The North West England electrification scheme was started by Lord Adonis (Labour) prior to the Coalition.If there's a rail investment beauty contest between Labour 1997-2010 and Tories 2010-24, the latter wins hands down.
Labour managed 9 miles of wiring (Crewe-Kidsgrove, a WCRM spin-off), the Tories something like 250 miles, even with the recent cutbacks.
Plus large numbers of new trains (IEP, Thameslink etc).
HS2 may be far from open, but something like £30 billion has been spent on it.
Labour did get HS1 and the new complex at St Pancras/King's Cross built.
Reading and New St rebuilds were spread across both government's time.
Much of the Tory investment was promised in the Coalition period (2010-15), and delivery (by railway professionals) has certainly been patchy.
Labour has yet to commit anything like the same investment in this parliament.
Changing the name on the door from DfT to GBR doesn't count.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
DfT in a Hurry on Rail Reform
- Thread starter LNW-GW Joint
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
That's true, and you could say much the same for the HS2 project, Crossrail and GW electrification, all kicked off by Adonis.
But it was George Osborne within the 2010 coalition government, after a period of major project reviews, that committed the serious money to deliver them.
HS2 go-ahead was essentially Boris's decision in 2021, against Sunak's advice.
Apart from HS1, Labour's major contribution 1997-2010 was the rollout of TPWS (John Prescott said "money was no object" for that as a safety measure).
But that was invisible to the travelling public, and took money from other investments.
They also "nationalised" Network Rail, though the job was only completed in 2014 by defining NR as a public sector body.
They also set up and then dismantled the SRA, and began micro-managing the TOCs from within DfT.
Labour delivered a reduced-spec WCRM, at something like £10 billion if you include the bits that were delivered later (eg Watford/Bletchley resignalling, Norton Bridge).
Dr Hoo
Established Member
‘Started’ being rather a vague and euphemistic term. The North West and, indeed, other schemes like the Great Western weren’t in Network Rail’s GRIP project development process at the time of the announcement. The money was to come the ‘magic credit card’ of Network Rail borrowing against a future increase in its Regulatory Asset Base (RAB).
Neither of these aspects worked out very well, did they?
The problem with Lord Adonis' electrifications was that they came at the end of a famine of such work with the corporate knowledge of how to do it either lost or obsolete. Rather like giving a starving person a tray of cream cakes. The GWEP disaster and subsequent cancellations/pauses were the result. He also chose a Japanese rolling stock supplier thus destroying the UK's high speed traction sector. All the costs were for later governments, not Gordon Brown's Labour administration.
TPWS was a bright spot, thanks to Prescott, which has produced an exceptionally safe railway, with something like twice the return predicted.
WAO
TPWS was a bright spot, thanks to Prescott, which has produced an exceptionally safe railway, with something like twice the return predicted.
WAO
I guess the issue with playing Conservative v Labour rail ping-pong is that ultimately the Tories were the architects of privatisation, thereby earning themselves a penalty of -1,000 points before we start this game.
irish_rail
On Moderation
Sounds a very strange geographic structure. Pairing the south west of Britain with Anglia (!), yet separate from Wales. Bristol for example has much more relevance to Cardiff than it does Norwich. I'd sooner see a Western and Eastern, with the East of the country grouped and the west of country grouped. Grouping the south west with east anglia is frankly lazy.The DfT organisation chart was updated again yesterday, including the new ministers.
DfT and transport NDPB organisational charts
Department for Transport (DfT) and non-departmental public bodies (NDPB) structure charts and organisational data.www.gov.uk
Many of the jobs in the Rail Services Group (under Alex Hynes) look destined to become part of GBR.
If it's any guide to GBR regional structure, the roles seem to be layered into North, Central and South responsibilities
The passenger service contracts now appear in two "Market Lead" groups, one for Anglia/South/West and the other for Midlands/North/Wales.
Three jobs stand out in the Major Rail Projects Group.
Peter Wilkinson, long the bane of the unions when he ran the franchising unit, has an undefined "Special Projects" role.
The job which covers HS2 delivery is "Vacant".
There is a separate job called "Euston" which includes private financing.
It's hard to know how this might change as GBR is established, but it appears to be the new government's present view of its rail responsibilities.
Maybe it will look different after the King's speech later today.
Has anyone seen a source which says the expected timelines for various bills mentioned in the King's Speech?
I have felt underwhelmed by details available so far and the 'debate' in parliament that I watched earlier seemed to be more like frienemy* banter.
*portmanteau of friend and enemy
I have felt underwhelmed by details available so far and the 'debate' in parliament that I watched earlier seemed to be more like frienemy* banter.
*portmanteau of friend and enemy
Never let it be said that the Conservatives didn't support major rail improvements during that period - particularly when Patrick McLoughlin was in charge. Add to that the reversing Beeching policy from the Johnson years and they could have had a golden rail legacy.
Sadly all (reputationaly) destroyed by the running into the ground of the service after covid (although in their favour, the Okehampton line goes from strength to strength).
The North Western one suffered from having to build OLE stanchions in a lot of dodgy former mining ground as I recall.
One of interest to this forum has been published already, as mentioned in another thread somewhere:
(Link is to the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill)
I’d agree with this.
It doesn’t really make sense to compare the relatively stable New Labour period with the last government simply because, as you say, the latter changed beyond all recognition and went from being largely supportive, actively progressing HS2 etc. to cutting it and running the rest of the railway into the ground.
