Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 00:55 29 Mar 2024
- Bus plunges off South Africa bridge, killing 45
- Easter getaways hit by travel disruption
- Where Baltimore bridge investigation goes now
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
29th Mar (1913)
Foundation of National Union or Railwaymen (*)

Train RunningShort Run
21:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
Delayed
21:45 Penzance to London Paddington
23:45 London Paddington to Penzance
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 29, 2024, 01:06:42 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[98] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[97] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[86] Return of the BRUTE?
[74] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[53] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[23] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9
  Print  
Author Topic: Great Western franchise to be broken up?  (Read 35735 times)
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: February 09, 2017, 15:40:34 »

Not quite. The idea of the regulatory systems for the de-nationalised industries was to act as a form of artificial competition by limiting monopolistic behaviour.


That is my beef.  It is neither capitalism nor socialism.  It is phoney-capitalism which IMHO (in my humble opinion) often incorporates the worst aspects of both of the other systems bringing in both private sector greed and short termism and public sector incompetency and inefficiencies. 

I presume that you are being ironic with your stereotypes? I hope so - as neither is strictly true!

I could refute both descriptions - but that is really an argument for other places. Suffice it to say that anyone who believes either of these descriptions are always true is fated to be either a pundit or a politician.

No irony.  I am exaggerating and simplifying, but I think that my general point that the need for a complicated regulatory regime is an indicator that perhaps a market-based private sector driven solution which works well is going to be a challenge to implement which begs the question why would you bother unless for some ideological reason. 

The only other thing I will say about rail privatisation, is that the current system is not very privatised.  All the key assets are publically owned, and when we tried to privatise the infrastructure (Railtrack), it was an expensive fiasco and people died. 
Logged
4064ReadingAbbey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 455


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: February 09, 2017, 22:56:07 »

Ideology works both ways. Railways, harbours, canals, external telecomms, coal, steel, airlines, road transport, etc. were nationalised as a result of ideology.

The regulatory regime has changed considerably since the first organisations were de-nationalised - the Office of the Rail Regulator became the Office of Rail Regulation and is now the Office of Rail and Road. It has also adapted, or been adapted, in order to be able to continue to exist. Its most important original function, that of acting as pseudo-competition to a privately owned monopoly supplier, ceased to exist as soon as Network Rail became a protege of Government in 2003. A QUANGO (Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation) regulating another QUANGO always seemed a bit odd.

And regulation also exists for the private sector - it's called the Competition and Markets Authority. I sometime wonder why the Regulators for individual ex-nationalised industries are not rolled into the CMA. The system would then at least be simplified.

And I would be careful in suggesting that fatal accidents which occurred when the infrastructure owner was privatised was an inevitable result of the ownership. In spite of the lack of the profit motive driving down costs, the nationalised railways killed more people, both in total and on an average annual basis, than was the case during Railtrack's short existence or in the structure that now exists.

I am not suggesting by any means that the current structure is optimal - but in fact no structure is optimum. The political, legal, economic and moral environment in which any organisation functions is constantly changing and the organisations have to change as best they can to suit.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: February 09, 2017, 23:02:37 »

And I would be careful in suggesting that fatal accidents which occurred when the infrastructure owner was privatised was an inevitable result of the ownership. In spite of the lack of the profit motive driving down costs, the nationalised railways killed more people, both in total and on an average annual basis, than was the case during Railtrack's short existence or in the structure that now exists.

Can you provide some figures to support this? What deaths are you including?
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #63 on: February 10, 2017, 07:56:14 »

Rail deaths (and indeed other deaths on transport per mile travelled) have all dropped over the years - see http://www.soue.org.uk/souenews/issue6/jenkinlect.html - but I wouldn't like to confirm any correlation to the ownership / stewardship of the infrastructure.   Over time we have worked very hard indeed to analyse things when there's a problem and further reduce risk, and it's the dividend from that which gives improving figures.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: February 10, 2017, 08:58:32 »

And I would be careful in suggesting that fatal accidents which occurred when the infrastructure owner was privatised was an inevitable result of the ownership. In spite of the lack of the profit motive driving down costs, the nationalised railways killed more people, both in total and on an average annual basis, than was the case during Railtrack's short existence or in the structure that now exists.

