Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

I have created this thread to allow comment and info to be added about something which may become increasingly important as the year ends (assuming another subject does not occupy all of HMG's time meanwhile). The Review aims to analyse the current state of UK rail, the likely economic, technical and social scenarios in which it will have to compete over the short, medium and long term, and provide proposals to govt to improve the potential of UK railways, culminating in a White Paper at the end of 2019 (we shall see).

 

For starters, here is a link to their most recent output, which I found very interesting, especially the wider statistics and projections. It sounds simplistic in many parts, and seems to concentrate a lot more on digital matters than I thought appropriate, but it is well worth reading, to understand, in this case, what types of information the Review is using to reach its conclusions......

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802472/rail-in-the-future-transport-system.pdf

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

I haven't read these yet, but I hope they are very interesting too:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/current-railway-models-great-britain-and-overseas-an-evidence-paper

 

 

Just to add to this, Brightline (the private passenger system in Florida) has plans to build a Las Vegas - Southern California line which could prove to be interesting.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have little hope of this changing anything.  I imagine a scene something along these lines:

 

Bernard: I have the final draft of the Williams report Prime Minister.  It is very critical of the Government, the DfT and rail franchising.  Shall I file it?

Hacker: Shall you file it?  Shred it Bernard!  Shred it!

Bernard: Shred it Prime Minister?

Hacker: No one must ever be able to find it again!

Bernard: In that case, Prime Minister, I think it's best I file it.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
  • Funny 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48995511

 

Am I being too cynical by suggesting that this review is aiming to shield politicians and civil servants from receiving the blame for rail-related cock-ups?

 

Having previously stated that the franchising system should be scrapped because it has failed, Williams seems to have bottled out of such a radical plan of action, and now simply proposes longer franchises, presumably to allow for longer, bigger failures? I guess he's been leant on by the money men and civil servants who, after the timetable change and electrification fiascos, are now completely allergic to the idea of radical change in the rail industry.

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 5
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

Thanks for posting this.

 

Pardon my cynicism but from a brief scan through the various points in Sections 2 / 3 I came across many "weasel" words and phrases e.g. "could", "potentially significant", "It is not possible to be definitive...", "have the potential".  Hardly an evidence framework for a robust set of recommendations when the permutations of uncertainties are stated to be so diverse.

 

This seems appropriate....

 

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." -  A Einstein

 

Colin

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Dear M. Storey and others,

 

This is a little 'off topic', but as one who gets much information on British railways from the 'Off the Rails' column in 'Private Eye', I look forward to their forthcoming (I hope) analysis.  If you do not read it, I recommend their correspondent.  Thanks for the alert as to this report.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, locoholic said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48995511

 

Am I being too cynical by suggesting that this review is aiming to shield politicians and civil servants from receiving the blame for rail-related cock-ups?.

 

I think creating a strategic overarching authority to manage passenger rail franchising is an excellent idea. You could call it the Office of Passenger Strategic Rail Franchising Authority or somesuch. If that title is thought too long I'm sure a couple of words can be removed to leave snappier alternatives.

  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, C126 said:

Dear M. Storey and others,

 

This is a little 'off topic', but as one who gets much information on British railways from the 'Off the Rails' column in 'Private Eye', I look forward to their forthcoming (I hope) analysis.  If you do not read it, I recommend their correspondent.  Thanks for the alert as to this report.

 

Dr B. Ching can be very interesting and annoying at the same time. When I was a regular reader, several years back, I knew the detail behind several items on which he cast aspersions, so I do not treat that column with the reverence I once used to. I think it is more opinion than "information". Many of us suspected we knew who the insider (or more likely insiders) was/were and that they were allowed to print more inflammatory comments in P/E than Modern Railways would allow.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
3 hours ago, locoholic said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48995511

 

Am I being too cynical by suggesting that this review is aiming to shield politicians and civil servants from receiving the blame for rail-related cock-ups?

 

Having previously stated that the franchising system should be scrapped because it has failed, Williams seems to have bottled out of such a radical plan of action, and now simply proposes longer franchises, presumably to allow for longer, bigger failures? I guess he's been leant on by the money men and civil servants who, after the timetable change and electrification fiascos, are now completely allergic to the idea of radical change in the rail industry.

 

 

I think it speaks volumes - essentially, he appears to say that our politicians are too p**s poor to run anything at all. If this is the case for railways, presumably it's also the case for absolutely everything that they meddle in.  The solution would be around 660 less MPs.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 7
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, locoholic said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48995511

 

Am I being too cynical by suggesting that this review is aiming to shield politicians and civil servants from receiving the blame for rail-related cock-ups?

 

Having previously stated that the franchising system should be scrapped because it has failed, Williams seems to have bottled out of such a radical plan of action, and now simply proposes longer franchises, presumably to allow for longer, bigger failures? I guess he's been leant on by the money men and civil servants who, after the timetable change and electrification fiascos, are now completely allergic to the idea of radical change in the rail industry.

