Britain's Disgusting Railways

[cyberdongreen]

Hi everybody.

...In regard to Network Rail, I have to agree with you pfx that on taking over from the much discredited Railtrack, they did a wonderful job in the first few of their existence especially in the field of improving safety. However, over the last five years their performance has dropped dramatically with the electrification of the Great Western Mainline debacle being only the tip of a very large iceberg in terms of neglect, financial mismanagement and total incompetence.

In the foregoing, within any private company producing the above problems “heads would have rolled”. That stated, equally, had any private or publicly share owned company produced the financial record that Network Rail has brought forward in the last five years, they would by now be not in existence and justifiably so.

Bill

Diplomatically sidestepping the political angle, I think we can look at the management structures of Railtrack, the current Network Rail setup and the former Nationalised BR Board of Directors as part of the problem of railways. Many of the people involved (previously and currently) are/were inherently elitist in their social standing and their attitudes and spent/spend much of their time off on what we called "jollies" allegedly promoting large scale projects - in BR days - or gathering friends and allies (contractors) - nowadays. It was all food and booze (and no doubt still is) and top class hotels at the taxpayers expense. In later years I met many of those who were previous BR Board members (through various Union and railway social functions that I attended at my own expense) and everyone of them were very upper class gentlemen who could drink enough wine or brandy to sink a battleship, believe me.

I mentioned in my earlier "rant" about the removal of former BR staff from the privatised TOC's but this also applies in the case of Railtrack too. Gone are the track gangs that were locally based and used to walk the "section" EVERY day. This is now a task undertaken by contractors ONCE A WEEK. Often these (well meaning, I'm sure) people are new to the trade and this particular task is seen as starting them off at the bottom of the ladder to give them a good grounding. However, years ago, this task was being carried out by very experienced men who saw potential problems - long before they ever surfaced to the untrained eye - and put things right at minimal cost.

Large scale relaying and construction tasks are all undertaken by contractors these days too. Massive machines costing millions of pounds are in use that someone has to pay for (though they're worth every penny from what I've seen of them.) Sadly though, no one seems to be able to tell the truth about the costs. They just see this great big public pot of gold and try to scoop out as much as they can for themselves. To hell with the consequences.

BR had a wealth of skilled trades right across the spectrum within it's ranks prior to privatisation. Many of these people now work for private contractors at 5 times the wage they were on under BR. Privatisation has been nothing more than a licence to print money for most of those involved. Train Driver's (Engineers) who were earning £11,000 per anum in 1990 are now on a starting salary of between £50,000 - £55,000 a year - and most of these new starters have absolutely no railway experience whatsoever.

It is, therfore, plainly obvious where the problems lie. Somebody needs to get all these contractors around the table and laugh in their faces. Then kick their backsides out the door before asking elsewhere - America? Japan? Germany? - for some serious quotes for the work that requires doing.

Do the words "Goose, Golden egg, and killing" spring to anyone's mind?

Dave

 

[wholbr]

Hi Everybody.
Pfx can I apologize for my delay in replying to your posting at #38 of this thread and I did not intend to be in any way disrespectful to yourself or the views expressed in your earlier posting. In regard to the Scottish government, in their independence referendum the Scottish people decided to remain within the UK keeping this island as one entity. Therefore Sturgeon and co should now respect that decision and wait for the outcome of the UK-Europe Brexit negotiations and not knife the Westminster Government in the back by trying to start separate negotiations for Scotland which has thankfully failed.

Anyway, on a lighter note, the reason I did not reply earlier was for the reason we had tickets for the England v Scotland world cup qualifier match at Wembley last friday which we (England) won 3-0, putting a very large dent in Scotland's chances of qualifying for the finals in 2018 (OH JOY, OH JOY). We then stayed on in London for the festival of remembrance at the Albert Hall and cenotaph service on sunday for which it was a true lifetime privilege to attended. My company has always given a substantial donation each year to the wonderful work the British legion does, and the above was their thanks to us for all those years and there truly could have been no finer a gift.

