So who are these 'faceless' decision makers at the DfT and why are they not held accountable to the public?

[swt_passenger]

Not just limited to the DFT, the whole of the civil service is full of incompetent cretins wasting money and creating bureaucracy to justify their own jobs.

Of course it is. They should just disband it and rely on government by web forums.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

You do understand that there is a budget that guides the decisions they have to make? They have to do their best within those constraints.

BR was even more cash constrained than todays railways but the difference is its management were railway professionals and knew how to get the best out of that budget for the industry and its passengers. Yes the operators have professionals who are being tasked by the DfT to come up with ideas and plans to minimise costs but then the DfT have a raft of people in the rail directorate picking over this all in there own silos so until GBR is enacted we can only expect more of the same i fear.

 

[DerekC]

Not just limited to the DFT, the whole of the civil service is full of incompetent cretins wasting money and creating bureaucracy to justify their own jobs.

Well, I worked for DfT for a few years and I can tell you it wasn't like that at all. Civil servants are just like everyone else - about 85% hard working and doing their best and 15% passengers. And the competence ranged from excellent to poor, with the majority pretty near the same level as you would find in any large organisation. And the big bosses sometimes made decisions that were obviously cr*p - but what's new about that? The most difficult thing, I found, was the combination of politicians with definite (but highly changeable) views on what needs to be done, with a staffing policy based on the assumption that you can have a general purpose civil servant who can work on anything. For a while that was overcome in DfT by the influx of experienced railway people from SRA, but that was a long time ago and they have all retired by now. It takes guts, experience and domain knowledge to stand up to and argue a politician out of a bad idea, and too often it just doesn't happen.

 

[Deepgreen]

BR was even more cash constrained than todays railways but the difference is its management were railway professionals and knew how to get the best out of that budget for the industry and its passengers. Yes the operators have professionals who are being tasked by the DfT to come up with ideas and plans to minimise costs but then the DfT have a raft of people in the rail directorate picking over this all in there own silos so until GBR is enacted we can only expect more of the same i fear.

Even then, the railway professionals with the valuable skills and knowledge will have been long gone and won't have passed on those attributes. It's a one-way street of decline.

 

[JonathanH]

Even then, the railway professionals with the valuable skills and knowledge will have been long gone and won't have passed on those attributes. It's a one-way street of decline.

That is very disparaging on people who do their best to keep the railway working. Do you really think they are out to destroy the railway in a permanent race to the bottom, rather than to keep it going in a way that reflects harsh realities of funding and the economy? Does a 'railway professional' have to be someone who worked on BR in the 1980s?

 

[Watershed]

BR was even more cash constrained than todays railways but the difference is its management were railway professionals and knew how to get the best out of that budget for the industry and its passengers. Yes the operators have professionals who are being tasked by the DfT to come up with ideas and plans to minimise costs but then the DfT have a raft of people in the rail directorate picking over this all in there own silos so until GBR is enacted we can only expect more of the same i fear.

Also that they were left free - broadly speaking - to get on with the day job. By contrast, the DfT is micromanaging the TOCs (even requiring sign-off for the purchase of £200 worth of spare parts for instance) and completely preventing them from innovating. Yet the politicians continue to claim that legislation is needed to change anything. It isn't for most things; an arms-length, semi-independent GBR could take over 90% of the DfT's rail responsibilities tomorrow, but the politicians would prefer to prevaricate and perpetuate the current nonsensical situation.

 

[SynthD]

The DfT payments to different operators make for interesting reading. Only one owning group has made significant divided payments from rail operations since 2020.

Which is that?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Just which body is responsible for the (rather good) generic rail advert on at the moment - it ends with the double arrow symbol and shows a variety of trains/TOCs?
I suspect it is from RDG, with the approval of DfT.
Primetime TV adverts are not cheap.

 

[squizzler]

Over half the UK population use the train at least once a year, but only a very small proportion of those are members of their local rail users group, or a national organisation like Railfuture or Campaign for Better Transport. Thus means rail users are a silent majority whose collective voice is not heard so much in mobility decisions (although a darn sight more than bus users).

If it was as normal for commuters and leisure travellers who spent several hundred pounds per year travelling were part of an effective national campaigning organisation, as those in the motoring community are likely to be members of the Royal Automobile Club or the Automobile Association, then we might see more effective challenge to ministerial decisions affecting the rail user.

 

[thedbdiboy]

RDG don’t seem to have much influence in the DfT’s thinking. In the DfT’s eyes, RDG are just there to carry out their instructions.

FG don’t have any overriding influence in what is going on at RDG either.

RDG (or at least the legal bits, ATOC, NRE and RSP) are wired into the functional mechanisms for doing things so that is exactly their role. The maxim 'follow the money' applies and these days it is all Government money so no surprises who gets to make the decisions

BR was even more cash constrained than todays railways but the difference is its management were railway professionals and knew how to get the best out of that budget for the industry and its passengers. Yes the operators have professionals who are being tasked by the DfT to come up with ideas and plans to minimise costs but then the DfT have a raft of people in the rail directorate picking over this all in there own silos so until GBR is enacted we can only expect more of the same i fear.