 

 

Cynicism, or not, there is something very bizarre in his comments. "Someone should be accountable to the public" - there already is, the Sec of State for Transport. But he also says govt should be hands off, except for strategy and budget. Many of the most major, recent problems have been due to bad decisions (or U-turns) on strategy, including over-rapid executions of enormous, complex projects, and of course, rolling stock procurement and cascade, and clearly DOO against all odds.

 

If each franchise (if that is what is to continue) becomes even more responsible for punctuality, train lengths etc (on which they are already penalised/rewarded to some extent) when a high proportion of delays are out of their control, whether infrastructure or industrial disputes fuelled by DfT policy decisions, I do not get it at all. If one "independent" person is made accountable, just how does that work unless everyone else is subservient to him/her? The ORR had their claws nipped, and OPRAF and then the SRA were scrapped.

 

So is he trying to wind the clock back, or is there some "new" idea lurking?

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

I think it speaks volumes - essentially, he appears to say that our politicians are too p**s poor to run anything at all. If this is the case for railways, presumably it's also the case for absolutely everything that they meddle in.  The solution would be around 660 less MPs.

 

I hope you are not advocating the Mussolini solution??? That did not end well either.......

 

  • Agree 2
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

The problem is that in the UK, the public love the idea of a private industry being cheaper (we like better too, but will also choose cheaper) but can't grasp that industry isn't interested in the long-term.

 

For example, if you run a water company, you could build more costly reservoirs to handle increased demand, or just charge more for the water to depress demand? The later is the low-risk way to make money.

 

Public transport needs to be operated as a service, but that means someone has to define the services to be run. Someone who isn't ONLY interested in making a profit. This probably means government, but they are too lazy/stupid to do it properly and can't make their minds up exactly what they want, other than Rolls-Royce services for Mini money. 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
41 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Dr B. Ching can be very interesting and annoying at the same time. When I was a regular reader, several years back, I knew the detail behind several items on which he cast aspersions, so I do not treat that column with the reverence I once used to. I think it is more opinion than "information". Many of us suspected we knew who the insider (or more likely insiders) was/were and that they were allowed to print more inflammatory comments in P/E than Modern Railways would allow.

 

Thanks for your opinion of the column.  I had always wondered what those 'nearer the rail' thought of it, being more 'insiders'.  I shall lower the pedestal on which I had put the correspondent, although I do like her/his pithy arguments (when I agree :) ).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, locoholic said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48995511

 

Am I being too cynical by suggesting that this review is aiming to shield politicians and civil servants from receiving the blame for rail-related cock-ups?

 

Having previously stated that the franchising system should be scrapped because it has failed, Williams seems to have bottled out of such a radical plan of action, and now simply proposes longer franchises, presumably to allow for longer, bigger failures? I guess he's been leant on by the money men and civil servants who, after the timetable change and electrification fiascos, are now completely allergic to the idea of radical change in the rail industry.

 

 

This has reminded me suddenly of the N.H.S reforms in the 1990's.  To-day, every state-responsibility has had an 'agency' put between the industry and the Sec. of State so the latter may say, 'Not me, Guv!'  When N.H.S. trusts were set up under the purchaser/provider split, the Sec. for Health then wriggled out of responsibility for waiting list times, etc., I think, blaming the 'autonomous' new Trusts.  We now have Govt. at arm's length, specifying standards to private franchisees instead of running services directly with state employees.  Having said that, the railways appear to buck this trend by suffering more interference from DaFT than ever did B.R. under the Ministry of Transport.

Edited by C126
typos: "responsibiity" and "Ministery"
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to be a typical political bunch of rubbish with so many vague ideas and comments that can be turned round by all involved to suit their opinions.I think that DAFT should be distanced from rail and a separate body set up just for rail then and only then will maybe sense prevail just looked at wcml happennings all that's left are Chinese railway and Italian group backed by First what a cock up an obvious requirement for an independent group to sort out.MP,s are not the people to oversee a commercial operation they simply do not have the ideas or knowledge to oversee anything. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the real problem here is that the number of possible ways of organising the UK's railways is slowly reducing, as each possible option is tried, and then discarded after it is found that rush hour trains to/from London are still late and overcrowded (despite the new arrangement having been in place for over 3 weeks)?

  • Like 3
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, locoholic said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48995511

 

Am I being too cynical by suggesting that this review is aiming to shield politicians and civil servants from receiving the blame for rail-related cock-ups?

 

Having previously stated that the franchising system should be scrapped because it has failed, Williams seems to have bottled out of such a radical plan of action, and now simply proposes longer franchises, presumably to allow for longer, bigger failures? I guess he's been leant on by the money men and civil servants who, after the timetable change and electrification fiascos, are now completely allergic to the idea of radical change in the rail industry.

 

 

However it could be argued that some of the more successful franchises have been those of longer duration, such as Virgin and Chiltern ?

