Conservatives outline railway plans

[Metroland]

Train operators will be able to overhaul creaking rail infrastructure without direct government investment after the Department for Transport struck a groundbreaking deal with Chiltern Railways to slash journey times between London and Birmingham.

Chiltern will be rewarded with a seven-and-a-half year extension to its twelve-and-a-half-year contract after agreeing to oversee a £250m engineering programme on the route. Once the programme is completed by 2013, the London-to-Birmingham service will be nearly half an hour faster at one hour 40 minutes.

The innovative funding structure shelters the taxpayer, with the owner of Britain's rail system, Network Rail, raising the debt funding which will then be invested by Chiltern. The investment will then be paid back by the franchise owner over the next 30 years through track access charges levied by Network Rail.

The Association of Train Operating Companies said the deal backed the case for lengthening rail franchises, which typically last less than 10 years. "We want to move to more widespread use of longer franchises, together with other smart franchise reforms, to free train companies to provide passengers and taxpayers with a better deal," the association said.

Virgin Trains, which is lobbying for a £1bn investment to improve journey times from London to Scotland, said the deal could open the way for further investment in key routes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/14/chiltern-franchise-extension

 

[merlodlliw]

Forgotten ?? The ORR hasnt made a decision yet.

and I thought you were in the know.

M

 

[yorksrob]

Oh they'll cut back on subsidy, that's why cost reduction is absolutely essential. The good news is there is a lot of fat to cut back on, this will do the railways a lot of good in the longer term. NR have already been told they can kiss goodbye to bonuses if the Torys get in.

Some schemes have got so expensive they now have no hope of approval. Take the Portishead branch re-opening. Bendy buses have been proposed now instead because costs have got completely out of control.

We have the worst of all worlds at the moment, more government control than at any time in history, managers coming out of the woodwork which costs a huge amount of money and delivers very little and so much fragmentation the whole system works against each other.

NR pays £1 billion worth of interest every year that goes straight to the banks. Without taking inflation into account, this equals all of Network South East's revenue in the early 90s. All straight in the back pockets of bankers without a penny spent on any kit all to suit a political ideal.

I suppose I'm basically sceptical that you can even have a privatised system without the fragmentation or the fat. These seem to go hand in hand because you have to cut off the unprofitable bits for the bits with potential to be attractive to the private sector, causing the fragmentation. Similarly whilst private companies always need to make a profit, there will always be bits of the railway which aren't profitable, and indeed times when even profitable parts of the railway struggle, meaning that the private sector has to be propped up, because the railway (quite rightly of course) can't be cut back to match it's costs, hence the fat.

That said, if the franchise period is longer than the economic cycle, it might just solve the last one

 

[The Planner]

and I thought you were in the know.

M

I dont work for the ORR, so until they say something, no one knows...

 

[me123]

On the surface yes, but BR's problem is nobody wanted to put money into it, and nationalised industries can only raise money from the Treasury. This is a country where transport comes bottom of the pile, with a number of people who want to see them get no money. As a consequence BR lost passengers for 50 years apart from in the late 1980s.

Yes I know the current system gets far more money than BR did, but the private sector needs to deliver growth to get investment. Whereas the attitude toward BR was, lets cut the budget every year.

Under BR lines like the Chiltern very nearly closed, part of it nearly got changed into a busway at one stage with various forces pulling strings in the government. It was the leadership of Chris Green that saved it, and considerable input of the private sector since privatisation - Today it's one of the most successful lines in the country.

Let's remind ourselves what BR's problems were.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CCCKoo42pM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYZ4o-JVqmI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEWuapbJDrc&feature=related

Having never known BR that well, I'm always interested to see stuff about what it was like. People often moan about privatisation, but I've just seen the first of those videos and the improvements that privatisation have brought to the Fenchurch Street and Chiltern lines are phenomenal.

I love the reference to Crossrail being completed by the mid-to-late nineties, though

 

[yorksrob]

Having never known BR that well, I'm always interested to see stuff about what it was like. People often moan about privatisation, but I've just seen the first of those videos and the improvements that privatisation have brought to the Fenchurch Street and Chiltern lines are phenomenal.

I love the reference to Crossrail being completed by the mid-to-late nineties, though

I feel duty bound to point out that a lot of those improvements were brought about by Network SouthEast!

 

[dfishw]

the idea of a longer franchise is great assuming it is the case that a longer franchise equals more investment. The worrying part for me though is about stripping the involvment of the DOT. Obviously the present systme of them setting timetables is ridiculous but equally they do play a very valid role and there must be strict criteria not just on performance and time keeping but also on the services that are retained. My worry is that with spending cuts the DOT will be robbed of its pwoer and a "free for all" will develop where TOc wil do what they want! Profitable routes will remain but the lesser ones (esp rural stations/routes) will be scrapped leaving whole areas with no services! (ie as in beeching's days). So longer francihses yes, less interference yes, but decent standars of service to be expected strictly yes.

