NR seem to have done a good job in sorting that, but one wonders what went wrong between BR and Railtrack to lead to that asset register inadequacy.
The belief that everything could be handled by contracts, and it didn't matter if you didn't have the engineering know-how. You saw a lot of people involved in the railway industry at that time that were naive at best and out of their depth at worst.
I sort of agree with OT about the demands from TOCs. But there was this arrogance that took place within Railtrack concerning anyone who wanted to get in and do work too. Many signallers would turn down engineering blocks because they did not want to risk delaying trains and the disciplinary action that would follow, so they played it safe.
At times, infrastructure contractors turned up with very basic knowledge of the railway they wanted to maintain, and were turned away because they didn't have sufficient paperwork or came across as incompetent - for example didn't really understand local layouts concerning possessions.
Most of what followed Hatfield was politically motivated. There was very little, if any evidence that profit was put before safety, that was a construct of the unions and tabloids. Most of the problems were poor management, the structure, and industry in-fighting - nothing to do with making money. The railways always have been (at least since mid Victorian times) and still are paranoid about safety, crashes are not in the interests of the companies, who have always been threatened by prosecution by courts and politicians, fines, passenger boycotts and loss of traffic, thus affecting profits - especially when the press report the most minor of rail accidents and gloss over even quite major road accidents.
The Labour government at the time ran things through the press and was very aware of public pressure, often whipped up by very distorted reporting - making out the railways were a death trap, when safety was actually improving.
In fairness the last straw was when Railtrack could no longer remain solvent and were bailed out, only to pay the money to shareholders.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Sadly I think the current way things are going this is going to be the inevitable eventuality.
As moggie has already shown, much is indeed wrong with our Industry.
The pressure from the TOCs/FOCs really is iniquitous. I would dearly love to see a senior TOC/FOC Manager in the dock sharing responsibility for an accident, and facing a stiff prison sentence. I would also like to see that for Network Rail managers as well.
But in fairness that pressure comes from the government and public for an 'on time' railway and good news stories.
The real root of the problem is the hysteria whipped up by the press, special interests, H&S zealots, the fear of being sued and other external pressure.
I have spent much time on this forum trying to convince people that actually the railway is not only very safe, but on the whole pretty punctual, but it is the nature of the beast that at times things go wrong - as it does in all transport. Some people, even seasoned enthusiasts, are actually quite surprised when the facts reveal things are not nearly so bad as they might seem. It is fashionable for railway workers, the press and indeed enthusiasts to moan about things, when the glass half full method might be more beneficial and appropriate.
We have become accustomed to seek blame, point fingers, judge from the comfort of our armchairs, and put unnecessary pressure on professionals that 99% of the time, despite prejudice, are actually trying to do a good job and most of the time succeed in doing so.
The problem with the blame seeking is it produces a whole sense of at times irrational decision making, which actually does more damage that it seeks to correct. For example, making the railways very expensive because politicians and the public do not trust them through distorted perception, while letting competing modes off the hook because of populist campaigns.
