Ben Elton the great railway disaster CH4

[Phil Parker]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

Train and coaches will remain the most cost effective and least impactful means of travelling reasonable distances on land, but high speed rail feels like a fad because other countries so much bigger than us have them, I'd much rather see lots of classic rail lines being built for a future with less cars than one big white elephant because the politics stopped it being what it could have been.

 

It's not about speed though. That's just a poorly judged acronym.

 

Talk to people whose job involves getting trains up and down the country and they will explain how difficult finding paths is, especially for slower trains. By taking the fast stuff off the WCML it frees up a lot of capacity. 

 

And it's cheaper than adding capacity directly to the WCML. The only complaint is It's not going all the way to Scotland. 

[Phatbob]

19 hours ago, D860 VICTORIOUS said:

 to make jokes about Michael Portillo,who probably wasn't most people's fave politician,but wasn't it him as a Minister who prevented BR from closing the Settle-Carlisle line?

Mr Portaloo has been very good at rewriting his own history.  It would be equally accurate to say that he was the man who permitted BR to close the Woodhead route, Tunbridge Wells - Eridge and all the other early 1980s closures.

 

[woodenhead]

@Phil Parker I see 140mph as classic lines, something that with the right signalling would be possible in the UK right now.

 

I'm just musing here a future where there are less cars because the general public is being priced out and trains become an obvious mode of transport.

 

HS2 as it is now as a truncated route to Birmingham and then onto classic lines, does it need to be 200 mph plus - of course it's too late to reengineer to a lower speed, the tunnels, cuttings and bridges are all designed and being built.  But if it was still going to be built as a proper inter city high speed network without more stations than it needs simply to get the votes from parliamentarians then high speed would be absolutely fine.  I want them to build it, I want it to be high speed but if all it does is deliver London to Birmingham and Manchester, then a lot of the country is going to be feeling mighty miffed.  If we can't even justfiy the cost of an extra island platform for Manchester Piccadilly, then what chance HS3 across the Pennines in the next 50 years.

 

As being delivered right now with threats of more cuts then it feels like the Kent commuter service on HS1 - you exit St Pancras, zip to Ebsfleet where you grind to a crawl because you're now on a two track line.  For HS2 that means zip from Old Oak to Birmingham, then quite a bit slower to Crewe after which the number of trains, tracks and curves is quickly going to constrain speeds.

 

It's not the trains I am unhappy about, it's the polictical mess that seemingly even under the same Goverment went from a plan to link the south and north with a high speed line, to a line that only makes it to the Midlands and potentially won't even reach Euston.

[whart57]

London to Manchester and London to Leeds are both around 200 miles or 320 km. Newcastle is a shade under 300 miles and Glasgow just over 400 miles.

 

Most French TGV lines are around 300 miles from Paris to their further destination, much the same as London to the North East, the long one being to the Riviera, Paris Marseilles being a bit over 400 miles. Of course France has neighbours so let's add Paris-Amsterdam and Paris-Frankfurt, both of which again are 300 miles or so. There are differences though. Britain only needs one stem high speed line, London to Edinburgh via Leeds and Newcastle with a branch off that to Manchester and Liverpool - the last bit on normal tracks. France has six going in different directions. Yet that one line connects five of the UK's seven biggest cities directly - assuming it passes Birmingham - with the other two potentially served by running on from the end of the high speed line.

 

The overall length is about the same as the longest French TGV line, so is that "we are too small for high speed railways" doesn't really work does it?

[30368]

On 28/06/2023 at 07:01, david.hill64 said:

I worked for Eversholt but never knew that Andrew had an interest in anything other than 12" to 1'. Like the other directors in Eversholt he risked everything financially to take the risk. If it had gone wrong they would have been bankrupt and homeless.

 

Yes David, there was a degree of risk involved but not that much. Each original ROSCO had about a third of the former BR Fleet allocated and paid around £250 - £300 million, frankly a fraction of the actual value. THey would never of been funded by Britain's Banking system unless it was a dead cert. When they were sold on to banks the original "investors" made a mint. I don't in any way blame them, some of whom were colleagues of mine. I do recall at least one very senior railway manager though who ended up in a ROSCO and resigned before the sale which he found morally repugnant.

