This is the age to complain (Railways in general)

Member Name: davidbuttery

Product:	Railways in general
Date:	22/02/02 (94 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: not as bad as it was, very few line closures these days, new trains finally arriving

Disadvantages: Byzantine structure, still smacks of a profits before safety culture, New St upgrade delayed for years

Now this really is a subject after my own heart. As someone who is unable to drive (I have epilepsy), the state of the public transport network is of absolutely central importance to my daily life, quite apart from it being necessary to avoid the United Kingdom descending even further into a state of utter gridlock. With some subjects, one needs to play around a bit in order to fill out the op to a reasonable length: in this case, the piece is likely to imitate a train - somewhat slow to get going, yet possessing such inertia that it will take some considerable time to come to a halt!

To start our journey through the murky underworld of the British railway system, let me take you back in time to the dim and distant days of the Thatcher government of the 1980s; a time when greed was good and there was "no such thing as society". The great nationalised industries - telephones, electricity, gas, oil - were being privatised at a blinding pace, with varying degrees of success. Amidst this wholesale flogging of the family silver, one anomaly stood out - British Rail. Why was no serious attempt made to sell off BR under Maggie?

The answer, I am inclined to believe, is that Thatcher simply did not care enough about public transport to want to take up her time with the issue. After all, it was the Iron Lady herself who had said, "anyone who rides on a bus after the age of 30 is a failure". And so she was content to allow the system to languish, as it had done through successive governments of either stripe, caught in the grip of a slow yet seemingly relentless decline in both patronage and income.

Her successor John Major, on the other hand, did want to make something of the network, and, I do believe that, at least at first, he was genuinely committed to privatisation as a way of raising standards. His personal preference was to return to a system similar to the pre-war "Big Four" (GWR, LNER, LMS and SR), each running
a "vertically integrated" operation - that is, they would control both trains and infrastructure. Sadly, though, he was persuaded of the merits of an alternate model, with a single infrastructure company (Railtrack), three freight operators (later to be merged into the present EWS), a couple of dozen Train Operating Companies (TOCs), and any number of contractors, sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors, all dealing with each other by means of an extraordinarily convoluted set of financial contracts. Ken Loach's recent film for Channel 4, "The Navigators", illustrated vividly the effects of such a regime on staff morale.

This setup was derided as unworkable by many people right from the start, for much the same reasons as are now (quite rightly, in my estimation) being expressed with regard for the present government's plans for the London Underground. Unfortunately, one of the few politicians with the capacity to speak intelligently on railways, and to ask the awkward questions required, Robert Adley, died as the privatisation process was gearing up, thus robbing the travelling public of a valuable ally.

By the time privatisation was ready to proceed in 1996, the Tories were in dire straits electorally. Black Wednesday, 16th September 1992, had seen the traditional Conservative reputation for economic soundness destroyed in a few hours, as Chancellor Norman Lamont raised rates leapt from 10 to 15%, and the pound tumbled out of the ERM. The Tories' poll ratings fell through the floor, and had still not recovered four years later. All the Conservatives could realistically hope to do was to make life as difficult as possible for an incoming Labour government.

What happened next was, I sincerely believe, the execution of a quite deliberate "scorched earth" policy by the Conservatives. The Tories cynically rushed through a fatally flawed privatisation, of which the worst part was the sale of Railtrack
at a ludicrously knockdown price, purely to make it both extremely difficult and extremely expensive for Labour to renationalise, as it had previously promised it would do. Had the Labour Party retained the courage of their earlier convictions, and stated baldly that any privatisation would be immediately reversed, the whole rickety edifice would have come crashing down around the Tories' ears. Alas, in an early display of that somewhat muddled sense of priorities which we have come to know so well, Tony Blair was more concerned with avoiding any mentions of the dreaded "s-word" (socialism) than actually doing something because it was right.

The doom-mongers who warned that the emphasis placed on Railtrack's shareholders (which, as they were a PLC, was in fact a legal requirement under our silly laws) was compromising the safety of the network were, regrettable, proved correct by the Hatfield disaster, caused in part by atrocious maintenance of trackwork in order to save money. Scandalously, not one prosecution has been brought for corporate manslaughter - apparently because it would have, to quote the Department of Public Prosecutions, "very little chance of success". This surely says as much about the inadequacy of the current law as it does about Railtrack.

The current government has, it must be admitted, ameliorated somewhat the state of the railways. The creation of the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) was a badly needed and long overdue step, although its powers to punish recalcitrant companies - especially the "ultimate sanction" of removing a franchise, are with one or two exceptions (Connex) too little used. When a company, as Arriva Trains Northern has done, sacks hundreds of drivers and then reduces its service as it cannot find enough people to run the trains, it deserves a little bit more than a slap on the wrist.