In regard to Dave's (cybordongreen) posting at #41 of this thread then as stated for the electrification of the Great Western Mainline, equipment costing many millions of pounds was designed and built to automatically create the holes alongside the track, erect the stanchions for the cables and position the cables ready for use. The foregoing was all to be done by one rail vehicle as it moved slowly along the track at night.

Problem was, that as soon as the vehicle commenced operation it immediately started drilling through all the cables and pipes installed alongside the track. Network Rail have been unable to resolve the foregoing problem and after a very few weeks of work the taxpayers multi million pound funded equipment was withdrawn from service not to be seen again.

In the above, it would seem almost unbelievable that within the multitude of ranks and personal at Network Rail, no one stopped to realize that signaling cables and much else would be installed alongside the track ether above or below ground. I believe that the debacle with this equipment is the encapsulation of all that has continually been the problem with nationalized industries over a great number of years. Lack of overall accountability leads to inefficiency, gross mismanagement and huge financial losses that have to be funded by the taxpayer often from their hard earned income.

It can be stated that contractors working for Network Rail are often the cause of that inefficient working and poor cost control. However, those contractors work under the governance of the Network Rail management and therefore are that management's direct responsibility. Pointing the finger at the contractor's for problems that arise in no way negates in any of that responsibility away from the management of Network Rail.

Industries that run under nationalization have throughout recent history always failed in the above manner and in that way gave the 1980s Thatcher government all the ammunition they needed to sell off or destroy those industries.

pfx, in regard to us franchising a train operating company, Amigacooke and myself have already undertaken to set aside our talents to undertake the running of Network Rail. Amigacooke is to become Chief Executive Officer and I am to become Senior Financial Control Officer. Therefore, pfx we would be very happy to offer you the position as Chief Engineering Officer.

We await your letter of acceptance.
Bill

 

[cyberdongreen]

Hi Everybody.

...equipment costing many millions of pounds was designed and built to automatically create the holes alongside the track, erect the stanchions for the cables and position the cables ready for use. The foregoing was all to be done by one rail vehicle as it moved slowly along the track at night.

Problem was, that as soon as the vehicle commenced operation it immediately started drilling through all the cables and pipes installed alongside the track. Network Rail have been unable to resolve the foregoing problem and after a very few weeks of work the taxpayers multi million pound funded equipment was withdrawn from service not to be seen again...

:hehe::hehe::hehe: I never knew that Bill and I'm sure there are many "real railwaymen" wetting themselves laughing, as I am. This just highlights what I was saying about the lack of experience though. Anybody who understands anything about railways appreciates the amount of trackside cabling, water and gas mains in existence in and around the railway environment and would see the flaws in such a machine instantly. However, manually operated versions of similar machinery for drilling post holes have been in use without problem for decades. Ask BR - Take note Network Rail. My comments regarding machinery, however, were directed towards those wonderful track relaying machines that can do the work of 30 or 40 or more men.

...In the above, it would seem almost unbelievable that within the multitude of ranks and personal at Network Rail, no one stopped to realize that signaling cables and much else would be installed alongside the track ether above or below ground. I believe that the debacle with this equipment is the encapsulation of all that has continually been the problem with nationalized industries over a great number of years. Lack of overall accountability leads to inefficiency, gross mismanagement and huge financial losses that have to be funded by the taxpayer often from their hard earned income...

Here I must take issue with you, Bill, over the nationalised part. Whilst there were many faults with the nationalised railway, working practices were second to none. They were shaped and developed through harsh and bitter experience throughout the railways existence and the lessons learned were never forgotten - unlike nowadays. The men who led the engineering sections were no fools. They knew everything there was to know about track, signals, cables, bridges, embankments, cuttings and you name it. Even the lowly gentlemen leaning on their shovels could tell you technical things you wouldn't dream of. Every man jack of these teams would be held accountable for his own actions and wo betide anyone who didn't do the job exactly as it was laid down to be done. You could play the fool and mess about as much as you liked, but when there was work to be done there was a very strict Victorian approach taken and tomfoolery was not tolerated. And yes, I'm talking 1970's to 1990's not 1870's to 1890's.

It was privatisation that destroyed this work ethic and replaced it with gangs of contractors more used to digging roads and building houses.

