Why does this current U.K. Government hate rail so much.

[zwk500]

What goes on North of the border is North of the border. Just pointing out some similarities !

The SNP took a Majority at Holyrood in 2011 and have held it since. Stirling-Alloa and Airdrie-Bathgate were before the SNP Majority, and Borders railway got authorisation before the SNP took full control but the SNP were the ones who delivered it, alongside the improvements to Perth-Inverness, Aberdeen-Inverness, several New stations and an electrification strategy that is steadily delivering a pretty comprehensive network.

Also, being a Conservative or not goes far beyond rail policy. Whatever else you might think of them (and I would never vote for the SNP), they are definitely not 'conservative' in their approach to the state, governing, social issues, and many other policy areas.

 

[yorksrob]

The SNP took a Majority at Holyrood in 2011 and have held it since. Stirling-Alloa and Airdrie-Bathgate were before the SNP Majority, and Borders railway got authorisation before the SNP took full control but the SNP were the ones who delivered it, alongside the improvements to Perth-Inverness, Aberdeen-Inverness, several New stations and an electrification strategy that is steadily delivering a pretty comprehensive network.

Also, being a Conservative or not goes far beyond rail policy. Whatever else you might think of them (and I would never vote for the SNP), they are definitely not 'conservative' in their approach to the state, governing, social issues, and many other policy areas.

I'm against them.

 

[43066]

they are definitely not 'conservative' in their approach to the state, governing, social issues, and many other policy areas.

And of course Scotland is now an economic basket case (which, despite devolution, the SNP blames entirely on Westminster). Perhaps they would have benefited from some Tartan Tories .

 

[zwk500]

I'm against them.

That doesn't make them Tories though, nor does it invalidate the (fairly substantial) effort and finance they've put into Scotland's railways.

 

[yorksrob]

And of course Scotland is now an economic basket case (which, despite devolution, the SNP blames entirely on Westminster). Perhaps they would have benefited from some Tartan Tories .

Wishful thinking

 

[zwk500]

And of course Scotland is now an economic basket case (which, despite devolution, the SNP blames entirely on Westminster). Perhaps they would have benefited from some Tartan Tories .

SNP arguments about financial management may be somewhat weaker given recent events surrounding the party leadership.

I'm 100% with you, the SNP have made a right pig's ear of an awful lot (not leas the Calmac upgrade), but I was just responding to @yorksrob's point with a few examples where the SNP have invested in Rail, and in areas of rail that aren't the most immediate returns, supporting a social good rather than the economic need.

 

[yorksrob]

That doesn't make them Tories though, nor does it invalidate the (fairly substantial) effort and finance they've put into Scotland's railways.

It doesn't stop them being Tartan Tories though.

 

[43066]

I'm 100% with you, the SNP have made a right pig's ear of an awful lot (not leas the Calmac upgrade), but I was just responding to @yorksrob's point with a few examples where the SNP have invested in Rail, and in areas of rail that aren't the most immediate returns, supporting a social good rather than the economic need.

Yes agreed.

Albeit, speaking of Tartan Tories, if we had proper politicians like Ruth Davidson running the show in Westminster I suspect the country would be in much less of a mess….

 

[Dr Hoo]

Ok so many of us can all agree that this government hates rail and post covid we are seeing them strangle the railways to death.

And I know that seems dumb but can people give reasoning as to why they hate rail so much? I’ve seen points here and there but never seen a thread , so I thought I’d start one.

I just want to (and I’m sure others want to) create a full image of why the current government hates railways so much.

Hoping to get the thread back on track; could the OP present a counterpoint?

What combination of measures, in your view, would demonstrate 'love' rather than 'hate' and nurture rather than strangulation?

Has such love and nurture ever been demonstrated by any government in the UK since 1945?

 

[yorksrob]

Hoping to get the thread back on track; could the OP present a counterpoint?

What combination of measures, in your view, would demonstrate 'love' rather than 'hate' and nurture rather than strangulation?

Has such love and nurture ever been demonstrated by any government in the UK since 1945?

A very good and pertinent question.

Just getting the railway running to something akin to prior to covid would work.

 

[A0wen]

A very good and pertinent question.

Just getting the railway running to something akin to prior to covid would work.

Which, notwithstanding strike action, has actually been the case.