 

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Dr B. Ching can be very interesting and annoying at the same time. When I was a regular reader, several years back, I knew the detail behind several items on which he cast aspersions, so I do not treat that column with the reverence I once used to. I think it is more opinion than "information". Many of us suspected we knew who the insider (or more likely insiders) was/were and that they were allowed to print more inflammatory comments in P/E than Modern Railways would allow.

 

I recall a reference many years ago to Private Eye attributing some of the blame for the Great Heck accident onto the rail industry. Try as I might I have never been able to confirm what was said so I stand to be corrected.

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

“Seems to be a typical political bunch of rubbish with so many vague ideas and comments that can be turned round by all involved to suit their opinions.I think that DAFT should be distanced from rail and a separate body set up just for rail then and only then will maybe sense prevail......”

 

Isn’t what you advocate exactly what this “bunch of rubbish” recommends? In short, are you not in danger of disagreeing with yourself?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, caradoc said:

I recall a reference many years ago to Private Eye attributing some of the blame for the Great Heck accident onto the rail industry. Try as I might I have never been able to confirm what was said so I stand to be corrected.

 

I also recall an article in Eye, this time by 'Sparky' (energy corespondent) that claimed to the effect that because the Cumbrian Coast line had 'ancient' semaphore signalling there was an inherent safety issue with the flask trains.  Unfortunately no journalist is immune from over-egging their copy.  Your mileage may vary, T's&C's apply etc...

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, WessexEclectic said:

 

I also recall an article in Eye, this time by 'Sparky' (energy corespondent) that claimed to the effect that because the Cumbrian Coast line had 'ancient' semaphore signalling there was an inherent safety issue with the flask trains.  Unfortunately no journalist is immune from over-egging their copy.  Your mileage may vary, T's&C's apply etc...

I used to be a big fan of the Eye. but I increasing think it's fallen into the trap of attacking the mainstream media for printing one kind of rubbish, whilst simultaneously printing rubbish of its own. 

 

I also never quite understood what their railway correspondent had against Double Fairlies. 

Edited by pete_mcfarlane
  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some basic stuff about accountability and power:

 

Anything or anybody that uses ‘public money’ ought to be accountable to the public for their effective use of the same, the usual mechanism being that they are accountable to the public through elected representatives of the public (councillors, MPs etc).

 

The body or person that is accountable needs to have effective power to allow them to discharge their accountability, otherwise their time and salary are being wasted.

 

Power without accountability quickly leads to tears (corruption, abuse, complacency etc).

 

Accountability without effective power also quickly leads to tears (crises of expectation, disappointment, frustration etc).

 

Our National Railway industry is currently without effective accountability, accountability for its outcomes being ludicrously diffuse. It is also without an effective power structure, again because of diffusion, but also because of balkanisation.

 

I haven’t read the “Williams review to date” yet, but unless it sorts both accountability and powers, it won’t work out well.

 

As a footnote, Nationalised BR wasn’t too bad as regards power, although wielding it was difficult, but it wasn’t all that marvellous on accountability, because the link between the public and BRB via the MoT was pretty tenuous.

 

IMO, it is only in London in the UK that the accountability and power structures actually work anything like properly for public transport, and they are noticeably simpler and more direct than the current national model.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

The problem is that in the UK, the public love the idea of a private industry being cheaper (we like better too, but will also choose cheaper) but can't grasp that industry isn't interested in the long-term.

 

For example, if you run a water company, you could build more costly reservoirs to handle increased demand, or just charge more for the water to depress demand? The later is the low-risk way to make money.

 

Public transport needs to be operated as a service, but that means someone has to define the services to be run. Someone who isn't ONLY interested in making a profit. This probably means government, but they are too lazy/stupid to do it properly and can't make their minds up exactly what they want, other than Rolls-Royce services for Mini money. 

I would say there that, while the operating companies may make an operating profit, DafT has to guarantee that they do by subsidising them in order that they do, to find franchise bidders. As someone said a couple of years go, DafT outsources the day-to-day running of services, rather than that they are fully privatised. Network Rail is, IMHO, never likely to do so, due to the demands placed upon it, so it needs a payment

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

The problem is that in the UK, the public love the idea of a private industry being cheaper (we like better too, but will also choose cheaper) but can't grasp that industry isn't interested in the long-term.

 

For example, if you run a water company, you could build more costly reservoirs to handle increased demand, or just charge more for the water to depress demand? The later is the low-risk way to make money.

 

Public transport needs to be operated as a service, but that means someone has to define the services to be run. Someone who isn't ONLY interested in making a profit. This probably means government, but they are too lazy/stupid to do it properly and can't make their minds up exactly what they want, other than Rolls-Royce services for Mini money. 

 

Sorry Phil but under the way water is regulated and remunerated, that isn’t correct.  Water companies earn a regulated rate of return on their asset base.  If they invest in the base, eg build a new reservoir, that would be added to the asset base on which they can earn their regulated return.  As such, one of the critiques of the rcv/rab model is that it over incentivises investment in capex at the expense of opex solutions leading to a more “totex” model of incentivising companies based on total expenditure.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...