...It can be stated that contractors working for Network Rail are often the cause of that inefficient working and poor cost control. However, those contractors work under the governance of the Network Rail management and therefore are that management's direct responsibility. Pointing the finger at the contractor's for problems that arise in no way negates in any of that responsibility away from the management of Network Rail...

I agree with you here, Bill, and point you towards a recent conclusion arrived at by the RAIB (Rail Accident Investigation Board.) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37975937 Lamington Viaduct probe uncovers lapsed safety system

This incident highlights perfectly the complete lack of understanding and loss of experience within the current infrastructure management system operated by Network Rail (or as PFX puts it, NOT work Rail). Network Rail got rid of the local experienced gangs and lost or disregarded extremely relevant information about the safe upkeeping of such structures that were known high risks by the BR gangs. It was pure luck that a few hundred people did not end up at the bottom of a flood swollen river. The RAIB have told Notwork Rail to adopt BR's method of monitoring these structures.

Industries that run under nationalization have throughout recent history always failed in the above manner and in that way gave the 1980s Thatcher government all the ammunition they needed to sell off or destroy those industries...

Again, I take issue with the general statement here, Bill.

It is the British Press Barrons that have promoted this idea for decades -" Unions are bad. Look at all the harm they did in the 70's and 80's." Many of the nationalised management teams, and not just in the rail industry but in Coal, Steel, Carmaking etc. too, were completely unaccountable to anybody in reality. They ran amok. They spent money like water, and not always on the essentials. I lost count of the number of times I heard say that the budget needed to be spent in its entirety (and more if it could be gotten) because they would get less the next year if they saved anything. They would invite government ministers to lavish banquets (paid for by the taxpayer, of course) in the hope that they would be looked upon with favour and get a little extra the next time the money was handed out. Nobody read about that side of things in the press though. Only that those awful Trade Unions were on strike again.

It was the upper echelons that destroyed nationalised industry not local management or the shop floor.

pfx, in regard to us franchising a train operating company, Amigacooke and myself have already undertaken to set aside our talents to undertake the running of Network Rail. Amigacooke is to become Chief Executive Officer and I am to become Senior Financial Control Officer. Therefore, pfx we would be very happy to offer you the position as Chief Engineering Officer...

May I volunteer my services too, Bill, - but on a highly overpaid, part-time basis only though .

Dave

 

[wholbr]

Hi everybody.
As many forum members seem to have visited this thread, I felt an update on the matters discussed would be of interest.

Yesterday (22nd November) the UK Parliament discussed the situation in regard to the financial overspend, project calendar overrun and ultimate cancellation of whole sections of the electrification of the Great Western Mainline. On the floor of the House of Commons MPs from the West of England of all parties stood up to condemned the cancellation of the electrification between Chippenham and Bristol Temple Meads. The foregoing has the effect that no extra trains will be able to run in any hour on the line above the maximum number scheduled at present despite almost three billion pounds being already spent on the project.

With the government Transport Secretary seemingly deciding to make himself absent from the house, it fell to the new rail minister (Paul Maynard) to answer the verbal assault from the MPs. He comprehensively blamed Network Rail for all the problems of the electrification, but in doing that he apparently did not realize that Network Rail are one hundred percent wholly owned by the British Government making them and himself totally responsible for all that Network Rail do (LOL)

In the meantime the House of Commons Transport Select Committee had literally “dragged” Mark Carne the CEO of Network Rail in front of them to explain how the debacle had come about. He advised the electrification of the Victorian constructed line had “given them more problems than they had anticipated”. At the end of two hours of questioning in which the CEO seemed to struggle to explain many matters in regard to the project, one MP commented that “ you could not make the situation up even in your wildest dreams".

In the above it has to be stated that the press and media have in the last twelve months turned very much against Britain's railways in regard to the multi billion pound public investment they have received in exchange for the the despicable service the rail networks passengers receive. Without doubt the electrification of the GWML problems and the ongoing situation on Southern have very much brought the rail failings very much into the public view exposing the many problems that seem insolvable.

Today (23rd November) the government announced in the Autumn financial statement that for the first time in many years large scale investment will be made into Britain's road infrastructure. Rail will still receive funding for current projects but Parliament has set aside time for a further two debates on Britain's railways and the overall transport infastruture.

