ECML franchise to be broucht back under Public Ownership

[Barry O]

Why "Network Fail"? - while the guys and gals at the pointy end may be doing a great job they are restrained by the inability of a company to cost and carry out major works.When senior management appear it is always everyone else's problem. From people I know in the Industry some of the Network Fail senior people can come across as being arrogant and yet not fully conversant in the rail industry itself.  Recent records on the ECML - as in delayed or cancelled "improvements" to the infrastructure don't help the companies running the service. to provide the service they have contracted to provide. While these companies need to stick within Financial regulations set for shareholder owned companies. NR are not bothered by this and clearly (at senior level) don't see it as a problem.

 

And why DAFT? They stick their oars into places they have neither the knowledge or ability to ...look at train purchases recently. They want to be in charge of the railways yet can quickly stand back and say "it isn't our fault"

 

What really is very concerning is that a lot of people with the knowledge to run NF and DAFT are either sitting in the sun after taking early retirement or working elsewhere such as Australia and New Zealand.

 

Who is training the future railway senior management?

 

Baz

Edited May 18, 2018 by Barry O

[Mallard60022]

Why "Network Fail"? - while the guys and gals at the pointy end may be doing a great job they are restrained by the inability of a company to cost and carry out major works.When senior management appear it is always everyone else's problem. From people I know in the Industry some of the Network Fail senior people can come across as being arrogant and yet not fully conversant in the rail industry itself.  Recent records on the ECML - as in delayed or cancelled "improvements" to the infrastructure don't help the companies running the service. to provide the service they have contracted to provide. While these companies need to stick within Financial regulations set for shareholder owned companies. NR are not bothered by this and clearly (at senior level) don't see it as a problem.

 

And why DAFT? They stick their oars into places they have neither the knowledge or ability to ...look at train purchases recently. They want to be in charge of the railways yet can quickly stand back and say "it isn't our fault"

 

What really is very concerning is that a lot of people with the knowledge to run NF and DAFT are either sitting in the sun after taking early retirement or working elsewhere such as Australia and New Zealand.

 

Who is training the future railway senior management?

 

Baz

Points taken there Baz.

Phil

[The Stationmaster]

I thought SNCF was for years a company 51% owned by the French govt, quoted on the French stock exchange, and able to borrow money/raise capital on the stock market? Surely the same could have been applied to BR?

 

I hope not - BR was a lot more efficient than SNCF and I'd be surprised if anyone would buy shares in SNCF which as a concern and organisation was regarded as a standing joke in management consultancy circles in France.  Mind you I wouldn't have minded being on SNCF conditions and perks for a post roughly equivalent to my BR grade, well worth having a flat in the capital city on a peppercorn rent if you were employed there.  And as for SNCF management staff and above expense accounts, trés yummy - always a pleasant experience to go out for lunch with SNCF management (even if it was the staff canteen).

[Talltim]

But it is certainly partly true. There has been massive investment in rolling stock, and particularly locomotives, since privatisation and the cost of that has not fallen on the public purse (in virtually all cases - DRS is an exception in respect of any part of its fleet which it bought outright as that was paid for with public money of course).

 

Where there has not been much outside money has been in infrastructure - and I can't really see that changing in respect of the former BR network although it has happened in respect of some new lines and routes.

The cost of the new stock has fallen on the public purse, just in lease charges via the TOCs rather than outright/repayment of loans. I doubt ROSCOs can buy stock any cheaper than anyone else and of course the lease cost include their profit.

[Pacific231G]

I thought SNCF was for years a company 51% owned by the French govt, quoted on the French stock exchange, and able to borrow money/raise capital on the stock market? Surely the same could have been applied to BR?

I would be loathe to quote the present state of SNCF as any kind of model but France does provide an example of a state owned railway functioning alongside private companies. In France the infrastructure of the national rail network was always owned by the state but the actual building and running of railways was let out to private companies on long terrm concessions. In 1878 a number of failing lines in the west of the country were taken over by a state owned company not very imaginatively named the Chemins de Fer de l'Etat. In 1908 this took over the much larger but struggling Chemin de Fer de l'Ouest. The enlarged l'Etat then operated alongside the four or five other major railway companies that ran the rest of the national network, until nationalisation as SNCF in 1938.

 

Particularly in its final ten years it was one of the most innovative and forward looking of France's railways with a particularly dynamic general manager determined to recapture traffic the railways were losing to the roads. Raoul Dautry introduced high speed railcars on many lines, double deck bogie coaches for some of the outer suburban services to Paris as well as the opening and modernisation of several new lines and stations.    

Edited May 18, 2018 by Pacific231G

[rockershovel]

I used Dutch railways from time to time, and they aren’t fast and don’t appear to invest unduly in paint or cleaning materials; but they are quite punctual, mostly quite cheap and have good network coverage. They are partly privatised but the State is apparently the sole shareholder.

 

Seems to work for them.

[jjb1970]

On the subject of leasing trains, the choice of whether to buy or lease (or other) depends on a number of variables however in principle there is nothing wrong with the concept of leasing and clearly it can offer value for money otherwise it wouldn't be so widely used in industries such as aviation and shipping. Of course leasing companies make a profit, but that is not the same as offering poor value. One of the biggest problems with leasing comparisons is that unless you know exactly what is included in leasing costs and the life cycle implications it is meaningless to compare with outright purchase costs. Does it include maintenance, performance guarantees, consumable parts etc? Perhaps most importantly is the risk share, depending on how you apportion risk in a lease arrangement (for example contracting for service provision with performance guarantees rather than a straight dry lease arrangement on an asset with all maintenance and management in-house. Another advantage is if you need to adjust capacity for short term variations or unexpected changes in trade. And it allows you to leave somebody else to worry about the hard work of detailed design and acquisition providing the customer is sufficiently informed to write a good specification. Not to mention use of capital. If it didn't make sense the lease model wouldn't be so widely used across the whole spectrum of industries by private companies and even individuals. I have a lot of sympathies for the ROSCOs as ever since privatisation they've been the poster boys for villainy and nefarious practices in the rail industry despite several inquiries finding no evidence to support the mud thrown at them.

[Hobby]

They are partly privatised but the State is apparently the sole shareholder.

 

How is that "privatised"?

[rodent279]

How is that "privatised"?

I was going to ask that question!

 

If a company's shares are owned by one person/company/organisation, can that company be listed on the stock market?

[Ncarter2]

Exactly the same with various comments passed about BR. Having been in the industry for many years I simply got thick-skinned about it and ignored the cries and slurs cast by the unknowing and uncaring outside the industry. In many respects all that has changed is the name of the organisation being insulted.

 

But I have to say, from direct experience of dealing with them professionally, that I have at times been amazed, and occasionally genuinely frightened, by the lack of knowledge of their job's full responsibilities exhibited by some NR staff with whom I have come into contact. In most cases that has, it is important to note, not necessarily down to individuals but to poor/incomplete training coupled with lack of experience or wider knowledge and some of it has very definitely been down to organisational decisions which in my view should never have been safety validated (assuming they were safety validated?).

 

Incidentally that doesn't just apply to NR as I'm at times even more worried by some of the output from RSSB which seems to be totally detached from everyday reality.

NR messes up with Phase 2A, it then decimated itself with 2B/C. The amount of experience and knowledge lost is shocking and saddening. Training is lacking, key courses and skills are no longer taught, training being condensed down to save money, it’s criminal and reckless.

[Ncarter2]

You should see what some (non railway staff) call Virgin, "fail" is mild compared with their version of Virgin... Let's face it we on the railways are in a no-win situation and the Public will always find some sort of derogatory nickname for us, how do you think the ordinary employees of the DfT feel about you lot calling them DafT? Same thing, different business (or whatever)... Just get your thick skinned coat on and live with it, we have to out in the front line every day on the trains much more than even yourselves on the front line of NR!

Too true, no win all round.

Taking nothing away from the platform staff etc, it would be good for a TV show about front line Network Rail, a no holes barred version, not like the last one.

I for one take my hat off to the staff who have to deal with the general public daily.

At least we can retreat to the safety of the trackside.

[AMJ]

All that we have left would be an LMS company to complete the set especially as a Scottish railway company was suggested as a fifth along with SR GWR LNER LMS

 

https://www.facebook.com/thebashmash/photos/a.1656841591249492.1073741828.1656838197916498/2067644326835881/?type=3

[E3109]

This is only my opinion but the worst aspect of privatisation was the model they used.

 

BR Plc would've had great potential, we would've retained the command structure and thus the managers who got out.

[Ncarter2]

Thanks for posting this Ncarter2. I'm sure that no one here meant to criticise frontline staff, probably just the overall perceptions that the companies as a whole exude, if a company can exude perceptions!

 

Taking the predominantly Victorian infrastructure as a base, what are your ideas for improving UK railways? The High Speed rail proposal has come into all sorts of opposition from nimbys in the Chilterns, for instance, which may affect political majorities at the next general election. Should our plans for new railways be similar to France where plans are laid and new railways are bulldozed into existence?

 

Have a good day at the coalface!

 

Mal

We need to modernise and advance, but we need to be more controlled in how we do so. The waste is criminal, look at the west coast upgrade, the fantastic new auto transformer system that was then not so, miles of cable installed to be pulled down and scrapped. Controls on contract firms, a certain Italian rail installed by a now defunct renewal contract frim, lasted a couple of years before being replaced for quality rail at NR expense. We should prove technology before we go for mass install.

[Dagworth]

 We should prove technology before we go for mass install.

Haven't we been here before? Modernisation plan anyone...

 

Andi

[rodent279]

This is only my opinion but the worst aspect of privatisation was the model they used.

 

BR Plc would've had great potential, we would've retained the command structure and thus the managers who got out.

Dunno about BR plc, I'd have privatised the business sectors, or adopted the German model of state owned operator running most trains, with an increasing number being devolved to regional operators, whilst allowing open access freight & passenger operators.

 

I think the particular model of "privatisation", whilst having its merits, has led to a lot of disintegration, as in the reverse of integration, in the industry. I think that is regrettable.

[Mike Storey]

 

 

 

 

Here's an interesting piece of information about DOR and its current status Mike.

It's a from a response to a FOI request submitted just 3 months ago.

 

Basically, DOR is still technically a live company, but not trading.

It was not wound up following the transfer of its shareholding in East Coast Mainline Company Ltd  (formally trading as East Coast, now trading as VTEC), to Inter City Railways Ltd (the joint Stagecoach/Virgin holding company) in 2015.

 

 

 

We now know that subsidiary of DOHL is named LNER.

 

The Arup, SNC Lavalin and EY consortium appear to be advising on the residual functions and liabilities of the effectively dormant DOR.

It also might explain why the DfT have used another of its registered holding companies to manage and oversee the new LNER operator (i.e. a clean sheet of paper).

 

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/463455/response/1120271/attach/html/2/01.03.18%20F0015795%20reply.pdf.html

.

 

Very, very interesting. Many thanks Ron.

 

When you look at this company, it was actually formed in 2010, as College Rail Ltd, registered at Marsham Street, so definitely a DfT creation. Why create a separate company, having already created DOR Ltd the previous year?

 

The name was changed to DOHL only in 2016.

 

The director listed at the top is one Dave Bennett, who happened not to mention that in his FOI reply, but that is by the by. He is also a Director of DFT OLR2 Ltd, along with another six or so, named, DOHL subsidiary companies, whose company names accord with those of several franchises.

 

Of them, London North Eastern Railway Ltd, was originally formed with the name Strutton Rail Ltd in 2003. The name was changed to GW Rail Ltd in 2013, when they were obviously anticipating trouble with that franchise, and then in 2016, it changed again to DFT OLR1 Ltd. Three of the current directors were appointed just before this change,in Dec 2015, Dave Bennett, Richard Cantwell and our old friend, Peter Wilkinson (previously of, you guessed it, First Class Partnerships).

 

The name changed again 14 Feb this year, to LNER, and two further directors were appointed, as secretaries. Strangely, a further director was appointed today (18th) but shown as resigned the same day - that may be some kind of error. All of these directors are civil servants, and only Peter Wilkinson has any operations experience, but that was largely in LUL. So it seems they are still looking for a new Managing Director (Michael Holden having resigned from these various companies a few years ago). Perhaps they have persuaded David Horne to stay on, along with his team, but it surprises me that they have neither announced that nor made him a director of LNER. Perhaps they will find someone through their "advisors".

 

Anyway, a fascinating exploration into how the DfT have been preparing for sudden franchise terminations, for many years. It would appear the sudden emergence of an outfit called London North Eastern Railway Ltd was not so sudden after all. But quite how this improves matters for the DfT rather than just having used the extant DOR, I do not know.

 

Incidentally, LNER Ltd, as a name, is registered to a company in Nottingham, and has some connection to a railway preservation group. London & North Eastern Railway Ltd is a registered company owned by a couple in Surbiton. I guess DfT will have to be mindful not to breach either of those copyrights.

[Mike Storey]

The cost of the new stock has fallen on the public purse, just in lease charges via the TOCs rather than outright/repayment of loans. I doubt ROSCOs can buy stock any cheaper than anyone else and of course the lease cost include their profit.

 

Most franchises now pay premiums to govt. Few are now subsidised as such. So in the main, the cost is paid via the fares.

 

BR were already undertaking leasing, as they did not have sufficient capital to replace all locos and rolling stock, as necessary, due to Treasury constraints. Additionally of course, freight customers, kicked off by Foster Yeoman, were increasingly buying their own locos and wagons, well before privatisation came along. The most likely scenario is that the private sector would have played an increasingly greater part in the operation and renewal of traction and rolling stock (and quite possibly in infrastructure) as funding restraints prohibited BR from investing fast enough. This would have meant that private companies would have demanded an increasingly greater say in how the railways were run. Privatisation, if funding continued to be depressed, would therefore have become inevitable in some form.

