Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the wrong track: the government needs to be seen to be gett

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited June 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the wrong track: the government needs to be seen to be getting a grip of the rail fiasco

In the most recent Mori Issues Index (published on 4 May but with fieldwork going back well into April), not a single person out of the 1001 questioned said that transport was the most important issue facing the country. This compares against two people who responded with ‘pandemics’, another two who said AIDS, four who put forward ‘animal welfare’, six whose chief concern was nuclear weapons, and 251 who said Brexit or the EU. These responses (as well as others) were all given unprompted. Even when asked to list other important issues, only 4% identified transport, placing it outside the top 20 issues.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    It's not just the north David. The huge Great Northern/Thameslink network changes have been a total disaster so far and cover many marginal seats
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    It's not just the north David. The huge Great Northern/Thameslink network changes have been a total disaster so far and cover many marginal seats

    OGH nabbing a first? I demand a full judge-led independent inquiry. :D
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    RobD said:

    It's not just the north David. The huge Great Northern/Thameslink network changes have been a total disaster so far and cover many marginal seats

    OGH nabbing a first? I demand a full judge-led independent inquiry. :D
    Please contact the site owner to set up details
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    From elsewhere (RMWeb), and which might be relevant to how long Grayling stays in his job (note: I have not checked this):

    "Since the Ministry began in 1919, only eight Ministers of Transport or Secretaries of State have lasted more than three years in post:

    Wilfrid Ashley (Con)
    The Lord Leathers (War Coalition)
    Alfred Barnes (Lab)
    Harold Watkinson (Con)
    Ernest Marples (Con)
    John Prescott (Lab)
    Alistair Darling (Lab)
    Patrick McLoughlin (Con)"

    Grayling became Secretary of State nearly two years ago.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    brendan16 said:

    Wow - a whole 18 Labour MPs call for a second referendum - all of them from London.

    It must be really brave representing a London seat and backing calls for a second referendum - sorry second 'people's vote' cos they didn't like the result of the first 'people's vote'.

    We shouldn't let MPs decide whether we have a second referendum, instead we should have a referendum on whether we should have another one. If that passes, we will need to have a referendum on what the choices on the ballot paper should be. And then we'll need a referendum to decide whether it should be by AV or FPTP. Finally, we need to check that people are still happy with the second referendum, given the options and voting format would have been fixed, so we'll need a referendum confirming the earlier decision on the referendum.

    If that is passed, then we can have a second referendum.

    And if Remain wins that - if of course, that was one of the ballot paper options - then we will need to have a best of three referendum.

    Can't say fairer than that.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Grayling did accumulate no end of admirers in the legal profession during his stint as Lord Chancellor, notable only for his attempts to restrict judicial reviews and human rights, his failure to protect the judiciary against criticism from his colleagues and the reduction of legal aid to a bare minimum.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcsmiths-diary-chris-grayling-the-worst-lord-chancellor-for-342-years-no-worse-10114748.html

    But what do you expect from Fenn Poly?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    He fails to address three key questions.

    1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state?
    2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not?
    3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?

    And finally,

    4. What is franchising for?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    There was no economic growth prior to privatisation?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    You frequently talk about ‘one eyed’ attitudes to nationalisation etc, yet rarely suggest your own solutions. What is franchising for? Why not renationalise? What would you do? The current ‘system’ is an absolute shambles.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited June 2018
    Anazina said:

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    You frequently talk about ‘one eyed’ attitudes to nationalisation etc, yet rarely suggest your own solutions. What is franchising for? Why not renationalise? What would you do? The current ‘system’ is an absolute shambles.
    An absolute shambles? How many passenger miles were taken on the railways last year? It wouldn't be going up year on year if it was a shambles.

    And the UK railways enjoy the second highest level of customer satisfaction in Europe:

    http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Hmm. May check the odds. Not sure either way about this.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    There was no economic growth prior to privatisation?
    Passenger numbers grew 36% in the last half of the 1980s. By the time it was privatised it was among the most efficient networks in Europe. Mrs Thatcher hated trains and starved it of investment. That was the problem.

    -//////

    The Thatcher government intensified commercial pressures. Targets for subsidy reductions amounted in real terms to a 25% cut between 1983 and 1986 (Ibid, p. 122). However, in a period of strong economic growth in the mid-1980s, all three passenger businesses increased their incomes, with an aggregate growth in real passenger income of 36% between 1983 and 1989 (Gourvish, 1990, p. 130). By the early 1990s the network was investment-starved but effective at controlling costs. In 1989, British Rail was recorded as being 40% more efficient than eight comparable rail systems in Europe used as benchmarks, whereas in 1979, it was no more than 14% more efficient (Ibid: 149).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    There was no economic growth prior to privatisation?
    Passenger numbers grew 36% in the last half of the 1980s. By the time it was privatised it was among the most efficient networks in Europe. Mrs Thatcher hated trains and starved it of investment. That was the problem.

    -//////

    The Thatcher government intensified commercial pressures. Targets for subsidy reductions amounted in real terms to a 25% cut between 1983 and 1986 (Ibid, p. 122). However, in a period of strong economic growth in the mid-1980s, all three passenger businesses increased their incomes, with an aggregate growth in real passenger income of 36% between 1983 and 1989 (Gourvish, 1990, p. 130). By the early 1990s the network was investment-starved but effective at controlling costs. In 1989, British Rail was recorded as being 40% more efficient than eight comparable rail systems in Europe used as benchmarks, whereas in 1979, it was no more than 14% more efficient (Ibid: 149).
    Before falling again prior to privitisation, after which they've never stopped growing.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    You frequently talk about ‘one eyed’ attitudes to nationalisation etc, yet rarely suggest your own solutions. What is franchising for? Why not renationalise? What would you do? The current ‘system’ is an absolute shambles.
    An absolute shambles? How many passenger miles were taken on the railways last year? It wouldn't be going up year on year if it was a shambles.

    And the UK railways enjoy the second highest level of customer satisfaction in Europe:

    http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf
    You do realise that the ECML - supposedly the flagship line - has lost three franchisees in a decade and has been renationalised twice in that period??
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    You frequently talk about ‘one eyed’ attitudes to nationalisation etc, yet rarely suggest your own solutions. What is franchising for? Why not renationalise? What would you do? The current ‘system’ is an absolute shambles.
    An absolute shambles? How many passenger miles were taken on the railways last year? It wouldn't be going up year on year if it was a shambles.

    And the UK railways enjoy the second highest level of customer satisfaction in Europe:

    http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf
    You do realise that the ECML - supposedly the flagship line - has lost three franchisees in a decade and has been renationalised twice in that period??
    And yet passenger miles keep on going up, and satisfaction is second highest in Europe. Hardly a shambles.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    There was no economic growth prior to privatisation?
    Passenger numbers grew 36% in the last half of the 1980s. By the time it was privatised it was among the most efficient networks in Europe. Mrs Thatcher hated trains and starved it of investment. That was the problem.

    -//////

    The Thatcher government intensified commercial pressures. Targets for subsidy reductions amounted in real terms to a 25% cut between 1983 and 1986 (Ibid, p. 122). However, in a period of strong economic growth in the mid-1980s, all three passenger businesses increased their incomes, with an aggregate growth in real passenger income of 36% between 1983 and 1989 (Gourvish, 1990, p. 130). By the early 1990s the network was investment-starved but effective at controlling costs. In 1989, British Rail was recorded as being 40% more efficient than eight comparable rail systems in Europe used as benchmarks, whereas in 1979, it was no more than 14% more efficient (Ibid: 149).
    Before falling again prior to privitisation, after which they've never stopped growing.
    Isn't the growth in part due to an increase in commuting, driven by high housing costs and anti-car congestion measures?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    You frequently talk about ‘one eyed’ attitudes to nationalisation etc, yet rarely suggest your own solutions. What is franchising for? Why not renationalise? What would you do? The current ‘system’ is an absolute shambles.
    An absolute shambles? How many passenger miles were taken on the railways last year? It wouldn't be going up year on year if it was a shambles.

    And the UK railways enjoy the second highest level of customer satisfaction in Europe:

    http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf
    The issue about the railways surely is that they are monopoly suppliers. Effectively, anyway, especially in the commuting areas around the major cities, where driving in, either oneself or on a bus isn’t really an option, partly because so many aere doing it that the roads are congested. Railway stations are generally in the centre of conurbations.
    If one looks at longer distance travel..... say London to Manchester or Manchester to Leeds, then driving can be an option but there are two problems. First of all there’s the aforementioned congestion at each end and secondly if one drives onself that’s all one can do for that time. At least on a train one can read or, assuming there’s space, write or work on a laptop.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    You frequently talk about ‘one eyed’ attitudes to nationalisation etc, yet rarely suggest your own solutions. What is franchising for? Why not renationalise? What would you do? The current ‘system’ is an absolute shambles.
    An absolute shambles? How many passenger miles were taken on the railways last year? It wouldn't be going up year on year if it was a shambles.

