Post Trains.

[Derbyroy]

Good point hairy handed,
But why did we as the owners of the then British Railways , allow these things to happen...easy unless it affected you on a daily basis , let someone else worry, that has been our downfall for many years, if it aint broke don,t fix it. trouble is nowadays most things come broke and have to be fixed before use.. then we the enduser get lumbered with the repair costs..Modern Life ???
best regards derby

[hairyhandedfool]

I believe the philosophy was something like....

....We could spend £2k for a long term fix but then we could spend £1k on a short term fix!....

equally.....

....We could employ track engineers at a cost of £6m a year or we could put out a contract at £550k a month.

Simple really if you do the maths.......It really should take a genius to do the job.

[Derbyroy]

Hi HHF,
sorry ihaven,t been able to reply to your last notice , not been too well,
I think your Philosophy, sounds and looks about right,lol.
I still think its a very sad reflection on todays system of doing things, should we re-nationalise the railways ? or would that be uneconomic do you think ?
food for thought though ................
best regards Derby.

[Shed Cat]

Originally Posted by Derbyroy

should we re-nationalise the railways ? or would that be uneconomic do you think?

Would we really get any better service? Probably not, I think. There would still be no money for investment. We would certainly get even more invisible Government meddling cutting Rail budgets when the Chancellor (of whatever party) got a bit short.

I do know the Lawyers and Consultants would walk off with at least £1 billion in fees to renationalise the railways

[hairyhandedfool]

I think, given the current top three political parties, Re-nationalisation would be a mistake, that said the current state of affairs is far from ideal. For the franchises, the goalposts keep changing, not just by their own actions but that of the DfT and Network Rail/Railtrack. What the railway needs is standard franchise lengths, no overall suibsidies (excepting that some may be needed at the begining), but most of all a national fares structure. The current system is ludicrous and in need of change. There are two extremes to this, Virgin are constantly slated for fares increases, yet they have started out with 40 year stock and now have the most advanced stock on the railway. Granted the fares probably don't match the service but when has that ever happened? Thameslink, on the otherhand, started out with 15 year old stock which is still in use yet make more profit than anyone else.

The franchises could do with being bigger, more joined up rather than the fragmented them and us we currently have. In reality we have big bus companies running small train companies, when we should have a range of companies bidding for a smaller group of larger franchises.

Just my opinion.

P.S. Hope you feel better.

[Foghut]

Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool

I think, given the current top three political parties, Re-nationalisation would be a mistake, that said the current state of affairs is far from ideal.

Yup I totally agree. I think the important issue is not WHO owns the railway, but that it becomes vertically integrated. You can bet that if the companies running the trains also owned the infrastructure, the blockades would be far less paralysing.

Similarly I think that a prospective franchisee should be required to present a plan to grow the railway service. Just like in the NHS there are plenty of really good experienced people on the railway who could run it far better than the control freaks of the Civil Service and Government. We need far less government intervention, not more. The franchise periods should be much longer, with the requirement to provide increasing route capacity, longer trains, better stations, larger FREE car parks, etc.

This will never happen with the current government because it just sees franchising as a cash cow, to generate lots of lovely money which it can squander elsewhere, instead of making the franchisees plough their profit back into improving the railway. Under the current system the bidder who wins the franchise is simply the one which undertakes to pay the biggest wedge to the treasury; there is no requirement to provide a decent service - just look at First Great Western (whose stock-shortage fiasco incidentally was actually caused by DfT).

Virgin are constantly slated for fares increases, yet they have started out with 40 year stock and now have the most advanced stock on the railway. Granted the fares probably don't match the service but when has that ever happened? Thameslink, on the otherhand, started out with 15 year old stock which is still in use yet make more profit than anyone else.

Well as usual this is of course down to ORR/DfT. Thameslink wanted new stock, but it's a question of the DfT authorising it and ROSCOs financing it, and it has been established that 2012 is the earliest possible date. (As I've mentioned before FCC will be getting 27 class 377s next year, but this is a longstanding clause of the Thameslink 2000 phase 0 arrangement; the Off peak/Sutton/Sevenoaks services will still be provided by the miserable 319s).

Finally, to me the maddest/saddest thing of all is the current Cost-Attribution system which is supposed to benefit the customer, but actually works against them. When a train is delayed (often by external factors which is not its fault) its calling pattern is slashed to enable it to start its next service on time, thus avoiding a fine. So all the passengers get off and wait ages for the next stopping service, whilst their original train runs fast, but empty, to the end of the line. It's lunacy and it makes me quite ashamed to be a railwayman, as it happens on an almost daily basis.

Foggy

[hairyhandedfool]

Originally Posted by Foghut

Yup I totally agree. I think the important issue is not WHO owns the railway, but that it becomes vertically integrated. You can bet that if the companies running the trains also owned the infrastructure, the blockades would be far less paralysing.....

I can see the benefit of intergrating stations and services, but the tracks I think are another kettle of fish, given the fragmented state of the franchises as a whole. Even if it was intercity and regional railways how could you seriously say that one should control upgrades over the other. You would need a controlling franchise on one route and that would be detrimental to the other franchise, which is precisely what we don't need. The reality for vertical intergration, I believe, is that if it happens it won't be for a while, assuming everyone wanted it, which they clearly don't.

Originally Posted by Foghut

....This will never happen with the current government because it just sees franchising as a cash cow, to generate lots of lovely money which it can squander elsewhere, instead of making the franchisees plough their profit back into improving the railway. Under the current system the bidder who wins the franchise is simply the one which undertakes to pay the biggest wedge to the treasury; there is no requirement to provide a decent service - just look at First Great Western (whose stock-shortage fiasco incidentally was actually caused by DfT).....

I believe, in order to make the companies see sense a proportion of the profits (50-75%) should be put back into the railways within a 5 year time scale with a clause that any unspent money goes to track/station projects. The problem being that with the current crop of companies running the railway, it would only lead to fares increases.

Originally Posted by Foghut

.....Finally, to me the maddest/saddest thing of all is the current Cost-Attribution system which is supposed to benefit the customer, but actually works against them. When a train is delayed (often by external factors which is not its fault) its calling pattern is slashed to enable it to start its next service on time, thus avoiding a fine. So all the passengers get off and wait ages for the next stopping service, whilst their original train runs fast, but empty, to the end of the line. It's lunacy and it makes me quite ashamed to be a railwayman, as it happens on an almost daily basis.

Here, here.

I used to live along the semi fast Thameslink line to Bedford, and whilst the situation is terrible, what makes it worse is that it is always the same stations being left out. First to go on the Bedfords was always Leagrave (unless it was the 1755 from KXTL, The managers train, fast to St Albans, LAP, Leagrave and stops to Bedford), then Harlington and Flitwick, then Harpenden, St.albans, Luton and LAP. So I often found myself seeing 3 Bedford trains go passed before one stopped where I needed. As staff it sucks big time but as a punter it is intolerable.

[richard thompson]

Passengers will not come first as long as goverment priority is to win the next election and therefore will not take clear decisive action on our railways and several other issues because of the desire not to put themselves in a position where they will be slated by the opposition and thus loose the next election.
richard

[washingmachine]

Yes Railtrack failed the railway big style.EWS delivered a good service.Towards the end of mail on rail it was hitting 100% performance targets.Sad to see it lost,we now have a mail delivery once a day,at different times each day and one colection at 1700 insted of three.Thats progress !!!