Bill

 

[clam1952]

All that fixing the roads will do is cause years of Traffic Jams while they take 5 times longer to complete the work, run over budget and probably get cancelled or put off for another ten years.

 

[BLACKWATCH]

It doesn't matter which way they do it, road or rail, or even if they sorted both, it won't make a blind bit of difference, this country is overcrowded, it's near bursting, thanks to an 'Open Door' policy, put in place by previous governments.
Until we close that door, nothing will improve, in fact it's going to get a bloody sight worse.

 

[wholbr]

Hi everybody.

All that fixing the roads will do is cause years of Traffic Jams while they take 5 times longer to complete the work, run over budget and probably get cancelled or put off for another ten years.

Malc (clam1952), undoubtedly there will be disruption to traffic while the road improvements are carried out. By example, here in North Somerset a new junction is to be added to the M5 at Weston Super Mare. Anyone can imagine the chaos that construction will cause to the Devon and Cornwall bound holiday traffic next summer.

However, many civil engineering contractors will be tendering for that work and other contracts and therefore getting the work carried out on something near budget and in a reasonable time frame is greatly increased in that context if the contractors wish to gain further work from the government. Place the foregoing against rail infrastructure improvement where there is always only one monopoly body to carry it out (Network Rail), and it is easily seen why projects go so badly wrong by way of financial mismanagement and gross inefficiency.

To be fair to Network Rail and the train operating companies, Britain has become one of the most densely populated countries in the world especially Southern England as Blackwatch points out in his posting at #46 of this thread. Therefore the UKs rail network is operating at levels far above what the Victorians who built the original railway(s) ever envisaged.

However, the above does not in anyway excuse the gross incompetence of Network Rail and many of the train operating companies for the large part they have played in bringing Britain's railways to their lowest ebb since the announcement of the Beeching cuts in 1963.

In announcing fresh investment in the roads infrastructure the government have signaled a basic change of direction in transport planning. That stated, in my humble opinion any new transport plan will only be successful if basic population number stability can be achieved, and that matter has yet to be resolved.

Bill

 

[cyberdongreen]

Hi everybody...

...However, the above does not in anyway excuse the gross incompetence of Network Rail and many of the train operating companies for the large part they have played in bringing Britain's railways to their lowest ebb since the announcement of the Beeching cuts in 1963.

In announcing fresh investment in the roads infrastructure the government have signaled a basic change of direction in transport planning. That stated, in my humble opinion any new transport plan will only be successful if basic population number stability can be achieved, and that matter has yet to be resolved.

Bill

I think the information you have conveyed to us, Bill, signifies that those in power have finally become sick of the "greedy pigs with their noses in the trough" TOC's and railway maintenance and electrification companies. As I suggested in one of my previous posts, it seems that they may well have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. When the West Coast Mainline was electrified in the 1960's it was calculated to have cost £1 million per mile. With electification methods nowadays having been simpified, how can these people justify costs now estimated at about £350,000 PER FOOT!? A few people need to be investigated - but they won't be. There is obviously massive dishonesty here somewhere.

Road transport is definitely not the answer though. One only has to look at countries like China or India to see the sort of gridlocked chaos that comes from letting car ownership retain its position as the main form of transport in any developed, or developing, country. Until somebody is held accountable for continually robbing the public purse on these major (or even minor) railway projects, though, then this abomination will continue to repeat time and again.

The problem in Britain has always been that the Tories cannot abide using taxpayers money to provide services for us serfs. The railways of any country in the world are just that too. A public service. Governments around the world who have realised that and properly financed their railways have reaped the benefits.

A spate of crashes in India this year just highlights what happens when you try to cut corners. They have a massive railway infrastructure over there and they have left it to rot for decades. Now it's going to hurt if they want to keep it. They are going to have to spend massively to bring it back up to standard. Something this country (Britain) decided to do but we decided to make the likes of Richard Branson and his mates even richer whilst doing so. Whilst there has been some considerable improvement in the British railway infrastructure it does not justify the massive amounts of money sitting in certain individuals bank accounts. The train services they are providing are appalling and not worthy of a single penny of public money.

Renationalisation is the only answer, IMHO, but the people at the top need to be kept on a very short leash and highly publicly accountable - though I won't be holding my breath on the latter.

Dave

 

[wholbr]

Hi cybordongreen and everybody.
Cybordongreen, I find there is much I agree with in regard to your posting at #48 of this thread. Inline with what you state, I to believe that just improving the roads infrastructure and then informing commuters that they can then get off the trains and start using their cars would be self defeating and cause more problems than it would solve.

In the above, I do believe that the roads have an increased role to play especially in regard to commuters that use the railways on a daily basis for quite short journeys (10 to 15 miles) as there is no other choice of transport at present for many of them. In looking an anwser to the foregoing I believe that Bristol district council may have found a solution.

Bristol's traffic problems as far back as 2000 were to state it frankly “diabolical”. Therefore the forward thinking council opened three “park and ride” facilities taking commuters from the outskirts of the city via express bus lanes into the city centre. The system soon proved very popular and has played a large role in keeping at least the city centre on the move in recent years.

The city council then introduced a further bus service this time based on Bristol Temple Meads rail station. Running every three to five minutes it moves the thousands arriving at the terminal quickly onto their final destinations. Running a circular route around the city centre (alternately clockwise/ anticlockwise) it again has proved a huge success with commuters and others throughout each day.

However, in view of the above “triumphs” the city council have embarked on the construction of a complete bus metro system in the city which is due to open late next year. The construction of the system has been underway for the last twelve months and has brought complete traffic chaos to all parts of the city as the system involves the building of roads and traffic lanes that only the Metro Buses will be allowed to run on.

That stated, BBC radio Bristol and BBC local television Points West programs have done many reports from the project with car drivers delayed by the construction still being in the main very positive and stating they will be using system when it opens. On completion commuters will leave their cars in huge car parks built adjacent to the motorway junctions around the city and ride the limited stop express metro system into the city which the council believe will then make large sections of the town virtually traffic free.

The above would give the short distance rail commuters an alternative to the now grossly overcrowded trains into Bristol. At the same time this change would free up capacity on those trains for passengers traveling longer distances, which the railways were built for and without doubt are at there best in handling.

Many other city authorities are waiting to see how the system performs when it commences operation next year, if successful it may provide a solution for many of Britains city traffic problems and overcrowding on the rail network.

Bill

 

[rjhowie]

I think that Blackwatch does have a valued and very practical comment on the heavy use of our railways. When I was alad our population was 48 million and now well into over 60 million. Whether some like to hear it or not it brings through constant immigration pressures on everything and that does include railways. This is not a very ig isand and simply cannot keep taking in unlimited numbers or one day it will all blow up and that means rail will not cope. Even some places like London extras to the system we are being hinted at will not be permanent solvings to the pressures on suburban railways!

Here in Scotland although a smaller population there are only so many places to live outside of the hills and mountains and some rail pressures. That the majority of Scots happened to want to stay in the EU means sod all as we are part of the UK and will remain so for an awful long time. Apart from rather nippy Sturgeon guffing out rubbish (we trade more with the rest of the UK than Europe) now her government is to include perhaps a form of nationalised rail here? Short memories indeed of State rail working here, eh? And let us remember that the challenges to Scotrail will be surmounted and although a small percentage the rails here north in the Kingdom are slightly ahead of England and Wales! The number of passengers depends on the number of coaches available and that IS the Scottish Government's corner too.

The Brexit thing was a GB referendum so as bit one-sided amusingly to say that Britain has to put up with Scotland. Mind you the side that moans about Brexit votes in Scotland still moan about losing the Scottish referendum. We will continue to be part of GB and all going well our railways up here will get back to the target and leave the moaners behind.

A "Say Naw" man and regular Scotrail traveller!

 

[cyberdongreen]

Hi cybordongreen and everybody...

In the above, I do believe that the roads have an increased role to play especially in regard to commuters that use the railways on a daily basis for quite short journeys (10 to 15 miles) as there is no other choice of transport at present for many of them. In looking an anwser to the foregoing I believe that Bristol district council may have found a solution.