    And the UK railways enjoy the second highest level of customer satisfaction in Europe:

    http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf
    The issue about the railways surely is that they are monopoly suppliers. Effectively, anyway, especially in the commuting areas around the major cities, where driving in, either oneself or on a bus isn’t really an option, partly because so many aere doing it that the roads are congested. Railway stations are generally in the centre of conurbations.
    If one looks at longer distance travel..... say London to Manchester or Manchester to Leeds, then driving can be an option but there are two problems. First of all there’s the aforementioned congestion at each end and secondly if one drives onself that’s all one can do for that time. At least on a train one can read or, assuming there’s space, write or work on a laptop.
    At point of service, perhaps, but they are competing with each other to run the service when the franchise is up for grabs.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    You frequently talk about ‘one eyed’ attitudes to nationalisation etc, yet rarely suggest your own solutions. What is franchising for? Why not renationalise? What would you do? The current ‘system’ is an absolute shambles.
    An absolute shambles? How many passenger miles were taken on the railways last year? It wouldn't be going up year on year if it was a shambles.

    And the UK railways enjoy the second highest level of customer satisfaction in Europe:

    http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf
    The issue about the railways surely is that they are monopoly suppliers. Effectively, anyway, especially in the commuting areas around the major cities, where driving in, either oneself or on a bus isn’t really an option, partly because so many aere doing it that the roads are congested. Railway stations are generally in the centre of conurbations.
    If one looks at longer distance travel..... say London to Manchester or Manchester to Leeds, then driving can be an option but there are two problems. First of all there’s the aforementioned congestion at each end and secondly if one drives onself that’s all one can do for that time. At least on a train one can read or, assuming there’s space, write or work on a laptop.
    At point of service, perhaps, but they are competing with each other to run the service when the franchise is up for grabs.
    That of course is true, but that doesn’t really impinge on the user. What have we seen from ECML; promises, promises. Interestingly one of the few that is now satisfactory ....... I stand to be corrected, of course.......... is the C2C, the old London, Tilbury and Southend.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    You frequently talk about ‘one eyed’ attitudes to nationalisation etc, yet rarely suggest your own solutions. What is franchising for? Why not renationalise? What would you do? The current ‘system’ is an absolute shambles.
    An absolute shambles? How many passenger miles were taken on the railways last year? It wouldn't be going up year on year if it was a shambles.

    And the UK railways enjoy the second highest level of customer satisfaction in Europe:

    http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf
    The issue about the railways surely is that they are monopoly suppliers. Effectively, anyway, especially in the commuting areas around the major cities, where driving in, either oneself or on a bus isn’t really an option, partly because so many aere doing it that the roads are congested. Railway stations are generally in the centre of conurbations.
    If one looks at longer distance travel..... say London to Manchester or Manchester to Leeds, then driving can be an option but there are two problems. First of all there’s the aforementioned congestion at each end and secondly if one drives onself that’s all one can do for that time. At least on a train one can read or, assuming there’s space, write or work on a laptop.
    At point of service, perhaps, but they are competing with each other to run the service when the franchise is up for grabs.
    That of course is true, but that doesn’t really impinge on the user. What have we seen from ECML; promises, promises. Interestingly one of the few that is now satisfactory ....... I stand to be corrected, of course.......... is the C2C, the old London, Tilbury and Southend.
    I don't agree. The customer benefits from the competition, otherwise there'd be no incentive to run it as efficiently as possible. As for customer satisfaction, read the link I posted below. Second highest in all of Europe, so I think it is incorrect to say there is only one satisfactory TOC.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    https://www.transportfocus.org.uk/research-publications/research/rail-passenger-satisfaction-autumn-2017/

    Virgin Train East Coast with a satisfaction rating of 92%, above C2C!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    edited June 2018
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    An absolute shambles? How many passenger miles were taken on the railways last year? It wouldn't be going up year on year if it was a shambles.

    And the UK railways enjoy the second highest level of customer satisfaction in Europe:

    http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf
    The issue about the railways surely is that they are monopoly suppliers. Effectively, anyway, especially in the commuting areas around the major cities, where driving in, either oneself or on a bus isn’t really an option, partly because so many aere doing it that the roads are congested. Railway stations are generally in the centre of conurbations.
    If one looks at longer distance travel..... say London to Manchester or Manchester to Leeds, then driving can be an option but there are two problems. First of all there’s the aforementioned congestion at each end and secondly if one drives onself that’s all one can do for that time. At least on a train one can read or, assuming there’s space, write or work on a laptop.
    s.
    That of course is true, but that doesn’t really impinge on the user. What have we seen from ECML; promises, promises. Interestingly one of the few that is now satisfactory ....... I stand to be corrected, of course.......... is the C2C, the old London, Tilbury and Southend.
    I don't agree. The customer benefits from the competition, otherwise there'd be no incentive to run it as efficiently as possible. As for customer satisfaction, read the link I posted below. Second highest in all of Europe, so I think it is incorrect to say there is only one satisfactory TOC.
    We are never going to agree that competition is the only driver for efficient service Mr D. We come from a different mindset. And just for the record, I didn’t say C2C was the only one which is satisfactory. Also, TBH, I haven’t travelled on it lately, although Once Upon a Time I did so quite a lot.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941


    We are never going to agree that competition is the only driver for efficient service Mr D. We come from a different mindset. And just for the record, I didn’t say C2C was the only one which is satisfactory. Also, TBH, I haven’t travelled on it lately, although Once Upon a Time I did so quite a lot.

    "Interestingly one of the few that is now satisfactory ....... I stand to be corrected, of course.......... is the C2C"

    Polling suggests otherwise! All TOCs have a net positive satisfaction rating.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    RobD said:
    Thanks for that. Not entirely surpised at Greater Anglia, now my local service is below the average.
    However, this Saturday I’ve THINGS TO DO, so I’m off, so sorry, can’t participate further. Have fun!
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    RobD said:


    We are never going to agree that competition is the only driver for efficient service Mr D. We come from a different mindset. And just for the record, I didn’t say C2C was the only one which is satisfactory. Also, TBH, I haven’t travelled on it lately, although Once Upon a Time I did so quite a lot.

    "Interestingly one of the few that is now satisfactory ....... I stand to be corrected, of course.......... is the C2C"

    Polling suggests otherwise! All TOCs have a net positive satisfaction rating.
    Are you basing this on the NRPS? That survey is deeply flawed (eg surveys submitted on days when the TOC was suffering from disruption are binned)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Has there ever been a time when a PM has had to work with such a talentless and accident prone cabinet? The whole brexit debacle is being fed into this feeling of malaise and incompetence and the longer it goes on the more the the public are losing heart. It's not helped by having an opposition who don't look anywhere near capable of picking up the pieces.

    Winning the world cup might change the mood but a re-run of the referendum is more likely
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited June 2018
    Anazina said:

    1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state?

    In the case of the Dutch or German state, they're run by Dutch and German people, which is obviously going to work out better than having British people running it. If they picked the countries at random then you might end up with America or Venezuela, which would be bad. But they're not doing that, they're letting the better ones do it. I'm not saying the results are fantastic, but it's hard to imagine the British state doing less badly.

    PS The Japanese railways are pretty good, but they should contract out the road planning - numbering and roundabouts and things - to the British.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Roger said:

    Has there ever been a time when a PM has had to work with such a talentless and accident prone cabinet? The whole brexit debacle is being fed into this feeling of malaise and incompetence and the longer it goes on the more the the public are losing heart. It's not helped by having an opposition who don't look anywhere near capable of picking up the pieces.

    Winning the world cup might change the mood but a re-run of the referendum is more likely

    Just wait until Corbyn becomes PM. :smiley:
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Anazina said:

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    You frequently talk about ‘one eyed’ attitudes to nationalisation etc, yet rarely suggest your own solutions. What is franchising for? Why not renationalise? What would you do? The current ‘system’ is an absolute shambles.
    I want what is best for the railways. That might be continuing with franchising, altering the franchising system, moving over to another system (e.g. concessions), or renationalisation.

    I'm open to all of these, and there are problem and opportunities with all of them. As for renationalisation, the biggest is that the proponents have no answers to simple questions about how it would work - it's an ideology. In fact, in most cases they don't even care about the questions - they evidently want renationalisation even if it won't work. This gets annoying after a while.

    You want to renationalise the railways. Good. Convince me. My questions are, i believe, fair and well-sourced. And I shall answer your questions, even though you never answer mine:

    *) Franchising is an attempt to get good services for the passenger. Since passenger numbers have doubled since it was introduced, it may just have worked.
    *) Renationalisation has many difficulties, which I keep on bringing up. Most of all, nationalisation did not work very well in the past. Perhaps the railways are too big to be run as one organisation - witness Network Rail's current woes?
    *) What would I do? The franchising system needs reworking at a minimum. The DfT's causing too many problems. Going further than that, we need to think about what the railways are *for*, and how the organisation(s) can best fit that purpose.
    *) This shambles could have occurred under a nationanlised system - it is the currently nationalised parts that have for the most part, failed.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Roger, point of order: May could've cut away some dead wood and promoted backbenchers who, at least appear to, have some talent. The Cabinet malaise is a symptom of Mayist dithering, not a cause.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Mr. Roger, point of order: May could've cut away some dead wood and promoted backbenchers who, at least appear to, have some talent. The Cabinet malaise is a symptom of Mayist dithering, not a cause.