Then there is the utter shambles of TOCs' franchise renewals. The grand p
lans many of them say they want to put into practice - most notably ordering new trains to replace life-expired rolling stock - are by no means cheap, and it is understandable that they want reassurance their investments will be worthwhile. That means franchise lengths of 15 years and more - witness one of the success stories, Chiltern Railways, whose 20-year franchise is allowing them to upgrade their entire long-distance fleet to the extremely comfortable "Clubman" trains, and even to investigate reopening long-closed lines. But the SRA's most common punishment for major underperformance has been to *shorten* franchises. This is a nonsense that serves nobody: if a TOC is competent, give it a proper run; if it isn't then get rid of it altogether. Just don't skulk in this cowards' halfway house.

Ticketing, too, is a mess, as every rail user will know. The National Rail Enquiries phone line (08457 48 49 50), while not quite the basket case it was a few years ago, is still regarded with deep suspicion by every regular traveller. It's much better to use www.qjump.co.uk. Having said that, one does find it hard to blame the staff when they have to deal daily with one of the most Byzantine sets of ticketing regulations anywhere in the world. At least in BR days there was only one issuing company to deal with - now we must contend with a bewildering variety of special offers, peak-time restrictions and booking forms.

Mind you, those of us (such as me) who often need to travel at very short notice don't need to worry about all these offers as we're not eligible for 95% of them. What we *do* need to worry about is the increasing tendency of certain TOCs (I'm looking at you, Virgin) to make "walk-on" fares more and more expensive and restricted, effectively forcing people to book in advance. This creeping "airline-isation" might be all right for 600-mile sleepers, but for a journey like Penrith to
Carlisle (all of 18 miles) it's just silly.

Not that one has a great deal of choice, mind. With a very few exceptions (such as the Birmingham to London route which Chiltern does so well), TOCs have a virtual monopoly on their routes - on that Penrith to Carlisle trip, you either travel with Virgin or you don't go by train. This completely undermines the only good argument for privatisation - that competition will force prices down and standards up. Why on earth is a private monopoly better than a public one? It isn't, and in fact it's a good deal worse, as any notion of public interest goes by the board. Up go the fares (the most useful leisure tickets such as the Cheap Day Return are, of course, unregulated), and down go the satisfaction ratings, which in the case of Virgin are pretty dire to begin with.

The local operators, Central Trains (CT) in my case, rely mainly on fairly short distance commuting and turn-up-and-go leisure travel, so fares are usually less exorbitant. But other problems, inevitably, present themselves, not least the state of the trains themselves. On CT, the windows are often disgustingly filthy (and in the case of the electric Class 323s, covered in graffiti scored with knives); the all-new Class 170 "Turbostars" were so unreliable that they have already had to be refitted; and a regular on my local line, no. 150 001, is the oldest "Sprinter" in service anywhere in the country.

You'll have noted my shift into "trainspotterese" from time to time in that last paragraph. I make no apologies for that - quite apart from the fact that rail enthusiasts are preposterously sneered at for doing something they enjoy (and why, pray, is it sillier than collecting football programmes or playing the crumhorn?), a basic working knowledge of the types of trains you can expect to encounter on your journey can be a significant boost in the quest for a comfortable (or, indeed, any) se
at. For example, on my local line, my train home from work may be a class 150, 153, 156, 158 or 170. Points to remember about these are:

Class 150: The workhorses of the line; 2-4 cars; old noisy and rather smelly (sit away from the engines); certain seats have no legroom; one toilet (usually working); opening windows; space for standing or cycles in vestibules.

Class 153: Horrible one-car thing normally encountered only on the 3/4-mile Stourbridge branch (the shortest in Britain, fact fans!), but occasionally on some totally unsuitable trip such as a Friday-night train to Hereford (been there, done that, got the sweaty T-shirt); opening windows; toilet often locked; seats not too bad but you won't get one unless you're right opposite the doors when it stops.

Class 156: Roughly as 153, but 2+ cars; toilet usually working; plasticky but reasonably comfortable seats; pretty reliable trains.

Class 158: These are nice. Usually 2 cars; air-conditioned (though staff [only] can open hopper windows if very hot); two decent toilets; comfortable seats with tables; fairly quiet; have a couple of basic tip-up seats at the far ends often empty even on crowded trains.

Class 170: Very new and very nice - if they don't break down; air-conditioned; good disabled-enabled (you know what I mean) toilets; very comfy seats; often has a refreshment trolley; tip-up seats as 158.

See what I mean? If you know as soon as your train hoves into view what to expect and where to stand on the platform, you'll have a head start in that vicious scramble for a seat.

Anyhow, enough of this, and back to the bigger picture. The SRA has recently published its "Ten Year Plan", setting out what it considers to be the priorities for the network in the next decade. As was only to be expected, the south-east of England has received the bulk of the attention, which has caused considerable resentment in other regions, not l
east the West Midlands, which is desperately in need of improvements. The SRA justifies its stance by saying the south-east has the largest patronage. Well, of course it does - nowhere else gets the investment needed to attract the patronage in the first place!

