Whitehall fails the rail industry.
The cancellation of electrification schemes and the decision to press on with uncomfortable seating in new trains are just two examples demonstrating how Whitehall is failing the rail industry, argues CHRISTIAN WOLMAR
WITH Labour trying to work out its plans for renationalisation, and the current system in a state of uncertainty given the problems with franchising and with Network Rail’s addiction to overspending and the imminent loss of its chief executive, there is currently much debate about the structure of the railways.
Leaving aside the pros and cons of nationalisation, there is one point on which railway managers and politicians from all parts of the spectrum agree: the worst possible structure for the railway is to be run from Whitehall.
Yet that is what is happening. It is no surprise that many of the worst decisions affecting passengers have come from a mix of ‘generalist’ civil servants who work at the Department for Transport for a couple of years with little understanding of the railways, and ministers whose tenure tends to be equally short.
Take, for example, an issue that is now exercising the national media, but one which I and other rail journalists flagged up ages ago… the hard seats on new trains.
I first experienced these on the Class 700s on Thameslink, which I use to get to Brighton - a journey of some 70 minutes, which is rather too long to sit in a seat that you certainly would not offer to a guest at home. The error has now been repeated on the long-distance Hitachi trains that have equally uncomfortable seats, something that I noticed when sitting on the prototype a year ago at the Newton Aycliffe factory. When I asked the PR people about them, they just mumbled something about it being only a trial and that it was not the final product. Yet, amazingly, these bottom bruisers have been retained.
There is, in fact, a whole litany of things wrong with the Hitachi trains, starting with the mad idea that they come in units of five coaches and therefore require double-staffing when working in pairs.
Overall, however, the main madness is to have bought these trains in the most complicated Private Finance Initiative (PFI) deal that burdens the train operators - and really the Government - with a 27 ½ -year deal that is the most expensive train procurement contract ever.
As any fool knows, varying PFI contracts is expensive. Already the DfT has had to fork out £300 million to put in extra diesel engines to some of those trains which did not have them fitted already. Now, when the row over the seats escalates and people start avoiding rail travel because of them, they will have to be replaced at far greater cost than the savings made when the decision to buy the cheapest seats produced by Fainsa was made. It’s no wonder that PFI is now going out of fashion.
What these two train contracts have in common is that they were both negotiated by the DfT with lots of interference from ministers. What genius, for example, thought it was a good idea not to fit WiFi onto the Thameslink Class 700s at a time when access to the internet is now expected by rail passengers - especially regular commuters?
One can almost feel sorry for the train operators every time a passenger complains
“If the railways were integrated and brought under the control of an arms-length state-owned body, with legally guaranteed independence from government and (as now) with a five-year budget horizon, it would have the status and the clout to make decisions for the industry as a whole.”
about the hard seats, as actually it is ministers and civil servants who should be held accountable… but never will be.
There are numerous other examples where decisions by ministers have led to what are called ‘sub-optimal’ outcomes, ranging from failing to put in additional platforms at Manchester Piccadilly (to accommodate more services following completion of the Ordsall Chord) to the decision to go for bi-mode trains.
It is too late to save the Great Western and East Coast from this disaster, but it is not too late for the Midland Main Line, where no final decision has been made.
Lilian Greenwood, who chairs the Commons Transport Select Committee, told me recently that there seemed to be no difference in terms of the all-important Benefit:Cost Ratio between full electrification or using bi-mode.
I am indebted to a short paper by Bob Poynter, for pointing out why introducing bimode on the line may seem sensible in the short term but is utterly wrong in the long term. He points out:
The average cost of recent electric train orders in the UK has been £1.2m per vehicle; for the bi-mode trains for TransPennine Express it is £2.36m per vehicle. On that basis, replacing the long-distance fleet of 223 vehicles used by East Midlands Trains with bi-mode rather than electric trains would cost an additional £258.7m, a good proportion of the cost of electrification.
Electric trains are significantly more reliable than diesels. Electric Siemens trains, for example, manage 100,000 miles per threeminute delay, four times the diesel average.
Electric train maintenance costs are typically 33% lower than a comparable diesel train, and fuel costs 45% lower.
The lower weight of electric trains results in less track wear, reducing track maintenance costs.
The major cost escalation and delay to the Great Western Electrification Project is no basis for assessing future schemes.
All of this seems unarguable. And, of course, electrification would show that ministers are serious about the north-south divide, rather than merely misusing it to justify HS2.
Oddly enough, these instances of wrongheaded ministerial interference back up the case for renationalisation. If the railways were integrated and brought under the control of an arms-length state-owned body, with legally guaranteed independence from government and (as now) with a five-year budget horizon, it would have the status and the clout to make decisions for the industry as a whole. My beef about privatisation has always been that it was accompanied by the even more disastrous fragmentation.
There is just a small counterpoint to this rant against ministerial control. Occasionally, there have been times when particularly competent transport ministers and even civil servants have made a difference. It is invidious to name civil servants, but in terms of ministers Steve Norris, Alistair Darling and Lord Adonis all achieved much in their time. Several others also deserve credit for trying to at least understand the railway. Nevertheless, they are the exception that proves the rule.
Future ministers will serve the railway best by developing a long-term strategy, bringing stability and constancy to the industry and appointing the right people to key posts. They should not start off, as Jo Johnson did, by making ridiculous pronouncements on phasing out diesel-only trains by 2040 just a few weeks after coming into office.