 

[43066]

Which, notwithstanding strike action, has actually been the case.

Not a regular user across much of the north of England, then. Or of Avanti for much of last year….

 

[A0wen]

Not a regular user across much of the north of England, then. Or of Avanti for much of last year….

Is it materially worse than 2018 or 2019 ?

What do the punctuality and cancellation stats show ?

 

[43066]

Is it materially worse than 2018 or 2019 ?

What do the punctuality and cancellation stats show ?

Shocking on all fronts AIUI.

So bad that TPE is being stripped of the franchise. So even the government has acknowledged its poor performance (albeit much of this is due to government inference, specifically the OT ban).

Grant Shapps also felt the need to weigh in re. Avanti West coast.

You now appear to be denying reality.

 

[yorksrob]

Not a regular user across much of the north of England, then. Or of Avanti for much of last year….

Indeed. Clearly !

 

[Falcon1200]

What combination of measures, in your view, would demonstrate 'love' rather than 'hate' and nurture rather than strangulation?

Has such love and nurture ever been demonstrated by any government in the UK since 1945?

IMHO not really, by either major party. But it is perhaps worth noting that under the reign of the supposedly railway-hating Tories, investment was made between 1979 and 1997, for example electrification of the ECML, to Norwich, Cambridge and even Kings Lynn. Which to me shows that that administration was quite prepared to spend money on the railway, as long as BR could justify it.

(On reflection, the second sentence should perhaps read between 1979 and 1994... we all know what happened after then)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

IMHO not really, by either major party. But it is perhaps worth noting that under the reign of the supposedly railway-hating Tories, investment was made between 1979 and 1997, for example electrification of the ECML, to Norwich, Cambridge and even Kings Lynn. Which to me shows that that administration was quite prepared to spend money on the railway, as long as BR could justify it.

(On reflection, the second sentence should perhaps read between 1979 and 1994... we all know what happened after then)

And a Chanel Tunnel (rail) got built

 

[Ken H]

IMHO not really, by either major party. But it is perhaps worth noting that under the reign of the supposedly railway-hating Tories, investment was made between 1979 and 1997, for example electrification of the ECML, to Norwich, Cambridge and even Kings Lynn. Which to me shows that that administration was quite prepared to spend money on the railway, as long as BR could justify it.

(On reflection, the second sentence should perhaps read between 1979 and 1994... we all know what happened after then)

Its the Treasury who decide on rail investment. They will expect the submission to have a figure for contingency. Some projects going badly over budget and using up all the contingency has led the treasury to increase the contingency percentage. So fewer projects seem viable.
So fewer projects get authorised.

 

[jojoseph72]

Hoping to get the thread back on track; could the OP present a counterpoint?

What combination of measures, in your view, would demonstrate 'love' rather than 'hate' and nurture rather than strangulation?

Has such love and nurture ever been demonstrated by any government in the UK since 1945?

I opened this discussion mainly so myself (and maybe others) could talk about the rather bleak situation of the railways currently. I see that is caused to be quite heated at times, which wasn’t the intent.

Now personally I can’t say the railways have ever been “loved”, maybe post 2008-2019 where franchises were pushing to cram as much service out of the railways as possible (I’m sure someone will have something to counter that) but even still I wouldn’t say “loved”.

But post pandemic the government seems to hold the railways in a unfavourable light (maybe “hatred” was too strong a word to use).
With cuts happening everywhere the future of rail does seem sad.

With countries like France and Germany planning to invest Billions of € into their network we seem to do the opposite making cuts and scaling back projects (from my understanding).

Personally a return to a pre pandemic 2019 timetable would be ideal. Maybe modified to account for the new fluxes of travel so post pandemic.

 

[JonathanH]

I opened this discussion mainly so myself (and maybe others) could talk about the rather bleak situation of the railways currently.

Is the situation bleak? Really? There are things to be positive about. Running fewer services helps with punctuality, and there are routes where the outlook is not bleak.

With cuts happening everywhere the future of rail does seem sad.

Are cuts happening everywhere? Admittedly each operator has to control its budget but sometimes that is just cutting back largesse which was unnecessary.

Personally a return to a pre pandemic 2019 timetable would be ideal.

The timetable has moved on. There are absolutely services that should not be restored, particularly in the London area, because the demand was iffy in 2019, and most certainly isn't there now.