    Good morning, comrade Dancer.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    You frequently talk about ‘one eyed’ attitudes to nationalisation etc, yet rarely suggest your own solutions. What is franchising for? Why not renationalise? What would you do? The current ‘system’ is an absolute shambles.
    An absolute shambles? How many passenger miles were taken on the railways last year? It wouldn't be going up year on year if it was a shambles.

    And the UK railways enjoy the second highest level of customer satisfaction in Europe:

    http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf
    The issue about the railways surely is that they are monopoly suppliers. Effectively, anyway, especially in the commuting areas around the major cities, where driving in, either oneself or on a bus isn’t really an option, partly because so many aere doing it that the roads are congested. Railway stations are generally in the centre of conurbations.
    If one looks at longer distance travel..... say London to Manchester or Manchester to Leeds, then driving can be an option but there are two problems. First of all there’s the aforementioned congestion at each end and secondly if one drives onself that’s all one can do for that time. At least on a train one can read or, assuming there’s space, write or work on a laptop.
    At point of service, perhaps, but they are competing with each other to run the service when the franchise is up for grabs.
    But they're competing with one hand tied behind their backs - and that's the interesting point: they're not really privatised. When another organisation (i.e. the DfT) tells you what services you can run, what trains you must have (even when they're carp), and even how many staff you must have, then the benefits of privatisation are fewer.

    This means the one substantial thing they can really compete on at franchise time is the amount of subsidy they get, or the amount of money they return, to the treasury. This is what has led to East Coast's woes.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    Anazina said:

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    You frequently talk about ‘one eyed’ attitudes to nationalisation etc, yet rarely suggest your own solutions. What is franchising for? Why not renationalise? What would you do? The current ‘system’ is an absolute shambles.
    I want what is best for the railways. That might be continuing with franchising, altering the franchising system, moving over to another system (e.g. concessions), or renationalisation.

    I'm
    You want to renationalise the railways. Good. Convince me. My questions are, i believe, fair and well-sourced. And I shall answer your questions, even though you never answer mine:

    *) Franchising is an attempt to get good services for the passenger. Since passenger numbers have doubled since it was introduced, it may just have worked.
    *) Renationalisation has many difficulties, which I keep on bringing up. Most of all, nationalisation did not work very well in the past. Perhaps the railways are too big to be run as one organisation - witness Network Rail's current woes?
    *) What would I do? The franchising system needs reworking at a minimum. The DfT's causing too many problems. Going further than that, we need to think about what the railways are *for*, and how the organisation(s) can best fit that purpose.
    *) This shambles could have occurred under a nationanlised system - it is the currently nationalised parts that have for the most part, failed.
    The franchising system exists purely as an accounting trick to get the cost of running the railways off the government’s books. The DfT mandates most of the fares and the timetable, and even specified what new rolling stock should look like in some cases. The opportunities for genuine innovation from the private sector are very limited.

    As for growth in passengers, this would have happened whether the railways were privatised or not. Change in employment locations, increased car fuel and insurance costs and lack of city centre housing have all played a part.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    He fails to address three key questions.

    1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state?
    2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not?
    3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?

    And finally,

    4. What is franchising for?

    1) Why does this matter? (In fact, franchises that lose money essentially return money to the UK.)
    2) Perhaps it should not be; London's rail transport isn't necessarily a shining success.
    3) Because it wasn't necessarily a success. Witness the extra Lincoln services that were not introduced the first time the state took over in 2010.
    4) I have answered this below, and could probably write a long (and hopefully relatively informed) tract on it.

    IMO ownership doesn't matter. What matters is if it delivers to the country a rail system that the country needs. That might be nationalised, privatised, a combination, or a.n.other system.

    Your problem is that you evidently have no idea or interest in what will work; you've decided on renationalisation and that's that.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    He fails to address three key questions.

    1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state?
    2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not?
    3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?

    And finally,

    4. What is franchising for?

    1) Why does this matter? (In fact, franchises that lose money essentially return money to the UK.)
    2) Perhaps it should not be; London's rail transport isn't necessarily a shining success.
    3) Because it wasn't necessarily a success. Witness the extra Lincoln services that were not introduced the first time the state took over in 2010.
    4) I have answered this below, and could probably write a long (and hopefully relatively informed) tract on it.

    IMO ownership doesn't matter. What matters is if it delivers to the country a rail system that the country needs. That might be nationalised, privatised, a combination, or a.n.other system.

    Your problem is that you evidently have no idea or interest in what will work; you've decided on renationalisation and that's that.
    The concession model TfL have used for London Overground has been a huge success and the line has seen massive growth. It should be replicated for other commuter-based franchises.

    As for the Tube, part-privatisation was of course tried under Labour with the PPP and it was a disaster.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    He fails to address three key questions.

    1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state?
    2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not?
    3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?

    And finally,

    4. What is franchising for?

    1) Why does this matter? (In fact, franchises that lose money essentially return money to the UK.)
    2) Perhaps it should not be; London's rail transport isn't necessarily a shining success.
    3) Because it wasn't necessarily a success. Witness the extra Lincoln services that were not introduced the first time the state took over in 2010.
    4) I have answered this below, and could probably write a long (and hopefully relatively informed) tract on it.

    IMO ownership doesn't matter. What matters is if it delivers to the country a rail system that the country needs. That might be nationalised, privatised, a combination, or a.n.other system.

    Your problem is that you evidently have no idea or interest in what will work; you've decided on renationalisation and that's that.
    Exactly. Well said.

    Unfortunately, this sort of simplistic view is very common.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    The franchising system exists purely as an accounting trick to get the cost of running the railways off the government’s books. The DfT mandates most of the fares and the timetable, and even specified what new rolling stock should look like in some cases. The opportunities for genuine innovation from the private sector are very limited.

    As for growth in passengers, this would have happened whether the railways were privatised or not. Change in employment locations, increased car fuel and insurance costs and lack of city centre housing have all played a part.

    I mostly agree with your first paragraph (in fact, I wrote similar below), but I don't agree it exists 'purely' as an accounting trick.

    I utterly disagree that the growth in passengers would have occurred to the same scale under BR, especially as BR didn't have the ability or mindset to manage growth. They did a great job of managing a shrinking network, but that is very different too a doubling of passenger numbers.

    So yes, I agree the growth of numbers is all down to privatisation. But privatisation was a massive factor in freeing up the railway's mindset.

    But that's not necessarily a reason to keep them privatised ...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    Anazina said:

    1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state?

    In the case of the Dutch or German state, they're run by Dutch and German people, which is obviously going to work out better than having British people running it. If they picked the countries at random then you might end up with America or Venezuela, which would be bad. But they're not doing that, they're letting the better ones do it. I'm not saying the results are fantastic, but it's hard to imagine the British state doing less badly.

    PS The Japanese railways are pretty good, but they should contract out the road planning - numbering and roundabouts and things - to the British.
    So Brits are good at roads, but crap at railways.

    Is that it?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    He fails to address three key questions.

    1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state?
    2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not?
    3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?

    And finally,

    4. What is franchising for?

    1) Why does this matter? (In fact, franchises that lose money essentially return money to the UK.)
    2) Perhaps it should not be; London's rail transport isn't necessarily a shining success.
    3) Because it wasn't necessarily a success. Witness the extra Lincoln services that were not introduced the first time the state took over in 2010.
    4) I have answered this below, and could probably write a long (and hopefully relatively informed) tract on it.

    IMO ownership doesn't matter. What matters is if it delivers to the country a rail system that the country needs. That might be nationalised, privatised, a combination, or a.n.other system.

    Your problem is that you evidently have no idea or interest in what will work; you've decided on renationalisation and that's that.
    The concession model TfL have used for London Overground has been a huge success and the line has seen massive growth. It should be replicated for other commuter-based franchises.

    As for the Tube, part-privatisation was of course tried under Labour with the PPP and it was a disaster.
    Ah good. Another poster mentioning concessions, one of my favourite possible alternatives. :)

    One of my fears about a 'return to BR' renationalisation is that the organisation would just be too big, which I fear is the problem we are seeing with Network Rail. In fact, it was probably the biggest problem with BR. A series of concessions might help break that structure up a little organisationally, especially if a little competition can be brought in. But rewards need to be given for increasing passenger numbers and service quality - the concessionaires need set aims for the concession.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited June 2018
    OT. Anyone familiar with the joie de vivre of the Cote d'Azur will know the rather strange sensation when entering Monaco of being on camera which lasts from the moment you arrive till the moment you leave. It doesn't make a lot of difference but you think twice before doing a U-turn knowing a tap on the shoulder and being asked for your documents further down the line is more likely than not.

    Well the UK is now worse. Big Brother has arrived and only 34 years late
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    Anazina said:

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    You .
    I want what is best for the railways. That might be continuing with franchising, altering the franchising system, moving over to another system (e.g. concessions), or renationalisation.