 

The form that was eventually chosen, is of course, the main problem. The German government have developed a hands-off approach to German Railways (DBAG), who are allowed to borrow on the stock market for infrastructure schemes and new rolling stock, but the govt still retains the controlling share, and DBAG has to get the approval of the Supervisory Board for its strategy and general financing needs. It seems to work, but DBAG's services and costs have increasingly become a source of concern for passengers, and especially for local counties (Lander) who now almost all tender out their services to private operators, but allow DBAG to bid too. DBAG has been caught red-handed in unfair competition, and its reputation has not been improved by that. Nonetheless, overall, it runs a pretty impressive service and continues to invest heavily.

[Mike Storey]

I used Dutch railways from time to time, and they aren’t fast and don’t appear to invest unduly in paint or cleaning materials; but they are quite punctual, mostly quite cheap and have good network coverage. They are partly privatised but the State is apparently the sole shareholder.

 

Seems to work for them.

 

Technically, they were never nationalised, strange though it may seem. They (NS - Dutch Railways) were formed by merger of two private companies before WW2, but it remained a private company, and the state bought all the shares but kept the company independent. That was very different to the way in which the Big Four in the UK were nationalised under the British Transport Commission, although later of course all sorts of Ltd Company nomenclature was used.

 

The apparent "privatisation" (apart from freight, which was all sold off to DB Schenker) is actually a separation of infrastructure (to a new state owned company called ProRail) from train and station operation (the only function for NS now) and a system of concessions, for which NS has total rights only for mainline services, until 2025. For all other routes it has to bid against other companies, which is why several different companies now operate local services.

[Mike Storey]

I would be loathe to quote the present state of SNCF as any kind of model but France does provide an example of a state owned railway functioning alongside private companies. In France the infrastructure of the national rail network was always owned by the state but the actual building and running of railways was let out to private companies on long terrm concessions. In 1878 a number of failing lines in the west of the country were taken over by a state owned company not very imaginatively named the Chemins de Fer de l'Etat. In 1908 this took over the much larger but struggling Chemin de Fer de l'Ouest. The enlarged l'Etat then operated alongside the four or five other major railway companies that ran the rest of the national network, until nationalisation as SNCF in 1938.

 

Particularly in its final ten years it was one of the most innovative and forward looking of France's railways with a particularly dynamic general manager determined to recapture traffic the railways were losing to the roads. Raoul Dautry introduced high speed railcars on many lines, double deck bogie coaches for some of the outer suburban services to Paris as well as the opening and modernisation of several new lines and stations.    

 

Quite agree. It was the absolute opposite then of the shambles that is SNCF today. Its current managing director has even stated publicly that he would rather run buses, because it is easier (SNCF run motorway coaches in competition with their own trains, called Ouibus, pronounced weebus)....This is a 100% state run organisation. Go figure.

[david.hill64]

I hope not - BR was a lot more efficient than SNCF and I'd be surprised if anyone would buy shares in SNCF which as a concern and organisation was regarded as a standing joke in management consultancy circles in France.  Mind you I wouldn't have minded being on SNCF conditions and perks for a post roughly equivalent to my BR grade, well worth having a flat in the capital city on a peppercorn rent if you were employed there.  And as for SNCF management staff and above expense accounts, trés yummy - always a pleasant experience to go out for lunch with SNCF management (even if it was the staff canteen).

 

I used to look forward to my trips to Rue Traversiere (?). The first item on the agenda would be to set the meeting agenda for the day, working around the mandatory 3 hour lunch...………….

[rockershovel]

.... not for the first time, more information about an important national news story on here, than in the daily press ....

[Vistisen]

So we Have GWR, Southern and now LNER, all we need is the LMS to take back the west coast and we will have arrived in 1923, sorry 2023!! Seriously who’d have thought that 95 years after the grouping that three of the ‘big four’ would still be working the main lines!

And if Scotland votes to become independant and remailns in the EU then you can soon go back to pre 1707 and Stagecoach will again be able to bid for a bid for a contract.

[jjb1970]

If I was looking for an example of a better railway system than ours I wouldn't point to Germany. I wouldn't be especially negative about German trains but neither would I be particularly positive. When I have used them in recent years I have experienced poor punctuality, trains have been rather shabby, lots of graffiti and less than great passenger information. Overall I prefer our trains, warts and all.

[Hobby]

This is a 100% state run organisation. Go figure.

 

From what I've seen the French always do their own thing when it comes to EU diktats, if we'd done the same as them instead of slavishly doing exactly what the EU tell us to do we probably wouldn't have had a referendum... It's interesting that the countries mentioned all seem to have done something different, though... From what I saw of Austria, they still have OBB in charge of all but the narrow gauge lines. They use Railjet like Hungary but unlike the Hungary I can use my boxes on them!

Edited May 19, 2018 by Hobby