Maybe modified to account for the new fluxes of travel so post pandemic.

Yes, demand is different, and the railway is adapting. Just putting back the 2019 timetable is not building back better.

 

[yorksrob]

Is the situation bleak? Really? There are things to be positive about. Running fewer services helps with punctuality, and there are routes where the outlook is not bleak.


Are cuts happening everywhere? Admittedly each operator has to control its budget but sometimes that is just cutting back largesse which was unnecessary.


The timetable has moved on. There are absolutely services that should not be restored, particularly in the London area, because the demand was iffy in 2019, and most certainly isn't there now.


Yes, demand is different, and the railway is adapting. Just putting back the 2019 timetable is not building back better.

Unfortunately the Government is using "changing travel patterns" as an excuse for cuts where people still need the service.

There is no genuine desire from the government to reshape services around demand, they are only interested in cuts.

"Building back better" is a meaningless catchphrase in this context.

 

[jojoseph72]

Is the situation bleak? Really? There are things to be positive about. Running fewer services helps with punctuality, and there are routes where the outlook is not bleak.

I would say it’s up to the individual opinion, one person might say it is, another might not.
I would personally say it’s leaning more towards bleak, as I can see the cuts being made now biting us in the back later.

e cuts happening everywhere? Admittedly each operator has to control its budget but sometimes that is just cutting back largesse which was unnecessary.

From what I understand cuts are being made in one form or another, whether that removal of rolling stock or frequency reduction for example.
But I do agree that some cuts are fine as they were unnecessary/a luxury to have to begin with.

I see the point with the 2019 timetable, fair point.

 

[JonathanH]

There is no genuine desire from the government to reshape services around demand, they are only interested in cuts.

I'm not trying to defend the government, the DfT or the Treasury, but it isn't the case that, relative to 2019, only cuts in services have been made.

Would it be better to say that they are only interested in changes which can be demonstrated to have a solid business case?

 

[nr758123]

I don't think the government hates the railways. They just don't see the point of them when you can use your own private helicopter instead.

 

[yorksrob]

Would it be better to say that they are only interested in changes which can be demonstrated to have a solid business case?

If that were the case, we wouldn't see the precipitous withdrawals of rolling stock without adequate replacement or the drawing out of the industrial disputes.

 

[SynthD]

Would it be better to say that they are only interested in changes which can be demonstrated to have a solid business case?

They are interested, because that then requires raising the requirements for a solid business case. I don’t think it is rail specific.

 

[HSTEd]

If that were the case, we wouldn't see the precipitous withdrawals of rolling stock without adequate replacement

Wouldn't we?

Depressingly, withdrawing stock without replacement probably has quite a good business case in many cases.

or the drawing out of the industrial disputes

It is quite possible for the government to calculate that fighting the unions now will cost them far less in the long run than giving in to the unions for pay increases that will cost them money every year from now until the end of time.

 

[zwk500]

It is quite possible for the government to calculate that fighting the unions now will cost them far less in the long run than giving in to the unions for pay increases that will cost them money every year from now until the end of time.

IIRC the government's own calculations showed that they could have settled for a far cheaper sum than it ended up costing. And, of course, this is only about 1 pay rise. Any agreement would only last a fixed period, it would not be open-ended.

 

[HSTEd]

Any agreement would only last a fixed period, it would not be open-ended.

So, in the absence of further agreement with the Unions the staff pay would fall back to its pre agreement value in the future, with no action by the government?

I don't think that's how it works.

By agreeing to a pay increase they increase pay for every year from now until the end of the world.

 

[yorksrob]

Wouldn't we?

Depressingly, withdrawing stock without replacement probably has quite a good business case in many cases.

It is quite possible for the government to calculate that fighting the unions now will cost them far less in the long run than giving in to the unions for pay increases that will cost them money every year from now until the end of time.

IIRC the government's own calculations showed that they could have settled for a far cheaper sum than it ended up costing. And, of course, this is only about 1 pay rise. Any agreement would only last a fixed period, it would not be open-ended.

I agree with @zwk500 on this one.

The Government could have had a successful sub-inflation settlement to show off. Instead it chose to inflame the situation "pour encourager les autres" and "les autres" have just gone on strike for even bigger settlements anyway !