    I'm open to all of these, and there are problem and opportunities with all of them. As for renationalisation, the biggest is that the proponents have no answers to simple questions about how it would work - it's an ideology. In fact, in most cases they don't even care about the questions - they evidently want renationalisation even if it won't work. This gets annoying after a while.

    You want to renationalise the railways. Good. Convince me. My questions are, i believe, fair and well-sourced. And I shall answer your questions, even though you never answer mine:

    *) Franchising is an attempt to get good services for the passenger. Since passenger numbers have doubled since it was introduced, it may just have worked.
    *) Renationalisation has many difficulties, which I keep on bringing up. Most of all, nationalisation did not work very well in the past. Perhaps the railways are too big to be run as one organisation - witness Network Rail's current woes?
    *) What would I do? The franchising system needs reworking at a minimum. The DfT's causing too many problems. Going further than that, we need to think about what the railways are *for*, and how the organisation(s) can best fit that purpose.
    *) This shambles could have occurred under a nationanlised system - it is the currently nationalised parts that have for the most part, failed.
    Network Rail is a highly disfunctional organisation. It can cope (just about) with bank holiday weekend blockades and 72 possessions for operational fixes and repairs, and infrastructure maintenance, but a lot of that work is contracted out to private sector suppliers. It is far less good at investing in and driving new rail projects, which is where the private sector tends to be better.

    I think NR it’s too big, too bureaucratic, too vast and very public sector in mindset. Worked with it and heard it from the horses mouth far too many times.

    TfL isn’t much better.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited June 2018

    Anazina said:

    1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state?

    In the case of the Dutch or German state, they're run by Dutch and German people, which is obviously going to work out better than having British people running it. If they picked the countries at random then you might end up with America or Venezuela, which would be bad. But they're not doing that, they're letting the better ones do it. I'm not saying the results are fantastic, but it's hard to imagine the British state doing less badly.

    PS The Japanese railways are pretty good, but they should contract out the road planning - numbering and roundabouts and things - to the British.
    So Brits are good at roads, but crap at railways.

    Is that it?
    Currently, yes. I mean, a lot of it's organisational culture etc, but that's not trivial to change. On current evidence, the British are shit at trains and good at roads. You might be able to create a British organisation that's good at trains, but if you give a random British government that job it's not likely that they'll nail it.

    Putting Anazina's question the other way around, given all the organizations and cultures attempting any given problem, what are the chances that of all the organizations in the world, your own particular nation's government would happen to be the best at running it? Not very high, so you should have a model that lets you switch to whatever organisation is.

    PS Matt Yglesias also made this point about central bank governors: Countries have a habit of picking their own nationals to do this job, but what big countries should be doing is picking someone with a good record running a smaller economy.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    He fails to address three key questions.

    1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state?
    2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not?
    3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?

    And finally,

    4. What is franchising for?

    1) Why does this matter? (In fact, franchises that lose money essentially return money to the UK.)
    2) Perhaps it should not be; London's rail transport isn't necessarily a shining success.
    3) Because it wasn't necessarily a success. Witness the extra Lincoln services that were not introduced the first time the state took over in 2010.
    4) I have answered this below, and could probably write a long (and hopefully relatively informed) tract on it.

    IMO ownership doesn't matter. What matters is if it delivers to the country a rail system that the country needs. That might be nationalised, privatised, a combination, or a.n.other system.

    Your problem is that you evidently have no idea or interest in what will work; you've decided on renationalisation and that's that.
    Exactly. Well said.

    Unfortunately, this sort of simplistic view is very common.
    Indeed, you have a simplistic ideological view that franchising must continue.

    I have said plenty of times on here that I favour a mixture of nationalisation and concessions, on a case by case basis.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    He fails to address three key questions.

    1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state?
    2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not?
    3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?

    And finally,

    4. What is franchising for?

    1) Why does this matter? (In fact, franchises that lose money essentially return money to the UK.)
    2) Perhaps it should not be; London's rail transport isn't necessarily a shining success.
    3) Because it wasn't necessarily a success. Witness the extra Lincoln services that were not introduced the first time the state took over in 2010.
    4) I have answered this below, and could probably write a long (and hopefully relatively informed) tract on it.

    IMO ownership doesn't matter. What matters is if it delivers to the country a rail system that the country needs. That might be nationalised, privatised, a combination, or a.n.other system.

    Your problem is that you evidently have no idea or interest in what will work; you've decided on renationalisation and that's that.
    Exactly. Well said.

    Unfortunately, this sort of simplistic view is very common.
    Indeed, you have a simplistic ideological view that franchising must continue.

    I have said plenty of times on here that I favour a mixture of nationalisation and concessions, on a case by case basis.
    Aren't concessions totally without risk for the company running it?
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    edited June 2018
    NR and the industry as a whole is beset by a blame culture. When something goes wrong, the first priority is for everyone to find a reason why it’s not their fault rather than attempt to fix the problem. As you are probably aware, each NR Route employs a full time team of about 20-30 staff whose sole job is to establish who is responsible for any delay of more than 3 minutes. Much less effort seems to go into stopping the delays in the first place.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    He fails to address three key questions.

    1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state?
    2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not?
    3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?

    And finally,

    4. What is franchising for?

    1) Why does this matter? (In fact, franchises that lose money essentially return money to the UK.)
    2) Perhaps it should not be; London's rail transport isn't necessarily a shining success.
    3) Because it wasn't necessarily a success. Witness the extra Lincoln services that were not introduced the first time the state took over in 2010.
    4) I have answered this below, and could probably write a long (and hopefully relatively informed) tract on it.

    IMO ownership doesn't matter. What matters is if it delivers to the country a rail system that the country needs. That might be nationalised, privatised, a combination, or a.n.other system.

    Your problem is that you evidently have no idea or interest in what will work; you've decided on renationalisation and that's that.
    Exactly. Well said.

    Unfortunately, this sort of simplistic view is very common.
    Indeed, you have a simplistic ideological view that franchising must continue.

    I have said plenty of times on here that I favour a mixture of nationalisation and concessions, on a case by case basis.
    Aren't concessions totally without risk for the company running it?
    No, they could under-estimate the cost of running the concession when they put their bid in. Plus there are usually penalties for poor performance.

    I presume you are espousing the argument that franchises are better because the involve “risk” for the operator... in which case you should read up on Revenue Support
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    You frequently talk about ‘one eyed’ attitudes to nationalisation etc, yet rarely suggest your own solutions. What is franchising for? Why not renationalise? What would you do? The current ‘system’ is an absolute shambles.
    An absolute shambles? How many passenger miles were taken on the railways last year? It wouldn't be going up year on year if it was a shambles.

    And the UK railways enjoy the second highest level of customer satisfaction in Europe:

    http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf
    You do realise that the ECML - supposedly the flagship line - has lost three franchisees in a decade and has been renationalised twice in that period??
    Not at the expense of passengers, though. Service has been good. Which is key for non political obsessives.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    Anazina said:

    1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state?

    In the case of the Dutch or German state, they're run by Dutch and German people, which is obviously going to work out better than having British people running it. If they picked the countries at random then you might end up with America or Venezuela, which would be bad. But they're not doing that, they're letting the better ones do it. I'm not saying the results are fantastic, but it's hard to imagine the British state doing less badly.

    PS The Japanese railways are pretty good, but they should contract out the road planning - numbering and roundabouts and things - to the British.
    So Brits are good at roads, but crap at railways.

    Is that it?
    Currently, yes. I mean, a lot of it's organisational culture etc, but that's not trivial to change. On current evidence, the British are shit at trains and good at roads. You might be able to create a British organisation that's good at trains, but if you give a random British government that job it's not likely that they'll nail it.

    Putting Anazina's question the other way around, given all the organizations and cultures attempting any given problem, what are the chances that of all the organizations in the world, your own particular nation's government would happen to be the best at running it? Not very high, so you should have a model that lets you switch to whatever organisation is.

    PS Matt Yglesias also made this point about central bank governors: Countries have a habit of picking their own nationals to do this job, but what big countries should be doing is picking someone with a good record running a smaller economy.
    Didn’t we try that with Mark Carney?
    He seems to keep getting into scrapes.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    He fails to address three key questions.

    1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state?
    2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not?
    3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?

    And finally,

    4. What is franchising for?

    1) Why does this matter? (In fact, franchises that lose money essentially return money to the UK.)
    2) Perhaps it should not be; London's rail transport isn't necessarily a shining success.
    3) Because it wasn't necessarily a success. Witness the extra Lincoln services that were not introduced the first time the state took over in 2010.
    4) I have answered this below, and could probably write a long (and hopefully relatively informed) tract on it.

    IMO ownership doesn't matter. What matters is if it delivers to the country a rail system that the country needs. That might be nationalised, privatised, a combination, or a.n.other system.

    Your problem is that you evidently have no idea or interest in what will work; you've decided on renationalisation and that's that.
    Exactly. Well said.

    Unfortunately, this sort of simplistic view is very common.
    Indeed, you have a simplistic ideological view that franchising must continue.

