Conservative's Rail Plan

[Mojo]

Now I'm sure that some of the comments about how it was started in the first place by the Conservatives will come along, but just taken the following from Conservatives.com

Theresa Villiers has set out plans to improve Britain’s rail services by giving passengers value for money and tackling overcrowding.

The Shadow Transport Secretary outlined the conclusions of our rail review in an eight-point plan designed to reform Britain’s rail network and provide a long-term vision for Britain’s railways.

She stressed that our report, Getting the best for passengers, would “provide practical solutions to concerns rail users every day”:

* A high speed line linking London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds
* Putting passengers first by introducing a Passenger Champion to hold Network Rail and train franchise operators to account when they fail
* A reformed Network Rail
* Better cooperation between track and train
* Longer, better franchises for train operators so they can invest in longer trains and longer platforms
* Improving innovation in rail improvements
* An end to Whitehall meddling in areas like timetabling and buying new rolling stock
* A moratorium on building on disused rail paths

Theresa warned, “Our rail network is suffering from chronic levels of over-crowding. We desperately need new capacity – longer trains, longer platforms and, ultimately, additional lines.”

And she stressed, “After twelve years of disappointment under a Labour Government people know the only way to see Britain’s railways improve is through a change of Government. Our rail review shows the Conservatives have forward looking ideas to make the changes people want to see.”

Video
Report

A lot of it, particularly about Government interference seems to have hit the nail on the head.

 

[Mintona]

If the Conservatives come into power and all this happens, I will be hock:

 

[Guinness]

I read this a few weeks ago, it seems that more jumping on the Pro-Rail Bandwagon more than anything but some are valid and good ideas..

* A high speed line linking London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds
Bandwagon stuff as proposed by the other parties all agreed upon. IMHO it will happen eventually despite whoever is elected in 2009, 2013 (?)

* Putting passengers first by introducing a Passenger Champion to hold Network Rail and train franchise operators to account when they fail
Hmm, I need to learn more about that before I can really comment but the way I see it the DfT are interfering too much for any progress so a non-government body needs to be created.

* A reformed Network Rail
I have little knowledge on how Network Rail is structured and operates so I can't comment. Besides this tells us very little.

* Better cooperation between track and train
See previous point.

* Longer, better franchises for train operators so they can invest in longer trains and longer platforms
I agree, 8 year franchises are too short. For example if Arriva stump up £500m in new rolling stock but it will take them 13 years before they're paid for by increased passenger numbers. If the franchise is short they won't bother investing. 20 year franchises should be norm with Performance Targets reviewed every few years. Obviously there should be some clauses where as the TOC fails targets then they can be stripped of franchises. There is a very similar case with Virgin Trains at the moment for additional Pendolino sets. If they buy them for £100m of private money through Virgin Rail Projects Ltd they want an extension on the West Coast Franchise past 2012. This is where the privatisation element fails.

* Improving innovation in rail improvements
Needs more details, improvements in infrastructure? Trains?

* An end to Whitehall meddling in areas like timetabling and buying new rolling stock
Agreed, it's universally accepted that the DfT are interfering in Privatisation, either it's run by the government (Nationalisation) or by Private Companies, you can't have both simply because of the politics and having approval to do anything through Whitehall.

* A moratorium on building on disused rail paths
Agreed, should be safeguarded for the future.

Same old really but if Cameron is elected in 2009 I doubt we'll see much Rail spending, probably mopping up the economy.

 

[PhilipW]

* A high speed line linking London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds
Bandwagon stuff as proposed by the other parties all agreed upon. IMHO it will happen eventually despite whoever is elected in 2009, 2013 (?)

What does this mean ?

a) A line from London to Birmingham then split like a Y with one leg to Manchester and the other to Leeds

b) A line from London to Birmingham then on to Manchester then on to Leeds

Without such clarity, the statement is meaningless

 

[Metroland]

Looks good, but can we trust them?

A. F. Voter.

 

[Guinness]

What does this mean ?

a) A line from London to Birmingham then split like a Y with one leg to Manchester and the other to Leeds

b) A line from London to Birmingham then on to Manchester then on to Leeds

Without such clarity, the statement is meaningless

I have no idea. As I mentioned in some of my points, most of the statements were pretty vague/meaningless.

 

[90019]

As I mentioned in some of my points, most of the statements were pretty vague/meaningless.

They're talking politician, of course they're vague/meaningless

Also, what the hell is "Better cooperation between track and train"? Are trains refusing to run certain routes because they've had an argument with the tracks? Or maybe trains are deciding that they don't need the tracks and are choosing to travel another way.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yeah this is true whta they hare suggesting...

:???:

 

[Mojo]

Also, what the hell is "Better cooperation between track and train"?

Exactly what it says, something those in the industry have been talking about for years. Better co-operation between the Infraco (ie: Network Rail) and the TOCs.

 

[Guinness]

Yeah this is true what they hare suggesting about a y shape line branching off at Leeds and Manchester...

There are many suggestions, Google search High Speed Rail 2 and look at some of the proposals made. There are lines via East Midlands, Birmingham, following Great Central Railway Alignments, following WCML, so not just "y shape line branching of at leeds and manchester".

The more credible suggestions are from consultants such as Scott Wilson Railways etc.

 

[90019]

Exactly what it says, something those in the industry have been talking about for years. Better co-operation between the Infraco (ie: Network Rail) and the TOCs.

I know what it actually means, it's just the way it's written

 

[GNERman]

There have been many drawings of the line going from London to Birmingham and then one line heading off to Manchester and then the other would go to Leeds and end just above the city. I'm assuming this is between Leeds and Harrogate which would work well as it is cinnecting three or four cities.

 

[Stonesourscotty]

They get my Vote. Round Here it's all Labour BNP or Conservative and i think the Conservatives are the Best Option out of three by a Country my Mile for the Future of Public Transport.

 

[Danielo]

Yes, but as with all these things, how will it be paid for??

 

[GNERman]

Taxpayers I'm assuming or possibly private funding?

 

[Metroland]

Yes, but as with all these things, how will it be paid for??

Reading it, efficiency.

 

[O L Leigh]

A lot of it, particularly about Government interference seems to have hit the nail on the head.

So the Conservatives are going to meddle further in order to keep Government out of the railways. Did I miss something...?

I won't argue that the shape of the railway needs to be radically changed if the industry is ever going to improve, and that needs Government legislation to change the relationships between the various parties involved (TOC/FOC's, Nitwit Rail, etc). However, this is a populist announcement little short of an election manifesto pledge and deliberately vague so as to avoid having to answer searching questions. It's not enough to base any kind of decision on. All they've announced is an agreement in principle to change things. What we need to know is what these changes will be and whether or not they will be for the better or for the worse.

O L Leigh