Atomic Systems

The regionalisation is a good idea, involving local government, allowing cross subsidy, longer franchises to let the TOC get on with investing.

I know first are often singled out as bad, but so far improvements I have seen on my local ex-wessex route.

*More regular ticket checks, both to enter platforms and on trains. This is a good thing - under wessex it was common for the conducter to do one check, half way through the whole trip - a large percentage getting a free ride.

*Exeter Central is being repainted (Last done in 1993 by RR - old paint is in a bad state)

*More services operated by 158's (how long this will last after the Central units go back)

This is just in the last 2 months. Imagine if they continue in this form, better environment = more pax = more revenue = more profits. The company is interested in the more profits, but a large proportion of the profits are reinvested in the business, so bigger profits = more investment.

I know this post is confusing, but I do think that the private TOC's and Local Government should work together and bypass the DfT

And finally where companies do compete, eg West of Exeter has FGW, VXC and SWT. The DfT wants that stopped as it 'duplicates resources'

mattvince wrote:the real problem is that in 1951 the bus industry kicked the fares up when the Government introduced Duty on fuel, as their operating costs increased. That's what made people buy cars - rail was a victim of the whole affair.

Thats a good point - the role of local buses in bringing people to stations is not really appreciated. Even in the late 50s few people drove to the station, they got the bus. Removing these routes is fairly similar (if not in scale) to removing branch lines and watching the trunk route wither as people drive the whole way.

enotayokel wrote:I know this post is confusing, but I do think that the private TOC's and Local Government should work together and bypass the DfT

Bypassing the DfT? That sounds too much like a good idea. With the way the DfT is behaving, I suspect TOCs may start to ignore the DfT in any case. But equally local government has to be willing to work with the railway - one of my former colleagues compared the attitude of Nottinghamshire CC and the Robin Hood Line to the attitude of Leicestershire CC and the Ivanhoe extension towards Coalville (this was back in Regional Railways days). Notts went into their project as equal partners with RR, whilst Leicestershire took a 'we say, you do' attitude. The outcomes speak for themselves.

And finally where companies do compete, eg West of Exeter has FGW, VXC and SWT. The DfT wants that stopped as it 'duplicates resources'

Dare we criticise the present incompetants? It does duplicate resources, if you look at it from a local point of view - but it also provides more direct services to more destinations outside the area. There is also the question of choice: if company A is the primary operator, but the passengers prefer company B, then taking away 'duplicate' resources also takes away the customer's primary choice of company. In an age where New Labour wants us to have more choice when it comes to education and healthcare, doesn't it become inconsistent if we are not allowed the choice of which company's trains we wish to travel on (where this choice already exists)?

I've said it before, and i'll say it again. The government has to subsidise railways, wheras they make an awful lot of money from people using their cars. Can you guess which mode of transport they'd rather you used?

Allegedly, FirstGroup (my favourite whipping boys) actually offered to fund electrification of the GWML suburban routes (Oxford & Newbury/ Bedwyn, I believe), in return for a 20 year franchise so they could write off the costs over a suitably long period. Which is exactly the kind of thing privatisation was supposed to achieve. You don't need me to tell you what the response was.

They don't really care long term because they only have a 4-5 year "franchise". And matt - "new" Labour? consistent? You really should have proof-read that...

arabiandisco wrote:I've said it before, and i'll say it again. The government has to subsidise railways, wheras they make an awful lot of money from people using their cars. Can you guess which mode of transport they'd rather you used?

What of the cost of providing the infrastructure, policing, healthcare and other support services? Then we haven't factored in the other external costs which HMG has to internalise as no-one else will - such as the environmental damage of roads. Finally, and I'll repeat it - until each and every motorist pays the full cost of their journey, then there is a need for subsidy of public transport - to 'correct' the fact that there is a market failure apparent in road travel. If enough franchises can be brought into premium (but not at the cost of rail services) then at least in England the operation of the railway can be made subsidy-free.

There are also slippery things called 'Non-User Benefits'. HMG has no option but to allow rail in the Capital to continue in at least present form - the non-user benefits of rail in London's morning peak are incalculably big.

Allegedly, FirstGroup (my favourite whipping boys) actually offered to fund electrification of the GWML suburban routes (Oxford & Newbury/ Bedwyn, I believe), in return for a 20 year franchise so they could write off the costs over a suitably long period. Which is exactly the kind of thing privatisation was supposed to achieve. You don't need me to tell you what the response was.

The 20-year franchise thing was the best moment in franchising - sadly killed of by Mr Bowker. It's exactly the right approach to retaining both private and public sector involvement - but has to include continuous improvement requirements, avoiding the potential of a franchisee doing things to the letter but no more. Alistair Morton's SRA had the right ideas, just lacked in the delivery.

They don't really care long term because they only have a 4-5 year "franchise". And matt - "new" Labour? consistent? You really should have proof-read that...

Had nationalisation though carried on through the 90's at least half the problems surrounding todays railways would be solved or on the way to bing solved. If it was all under one company you have 1 way of doing things not the way of First or Nat Ex etc all with their own solutions.

had nationalisation stayed on through the 1990's up to present day We would have had a standardised train fleet.

Think about it though, would all these withdrawl's have happened, would preserved loco's have run on mainline service trains or even ever run on the mainline.

Nationalisation has it Pro's and Con's as much as privatisation does.

Nationalisation does have the benefit of Simple and easy to understand fares rather than having to shuffle around to get a cheap ticket.

Had nationalisation carried on throughout the 90s, I dare say we'd have more Networkers (that don't work properly, bar the 365s), still have clapped out locomotives on Cross Country that fail every 24 minutes and so on. There just isn't enough money in the pot to upgrade the network nationally, and if you ask me, since the Voyagers are likely to actually GET somewhere, I'd rather have a 220 thats slightly too small and smells a bit funny than have to rely on a clapped out duff that's more likely to drop down dead than the dodo.

allypally wrote: I'd rather have a 220 thats slightly too small and smells a bit funny than have to rely on a clapped out duff that's more likely to drop down dead than the dodo.

philistine..........

Seriously I can't see why BR would not have continued with its partnership with BREL, so locomotives got a full overhaul at the correct service intervals.
However you may be looking towards the last days,when little money was spent on Xcountry routes.
One of the largest benefits was the technical research centre, which I'm sure would have continued to give good advice.
Now all the TOCs can do is buy foriegn, off the shelf.
Something I don't know( as I'm not into todays railways) though is where are they going to get overhauled, do they have to go back to Canada, Spain, Italy,Japan etc?
Cheers
Jon

BR was planning enormous rolling stock replacement programmes, to the best of my knowledge. The Mk1 MUs would have been replaced (and by a standardised fleet), and HST2 would have been sooner arriving. There would have been no 458s, or any mistaken rolling stock investment.

While the money wasn't there under Major's Tory government, that would have changed in 1997 anyway with Labour coming to power, who have increased spending on railways anyway (albeit through subsidies).

We could have also had better infrastructure investment, possibly with several main lines being electrified (which should have been done decades ago!). The WCML upgrade could have been a real upgrade, not just a large repair job, sorting out problems. These days, it's difficult to get a crossover installed at Woking as the tracks and train operations are kept separately.

BTW, I've only seen dodgy locomotives on XC duties post privatisation, in BR days we had 158s down here (and I'm not stating that 5 hours in a 158 was fun) - just to point out.

Nick

The trouble is - it's all conjecture. Would the nation have been in a position to afford the investment, with BR's debts on the Government's books? Would the economic consequences of not having as much growth because BR's debts were HMG's have meant that passenger numbers increased by as much as reality? Then there are managerial issues: Would the BR sectors have had the same aggressive marketing strategies as the private TOCs? Would track have continued to deteriorate - a trend which started under BR? Would the new stock have been of sufficient quality to be really attractive - for instance would WiFi and power points have been available?

Jon - overhauls are done by the owner, at the owner's choice of depot, where possible - only parts are returned to the manufacturer (nothing which won't fit in an ISO container).

Nick - it's called Designing, Building and Testing. These things take time.

mattvince wrote:The trouble is - it's all conjecture. .................


Jon - overhauls are done by the owner, at the owner's choice of depot, where possible - only parts are returned to the manufacturer (nothing which won't fit in an ISO container).

Hi Matt
Its always going to be conjecture, same as wondering whether the Big Four would have made it without the war etc.
Thanks for the info on overhauls. Partly answers my question....but I'm still slightly at a loss.
In BR days there were 5/6 large works overhauling locomotives and stock,day in day out.
Now I read the railways are at a heavy capacity than ever, so I assume there must be lots of trains still....but there are only a few Depots....which I assume are Laira, Old Oak sort of standard,which I think used to be called class 5......do these now have the capacity and time to do HGR repairs etc?
Cheers
Jon

jbilton wrote:Thanks for the info on overhauls. Partly answers my question....but I'm still slightly at a loss.
In BR days there were 5/6 large works overhauling locomotives and stock,day in day out.
Now I read the railways are at a heavy capacity than ever, so I assume there must be lots of trains still....but there are only a few Depots....which I assume are Laira, Old Oak sort of standard,which I think used to be called class 5......do these now have the capacity and time to do HGR repairs etc?
Cheers
Jon

There are a number of places - such as the Bombardier plant at Doncaster, or Brush at Loughborough, who do the big overhauls on specialist kit like HSTs, but in general it is mid-sized maintenance depots. For something like a Voyager, Central Rivers (Burton-on-Trent) would do the overhauls - even the Cummins QSK19 engine is mounted on a raft, which can be dropped out. The rest of the modern multiple-unit fleets are similar - most things are simply bolted on, and can be fairly easily taken off. A C6X (mid-life refurbishment) would entail a trip to a bigger plant - such as Wabtec Doncaster, or Bombardier's Derby plant. For EWS engines, Toton do pretty much the lot.

Heavy overhauls are becoming less frequent (as part of the drive to reduce whole life costs) therefore there is less demand for large works such as Eastleigh etc.

New fleets such as the Desiro's on SWT also have their own dedicated brand new facilities for overhaul and maintenance. Incidently heavy overhauls for Siemen's stock will eventually be carried out at a central UK site, somewhere on the WCML but the name escapes me...

Most modern Multiple Units incorporate 'pitstop' maintenance whereby whole banks of equipment can be changed out in one go for overhauled stock. This allows the actual equipment to be returned to the manufacturer for overhaul. The result being that you don't need so many Class 5 works therefore reducing the whole cost of running the railways.

Regards,

Dan

Hi
Thanks for that Matt and Dan. Answers some of my questions.
I suppose nothing has got to its half life yet, but I thinking on when locos and stock needs stripping right down to bare metal for replating etc.
Or do they make them of rust free steel these days.
Certainly in BREL days locos would be in for about 4 to 6 months for HGR, about every 8 to 10 years.
Cheers
Jon