Also agreed. The new government have done more in the last couple of weeks than the last lot achieved in two years or more. Personally I’m not sure I agree with the rush to nationalisation, which I think is largely ideological (I realise you will have a different view
), but at least they’re doing what they said they’d do!Also, on the IR front, Louise Haigh has met personally with the union leaders and formal talks with ASLEF are scheduled for next week. In short, all the signs are of railway matters being actively progressed on various fronts, which makes a welcome change.
Last edited:
I’d agree with this.
It doesn’t really make sense to compare the relatively stable New Labour period with the last government simply because, as you say, the latter changed beyond all recognition and went from being largely supportive, actively progressing HS2 etc. to cutting it and running the rest of the railway into the ground.
Also agreed. The new government have done more in the last couple of weeks than the last lot achieved in two years or more. Personally I’m not sure I agree with the rush to nationalisation, which I think is largely ideological (I realise you will have a different view
Also, on the IR front, Louise Haigh has met personally with the union leaders and formal talks with ASLEF are scheduled for next week. In short, all the signs are of the railway matters being actively progressed on various fronts, which makes a welcome change.
Well, I wouldn't call it a rush to nationalisation (certainly not by 1947 standards - more a gentle progression towards it
But agree with everything else you say !
But we don't know yet what their proposals are for how GBR will work in any detail, or whether they have good answers to the key questions. All that is separate from the now-published bill to allow franchises to return to public ownership as they expire.
We don't know, yes.
I'm not expecting a large change at this point, but I'm hoping for an improvement on the status quo.
Indeed, even just sorting the strikes would be a good start.
Other things which would be good is keeping some of the good people at the top and then getting out of their way to run things in a way which grows income more than you grow costs (something which hasn't been happening).
At the moment the dead weight of government micro management is stifling passenger growth, it shouldn't take much for the railways to get back to pre Covid levels and not much more to get to a point where there was growth beyond that (even if it wasn't quite back to where it could have been without Covid).
That would likely be a win for everyone (other than even more overcrowding on Voyagers!), with the cost to government reducing, better rail services, better staff moral, less congestion on the roads, etc.
dk1
Veteran Member
Here at GA we have a target 80 for this year which is to grow the business by around 5 million more than last year to achieve 80 million passengers. Some of us operators are going for growth.
Thanks! I read that one now. Not much more detail than is publicly available, just written in legal terms.
I'd be interested to know what kind of signalling, track upgrade and electrifcation they have planned. Not ecessaroly the high speed headlines but more the regular schedule of improvement.
I didn't mean that TOC's weren't aiming to grow their business, rather that some of the things that they would like to do were being hindered by not having the ability to spend some additional money - even that meant that it resulted in more additional income than the spending.
dk1
Veteran Member
It has to be something that is guaranteed to grow revenue to please the DfT as was until a couple of weeks ago. For example the Stansted Express returning to a full 15min frequency 7 days a week from last December. That was a no brainer with the airport now busier than ever before.
dk1
Veteran Member
It’s all going on next Tuesday isn’t it?
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
The "end of franchising" bill just published is expected to get Royal Assent before Christmas.
That is when DfT can start giving 3 months notice to terminate private contracts when they reach their "core term expiry" date.
So by around Easter the first transfer in to "Shadow GBR" (probably a renamed DOLR) should happen.
(Avanti might separately get terminated for poor performance).
The main bill to set up GBR and reorganise DfT/Network Rail/ORR will take months to draft and get through parliament, maybe up to a year.
The devil will be in the detail of that.
Indeed. People clearly want to use the train, so a government not trying to make everything as awkward as possible for passengers might help to get the numbers up further.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
indeed. Wasn’t that Ed Burkhart of EWS fame strategy? Hire good people then get out of the way!
Snow1964
Established Member
The Railways Public Ownership Bill is back in Parliament today
multiple amendments have been tabled (see attachment which is obviously in Parliamentary legal format)
.
multiple amendments have been tabled (see attachment which is obviously in Parliamentary legal format)
.
Last edited:
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
The amendments appear to be about how the management of public sector contracts will operate, rather than any opposition to the bill itself.
It also rather presumes there will be contracts with multiple independent public sector operators, whereas most thinking is that GBR will be the one contracting authority, and therefore with all the accountability.
There needs to be allowance for devolved contracts (eg TfW, Scotrail, Merseyrail, TfL), but there are unlikely to be as many public sector operators/contracts as there are current passenger TOCs.
The last amendment on p20 (Wera Hobhouse, LibDem) wants an annual report on the effect of the Bill on ticket pricing, and looks well-prepared.
It also rather presumes there will be contracts with multiple independent public sector operators, whereas most thinking is that GBR will be the one contracting authority, and therefore with all the accountability.
There needs to be allowance for devolved contracts (eg TfW, Scotrail, Merseyrail, TfL), but there are unlikely to be as many public sector operators/contracts as there are current passenger TOCs.
The last amendment on p20 (Wera Hobhouse, LibDem) wants an annual report on the effect of the Bill on ticket pricing, and looks well-prepared.
I always forget how ludicrous it is that amendments are presented sans the context (i.e. without seeing them in the form they'd be if incorporated into the bill) and without a brief one or two sentence summary of its intended effect.
But then if we were to do such things scrutiny might become somewhat easier
edwin_m
Veteran Member
This may be just so they can bring the TOC company (which is always separate from the owning group) back into public ownership without having to merge it immediately into a GBR company.
It's nice to see fares considered in the process.
The amendments are mostly from Helen Whately, Shadow Sec for Transport, so probably unlikely to be successful.
- Status