 

I had many dealings with ROSCO's in my time and generally they were very, very profitable and were able to move most of the safety and performance risk to the TOCs. For example, the TOCs were under pressure to improve train reliablity so they progressed reliability mods - the cost of which was added to the leasing cost to the all round benefit of the ROSCOs. Transparancy of Leasing Company profits are now beyond our ken given their offshore owners.

 

Ben Elton was spot on with his analysis, rail privatisation, along with water (!!) and energy are a national disgrace the consequences of which we are all living and, many of us, struggling with.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

 

[woodenhead]

@whart57 If built from London to Edinburgh via Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle - absolutely.

 

But it isn't - at the moment it goes from Old Oak to Birmingham about 120 miles, after which the plans are in complete disarray.  So that is less than half the distance of the TGV route averages you mention.

 

If you are going to build a High Speed line you need to do it properly or not at all.  The spur to Leeds (and possibly further) has been pushed back to back burner with no real plan and if you ask me it was a mess because of all the people who wanted their cut of the route to get the vote.  Then there is Manchester, it may or may not receive a HS2 line, it may or may not reach Crewe, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh where are they?

 

Then there are the people blighted - living on the route of HS2 not knowing what the future holds.

 

Inept government is at the root of all this.

[30368]

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

Inept government is at the root of all this.

 

You are very gentle Sir! I would put it a little stronger than that!

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[BernardTPM]

2 hours ago, Phatbob said:

Mr Portaloo has been very good at rewriting his own history.  It would be equally accurate to say that he was the man who permitted BR to close the Woodhead route, Tunbridge Wells - Eridge and all the other early 1980s closures.

He was Transport Secretary from 1988 to 1990, so probably had little say in those closures.

I'm not defending the Conservative governments in those years, just saying that you should check facts before making an accusaton like that. (I know we can all slip up like that occasionally; Mea Culpa).

Edited June 29, 2023 by BernardTPM

[BernardTPM]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

@Phil Parker I see 140mph as classic lines, something that with the right signalling would be possible in the UK right now.

Indeed the IC225 and Pendolinos could have run at 140mph if the right signalling had been put in place. 30 wasted years?

[keefer]

23 hours ago, didcot said:

I suspect he could make a whole series starting with Water!

 

2 hours ago, 30368 said:

 

rail privatisation, along with water (!!) and energy are a national disgrace the consequences of which we are all living and, many of us, struggling with.

 

 

Going sightly off-topic but Paul Whitehouse, another comedian, has done a two-part exposé on the Water Industry. The current state of rivers is important to him as an enthusiastic angler and the subject was touched on a few times during his & Bob Mortimer's 'Gone Fishing' series.

Paul Whitehouse: Our Troubled Rivers (BBC iPlayer)

An unlikely major 'activist' for the cause is none other than Fearghal Sharkey of The Undertones!

The main points seem to be Water Companies exploiting loopholes to allow dumping raw sewage into rivers on a regular basis, water abstraction from rivers, little investment in processes and infrastructure and then charging their customers a fortune in water bills, only for the revenue to disappear as massive 'profits' which are funnelled off to Shareholders and Investors (mainly banks, hedge funds etc i.e. the usual suspects)

I noticed a headline just today that Thames Water (main investors from China and Dubai) may 'need' a £billions Government bail-out.

Ludicrous situation where a licence to print money suddenly becomes 'We're broke' when the brown stuff hits the fan.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66039170

Edited June 29, 2023 by keefer

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, BernardTPM said:

Indeed the IC225 and Pendolinos could have run at 140mph if the right signalling had been put in place. 30 wasted years?

Which would increase the differential between the fastest and the slowest services, hence actually reducing capacity, the addition of which is the primary aim of HS2 (although politicians couldn't be sold something so ordinary, so it had to be sold to them as a high speed rail link like what those foreigners have.

Can I suggest that discussion of HS2 moves to the HS2 thread?  In fact can I suggest that those who don't see the point of HS2, go read that thread - from beginning to end, it'll take you a while! - but you will learn more about the project, it's history and why it is specified the way it is, than you will ever learn from national newspapers, TV and certainly from our elected representatives (or those who would like to be).

[AY Mod]

8 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Can I suggest that discussion of HS2 moves to the HS2 thread? 

 

Especially as HS2 wasn't covered in the TV programme.

[woodenhead]

6 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Especially as HS2 wasn't covered in the TV programme.

But it is another example of the money squandered on the railways that goes into the hands of private investors often overseas.  Train users in Germany were very happy to find their trains subsidised by the UK taxpayer.

 

Or robbing the poor taxpayer and giving it to the rich.

[AY Mod]

7 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

But it is another example of the money squandered

 

Just trying to manage hornet's nests rather than sorting out a huge one full of angry Vespidae.

[whart57]

4 hours ago, woodenhead said:

If you are going to build a High Speed line you need to do it properly or not at all. 

 

 

Exactly, that was my point. But because we now get bogged down in justifying returns on investment to people who are implacably opposed because they simply hate trains, we end up doing half-arsed projects.

[david.hill64]

7 hours ago, 30368 said:

 

Yes David, there was a degree of risk involved but not that much. Each original ROSCO had about a third of the former BR Fleet allocated and paid around £250 - £300 million, frankly a fraction of the actual value. THey would never of been funded by Britain's Banking system unless it was a dead cert. When they were sold on to banks the original "investors" made a mint. I don't in any way blame them, some of whom were colleagues of mine. I do recall at least one very senior railway manager though who ended up in a ROSCO and resigned before the sale which he found morally repugnant.

 

I had many dealings with ROSCO's in my time and generally they were very, very profitable and were able to move most of the safety and performance risk to the TOCs. For example, the TOCs were under pressure to improve train reliablity so they progressed reliability mods - the cost of which was added to the leasing cost to the all round benefit of the ROSCOs. Transparancy of Leasing Company profits are now beyond our ken given their offshore owners.

 

Ben Elton was spot on with his analysis, rail privatisation, along with water (!!) and energy are a national disgrace the consequences of which we are all living and, many of us, struggling with.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

 

The degree of risk centred around the Labour party's threat to renationalize. Every time a Labour party spokesman made a statement, ROSCO management saw that their chance of completing the buy out increased. HSBC walked away from their plans to buy Eversholt only to take it later from the management team at a higher price when the risk was less. I agree that the initial sale prices did represent a bargain, but if politics had gone a different way then who knows?

 

TOCS didn't progress reliability modifications on their own: they worked with the ROSCO engineering teams to determine what was required. The ROSCOs paid for the modifications  and if these added value over time then some residual value would be set against future lease rentals. If not, the TOC would pay within the current lease. Eversholt I know invested heavily in additional works at heavy maintenance to protect the vehicles in a way that BR could never afford to.

 

Safety risk lies squarely with the TOCs: which is exactly as it should be. I remember leading a debate within Eversholt as to whether we should be generating some form of safety case for the fleet but it ran the risk of split responsibilities leading to safety risk. However, when there were safety incidents - Networkers dropping gearboxes, 91's throwing cardan shafts through platform waiting shelters, Greyhound CIG bearings - we reacted swiftly and not just to protect revenue.

 

Yes ROSCOs were/are profitable, but then most financial institutions are. However, you might reflect that the foreign ownership is indicative of the profits not being high enough to interest domestic investors which brings us back to why only Angel (with typical  Japanese long view owners) was not a management buy out.

 

Ben Elton may have a view that Rail privatisation is a national disgrace but during the privatisation era traffic growth reversed decades of decline and safety is much improved. We do not know if this would have happened under BR (and I think that there is a good chance that it would have) but many things are better now.

[david.hill64]

8 hours ago, woodenhead said:

But it is another example of the money squandered on the railways that goes into the hands of private investors often overseas.  Train users in Germany were very happy to find their trains subsidised by the UK taxpayer.

 

Or robbing the poor taxpayer and giving it to the rich.

And recently the Dutch and German taxpayers have been unhappy at subsidising UK rail.

[woodenhead]

4 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

And recently the Dutch and German taxpayers have been unhappy at subsidising UK rail.

And would that be after the wheels came off the gravy train with Abellio over bidding and not wanting to pay the premium it promised the UK Government 'due to commuting patterns changing' or because it underbid for Scotrail.

 

And since Covid the whole of UK railways is in a mess still.

 

I don't think it's right that foreign governments and their tax payers should be subisiding our railways no, it's the same principle.

 

But it is interesting that the UK interpretation of 'we have to privatise because it's EU rules' was applied differently in continental Europe to here.  In the UK BR was not allowed to bid for franchises by the government, in Europe they adopted a different model hence the government backed European railways could bid for work in their own country and abroad.  The UK government wanted to break the monopoly, I think we can see that after 25 + years of privatisation the personnel of the UK railways still speak as one.

[whart57]

A lot of government action and inaction in this country was blamed on "EU rules". It was a useful cover. With the privatisations of rail and utilities however the underlying purpose was to create steady revenue streams for investors. With manufactured products people can and do stop buying them which not only knocks share price but is unpredictable, however people don't stop using water, gas or electricity and people don't stop having to travel for work. Predictable revenue means stable shares and that means shares that can be traded. Tory housing policy of the time also aimed at creating large numbers of mortgage payers, repayments on mortgages being another reliable revenue stream.

[62613]

11 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

Ben Elton may have a view that Rail privatisation is a national disgrace growth but during the privatisation era traffic growth reversed decades of decline and safety is much improved. We do not know if this would have happened under BR (and I think that there is a good chance that it would have) but many things are better now.

We keep on hearing this, but traffic was already growing under BR (from 1992, when the economy was picking up after the Big Bang recession). Correlation is NOT causation. Is it worth pointing out that traffic had been declining since before The Great War, and that nationalisation wasn't the culprit?

Edited June 30, 2023 by 62613

[woodenhead]

@whart57 And Thames Water has shown what happens when you give a private investor a steady guaranteed income where the Government will have to step in should you fail to do what you are meant to do.

 

No accountability, no worry and when the chickens come home to roost, you hand the keys back.

[woodenhead]

11 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

Ben Elton may have a view that Rail privatisation is a national disgrace but during the privatisation era traffic growth reversed decades of decline and safety is much improved. We do not know if this would have happened under BR (and I think that there is a good chance that it would have) but many things are better now.

When it comes to safety being improved in private hands - I give you RailTrack.

[Neil]

16 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

@whart57 And Thames Water has shown what happens when you give a private investor a steady guaranteed income where the Government will have to step in should you fail to do what you are meant to do.

 

No accountability, no worry and when the chickens come home to roost, you hand the keys back.

 

Whatever the industry, when you stand back a bit it can be seen as a means of wealth transfer from those on ordinary incomes to those already wealthy. A national asset is privatised, people with money to spare invest, dividends are paid to investors, the ordinary person sees no benefit from the transfer of ownership but when it all goes wrong it's the ordinary citizen who picks up the pieces through their tax bill. I think this used to be called asset stripping.

[30368]

20 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

No accountability, no worry and when the chickens come home to roost, you hand the keys back.

 

As many franchise train operators have done so and, as you suggest, many water companies will effectively be doing so very soon.

 

Yet again Britain has shown the world the way and produced the latest incarnation of Capitalism - Tax Payer Capitalism - it takes the risk out of investor risk thanks to us mugs.

 

Sorry I will probably be arrested now!😬I should get back to my therapy and build another little locomotive....

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[Jim Martin]

19 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

He was Transport Secretary from 1988 to 1990

He wasn't even that. He was Minister of State for Transport, which is a junior ministerial post. The Secretary of State was Paul Channon, then Cecil Parkinson.