    I have said plenty of times on here that I favour a mixture of nationalisation and concessions, on a case by case basis.
    Aren't concessions totally without risk for the company running it?
    No, they could under-estimate the cost of running the concession when they put their bid in. Plus there are usually penalties for poor performance.

    I presume you are espousing the argument that franchises are better because the involve “risk” for the operator... in which case you should read up on Revenue Support
    Indeed. Concessionaires are contractors who are paid to run a service to fairly strict parameters set down by the client. Given this is the relationship between supplier and client use widely across the generbusiness landscape, I have no idea why people like @RobD have such a reluctance to use it here.

    Could it be that the PB Tories are ideologically wedded to franchising? It’s not my place to say.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    edited June 2018
    Mortimer said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    You frequently talk about ‘one eyed’ attitudes to nationalisation etc, yet rarely suggest your own solutions. What is franchising for? Why not renationalise? What would you do? The current ‘system’ is an absolute shambles.
    An absolute shambles? How many passenger miles were taken on the railways last year? It wouldn't be going up year on year if it was a shambles.

    And the UK railways enjoy the second highest level of customer satisfaction in Europe:

    http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf
    You do realise that the ECML - supposedly the flagship line - has lost three franchisees in a decade and has been renationalised twice in that period??
    Not at the expense of passengers, though. Service has been good. Which is key for non political obsessives.
    LOL. Indeed so - for six of the last ten years it was in the public sector!

    QED.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    edited June 2018
    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    There was no economic growth prior to privatisation?
    Passenger numbers grew 36% in the last half of the 1980s. By the time it was privatised it was among the most efficient networks in Europe. Mrs Thatcher hated trains and starved it of investment. That was the problem.

    -//////

    The Thatcher government intensified commercial pressures. Targets for subsidy reductions amounted in real terms to a 25% cut between 1983 and 1986 (Ibid, p. 122). However, in a period of strong economic growth in the mid-1980s, all three passenger businesses increased their incomes, with an aggregate growth in real passenger income of 36% between 1983 and 1989 (Gourvish, 1990, p. 130). By the early 1990s the network was investment-starved but effective at controlling costs. In 1989, British Rail was recorded as being 40% more efficient than eight comparable rail systems in Europe used as benchmarks, whereas in 1979, it was no more than 14% more efficient (Ibid: 149).
    Passenger journeys:

    1985-86: 686 million
    1989-90: 812 million

    18% increase.

    https://tinyurl.com/y9wr78tj
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    NR and the industry as a whole is beset by a blame culture. When something goes wrong, the first priority is for everyone to find a reason why it’s not their fault rather than attempt to fix the problem. As you are probably aware, each NR Route employs a full time team of about 20-30 staff to establish who is responsible for any delay of more than 3 minutes. Much less effort seems to go into stopping the delays in the first place.

    (Whispers quietly) THIS MIGHT ACTUALLY BE A GOOD THING

    Why, I hear you ask? Because it's not as you claim.

    In the good old days of BR a train would break down or there is a defect in track or signalling, and little may happen because of the costs of fixing the issue, which no-one wants to pay. It's move convenient and cheaper to have trains that aren't as reliable, or track with lots of TSR's (Temporary Speed Restrictions).

    The current system works, in that it hurts the people causing the delays. If your train breaking down costs you ten thousand pounds, or a speed restriction five thousand a week, it encourages you to get out and fix the issues. And since the other organisations are external, you are not just shifting money around one large organisation: the money leaves you.

    And we end up with a more reliable railway.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    What I don't understand about this mess is, why didn't they pull the plug on the new timetable when it became apparent that the industry weren't ready for it? It was obvious months ago that this was going to be a disaster so why not postpone it until they were ready?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    tlg86 said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    There was no economic growth prior to privatisation?
    Passenger numbers grew 36% in the last half of the 1980s. By the time it was privatised it was among the most efficient networks in Europe. Mrs Thatcher hated trains and starved it of investment. That was the problem.

    -//////

    The Thatcher government intensified commercial pressures. Targets for subsidy reductions amounted in real terms to a 25% cut between 1983 and 1986 (Ibid, p. 122). However, in a period of strong economic growth in the mid-1980s, all three passenger businesses increased their incomes, with an aggregate growth in real passenger income of 36% between 1983 and 1989 (Gourvish, 1990, p. 130). By the early 1990s the network was investment-starved but effective at controlling costs. In 1989, British Rail was recorded as being 40% more efficient than eight comparable rail systems in Europe used as benchmarks, whereas in 1979, it was no more than 14% more efficient (Ibid: 149).
    Passenger journeys:

    1985-86: 686 million
    1989-90: 812 million

    18% increase.

    https://tinyurl.com/y9wr78tj
    Which also coincided with a massive shake up of the way the railways were organised: sectorisation. This was IMO a massive success.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    The current rail problems in the UK are not Grayling's fault - they are due to the private operators. In the case of Northern Rail, these can be traced back to Berlin, rather than London, as this company is run by Arriva, a subsidiary of the state owned Deutsche Bahn AG.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Anazina said:

    Mortimer said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    I agree with David.

    IMO Labour have been concentrating on the'wring' thing: they are so one-eyed about renaationalisation, they have been concentrating unfairly on the privatised TOCs, when they could have been targeting Grayling. But that would partially mean criticising the nationalised parts of the network ...

    I'm also unsure what Grayling can do in the short term to sort out this mess, and as the threader says, it will rumble on for some time. There will be a fair amount of pressure on him.

    It really is a horrendous mess, and one of the railway's own making. It is a victim of its own success.

    You frequently talk about ‘one eyed’ attitudes to nationalisation etc, yet rarely suggest your own solutions. What is franchising for? Why not renationalise? What would you do? The current ‘system’ is an absolute shambles.
    An absolute shambles? How many passenger miles were taken on the railways last year? It wouldn't be going up year on year if it was a shambles.

    And the UK railways enjoy the second highest level of customer satisfaction in Europe:

    http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_382a_sum_en.pdf
    You do realise that the ECML - supposedly the flagship line - has lost three franchisees in a decade and has been renationalised twice in that period??
    Not at the expense of passengers, though. Service has been good. Which is key for non political obsessives.
    LOL. Indeed so - for six of the last ten years it was in the public sector!

    QED.
    You miss my point. Service has been good throughout. Which suggests that ‘losing’ franchises means naught. It means the system is functioning and that competitive bids are driving down the Costs to the taxpayer without affecting service.

    That said, the main difference I see is on food offering and customer service. I use it 5-10 times a year. Compare and contrast:

    Old privatised East coast - nice enough food, great service
    Nationalised East coast - got the first train out of London on a Saturday morning, the restaurant in standard didn’t open for 40 minutes. Was famished by the time it did.
    Virgin East coast - better than original food. Service just as good as before it was nationalised

    And, of course, decent chunks of that line have competition, too. Which is a consequence of privatisation. More trains from York to London than one can shake a stick at...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    tlg86 said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    There was no economic growth prior to privatisation?
    Passenger numbers grew 36% in the last half of the 1980s. By the time it was privatised it was among the most efficient networks in Europe. Mrs Thatcher hated trains and starved it of investment. That was the problem.

    -//////

    The Thatcher government intensified commercial pressures. Targets for subsidy reductions amounted in real terms to a 25% cut between 1983 and 1986 (Ibid, p. 122). However, in a period of strong economic growth in the mid-1980s, all three passenger businesses increased their incomes, with an aggregate growth in real passenger income of 36% between 1983 and 1989 (Gourvish, 1990, p. 130). By the early 1990s the network was investment-starved but effective at controlling costs. In 1989, British Rail was recorded as being 40% more efficient than eight comparable rail systems in Europe used as benchmarks, whereas in 1979, it was no more than 14% more efficient (Ibid: 149).
    Passenger journeys:

    1985-86: 686 million
    1989-90: 812 million

    18% increase.

    https://tinyurl.com/y9wr78tj
    Which also coincided with a massive shake up of the way the railways were organised: sectorisation. This was IMO a massive success.
    And it continues to influence today's railways. It's partly why split ticketing is a thing. It can often be cheaper to split a ticket at Didcot, for example, as this is the extent of the London and South East sector for which fares are more likely to be regulated.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    NR and the industry as a whole is beset by a blame culture. When something goes wrong, the first priority is for everyone to find a reason why it’s not their fault rather than attempt to fix the problem. As you are probably aware, each NR Route employs a full time team of about 20-30 staff to establish who is responsible for any delay of more than 3 minutes. Much less effort seems to go into stopping the delays in the first place.

    (Whispers quietly) THIS MIGHT ACTUALLY BE A GOOD THING

    Why, I hear you ask? Because it's not as you claim.

    In the good old days of BR a train would break down or there is a defect in track or signalling, and little may happen because of the costs of fixing the issue, which no-one wants to pay. It's move convenient and cheaper to have trains that aren't as reliable, or track with lots of TSR's (Temporary Speed Restrictions).

    The current system works, in that it hurts the people causing the delays. If your train breaking down costs you ten thousand pounds, or a speed restriction five thousand a week, it encourages you to get out and fix the issues. And since the other organisations are external, you are not just shifting money around one large organisation: the money leaves you.