Can you provide some figures to support this? What deaths are you including?

Well there is no doubt that the "public infrastructure with private ToCs" railway of today is much safer than under BR (British Rail(ways)).  It is 10 years since the railway killed a passenger in a crash (Greyrig).  BR typically managed a handful of deaths in such circumstances almost every year and there was a time when Railtrack did little better.   Correlation is not causation, but it does seem that the "phoney capitalism" version of the railway we have today is safer than both the nationalised BR or the originally privatised system.  It is also safer than the railways in most other countries.  I would credit at least part of the excellent safety of today on Network Rail getting a firm grip on the maintenance problems that had arisen under Railtrack. 
Logged
SandTEngineer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3485


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: February 10, 2017, 16:55:14 »

And I would be careful in suggesting that fatal accidents which occurred when the infrastructure owner was privatised was an inevitable result of the ownership. In spite of the lack of the profit motive driving down costs, the nationalised railways killed more people, both in total and on an average annual basis, than was the case during Railtrack's short existence or in the structure that now exists.

Can you provide some figures to support this? What deaths are you including?

Well there is no doubt that the "public infrastructure with private ToCs" railway of today is much safer than under BR (British Rail(ways)).  It is 10 years since the railway killed a passenger in a crash (Greyrig).  BR typically managed a handful of deaths in such circumstances almost every year and there was a time when Railtrack did little better.   Correlation is not causation, but it does seem that the "phoney capitalism" version of the railway we have today is safer than both the nationalised BR or the originally privatised system.  It is also safer than the railways in most other countries.  I would credit at least part of the excellent safety of today on Network Rail getting a firm grip on the maintenance problems that had arisen under Railtrack.

Having worked for all three of the organisations mentioned I find that anaylsis somewhat flawed.  The saviour of todays railway has been the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS (Train Protection and Warning System)) which has prevented quite a few potentially serious accidents.  Remember, after Clapham BR was planning full introduction of Automatic Train Protection (ATP (Automatic Train Protection)) but this was 'cancelled' by the government on the basis of cost.  So the fact there were several accidents after Clapham is not down to any of the railway organisations.  Railtrack installed TPWS, not NR» (Network Rail - home page) so the improved safety record is not down to NR.  The fact that Maintenance is now 'in house' has had little effect on safety and to suggest otherwise is being very unfair to those dedicated staff that delivered regardless of their employer.  There have been some serious 'close calls' since NR took over.  Cost cutting by RT and its contractors has been far overshadowed by those taking place by NR at present where maintenance budgets are being pruned to the bare bones and experienced staff are leaving/have left in droves.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2017, 14:04:37 by SandTEngineer » Logged
4064ReadingAbbey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 455


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: February 10, 2017, 20:07:48 »

So, as I was trying to imply, safety is not directly linked to the type of ownership - and one should be very careful in trying to make a link.

In the recent past TPWS (Train Protection and Warning System) has undeniably made an enormous difference - but BR (British Rail(ways)) was very slow in adopting its predecessor AWS (Automatic Warning System) (Automatic Warning System). This was inexcusable as the (real) GWR (Great Western Railway) had introduced Automatic Train Control (ATC (Automatic Train Control)) in 1906. BR only installed the magnetic version after the Harrow accident in 1952. I am sure that BR could have installed the GWR version as soon as it was set up, but it didn't.

My conclusion is that it is not the ownership that matters in the final analysis, but the importance laid on any particular topic by management. And just after the war, during which casual death was an everyday occurrence, attitudes to safety were very different.
Logged
John R
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4416


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: February 10, 2017, 21:12:48 »

If I recall at least two of the major accidents around the turn of the century could arguably be down to privatisation.  The driver training of Thames Trains appeared to leave a lot to be desired in the aftermath of Ladbroke Grove.  And the gauge corner cracking that resulted in Hatfield and the subsequent melt-down of Railtrack was widely attributed to the de-emphasis of engineering and outsourcing of day to day maintenance following the formation of Railtrack.