Bristol's traffic problems as far back as 2000 were to state it frankly “diabolical”. Therefore the forward thinking council opened three “park and ride” facilities taking commuters from the outskirts of the city via express bus lanes into the city centre. The system soon proved very popular and has played a large role in keeping at least the city centre on the move in recent years.

The city council then introduced a further bus service this time based on Bristol Temple Meads rail station. Running every three to five minutes it moves the thousands arriving at the terminal quickly onto their final destinations. Running a circular route around the city centre (alternately clockwise/ anticlockwise) it again has proved a huge success with commuters and others throughout each day.

However, in view of the above “triumphs” the city council have embarked on the construction of a complete bus metro system in the city which is due to open late next year. The construction of the system has been underway for the last twelve months and has brought complete traffic chaos to all parts of the city as the system involves the building of roads and traffic lanes that only the Metro Buses will be allowed to run on...


...Many other city authorities are waiting to see how the system performs when it commences operation next year, if successful it may provide a solution for many of Britains city traffic problems and overcrowding on the rail network.

Bill

Hi Bill and everyone reading this post.

For many years there have been various organisations who have wanted to see the railways not only pushed out of the way but tarmaced over and replaced by roads. My current project (within Trainz) is a reproduction of the Aylesbury to London Marylebone route which was very nearly given over to road transport some years back. Marylebone station would have become a coach station if Thatcher, her incompetent government and their developer mates had gotten their way. I read a most interesting article on the matter some time ago when doing a little research for my project and it shows the constant to-ing and fro-ing between the rail and road factions. Your post, Bill, very much reminded me of it and some of the arguments that surfaced at that time: http://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/near-terminal-case-saving-marylebone-rail-road-conversion/

At the base of the article is a comments section and one of the gentlemen commenting is a former Civil Servant very much involved with the government of the day. He has contributed more than once but, I feel, that his first contribution is worthy of reproduction here to show just how farcical things are within (British) government circles (and, I'm sure, all governments worldwide.)

This is an excellent summary of what happened from the point of view of the visibility to the public of what was going on. As the senior civil servant in charge of research and cabinet briefing in DTp at the time and as the chap who then took on the DTp railway policy desk and dealt with the Marylebone closure case , may I add some political colour?


The political wind for all this was Mrs Thatcher’s hatred of the railway system rather than a legacy of the RCL activities. She arranged for her catspaw, Alf Sherman (known in Whitehall as the Giftszwerg) to be appointed as an adviser to the National Bus Company with the specific remit of pushing forward the conversion agenda, Unfortunately for her, the NBC were, to put it mildly, weak vessels. Their attempt to validate the technical feasibility of the Marylebone conversion (for which negotiating that nice S bendy tunnel under Lords was a key issue) comprised a demonstration in which two of NBC’s best drivers were required to drive at each other through an arrangement of hurdles that – over a distance of 10 metres – was supposed to represent the typical tunnel conditions. When the comparison with reality was pointed out the trial collapsed.


Not easily deflected, the conversionistas went on to attack the Elmers End branch as a good example of what they thought could be done. I arranged for some research that showed that, besides the problem of a two track railway not being wide enough to take a two track road, the covering of a hitherto porous embankment with a water-fast bitumen surface so speeded the run off in rain that the local drains required complete reconstruction. That put an end to that.

The final flicker was when the then Secretary of State, Howell, who had clearly had his fortune told by No 10, announced that he had some plans for converting railways into roads which he wished to discuss with officials. Since this cut across all the DTp fiefdoms, we had a meeting with the Perm Sec and his four deputies (+ self as head of cabinet briefing). Howell began by announcing that he intended to convert the WLL as it “would remove the lorries currently infesting Cheyne Walk (Thinks – who had a house in Cheyne Walk?) “as they were all going to Tooting”, he said.


It was explained carefully to the man that closure of the WLL would severe the main N-S artery for rail freight and therefore quite likely increase the volume of lorries generally. Not to be deflected, the SoS called for “The Curly map” which turned out to be the A-Z (A5 edition). This was placed on the middle of the meeting table (about the size of 4 dining tables) and examined by the collective senior management of the department looking like a collection of superannuated snooker players as we peered short sightedly at the thing.