    And we end up with a more reliable railway.
    The Schedule 8 and Schedule 4 compensation systems are so complex that no one on the ground at NR understands the impact of fixing vs not fixing a problem.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    Scott_P said:
    Given that the negotiating teams on both sides appear to be completely spaced out, that would seem an appropriate solution!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, Comrade D.

    F1: an early ramble about Canada:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/06/early-canada-ramble.html
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Anazina said:



    Indeed. Concessionaires are contractors who are paid to run a service to fairly strict parameters set down by the client. Given this is the relationship between supplier and client use widely across the generbusiness landscape, I have no idea why people like @RobD have such a reluctance to use it here.

    Could it be that the PB Tories are ideologically wedded to franchising? It’s not my place to say.

    No, it just seems odd that you would support a model in which private companies are paid to run a service at no risk. At least some of the TOCs are net contributors to the exchequer.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    daodao said:

    The current rail problems in the UK are not Grayling's fault - they are due to the private operators. In the case of Northern Rail, these can be traced back to Berlin, rather than London, as this company is run by Arriva, a subsidiary of the state owned Deutsche Bahn AG.

    That's utterly wrong as far as I know. Northern's problems are mainly caused by a timetable being devised for infrastructure that Network Rail has not yet completed. (GTR's woes down south are more complex).

    Do you have any evidence for your claim?
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_P said:
    Given that the negotiating teams on both sides appear to be completely spaced out, that would seem an appropriate solution!
    We could use the Galileo sattelite to mark out the space border. It’s all starting to fall into place!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    NR and the industry as a whole is beset by a blame culture. When something goes wrong, the first priority is for everyone to find a reason why it’s not their fault rather than attempt to fix the problem. As you are probably aware, each NR Route employs a full time team of about 20-30 staff to establish who is responsible for any delay of more than 3 minutes. Much less effort seems to go into stopping the delays in the first place.

    (Whispers quietly) THIS MIGHT ACTUALLY BE A GOOD THING

    Why, I hear you ask? Because it's not as you claim.

    In the good old days of BR a train would break down or there is a defect in track or signalling, and little may happen because of the costs of fixing the issue, which no-one wants to pay. It's move convenient and cheaper to have trains that aren't as reliable, or track with lots of TSR's (Temporary Speed Restrictions).

    The current system works, in that it hurts the people causing the delays. If your train breaking down costs you ten thousand pounds, or a speed restriction five thousand a week, it encourages you to get out and fix the issues. And since the other organisations are external, you are not just shifting money around one large organisation: the money leaves you.

    And we end up with a more reliable railway.
    The Schedule 8 and Schedule 4 compensation systems are so complex that no one on the ground at NR understands the impact of fixing vs not fixing a problem.
    They seem themselves getting fined if their train breaks down. If their train breaking down due to a particular fault costs them a million a year, and the fix costs one and a half million once, you will fix it. Ditto trackwork.

    It's a great way of prioritising work as well, which BR tended to be a little slapdash over.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_P said:
    Given that the negotiating teams on both sides appear to be completely spaced out, that would seem an appropriate solution!
    We could use the Galileo sattelite to mark out the space border. It’s all starting to fall into place!
    I thought the whole point of Galileo was that it wouldn't fall any place?

    (Alright, alright, I'll stop my puns for the moment!)
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    daodao said:

    The current rail problems in the UK are not Grayling's fault - they are due to the private operators. In the case of Northern Rail, these can be traced back to Berlin, rather than London, as this company is run by Arriva, a subsidiary of the state owned Deutsche Bahn AG.

    Nonsense - Northerns issues are directly due to the failure by the publicly owned Network Rail to deliver the upgrades they were supposed to. Electrification to Bolton is over six months late and may not be ready till Xmas.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    An important area in which the government has to be seen to deliver and Chris Grayling is in charge. What could possibly go right?

    The sad fact is that there are several areas like this and too many mediocrities in office responsible for them. The ability of May to get rid of them is greatly inhibited by the minority status of her government but, depressingly, that isn’t even the whole story. She has chosen to promote mediocrities of her own. So much to do and so little talent.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    NR and the industry as a whole is beset by a blame culture. When something goes wrong, the first priority is for everyone to find a reason why it’s not their fault rather than attempt to fix the problem. As you are probably aware, each NR Route employs a full time team of about 20-30 staff whose sole job is to establish who is responsible for any delay of more than 3 minutes. Much less effort seems to go into stopping the delays in the first place.

    This is not true. In fact, one of the big issues facing South East route is they have a lack of delay attribution staff. It isn't just about apportioning blame between NR and the TOCs, it's about identifying what's causing the delay. It's about knowing what's causing the delay - is it the signalling? is it the track? If you don't know what's causing the delays, how do you fix them?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    NR and the industry as a whole is beset by a blame culture. When something goes wrong, the first priority is for everyone to find a reason why it’s not their fault rather than attempt to fix the problem. As you are probably aware, each NR Route employs a full time team of about 20-30 staff to establish who is responsible for any delay of more than 3 minutes. Much less effort seems to go into stopping the delays in the first place.

    (Whispers quietly) THIS MIGHT ACTUALLY BE A GOOD THING

    Why, I hear you ask? Because it's not as you claim.

    In the good old days of BR a train would break down or there is a defect in track or signalling, and little may happen because of the costs of fixing the issue, which no-one wants to pay. It's move convenient and cheaper to have trains that aren't as reliable, or track with lots of TSR's (Temporary Speed Restrictions).

    The current system works, in that it hurts the people causing the delays. If your train breaking down costs you ten thousand pounds, or a speed restriction five thousand a week, it encourages you to get out and fix the issues. And since the other organisations are external, you are not just shifting money around one large organisation: the money leaves you.

    And we end up with a more reliable railway.
    The Schedule 8 and Schedule 4 compensation systems are so complex that no one on the ground at NR understands the impact of fixing vs not fixing a problem.
    They seem themselves getting fined if their train breaks down. If their train breaking down due to a particular fault costs them a million a year, and the fix costs one and a half million once, you will fix it. Ditto trackwork.

    It's a great way of prioritising work as well, which BR tended to be a little slapdash over.
    Of course, one of the problems which led to the demise of an east coast franchise (GNER or NXEC, I can't remember which) was that NR got their act together meaning the TOC didn't receive as much delay compensation as they had anticipated.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    tlg86 said:

    What I don't understand about this mess is, why didn't they pull the plug on the new timetable when it became apparent that the industry weren't ready for it? It was obvious months ago that this was going to be a disaster so why not postpone it until they were ready?

    I fear that is what will be Grayling's undoing, if anything is.

    A little guesswork: the government has invested billions into these upgrades, and they wanted to see them used as quickly as possible. NR has been slow in delivering them, and was under pressure to reduce the delays in their introduction. A combination of NR continuing to muck up, and the DfT's desire to use them as soon as possible, lalong with the May scheduled timetable changes, led to this situation.

    But AIUI you couldn't just use the old timetables as new trains were coming into use, along with other changes that made them unworkable.

    I'm unsure they'll ever reach thee 24tph through Thameslink's central section ...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    daodao said:

    The current rail problems in the UK are not Grayling's fault - they are due to the private operators. In the case of Northern Rail, these can be traced back to Berlin, rather than London, as this company is run by Arriva, a subsidiary of the state owned Deutsche Bahn AG.

    Nonsense - Northerns issues are directly due to the failure by the publicly owned Network Rail to deliver the upgrades they were supposed to. Electrification to Bolton is over six months late and may not be ready till Xmas.
    The Chase Line was meant to be finished by now as well. Original completion by December 2017, pushed back to May 2018, they still haven't put in the actual wires beyond Slitting Mills just south of Rugeley. The pylons are there and have been for nearly a year, but not all of them have gantries yet.

    It's very frustrating as when they go in we should get direct services to London and Liverpool (and perhaps more usefully, Crewe).
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    edited June 2018

    daodao said:

    The current rail problems in the UK are not Grayling's fault - they are due to the private operators. In the case of Northern Rail, these can be traced back to Berlin, rather than London, as this company is run by Arriva, a subsidiary of the state owned Deutsche Bahn AG.

    That's utterly wrong as far as I know. Northern's problems are mainly caused by a timetable being devised for infrastructure that Network Rail has not yet completed. (GTR's woes down south are more complex).

    Do you have any evidence for your claim?
    If the infrastructure isn't in place, and they don't have enough (trained) drivers, Northern should have timetabled a much more limited service.

    The outcome of the current shambles is that passengers will desert the trains in much of NW England. They might as well shut the some of the lines, such as the Windermere branch, for good.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    For those not following it - do! - the Jeremy Thorpe BBC drama concludes tomorrow, and the real life drama may not yet be over:

    Jeremy Thorpe 'hit-man might not be dead', police admit

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44336859
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    tlg86 said:

    What I don't understand about this mess is, why didn't they pull the plug on the new timetable when it became apparent that the industry weren't ready for it? It was obvious months ago that this was going to be a disaster so why not postpone it until they were ready?

    I fear that is what will be Grayling's undoing, if anything is.

    A little guesswork: the government has invested billions into these upgrades, and they wanted to see them used as quickly as possible. NR has been slow in delivering them, and was under pressure to reduce the delays in their introduction. A combination of NR continuing to muck up, and the DfT's desire to use them as soon as possible, lalong with the May scheduled timetable changes, led to this situation.

    But AIUI you couldn't just use the old timetables as new trains were coming into use, along with other changes that made them unworkable.

    I'm unsure they'll ever reach thee 24tph through Thameslink's central section ...
    I think part of the problem is there's a yes culture in the industry. Someone high up says "we want it done by xx" and everyone comes up with a plan that says it can be done. That's not to say deadlines shouldn't be set, but I think they are sometimes overly ambitious. The same applies to costs which, sadly, my lot didn't cover themselves in glory five years ago.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    daodao said:

    daodao said:

    The current rail problems in the UK are not Grayling's fault - they are due to the private operators. In the case of Northern Rail, these can be traced back to Berlin, rather than London, as this company is run by Arriva, a subsidiary of the state owned Deutsche Bahn AG.

    That's utterly wrong as far as I know. Northern's problems are mainly caused by a timetable being devised for infrastructure that Network Rail has not yet completed. (GTR's woes down south are more complex).

    Do you have any evidence for your claim?
    If the infrastructure isn't in place, and they don't have enough (trained) drivers, Northern should have timetabled a much more limited service.

    The outcome of the current shambles is that passengers will desert the trains in much of NW England. They might as well shut the some of the lines, such as the Windermere branch, for good.
    You are Richard Beeching and I claim my £5.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    I am still doing my patriotic duty in Leeds making sure that England wins a test match. A friend joined us last night from Glasgow. It had taken him more than 6 hours to get here because his Virgin train was so late he missed his connection.

    A couple of months ago i visited my daughter in Gronnigan. At one point we had to switch trains and there was 2 minutes in which to do so. Any concerns about this being tight were met with mute incomprehension and so it proved. All the trains we were on there left and arrived within 10 seconds of when they should. I find these customer satisfaction numbers deeply untrustworthy.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    For those not following it - do! - the Jeremy Thorpe BBC drama concludes tomorrow, and the real life drama may not yet be over:

    Jeremy Thorpe 'hit-man might not be dead', police admit

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44336859

    I am enjoying the Jeremy Thorpe drama but it still suffers from that weird BBC touch: overly camp, played just a tad too much for the cheap laugh, over the top characterisation, etc. It’s not a drama, but a black farce.

    Presumably there’s another Jeremy Thorpe drama out there which actually seeks to understand how a great liberal thinker should be driven to such moral squalor.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    For those not following it - do! - the Jeremy Thorpe BBC drama concludes tomorrow, and the real life drama may not yet be over:

    Jeremy Thorpe 'hit-man might not be dead', police admit

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44336859

    Is that news or is that the BBC plugging its top Sunday night drama series followed by an old but unseen Panorama?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    daodao said:

    daodao said:

    The current rail problems in the UK are not Grayling's fault - they are due to the private operators. In the case of Northern Rail, these can be traced back to Berlin, rather than London, as this company is run by Arriva, a subsidiary of the state owned Deutsche Bahn AG.

    That's utterly wrong as far as I know. Northern's problems are mainly caused by a timetable being devised for infrastructure that Network Rail has not yet completed. (GTR's woes down south are more complex).

    Do you have any evidence for your claim?
    If the infrastructure isn't in place, and they don't have enough (trained) drivers, Northern should have timetabled a much more limited service.

    The outcome of the current shambles is that passengers will desert the trains in much of NW England. They might as well shut the some of the lines, such as the Windermere branch, for good.
    AIUI Northern do not set timetables; they run a detailed timetable as defined by the DfT and Network Rail (who negotiated the broad outline with the franchisee much earlier, and which assumed that NR would complete their work).

    I think NR do the timetabling work from that large office building outside the station in Milton Keynes, if you wish to complain.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    edited June 2018

    tlg86 said:

    What I don't understand about this mess is, why didn't they pull the plug on the new timetable when it became apparent that the industry weren't ready for it? It was obvious months ago that this was going to be a disaster so why not postpone it until they were ready?

    I fear that is what will be Grayling's undoing, if anything is.

    A little guesswork: the government has invested billions into these upgrades, and they wanted to see them used as quickly as possible. NR has been slow in delivering them, and was under pressure to reduce the delays in their introduction. A combination of NR continuing to muck up, and the DfT's desire to use them as soon as possible, lalong with the May scheduled timetable changes, led to this situation.

    But AIUI you couldn't just use the old timetables as new trains were coming into use, along with other changes that made them unworkable.

    I'm unsure they'll ever reach thee 24tph through Thameslink's central section ...
    With Thameslink, it doesn’t help that some of the service changes have been purely political (eg keeping Wimbledon Loop services going through the Thameslink core to help Stephen Hammond keep his seat, even though it creates conflicts at Blackfriars)
    daodao said:

    daodao said:

    The current rail problems in the UK are not Grayling's fault - they are due to the private operators. In the case of Northern Rail, these can be traced back to Berlin, rather than London, as this company is run by Arriva, a subsidiary of the state owned Deutsche Bahn AG.

    That's utterly wrong as far as I know. Northern's problems are mainly caused by a timetable being devised for infrastructure that Network Rail has not yet completed. (GTR's woes down south are more complex).

    Do you have any evidence for your claim?
    If the infrastructure isn't in place, and they don't have enough (trained) drivers, Northern should have timetabled a much more limited service.

    The outcome of the current shambles is that passengers will desert the trains in much of NW England. They might as well shut the some of the lines, such as the Windermere branch, for good.
    Time tabling is done months, sometimes years in advance of changes. It’s not something you can just make up on the spot.

    Closing rail lines is politically impossible and there is no way the Windermere branch in particular is going to close.

    There are a few lines and station that certainly are economic basket cases but even these generally don’t get closed, eg read up on the story of Breich station (1 passenger/week) which the SNP government has insisted on keeping open at a cost of thousands.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. L, in Leeds now? It's bloody humid.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    DavidL said:

    I am still doing my patriotic duty in Leeds making sure that England wins a test match. A friend joined us last night from Glasgow. It had taken him more than 6 hours to get here because his Virgin train was so late he missed his connection.

    A couple of months ago i visited my daughter in Gronnigan. At one point we had to switch trains and there was 2 minutes in which to do so. Any concerns about this being tight were met with mute incomprehension and so it proved. All the trains we were on there left and arrived within 10 seconds of when they should. I find these customer satisfaction numbers deeply untrustworthy.

    I went on holiday this week to Edinburgh and we ended up by seconds missing the train due to our inability to get across the station promptly, it's not at all wheelchair friendly. We arrived at the station half an hour before departure and checked the platform listings and our station wasn't showing a platform yet so went to the First Class Lounge.

    With a baby in a pushchair and a toddler we had to use the elevators and once the number popped up we went out but then had to get 5 lifts to get across to the right platform. Big queues at every lift meant it took about 4-5 minutes to get some of the lifts so we got to the platform just in time to see the doors close without us.

    Originally met with gruff indifference by the staff there who simply said it was our fault we were late, when I said that the platform wasn't listed when we arrived he said they put it up 19 minutes before departure, with doors closing 1 minute before departure. Great, 18 minutes is fine if you can walk. Stuck needing wheelchair access then with 5 lifts with a queue for each on then giving 18 minutes to cross the station is not very long at all.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    John Julius Norwich has passed away. His three-part history on Byzantium is absolutely fantastic, and opened my eyes to the Eastern Roman Empire. RIP.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749

    For those not following it - do! - the Jeremy Thorpe BBC drama concludes tomorrow, and the real life drama may not yet be over:

    Jeremy Thorpe 'hit-man might not be dead', police admit

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44336859

    I am enjoying the Jeremy Thorpe drama but it still suffers from that weird BBC touch: overly camp, played just a tad too much for the cheap laugh, over the top characterisation, etc. It’s not a drama, but a black farce.

    Presumably there’s another Jeremy Thorpe drama out there which actually seeks to understand how a great liberal thinker should be driven to such moral squalor.
    Tend to agree, though afaics the Carry On Hitmanning element seems to reflect at least some part of the real events.

    The series does (rather crudely) counterpoint the the farce with quite stirring and surprisingly idealistic parliamentary speeches from Thorpe. I'd guess that his taste for the transgressive element of his sexual tastes (tbf forced upon him by the mores of the time) may have loosened Thorpe's moral compass, but that's just amateur psychobollox on my part.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    The trains are shit. Heads need to roll and GTR should be threatened with nationalisation if they can't fix it within the next two weeks. All of my friends and family who live out in Stevenage and Hitchin have been stranded in one or the other direction every day last week.

    Luckily for the government the train companies have been so awful for so long they are escaping the finger of blame at the moment. If it goes on much longer then o suspect that will change.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,911
    RobD said:

    Roger said:

    Has there ever been a time when a PM has had to work with such a talentless and accident prone cabinet? The whole brexit debacle is being fed into this feeling of malaise and incompetence and the longer it goes on the more the the public are losing heart. It's not helped by having an opposition who don't look anywhere near capable of picking up the pieces.

    Winning the world cup might change the mood but a re-run of the referendum is more likely

    Just wait until Corbyn becomes PM. :smiley:
    Loathe Corbyn, but because the common expectation is that he would be a complete disaster I do wonder that if he ever does become PM the reality will be better than most expect. Initially

    I would expect a new Labour government to announce a series of radical policies that might initially play quite well with the public at large. Personally I hope we never get to find out - the only thing that would get me to vote for him would be if the party went into the next election with an anti-Brexit stance.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    DavidL said:

    I am still doing my patriotic duty in Leeds making sure that England wins a test match. A friend joined us last night from Glasgow. It had taken him more than 6 hours to get here because his Virgin train was so late he missed his connection.

    A couple of months ago i visited my daughter in Gronnigan. At one point we had to switch trains and there was 2 minutes in which to do so. Any concerns about this being tight were met with mute incomprehension and so it proved. All the trains we were on there left and arrived within 10 seconds of when they should. I find these customer satisfaction numbers deeply untrustworthy.

    I went on holiday this week to Edinburgh and we ended up by seconds missing the train due to our inability to get across the station promptly, it's not at all wheelchair friendly. We arrived at the station half an hour before departure and checked the platform listings and our station wasn't showing a platform yet so went to the First Class Lounge.

    With a baby in a pushchair and a toddler we had to use the elevators and once the number popped up we went out but then had to get 5 lifts to get across to the right platform. Big queues at every lift meant it took about 4-5 minutes to get some of the lifts so we got to the platform just in time to see the doors close without us.

    Originally met with gruff indifference by the staff there who simply said it was our fault we were late, when I said that the platform wasn't listed when we arrived he said they put it up 19 minutes before departure, with doors closing 1 minute before departure. Great, 18 minutes is fine if you can walk. Stuck needing wheelchair access then with 5 lifts with a queue for each on then giving 18 minutes to cross the station is not very long at all.
    What an awful experience. Try using www.realtimetrains.co.uk in future - they have data on the scheduled platform long before it is announced publically at the station.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    RobD said:

    It's not just the north David. The huge Great Northern/Thameslink network changes have been a total disaster so far and cover many marginal seats

    OGH nabbing a first? I demand a full judge-led independent inquiry. :D
    Please contact the site owner to set up details
    I thought you were a Lib Dem?

    That sounds like a Labour Party disciplinary process

    :lol:
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    DavidL said:

    I am still doing my patriotic duty in Leeds making sure that England wins a test match. A friend joined us last night from Glasgow. It had taken him more than 6 hours to get here because his Virgin train was so late he missed his connection.

    A couple of months ago i visited my daughter in Gronnigan. At one point we had to switch trains and there was 2 minutes in which to do so. Any concerns about this being tight were met with mute incomprehension and so it proved. All the trains we were on there left and arrived within 10 seconds of when they should. I find these customer satisfaction numbers deeply untrustworthy.

    I went on holiday this week to Edinburgh and we ended up by seconds missing the train due to our inability to get across the station promptly, it's not at all wheelchair friendly. We arrived at the station half an hour before departure and checked the platform listings and our station wasn't showing a platform yet so went to the First Class Lounge.

    With a baby in a pushchair and a toddler we had to use the elevators and once the number popped up we went out but then had to get 5 lifts to get across to the right platform. Big queues at every lift meant it took about 4-5 minutes to get some of the lifts so we got to the platform just in time to see the doors close without us.

    Originally met with gruff indifference by the staff there who simply said it was our fault we were late, when I said that the platform wasn't listed when we arrived he said they put it up 19 minutes before departure, with doors closing 1 minute before departure. Great, 18 minutes is fine if you can walk. Stuck needing wheelchair access then with 5 lifts with a queue for each on then giving 18 minutes to cross the station is not very long at all.
    It pays to use real time trains. You can see which platform a train normally departs from. At times of disruption it can resemble Benny Hill when they have multiple platform alterations.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    DavidL said:

    I am still doing my patriotic duty in Leeds making sure that England wins a test match. A friend joined us last night from Glasgow. It had taken him more than 6 hours to get here because his Virgin train was so late he missed his connection.

    A couple of months ago i visited my daughter in Gronnigan. At one point we had to switch trains and there was 2 minutes in which to do so. Any concerns about this being tight were met with mute incomprehension and so it proved. All the trains we were on there left and arrived within 10 seconds of when they should. I find these customer satisfaction numbers deeply untrustworthy.

    I went on holiday this week to Edinburgh and we ended up by seconds missing the train due to our inability to get across the station promptly, it's not at all wheelchair friendly. We arrived at the station half an hour before departure and checked the platform listings and our station wasn't showing a platform yet so went to the First Class Lounge.

    With a baby in a pushchair and a toddler we had to use the elevators and once the number popped up we went out but then had to get 5 lifts to get across to the right platform. Big queues at every lift meant it took about 4-5 minutes to get some of the lifts so we got to the platform just in time to see the doors close without us.

    Originally met with gruff indifference by the staff there who simply said it was our fault we were late, when I said that the platform wasn't listed when we arrived he said they put it up 19 minutes before departure, with doors closing 1 minute before departure. Great, 18 minutes is fine if you can walk. Stuck needing wheelchair access then with 5 lifts with a queue for each on then giving 18 minutes to cross the station is not very long at all.
    It's part icularaly infuriating when people who clearly don't need the lift (as in people I've heard say "I can't be bothered to take the stairs") are in the lift queue. Almost missed a connection in Birmingham under similar circumstances.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    It's always seemed insane to me to separate the track ownership from the running of trains. How can you effective ively co ordinate major engineering works. Unless the contracts between track ownership and operators are calibrated absolutely perfectly with infinite foresight there will inevitably by perverse incentives for one or the other to do the wrong thing for passengers.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Good morning, Comrade D.

    F1: an early ramble about Canada:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/06/early-canada-ramble.html

    You've missed out the bit that Toro Rosso is getting a new (higher power) Honda engine for Canada. Just in time for Red Bull who decide (after this race) what engine they go for next year.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Anazina said:

    A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).

    He fails to address three key questions.

    1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state?
    2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not?
    3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?

    And finally,

    4. What is franchising for?

    The answer to (1) has been posted on here many times before

    There is an inherent conflict of interest between optimising the overall outcome on the railways* and maximising near term political outcomes. Politicians will, as a rule, tend to underinvest (spending on schools’n’hospitals instead), hold down fares, increase wages and not focus on returns.

    Without taking a view on what the right points on the spectrum for each of those factors is, I hope you can appreciate that the politicians best outcome is not necessarily the best outcome for the railways.

    Where a foreign government is the owner they are not subject to the political pressures (their voters are not directly affected) and therefore it can be run in order to optimise the outcome for the railways. That’s not to say it *will be* but it *can be*



    * a blend between investment, fares, wages and returns
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Alistair said:

    It's always seemed insane to me to separate the track ownership from the running of trains. How can you effective ively co ordinate major engineering works. Unless the contracts between track ownership and operators are calibrated absolutely perfectly with infinite foresight there will inevitably by perverse incentives for one or the other to do the wrong thing for passengers.

    There has been a split between civils and operations for ever: even pre-grouping railways such as the Midland had such a split AIUI.

    The reasons are obvious: the needs and requirements for civils is very different from operations, and running them both as one big group leads to problems and they are subdivided. Therefore there is always communication between subdivisions, even if they are both owned by the same overall entity. BR had loads of problems with this.

    This is a real question about renationalisation: how will the new organisation be structured, and how will that structure lead to a good service for passengers and freight?

    Essentially you may just end up replicating what we have now (especially if they go the 'cheap' way they are claiming and just let the franchise lapse).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    MaxPB said:

    The trains are shit. Heads need to roll and GTR should be threatened with nationalisation if they can't fix it within the next two weeks. All of my friends and family who live out in Stevenage and Hitchin have been stranded in one or the other direction every day last week.

    Luckily for the government the train companies have been so awful for so long they are escaping the finger of blame at the moment. If it goes on much longer then o suspect that will change.

    How can GTR fix issues that lie outside their control, such as NR's infrastructure problems?

    There is another aspect with GTR that is not the case with Northern: AIUI their new trains are specified by the DfT. The new 24tph schedule through Central London relies on low dwell times at stations, and the new trains are designed to allow passengers on and off quickly.

    Early experience seems to show that the DfT's assumption that passengers will get on and off quickly enough might be wrong, and if that's the case it'll be nearly impossible to keep to the timetables.

    (All AIUI).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    From the graudian....

    Labour will flesh out how it would dismantle Andrew Lansley’s structural NHS reforms to bring more health provision back in-house, in a wide-ranging consultation on NHS restructuring under a future Labour government.

    The shadow health secretary, Jon Ashworth, said Labour had now rejected the possibility of working within the existing structures, calling them unfit for purpose, and said the party would consult in the coming months over how it could re-establish a universally public NHS.
This discussion has been closed.