It's true that TPWS (Train Protection and Warning System) has been a very significant factor in the improvement in safety since. And when things do go bump, the crashworthiness of current stock is hugely improved, with the accelerated withdrawal of Mark 1 stock in the SE a factor here.  I suspect both of those would have happened with or without privatisation, although the huge replacement of stock before it was life expired was probably made easier by privatisation. Instead of an up front capital cost to the Treasury, leasing costs spreads the cost over many years, although it is effectively mortgaging the future (in the same way that PFI hospitals do).  Sounds good at the time, but the cost comes back to bite you in the future. 

Logged
4064ReadingAbbey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 455


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: February 11, 2017, 13:39:31 »

Although the Ladbroke Grove accident is often taken to be, at least, partially due to inadequate driver training I sometimes wonder about the accuracy of this conclusion. Lord Cullen's report of the Inquiry did not come to any definite conclusions as to why the driver of the Class 165 made the errors he did.

The one thing the inquiry should have done at the beginning, but didn’t, was to establish the exact sequence of events leading up to the collision. Because of difficulties in decoding the On Train Monitoring Recorder traces the actual behaviour of the outbound Class 165 was available only shortly before the inquiry closed - long after all the hypotheses, claims and counter-claims had been discussed in public. The actual sequence of events by then played only a minor role in the reporting of the accident.

These OTMR (On Train Monitoring Recorder) data were overlaid on a track diagram and the document ("lgri.pdf") was available on the HSE (Health and Safety Executive)’s website although it was not included in Lord Cullen's report. The diagram shows quite clearly that the AWS (Automatic Warning System) warning was cancelled at the single yellow indication before signal SN87 on Gantry 6 (in rear of SN109) and speed was allowed to drift down to 38mph as the train entered points 8051, moving across from Line 4 to Line 3. During the crossing movement power was reapplied although the train was still some 60 to 70 metres before the sighting point for signal SN109 (188 metres from the signal) and about 140 metres before it reached the AWS magnet for that signal. On passing the magnet the AWS warning was cancelled, signal SN109 was passed at danger (all 5 other signals on Gantry 8 were also at red) but the driver left the power applied and the train to continue to accelerate.

In other words at three errors were made in quick succession:

  • power was re-applied before signal SN109 was visible
  • SN109’s AWS warning was cancelled when the signal was visible, but power was left on and the train accelerated past the signal
  • no brake application was made when the train overshot turnout 8057 (about 150 metres after the train had passed SN109) that would have taken the train (if SN 109 had been 'clear') to line 1, the Down Main.

I think in the aeronautical world this is called 'lack of situational awareness'.

Research has shown that drivers in their first year of driving were most at risk from SPADs (Signal Passed At Danger) and that between 30 and 47% of SPADs were accounted for by drivers with less than five years experience. (See for example Downes, M. & Robinson, W. W. (1999), Drivers route experience and SPAD propensity, a Special Topic Report for Railtrack S&SD). This suggests to me that the accident was due more to not comprehending the situation because of lack of experience rather than directly due to inadequacies in the training - although Lord Cullen did find the training programme to be inadequate and Thames Trains were fined under the Health and Safety Act.

Taking into account all the factors, it is hard to say that the accident was caused by privatisation per se. The disruption it caused may have contributed but BR (British Rail(ways)) was also fated to be almost continually disrupted. G. F. Fiennes in his 1967 book 'I tried to run a railway' made the same point: that the attention of the few people who run the railway is distracted and punctuality and safety go to pot.
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: February 11, 2017, 23:44:15 »


I think in the aeronautical world this is called 'lack of situational awareness'.

There is no reason why the term should not be applied to the railway world as well. It fits your analysis perfectly.

Another point is also demonstrated - there is seldom if ever one single cause of an accident. Most are a culmination of at least three different factors.
Logged

Now, please!
devonexpress
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 294


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: November 07, 2017, 23:40:31 »

  and presumably it mandates separate accounting so that costs can be clearly understood.


Absolutely, the bottom line I suspect especially given the big fall in passenger numbers now (seen on internal staff documents) since 2015/16 on GWR (Great Western Railway) in the south west peninsula is that the government really wants the costs of running what is an increasingly monolithic and inefficient GWR to be much more transparent.

