No, I'm not referring to the havoc wreaked to the Great Western Main line in Devon by the weather, but to the damage done to our railways by politicians of both main parties.
The fiasco over the West Coast franchise was all over the national newspapers in October. It was initially awarded to First Group, but then, following an appeal by Richard Branson's defeated Virgin Group, the government launched an investigation which proved that the bidding process for the franchise had been "a flawed process." That's putting it mildly, to say the least.
My latest copy of the excellent periodical Railway Magazine arrived yesterday, and it included an account of a speech given to the Institute of Civil Engineers by Tim O'Toole, First Group's chief executive. Astonishly, he said that, "the franchising system is not broken and does not need massive overhaul." It may sound impudent for a mere railway enthusiast to disagree with a professional in the industry, but if we want a better rail network and no more fiascos like the recent West Coast saga, the franchising system should be scrapped altogether.
I say this because there seems no sensible reason for the government to assume any role in our rail network beyond ensuring it is run safely and that no prce cartels develop. From the beginning of the railway era until 1948, our railways were in private hands and were, in the main, well run. Yes, there were a few exceptions, but government control of the railways has led to a marked deterioration in quality and a massive increase in prices. One of the few good points about Conservative Premier John Major was that his initial plan to return the railways to privatise ownhership involved a simple reversal of the changes which took place in 1948, which would have left us with vertically-integrated railways, competing with each other on a number of routes, but in charge of their own track and rolling stock, as well as running the trains themselves. However, after consulting with civil servants, the present complex structure was brought in, complete with train operating companies, rolling stock leasing companies, Network Rail, franchises, and the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing. This is particularly apparent when something goes wrong. I recall a late-night train journey when the train I was on hit an obstruction (which sadly turned out to be a suicide) and we sat for hours outside Lewes Station with no one seemingly in charge. The train crew worked for one company while the signalmen employed by another, and chaos reigned for several hours before we were finally evacuated from the stricken train and an alternative train laid on to take us home.
The separation of trains and track is now enshrined in European Law, although as I pointed out in my paper On the Wrong Track http://www.brugesgroup.com/BrugesRailwaysPaper.pdf it was the British government, and not the EU who came up with this idea first. Franchising is pecuilarly British, and terribly wasteful. The short-termism of the franchise system, where no company can be sure it will still be running the trains in 20 years time, may well be why we have ended up with such horrible trains. They have some pretty clever gadgetry, but in terms of ambience, they are a real step backwards. Earlier this year I had the rare chance to travel first class from Gloucester to London with Frist Great Western, and all I will say is that the carriage did not remotely compare to the sort of vehicle that would have been used on such a service in the 1930s by its predecessor, the Great Western Railway, which would have featured compartments, plush upholstery and wooden veneer panelling.
If, as I hope and pray, Britian votes to leave the EU when we are finally offered a referendum, it is time to have a re-think about the way our railways should be run. Returning to something like the pre-1948 arrangement will not immediately enable our railways to run without government subsidy, and will require a lot of careful planning, but at least it will mean less accountants, lawyers and (above all) civil servants need to be involved. Those wishing to run trains need not spend millions of pounds on franchise bids, and instead could use the money to build better trains. All this can only be a good thing.
The fiasco over the West Coast franchise was all over the national newspapers in October. It was initially awarded to First Group, but then, following an appeal by Richard Branson's defeated Virgin Group, the government launched an investigation which proved that the bidding process for the franchise had been "a flawed process." That's putting it mildly, to say the least.
My latest copy of the excellent periodical Railway Magazine arrived yesterday, and it included an account of a speech given to the Institute of Civil Engineers by Tim O'Toole, First Group's chief executive. Astonishly, he said that, "the franchising system is not broken and does not need massive overhaul." It may sound impudent for a mere railway enthusiast to disagree with a professional in the industry, but if we want a better rail network and no more fiascos like the recent West Coast saga, the franchising system should be scrapped altogether.
I say this because there seems no sensible reason for the government to assume any role in our rail network beyond ensuring it is run safely and that no prce cartels develop. From the beginning of the railway era until 1948, our railways were in private hands and were, in the main, well run. Yes, there were a few exceptions, but government control of the railways has led to a marked deterioration in quality and a massive increase in prices. One of the few good points about Conservative Premier John Major was that his initial plan to return the railways to privatise ownhership involved a simple reversal of the changes which took place in 1948, which would have left us with vertically-integrated railways, competing with each other on a number of routes, but in charge of their own track and rolling stock, as well as running the trains themselves. However, after consulting with civil servants, the present complex structure was brought in, complete with train operating companies, rolling stock leasing companies, Network Rail, franchises, and the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing. This is particularly apparent when something goes wrong. I recall a late-night train journey when the train I was on hit an obstruction (which sadly turned out to be a suicide) and we sat for hours outside Lewes Station with no one seemingly in charge. The train crew worked for one company while the signalmen employed by another, and chaos reigned for several hours before we were finally evacuated from the stricken train and an alternative train laid on to take us home.
The separation of trains and track is now enshrined in European Law, although as I pointed out in my paper On the Wrong Track http://www.brugesgroup.com/BrugesRailwaysPaper.pdf it was the British government, and not the EU who came up with this idea first. Franchising is pecuilarly British, and terribly wasteful. The short-termism of the franchise system, where no company can be sure it will still be running the trains in 20 years time, may well be why we have ended up with such horrible trains. They have some pretty clever gadgetry, but in terms of ambience, they are a real step backwards. Earlier this year I had the rare chance to travel first class from Gloucester to London with Frist Great Western, and all I will say is that the carriage did not remotely compare to the sort of vehicle that would have been used on such a service in the 1930s by its predecessor, the Great Western Railway, which would have featured compartments, plush upholstery and wooden veneer panelling.
If, as I hope and pray, Britian votes to leave the EU when we are finally offered a referendum, it is time to have a re-think about the way our railways should be run. Returning to something like the pre-1948 arrangement will not immediately enable our railways to run without government subsidy, and will require a lot of careful planning, but at least it will mean less accountants, lawyers and (above all) civil servants need to be involved. Those wishing to run trains need not spend millions of pounds on franchise bids, and instead could use the money to build better trains. All this can only be a good thing.