ms. Greening and Daft. It is flawed I grant you, however there is finally an acknowledgment that really the railway costs far too much to run and how can it be tackled.

I think that most people with an interest in railways have knwon that the system costs too much to run for quite a few years, but as with many things under the last government, a lot of money seems to have been thrown at it without a great deal of analysis, so it is good to see that at least this government is having to look at the costs.

However, the main thrust of the arguments is not that cost reductions are not needed, it is how is the best way to achieve this. The biggest cirticism that I, and seemingly many others have of the proposals is that they lack an imaginative approach, focusing on the usual targets of guards and ticket office, which directly impact on the day to day experiences of millions of passengers. At the same time they have seemingly dismissed out of hand, any reform of the structure of the industry which many people believe is the major cause of high costs in the first place.

Now, I believe that this is down to political ideology, which naturally does bring a political dimension into the debate. I tink this is unavoidable, but I can't see a lot of comment criticising the Conservatives per se and praising Labour, who frankly, have a very poor record when it comes to transport.

I would prefer an objective debate without any mention of party politics at all, but it is very difficult to comment on government announcements without an element of politics entering the discussion!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is the third time I have seen this now, Hydro hit on it twice but it is a point that has been largely ignored.

If a discussion has to be made about cutting costs, why is the biggest travesty of them all ignored with preferred discussion towards cutting frontline staff as the main measure?

Why are Northern Rail paying £34million per year for a fleet of trains which in their majority were built in the 1980's and have already been paid for in full?

Surely the only way to make real and instant savings for any TOC would be to remove this stupid situation of rosco's owning and leasing the stock and giving more power to the TOC's to become involved with owning and replacing ageing fleets.

I agree. I am disappointed (but not particularly surprised) that this issue does not seem to have been considered at all.

 

[Wath Yard]

I don't think anybody is arguing that it should only be front line staff. There are a number of people arguing that it should be everything else but front line staff. The command paper certainly doesn't single out front line staff. There are a whole host of references, from DOO to ROSCOs to train procurement and many more areas that will be looked at, and should be looked at.

What many people seem to forget is that the DfT forced the Competition Commission to investigate ROSCOs only a few years ago, and the main conclusion was that they aren't just a license to print money.

 

[Zoe]

As I said in another thread, TfL under Ken Livingstone were originalling going to purchase trains for London Overground outright but changed their minds and used a ROSCO instead. Wouldn't that suggest the using a ROSCO is the best option?

 

[Flamingo]

I remember once chatting to someone who was fairly high up in HBSC who said that the rail-leasing was considered to be one of the best investments the bank had ever made.

 

[Darandio]

As I said in another thread, TfL under Ken Livingstone were originalling going to purchase trains for London Overground outright but changed their minds and used a ROSCO instead. Wouldn't that suggest the using a ROSCO is the best option?

Maybe for new build yes, it's a matter of a big outlay and I feel that there is no harm in the choice being there to investigate both methods of procurement. I completely disagree with it in terms of these older fleets though, which has been said were already bought and paid for years ago.

Taking Northern Rail again as an example, how much have they actually paid out to Rosco's since taking the franchise? Surely looking back, they could have probably bought the whole fleet for much less than what that figure would be, and would no longer be paying out a ridiculous sum every year. There is a money saving right there, and if you extend it over every TOC, the savings would have surely been enormous.

Of course I do understand that it isn't quite as simple as that though.

 

[Greenback]

As I said in another thread, TfL under Ken Livingstone were originalling going to purchase trains for London Overground outright but changed their minds and used a ROSCO instead. Wouldn't that suggest the using a ROSCO is the best option?

No! some might say quite the reverse...

I remember once chatting to someone who was fairly high up in HBSC who said that the rail-leasing was considered to be one of the best investments the bank had ever made.

Hardly surprising if they can obtain £millions a year for stock that they bought for a (relative) pittance off the government in the first place. They may not be 'a licence to print money' but there is certainly a fair bit of cash going out of the railway industry completely.

 

[Zoe]

I seem to remember the idea was that the ROSCOs would compete against each other for the provision of rolling stock to the TOCs. This would keep the price low.

 

[Greenback]

I seem to remember the idea was that the ROSCOs would compete against each other for the provision of rolling stock to the TOCs. This would keep the price low.

Privatisation was also supposed to bring down the cost of running the railway system. That doesn't seem to have worked out either.

Not all of the ideas that seem brilliant on paper work out in practice!

 

[Anon Mouse]

Privatisation was also supposed to bring down the cost of running the railway system. That doesn't seem to have worked out either.

Not all of the ideas that seem brilliant on paper work out in practice!

or were blatant lies, anybody remember John Major stating that he wanted to see a return of the 'Big 4'?

 

[Zoe]

No! some might say quite the reverse...

The point is that Ken Livingstone isn't exactly a capitalist and having the trains publically owned would be more in line with his political position. The fact that TfL decided to not do this and use a ROSCO instead would suggest that it must be considered a good idea.

 

[Anon Mouse]

The point is that Ken Livingstone isn't exactly a capitalist and having the trains publically owned would be more in line with his political position. The fact that TfL decided to not do this and use a ROSCO instead would suggest that it must be considered a good idea.

or his advisors cocked up!

 

[Zoe]

or were blatant lies, anybody remember John Major stating that he wanted to see a return of the 'Big 4'?

Was it really a lie though? It may well have been John Major's preference but that wasn't the policy selected in the end.