I've got the latest passenger figures and there hasn't been a big fall in passenger numbers in Devon & Cornwall since 2015/16.  In 2015/16 itself, there was what looked like a big fall on the Cornish main line, the Newquay line and to an extent also the St Ives line.  As you can imagine, we were very concerned about this and GWR investigated what had happened.  It turned out to be the result of an unusual Orcats split which washed out of the system in Period 2 this year (May) and the apparent falls of 15/16 have been reversed.    

In terms of the branch lines, Exmouth, Gunnislake, Looe and Newquay have all had their best years yet (our records go back to 2001) with slight fall backs on Falmouth and Barnstaple and a bit bigger on St Ives, that mainly as a result of the St Erth fire in August.

Was being talked about on BBC» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) Spotlight today, with several MP (Member of Parliament)'s who wanted the franchise split up, now not wanting it too at all! Morons the lot of them. As for Grayling he's an idiot too, the GWR franchise is slowly getting better and better with more people using the branch lines, new train being introduced and a better connected timetable, why undo all this hard work? If it does happen, which it probably will, it sounds like either the Devon/Cornwall locals will be removed, or South Wales services transferred. Luke Pollard MP for Plymouth is right(and im a Conservative supporter) most of the money for the franchise comes from Reading to Paddington tickets, which is used across the franchise to support other parts of the network, if the split the franchise this will only make it have a loss, which it did under Wessex Trains!  Lets be said that if the idiotic plan goes ahead im not voting Cons again utter shambles!
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: November 08, 2017, 09:28:03 »


My conclusion is that it is not the ownership that matters in the final analysis, but the importance laid on any particular topic by management. And just after the war, during which casual death was an everyday occurrence, attitudes to safety were very different.

Plus the reasonable approach of dealing with the biggest risks and those most easily dealt with first.  So ATP (Automatic Train Protection)/TPWS (Train Protection and Warning System) only started to be considered when central door locking had successfully stopped people falling out of train doors which was a bigger risk until the 1990s.  Only when TPWS had made crashes caused by SPADs (Signal Passed At Danger) less likely did level crossing safety become the big priority it is now. 
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: November 08, 2017, 09:33:29 »

Luke Pollard MP (Member of Parliament) for Plymouth is right(and im a Conservative supporter) most of the money for the franchise comes from Reading to Paddington tickets, which is used across the franchise to support other parts of the network, if the split the franchise this will only make it have a loss, which it did under Wessex Trains! 

why does it matter if a recreated Wessex franchise makes a loss?  surely the loss will be compensated for by the bigger profits of the mainline franchise.  If the subsidy/premium profile is correctly set up the overall cost to the taxpayer will be the same.   
Logged
WelshBluebird
Transport Scholar
Sr. Member
******
Posts: 158


View Profile Email
« Reply #73 on: November 08, 2017, 13:46:03 »

why does it matter if a recreated Wessex franchise makes a loss?  surely the loss will be compensated for by the bigger profits of the mainline franchise.  If the subsidy/premium profile is correctly set up the overall cost to the taxpayer will be the same.   

The worry is that the "Wessex" franchise would then potentially be under pressure from government (or future governments) to reduce its subsidy.
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: November 08, 2017, 14:09:11 »

why does it matter if a recreated Wessex franchise makes a loss?  surely the loss will be compensated for by the bigger profits of the mainline franchise.  If the subsidy/premium profile is correctly set up the overall cost to the taxpayer will be the same.   

The worry is that the "Wessex" franchise would then potentially be under pressure from government (or future governments) to reduce its subsidy.

But the current GWR (Great Western Railway) franchise is under pressure from Government to increase the premium paid.  I don't buy the argument that by "hiding" unprofitable services in a bigger franchise the Government forgets or overlooks that they are loss making.  To DfT» (Department for Transport - about) a change in premium from £10m to £20m is worth precisely the same as a cut in subsidy from £20m to £10m. 

There are good reasons to keep GWR together, but the fact that local journeys are cross subsidised by long distance ones is not one of them.  Remember subsidy is tax payer's money and transparency in how that is collected and spent is ALWAYS a good thing. 
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page