“We must convert something” said Howell, jabbing his finger at Victoria station carriage sidings – well it was sort of near Chelsea.
“Well, Secretary of State, those are carriage sidings, they don’t lead anywhere.”
“What about this?” Said Howell, jabbing his finger near Baker Street.
“That’s the Circle Line, Secretary of State.”
“Humph… well… find something.”
(Exits slamming door.)
Needless to say, no more was heard of the idea.

Yes Minister was a pale reflexion of reality but then the series’ “internal” adviser was my predecessor in charge of railway policy, and many of the characters therein can be directly identifiable with nameable individuals.

I feel I need add nothing more as the above gentleman seems to highlight the stupidity of all those in government at the time - and I suspect before and since.

I will, however, add a bit of helpful information: RCL = Railway Conversion League. WLL = West London Line. Perm Sec = Permanet Secretary (Secretary of State) DTp = Department of Transport (planning) SoS = Secretary of State

Finally, for our non-British friends; "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" were very successful British comedy TV programmes that were said to be, by those in the know, extremely accurate reflections of British government behaviour.

Dave

 

[wholbr]

Hi everybody.
As the opening poster of this thread I believed that I would be heavily condemned for my criticism of Britain's railways. However, in my humble opinion I would wish to state that the respectful, thoughtful and in many cases the obvious research that contributor's to the thread have carried out are a tribute to this forum and it's members. Therefore as the OP I would wish to post my sincere thanks to all who have contributed this far.

Cybordongreen, in response to your posting at #51 of this thread, I do not believe that anyone is seriously bringing forward ideas that any part of the UK's rail network should be transformed into roads at this point in time. What I do believe is transpiring would be ideas as to how Britain's road and rail networks can better integrate and in that bring the best possible to the UK's overall transport infrastructure. In the foregoing, the construction of the Bristol metro bus system which I posted on at #49 of this thread is thinking in the advancement of that integration.

Rjhowie, in response to your posting at #50 of this thread, I would entirely agree with you and others who have stated that overcrowding could be at least somewhat elevated if trains were lengthened above the three or four car consists we see so many of at present. However, it has to be remembered that much of the worst overcrowding is witnessed on the eight car HST services scheduled at present.

In the above, I do believe however that large scale investment by government in larger consists for regional and district services may well go someway towards reducing overcrowding overall. The financing of the foregoing should be met by the cancelation of HS2 as in my humple opinion Britain does not require trains running at two hundred and fifty miles an hour as geographically the UK is not large enough to need such ifastructure.

As i have stated earlier in this posting, I do feel that there have been some great posts in this thread. However, inline with others i feel that the key comment came in the BLACKWATCH posting at #46 of the thread when he stated “ it does not matter what they do to road or rail, this country is overcrowded due to its open door policy on inmagration and until that door is closed nothing will improve”.

In the foregoing never have more truthful words been spoken in regards to Britain's transport situation. Without change we will spend huge sums of money to witness the matter get slowly worse. Without spending those huge sums of money the situation will quickly (I believe) collapse.

The open door policy must change and as quickly as possible regardless of any contrary opinions our European "friends" may feel they have to insist on.
Bill

 

[Dean_Forest]

There's an awful lot of ill-informed wibble on here. I haven't time to go into detail except to say that virtually every bit of mismanagement of Britain's railways can be laid at the door of Civil Servants at the Department for Transport or its predecessors. Their meddling has produced the fragmented network with its arm tied behind its back on procurement and operation.

 

[BLACKWATCH]

However, it has to be remembered that much of the worst overcrowding is witnessed on the eight car HST services scheduled at present.

I have never been a fan of the HST, as it ousted my beloved Deltic from it's main line duties, where it used to haul 10 - 12 coach trains, note that this meant
that mainline services lost a lot of seating capacity.

I realise that the Deltic could not go on forever & as it got older, maintenance costs got very expensive, but replacing 1 loco + 10/12 coaches, with 2 loco + 8 coaches, seems to me like management by the criminally insane.

 

[wholbr]

Hi everybody.

There's an awful lot of ill-informed wibble on here. I haven't time to go into detail except to say that virtually every bit of mismanagement of Britain's railways can be laid at the door of Civil Servants at the Department for Transport or its predecessors. Their meddling has produced the fragmented network with its arm tied behind its back on procurement and operation.

Dean Forest, with every respect to your above posting and your lack of time when making it, but I believe that there is always one basic principle of all Democratic governments. That principle being that civil servants inform and advise department ministers as to the options open to them in any given situation. It is then for any minister to decide on those options and act, or forward his/her recommendations on those options to Parliament for decision. In no circumstances do civil servants decide on procurement purchases or any other matter to that effect.

Also in the above, all MPs and department ministers have their own personal assistants employed outside of the civil service. Therefore those assistants can “check out” options and advice being given to department minister or even in general to members of Parliament. Those assistants can even offer alternative options without civil service involvement if felt appropriate. The foregoing ensures that any minister or MP is always furnished with full and comprehensive information on all matters which dictate their involvement and action.

In the above, if as you state Dean Forest that inadequate or inappropriate equipment has been procured by the Department of Transport for Britain's railways then the decisions on that wrongful procurement or rail operation in general has been made by elected parliamentary ministers acting on behalf of the Department of Transport or by members of parliament in the House of Commons.

As stated, members of the Civil Service never make decisions on government procurement and operation and in my humble opinion it is very wrong for anyone to accuse them of that action.

Bill

 

[pfx]

Having worked in government for many years and having been involved in government procurement, I can assure you that your response to Dean's post is total nonsense. If you choose not to believe that, avoid wasting further keystrokes on the matter.

 

[wholbr]

Hi everybody.

Having worked in government for many years and having been involved in government procurement, I can assure you that your response to Dean's post is total nonsense. If you choose not to believe that, avoid wasting further keystrokes on the matter.

Pfx, with every respect to your above posting, but if you have experience of civil servants carrying out procurement or operation without authority of government or parliment please expand on your above post. I worked alongside civil service employees only last year in regard to a serious theme park accident investigation I was involved in. I would have to say that I came away from that experience with nothing but the utmost respect for those civil servants and the manner in which they carried out their work on the leaders of the investigation teams behalf.

In the above it was their work which rapidly brought about an admission of responsibility from the owners of the establishment without once trying to tell the investigation team what they should do or how they should do it. All decisions on how the investigation should proceed where carried out by the various heads of the investigation with the civil servants giving exceptional backup in the execution of those decisions.

I do not believe that their is any evidence of civil service "dictatorship" in Britain, if their is, as stated please post.

Bill

 

[amigacooke]

For those who want to get solid information about procurement:

Public procurement policy

 

[cyberdongreen]

Aside from who procures what, the matter under discussion should be why can't TOCs purchase their own locos/coaching stock/Units/wagons etc and maintain them themselves?

When privatisation came about, the government, in their wisdom, decided that private companies (now 3 of them I believe) should own all the rolling stock and lease it to the TOCs. The introduction into the chain of these Leasing Companies simply added another layer to the taxpayers expense. There can be no other logical reason for their existence other than to cream off the taxpayers hard earned contributions to our bloated rail industry and place into the pockets of the already rich company owners. These people didn't have to buy their initial stock, it was GIVEN to them upon the creation of the current system; so taxpayers were paying again for what they already owned.

Dave

 

[amigacooke]

Aside from who procures what, the matter under discussion should be why can't TOCs purchase their own locos/coaching stock/Units/wagons etc and maintain them themselves?

When privatisation came about, the government, in their wisdom, decided that private companies (now 3 of them I believe) should own all the rolling stock and lease it to the TOCs. The introduction into the chain of these Leasing Companies simply added another layer to the taxpayers expense. There can be no other logical reason for their existence other than to cream off the taxpayers hard earned contributions to our bloated rail industry and place into the pockets of the already rich company owners. These people didn't have to buy their initial stock, it was GIVEN to them upon the creation of the current system; so taxpayers were paying again for what they already owned.

Dave

I would imagine the idea was to create a competitive market to drive costs down. Whether that worked or not?