 

[Anon Mouse]

Was it really a lie though? It may well have been John Major's preference but that wasn't the policy selected in the end.

Maybe its a pedantic argument, but he stated his preference in public to sell the idea of privitisation, but what we got was quite a different thing. To me that indicates lies and spin. Just a personal opinion of course!

 

[jon0844]

I seem to remember the idea was that the ROSCOs would compete against each other for the provision of rolling stock to the TOCs. This would keep the price low.

Yeah, just like the mobile operators are all fighting each other to keep charges low, and not working together to raise prices almost all at the same time (whether that's introducing new fees, minimum call charges, raising data charges etc).

 

[Darandio]

The point is that Ken Livingstone isn't exactly a capitalist and having the trains publically owned would be more in line with his political position. The fact that TfL decided to not do this and use a ROSCO instead would suggest that it must be considered a good idea.

If they had bought them outright, isn't it possible that this large initial outlay of money would have meant that the project wasn't actually brought in under budget? I am not entirely sure what figure they came in with in terms of what was under the budgeted figure.

Thats being completely cynical of course, but wouldn't be surprising if the decision was made on that basis.

 

[ainsworth74]

I seem to remember the idea was that the ROSCOs would compete against each other for the provision of rolling stock to the TOCs. This would keep the price low.

Well we don't really know if that would work mostly because it's never really be given a chance. The DfT and government got their hands on rolling stock procurement as quickly as they could and that pretty much put an end to any notions of their being some sort of rolling stock market that ROSCOs could compete in.

Maybe its a pedantic argument, but he stated his preference in public to sell the idea of privitisation, but what we got was quite a different thing. To me that indicates lies and spin. Just a personal opinion of course!

I would suggest that he fell foul of the civil service personally. Particularly the treasury mandarins, I seem to recall reading somewhere they were very forceful in ensuring that it was this form of privitisation that we got rather than Major's idea.

 

[Greenback]

or were blatant lies, anybody remember John Major stating that he wanted to see a return of the 'Big 4'?

I remember it well. As I recall, the Treasury did not like the idea.

or his advisors cocked up!

The Treasury believed that the chosen model of privatisation would deliver an rail industry that was cheaper to run compared to Major's preference. Draw your own conclusions!

Was it really a lie though? It may well have been John Major's preference but that wasn't the policy selected in the end.

Similarly, the avoidance of a ROSCO might have been Livingstone's personal preference. Each case illustrates that regardless of the personal opinion of the overall boss, they also take advice and have to make a pragmatic decision in the end, based on what is achievable and/or affordable.

 

[Zoe]

The DfT and government got their hands on rolling stock procurement as quickly as they could and that pretty much put an end to any notions of their being some sort of rolling stock market that ROSCOs could compete in.

Was it really a bad thing that the SRA took strict control over new stock orders after Virgin Cross Country didn't get it right with the Voyagers? Maybe this showed that it wasn't a great idea to leave these decisons to the TOCs.

 

[Yew]

The ideal system would Be a rent to buy scenario. Where private money buys stock, and then once a certain amount of money is payed by the government (via the toc) the stock becomes government owned. This means private cash can help buy stock, but stops roscoes from charging stupid amounts for pacers and old stock.

 

[ainsworth74]

Was it really a bad thing that the SRA took strict control over new stock orders after Virgin Cross Country didn't get it right with the Voyagers? Maybe this showed that it wasn't a great idea to leave these decisons to the TOCs.

There was a lot of SRA involvement in the procurment of Voyagers (good lord does every thread at some point come round to talking about Voyagers ) it wasn't just VXC making the decisions bythemselves it was also the SRA that told VXC that they could not procure any more centre vehicles for the Voyagers once it became obvious that they were providing insufficent capacity. Also don't forget that Northern (or one of the companies prior to them) wanted to procure a new fleet of trains but were shut down by the DfT (or SRA can't remember now which) because they wanted to buy trains from outside the EU.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why are Northern Rail paying £34million per year for a fleet of trains which in their majority were built in the 1980's and have already been paid for in full?

Surely the only way to make real and instant savings for any TOC would be to remove this stupid situation of rosco's owning and leasing the stock and giving more power to the TOC's to become involved with owning and replacing ageing fleets.

Because the fleets were sold to ROSCOs (banks) and the Treasury pocketed the money (£2 billion I think).
The lease rates were pitched so that essentially all the fleet had 7-15-year service contracts or the ROSCOs would not have bought them, and to deter new stock purchases (ie ensure a 30-40-year life).
Today there's nothing to stop a TOC or DfT/TfL buying its own trains, but mostly they still prefer to go via a ROSCO.
If you think borrowing money to build trains is a doddle, the banks don't want to touch them without long-term service guarantees (to reduce the risk they will lie idle) - that's half the debate about Bombardier and the Thameslink order.
Every time people on here recommend dumping Pacers and Voyagers (and next year no doubt IEPs!), they are missing the point about financing the write-offs and then funding alternatives over 40 years.

 

[Zoe]

There was a lot of SRA involvement in the procurment of Voyagers (good lord does every thread at some point come round to talking about Voyagers it wasn't just VXC making the decisions bythemselves

Considering the SRA did not exist at the time the Voyagers were ordered they would not have been involved at all. The Voyagers were ordered by Virgin although why OPRAF approved the plan back then is another issue. The TOCs were allowed more freedom back then.