The proposals are split into three parts: "immediate" (which, on closer inspection, proved to mean "by 2005... probably"); "medium term" (2005-10) and "long term" (possibly sometime this side of the next Ice Age). Let's have a look at a few of them:

"Immediate" improvements
====================

* Station improvements - £700 million to upgrade and refurbish waiting rooms, toilets, security and information at 1000 stations nationwide. This particular proposal has had a bit of an unfair press if you ask me - being derided variously as "window-dressing", "a thin veneer of respectability" and even "rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic". Personally, I think it's a fine idea, so long as it's carried through properly. Kidderminster certainly needs longer ticket-office opening hours and better lighting. I'm also sick and tired of seeing "due to vandalism, these toilets are now closed" - which is often used as an excuse by providers to abandon their provision. (Look at Redditch - population 70,000; public toilets zero. Pathetic.) While I'm on the subject, perhaps we could also get rid of the demeaning "ask permission at the ticket office" system in operation at stations such as Solihull:

Buy ticket, go upstairs to platform.
Discover toilet is locked.
Go downstairs, ask for key.
Go upstairs, unlock toilet, use toilet, wash hands (it's terrifying how many people don't).
Lock toilet, go downstairs, return key.
Go upstairs, watch train pulling out without you.

* New trains - 1700 new coaches to be ordered, to replace 30-year
-old rolling stock on south-eastern commuter routes by 2004. This looks awfully impressive at first glance, but in fact these coaches were always going to be ordered, as the old slam-door carriages will be outlawed from 2004 (for safety reasons) in any case.

* Staff training - build a National Rail Academy. Well, of course, back in Ye Olden Dayes, there was a thing called the Railway Technical Centre, but like so much else in the way of accumulated railway knowledge and experience, this was unceremoniously dumped at privatisation.

"Medium-term" improvements
======================

* An upgraded West Coast Main Line. The WCML has been falling to bits for a long while now, so this is welcome if hugely overdue. Having said that, it seems likely that the upgrade will now only be to 125mph, the promised 140mph capacity being abandoned on grounds of cost (which leaves some of Richard Branson's promises with regard to journey times looking a little dubious).

* Less overcrowding - longer platforms to accommodate longer trains. Well, er, duh!

* Channel Tunnel Rail Link - well, yippee! And only two decades late (another casualty, incidentally, of Margaret Thatcher's obsession with saving public money).

* Freight enhancements. The most interesting aspect of this is the support being shown for smaller freight flows, along the lines of the "Enterprise" services which have proved a success on Scotland's Far North lines. Reopening of long-closed lines is also to be welcomed.

"Long-term" improvements
===================

* Relief of congestion at regional centres, particularly Birmingham. The idea that this can wait ten years and more has me spitting blood - it's utterly insane. New Street Station is already chock-a-block much of the time, and if things are not to become completely gummed up, work needs to start on some serious relief work very soon (and as th
ere's already a massive hole in Birmingham city centre for the new Bull Ring development, what better time than now?). Proposals include the building of extra platforms at New Street *underneath* the current twelve, but ridiculously make no mention at all of the desperately needed quadrupling of the intensively-used local lines between Wolverhampton and Coventry.

I suppose in a great long rambling piece such as this, I won't be allowed to get away with at least one mention of the "strikes". I use the inverted commas as the mass media's reporting has been of a very low standard here - for example, the recent disruption on Scotrail wasn't a strike at all - drivers merely declined to work *rest days* to which they were contractually entitled. (Mind you, what else can one expect from a media that interprets "had no route knowledge" to mean "got lost", which it most emphatically does not?) For what it's worth, or so the insiders on the uk.railway Usenet newsgroup say, the (real) strikes called by staff on South West Trains are over two issues: pay (of course), and "disciplinary issues", which is to say the victimisation of certain staff members for speaking out of turn. You might agree or disagree with the strikes, but the simplified versions given on the telly are often a lot less than half the story.

Finally, the obvious question: what would *I* do to improve the system? Full-scale nationalisation is very tempting (contrary to what some say, the EU does *not* require trains and infrastructure to be controlled by different companies; merely to have separate accounting procedures), but on balance I favour the idea put forward by the Liberal Democrats: privately-run trains (stringently regulated to safeguard the public interest) running on publicly-owned infrastructure. The recent placing of Railtrack into administration (in which I support Stephen Byers, a fundamentally decent man way out of hi
s depth) provides a golden opportunity. Under no circumstances must it again become a PLC, where the public good is frustrated by that dubious concept, "shareholder value". We stand at a crossroads: if only we can discern the correct path, the British rail network can move on to a brighter future.

Summary: