We don't want any new trains !

[mattvince]

The fact is, that both parties have failed to 'do the job properly'. AD makes a salient point about either full nationalisation or full privatisation - the half-measure we have here is part of the problem. Exclusively blaming the Tories is a nonsense which ignores the last decade of Labour rule - they could have well chosen a different path, but instead perpetuated the present situation. As I said, both parties are to blame.

Why have the costs increased? In terms of rolling stock, as the ORR investigation into the ROSCOs has suggested, 'franchising' is the big problem, particularly as it means 7-10 year contracts with no ability to invest the TOC's money in purchasing new rolling stock. I say ability, at ~£1m/vehicle, you need 25 years of guaranteed use to get a return on capital, which isn't possible if the franchise is up for renewal within five years of delivery. Thus the industry is forced to accept Capital Rentals, with their associated risk costings. ROSCOs have also been sold on from their original owners, with consequent increase in value, and the new owners have sought to recoup the cost of purchase.

Franchising itself is expensive - as various publications have noted, each bidder will have to pay between £3m and £5m. Particularly costly are consultants. The Commons Transport Committee's report into franchising itself says "We fear the re-franchising process is driven more by consultants and lawyers than by people with an in-depth understanding of the railways and what is required to run good passenger services, now and in the future." (Sec.3, Para 63).

Then there is Network Rail - which absorbs more subsidy than any other organisation in the rail industry. NR has no shareholders, but is but a cat's whisker from being considered by the National Audit Office to be a state-owned company. Part of the problem, and this is where the BR vs Private debate comes in, is that a lot of BR-era infrastructure is falling due for renewal, which is just at a time that spending (and inflation) in construction and engineering (from all sectors) is very high. If BR had had higher levels of renewals spending, rather than that based on an 800-million pax/year railway, then the present cost of NR would be less - 'pay now or pay through the nose later'. Dare I mention NR's debt?

As to the DfT specification for Greater Western, I'd be minded to suggest a degree of party-political interest - Ministers knew they could get away with it as it would not cost them much at the next election - note that most of the cuts were in predominantly Lib Dem and Tory constituencies. Meanwhile the MPs for Paisley & Renfrewshire West and Glasgow South can be assured that they won't get a roasting from their constituents for the atrocious train service in the South West of England.

The only way out is to take a totally different view of running the railway - and it may be the Conservatives who have to implement this new direction. If an incoming Government can be minded to see that interventionist transport policies cost excessively and achieve little, merely perpetuating the status quo, then perhaps there is a hope for ripping down some of the artificial constructs (such as Track Access Charges), taking out some of the legal/financial interfaces, and bringing in Vertical Integration. At the same time, a 'one-size-fits-all' monolith must be avoided - there needs to be 'economies of scope' from focussed and market-aware regional management, not precise directions from Headquarters - be that BR Ltd or DfT. Such a move may also, if given a reasonable timescale, reduce the cost to the taxpayer by allowing major investment to be made privately, rather than having major investments underwritten or paid for by Government.

[Elojikal]

The notion of the Conservatives taking a greater interest in the wellbeing of the national rail network isn't so absurd anymore. Unlike years gone by when they were motorway mad they now have a great deal many more friends in the rail lobby arguing the case for rail over road.

If anything it seems to be Labour that has gone the other way and is now open to persuassion from the road lobby.

I wouldn't want to see nationalisation again but the privatised railways still have some way to go. Obviously the neither fish nor fowl approach to privatisation must come to an end sooner rather than later (although not before SWT have taken over all of the south please!) but I think we need to remember that privatisation was a big upheaval that was always going to take time to settle down. It took BR fourty odd years to get its act together, the privatised railways have only had ten so far. I still believe that in about ten to fifteen years things will be in a far different state.

[jbilton]

Hi
I think I agree with most of Matt's post (don't fully comprehend some of the language...too management ).
But in layman's terms I think he's saying.....

Bigger companies.
That own the track and the stock
Are allowed to run the trains, to fit the traffic flow.
On contracts that last 15 years or better 25 years.
Get the investments required from the private sector.
Require no public investments or subsidies.

If that's the case I'd certainly go for it..........and would suggest (roughly) the five big regions of BR as a good starting point?.

All you need then is a national inspectorate to make sure none of the companies get up to any 'sharp practises'.

Cheers
Jon

[Elojikal]

I doubt in this day and age private companies could ever get the levels of investment required upfront for major infrastructure projects, they would always need to be subsidised by the government, or at least funded by long term low interest loans from the government that would reflect the nature of such projects in not providing immediate returns but returns over a long period.

I'd like to see the franchise system scrapped entirely...in time. Companies will feel truly responsible for their assets when they fully own them and running railways becomes "their business." Right now there are too many bus companies running buses on steel wheels and 20-25 year franchises won't change that. This will require a bit of time and patience however to see which companies are the best and let the cream rise to the top as it were.

The ROSCO situation is a bit of a double edged sword. On the one hand it is impossible to deny that the creation of ROSCOs has provided unprecedent levels of investment in new stock which would not have happened under BR (of course whether the extra levels of interface has resulted in many of these being trains of good design is another matter...)

On the other the ROSCOs are free to fleece the TOCs for all that the market can bear if there is no surplus of stock. And there is no surplus of stock because it is neither in the ROSCOs interest to operate in a way that drives prices down, nor does it make sense to have lots of perfectly fine stock lying around sitting idle and not making a return on its investment.

It's an inherent contradiction to the ROSCO system and one I'm not entirely sure there's an easy answer for. I do however think we are approaching the point where the system should be changed so that the natural value of older stock is restored.

[chandramohan]

All these lawers, consultants, politicians ... non-railway ethusiasts should stay away from the railway unless they can and wan't to actually improve the railways. I agree that Network Rail is stuggling because they have so many renewals needed when inflation is so high. We need more engineers, drivers etc who have technical knowledge.

Thanks

Chandramohan

[arabiandisco]

All these lawers, consultants, politicians ... non-railway ethusiasts should stay away from the railway unless they can and wan't to actually improve the railways. I agree that Network Rail is stuggling because they have so many renewals needed when inflation is so high. We need more engineers, drivers etc who have technical knowledge.

Thanks

Chandramohan

Enthusiasts are the worst people in the world to run a railway. It needs a hard-nosed business approach, or nothing will ever move forward.

[Elojikal]

Amen to that.