 

[Metroland]

Well some improvements were. Marylebone IECC and the 165s units came in under Chiltern area of NSE.

In 1991 when that film was made, the IECC was starting to be commissioned, starting with a few signals outside Marylebone and working its way to Ayhno Junction. The track was mostly jointed and 60mph with 115 DMUs, and the service from Banbury to London was 2 hourly. With no service north of Banbury.

Prior to the IECC the signalling was mostly semaphore, with many signal boxes and with a few colour lights, mostly dating back to the 1930s. The signalling panel in Princes Risborough was second hand from Birmingham Snow hill.

With the LTS, the Upminster IECC resignalling was started under BR and completed under Railtrack. With the trains coming in later.

There has been a lot of improvements to both routes since privatisation. On the Chiltern, extensive redoubling of the singled track between Princes Risborough and Aynho. A new station at Warwick and Aylesbury, services north of Banbury, and a big increase in core services, plus extra platforms at Marylebone.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Profitable routes will remain but the lesser ones (esp rural stations/routes) will be scrapped leaving whole areas with no services! (ie as in beeching's days). So longer francihses yes, less interference yes, but decent standars of service to be expected strictly yes.

Not going to happen, Franchises do not have that sort of power and they can be terminated at any time. Rail closures are virtually impossible these days with so many political objections.

 

[Ivo]

Having never known BR that well, I'm always interested to see stuff about what it was like. People often moan about privatisation, but I've just seen the first of those videos and the improvements that privatisation have brought to the Fenchurch Street and Chiltern lines are phenomenal.

I love the reference to Crossrail being completed by the mid-to-late nineties, though

There was actually a proposal a while back - well before privatisation - to convert the entire LTS route into a busway. These days, Southend alone has around 13million passenger entries and exits at its nine stations, never mind the rest of the line; can you imagine that becoming a busway...?

Mind you, that was when I was a toddler. When the line was known as the "Misery Line".

And as for Chiltern... They're just the best TOC in the country in my opinion. And I daresay that many here would agree with that.

 

[Fudgefrog]

I think the problem is whether TOCs - which are businesses let's not forget - are going to be willing to invest money in a franchise they have no proof will either be profitable in 10 years time or will necessarily even still be theres.

And there's also the question whether TOCs would make as much if they don't invest. Businesses invest in things because, in the short or long run, they're likely to make them more money. But if a TOC spends the first several years of the franchise paying off the debt it owes on a new fleet, or improved network infrastructure, I think they're unlikely to make as much.

Besides, I very much doubt the Tories plans (the ones they themselves don't seem to know how to finance) will ever get anywhere, should they get into power.

Should long franchises succeed, the DFT would need to completely withdraw from the scene, assessing the TOCs and not ordering them. Timetables, fares, services and so on would need to be controlled by the TOCs, and the Tories are right about that.


But I do believe longer franchises isn't really an option, given the TOCs of recent have made ridiculous pitches that they couldn't live up to. We've just had a recession - can anyone guarantee there won't be another one in nine years time?

 

[jon0844]

There's another problem; how long can you keep investing before you reach a ceiling?

I mean, even in and around London, there's got to be a limit to how much a TOC can invest before they'll have to start to make SERIOUS investment which is way beyond what a 5, 10 or 20 year franchise could 'pay back'.

Besides rolling stock, you'd get to the point where to increase capacity you'd need to lengthen platforms, upgrade station buildings, modify signalling or even build new lines and stations.

Considering this investment is for many more years than the franchise, it effectively comes down to Network Rail to fund - and the Government - but if they're not so actively involved, how does a TOC make it happen?

Also, if growth is making lots of money it will always reach a saturation point and either remain steady or fall (as it has now).

 

[merlodlliw]

I dont work for the ORR, so until they say something, no one knows...

Appreciate the reply,it will be interesting to learn
of their response.

BTW. ORR have an office in Wrexham, same building as the HSE,I was
surprised to see the ORR offices here.



M

 

[DavyCrocket]

Appreciate the reply,it will be interesting to learn
of their response.

BTW. ORR have an office in Wrexham, same building as the HSE,I was
surprised to see the ORR offices here.



M

That's probably because ORR took on the work of the HMRI (except for post incident matters, which are with the RAIB), so are the HSE for Railways.

 

[merlodlliw]

That's probably because ORR took on the work of the HMRI (except for post incident matters, which are with the RAIB), so are the HSE for Railways.

Yes that's probably the reason for the ORR office,as its the same building as the
Health & Safety Exec,


M