There are many people today with the skills and experience that BR had (I have worked through both regimes) but the difference is that BR had full accountability for the 'PNL' (profit and loss) of the entire network. Under the current structure and until GBR is legislated for, no-one in the industry either at TOCs, RDG or Network Rail has that access - the railway finances only come together in Government, and even then HMT carry revenue risk and DfT carry cost risk. So even the most capable people are hamstrung by a structure that gives no-one effective control

Also that they were left free - broadly speaking - to get on with the day job. By contrast, the DfT is micromanaging the TOCs (even requiring sign-off for the purchase of £200 worth of spare parts for instance) and completely preventing them from innovating. Yet the politicians continue to claim that legislation is needed to change anything. It isn't for most things; an arms-length, semi-independent GBR could take over 90% of the DfT's rail responsibilities tomorrow, but the politicians would prefer to prevaricate and perpetuate the current nonsensical situation.

BR was left to get on with the day job because it operated to a Government-imposed External Financing Limit and were within that, left to make the best of it. But let's not forget that ultimately one of the drivers of the privatisation effort was that too many people in power felt that this structure was an opaque 'black box' and that if it was split up and handed over to the private sector, savings could be made. That worked well, didn't it?

Just which body is responsible for the (rather good) generic rail advert on at the moment - it ends with the double arrow symbol and shows a variety of trains/TOCs?
I suspect it is from RDG, with the approval of DfT.
Primetime TV adverts are not cheap.

It's RDG in partnership with GBR TT.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's RDG in partnership with GBR TT.

I think that's the first time I've heard the GBR TT do anything tangible (maybe flexi-seasons was another).

 

[Parjon]

Civil servants advise, ministers decide. Ad such, their public pillorying would be entirely inappropriate (and likely grounds for legal action against their employer, His Majesty)

In practice, however, civil servants "advise". Minister either signs off on that "advice" or has to justify why not.

If civil servants agree with the desired policy direction of the government then you can expect them to move with haste and present their minister with plenty of options curated to their minister's sensibilities. If they don't agree... I present to you most of the past few years.

The quality of the "advice" given by the civil servants is highly variable, and often entirely subjective.

Giving people a token vote every few years for the human rubber stamp doesn't equate to these powerful people being held to account by "the people".

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Also that they were left free - broadly speaking - to get on with the day job. By contrast, the DfT is micromanaging the TOCs (even requiring sign-off for the purchase of £200 worth of spare parts for instance) and completely preventing them from innovating. Yet the politicians continue to claim that legislation is needed to change anything. It isn't for most things; an arms-length, semi-independent GBR could take over 90% of the DfT's rail responsibilities tomorrow, but the politicians would prefer to prevaricate and perpetuate the current nonsensical situation.

Of course this lot could never acknowledge that the nationalised BR and one that was heavily cash constrained by the same gang actually did a half decent job. We aint going back to those days of course but Harper is an accountant by profession he should surely know that privateers could deliver a better outcome if they had some stake in revenue and cost risk.

 

[Class 170101]

Politicans (of all colours) don't always like their civil servants either and indeed probably since 1979 have tended to employ their own Special Advisers, the most recent one being Andrew Gilligan for Transport, but I'm sure there are others.

 

[tomuk]

Politicans (of all colours) don't always like their civil servants either and indeed probably since 1979 have tended to employ their own Special Advisers, the most recent one being Andrew Gilligan for Transport, but I'm sure there are others.

Harold Wilson appointed the first special advisers in 1964, the peak number of spads was under Tony Blair. A famous one appointed by Blair was Alistair Campbell. Rather incestuously some of his notoriety is due to furore around the dodgy dossier of which the aforementioned Andrew Gilligan, when working at the BBC, suggested was was sexed up.

 

[FenMan]

That is very disparaging on people who do their best to keep the railway working. Do you really think they are out to destroy the railway in a permanent race to the bottom, rather than to keep it going in a way that reflects harsh realities of funding and the economy? Does a 'railway professional' have to be someone who worked on BR in the 1980s?

Not at all. DfT civil servants with personal and career objectives wouldn't be human if they didn't look at the way the wind is blowing and are cognisant of whether anyone in charge gives two hoots about the railways in the face of Treasury pressure to cut costs (the easy bit) and hang the revenue bit (the hard bit, given too few have actually worked for a fully private sector profit-driven enterprise in a cut-throat market, as I did for many years).

Trying to explain to the all-knowing bean-counters their ideas were self-defeating was tough, but I tried anyway and survived to tell the tale. I just hope there are enough employees in the DfT who remember the "speak truth to power" adage. Recent decisions say, maybe not so much.

 

[snowball]

In practice, however, civil servants "advise". Minister either signs off on that "advice" or has to justify why not.

Ministers do not have to justify non-acceptance of civil service advice.

In very limited circumstances they have to give a written instruction overriding civil service advice, such as when the then minister made it a requirement that the terms of the new Northern franchise must include replacing Pacers. I think this is to protect civil servants against the possibility of legal action for mis-spending public money.

 

[Mikey C]

Whatever the rights and wrongs considering the specific details of the Abellio order, and whether running 5 cars trains with some doubling up will work, it's hardly down to government political policy, any more than the fixed 8 and 12 car trains on Thameslink with ironing board seats was somehow in a Tory or Labour manifesto.

These are operational decisions, between Abellio and the civil servants involved in tendering, rubber stamped by whoever was the minister at the time.

 

[Alfie1014]

Well, I worked for DfT for a few years and I can tell you it wasn't like that at all. Civil servants are just like everyone else - about 85% hard working and doing their best and 15% passengers. And the competence ranged from excellent to poor, with the majority pretty near the same level as you would find in any large organisation. And the big bosses sometimes made decisions that were obviously cr*p - but what's new about that? The most difficult thing, I found, was the combination of politicians with definite (but highly changeable) views on what needs to be done, with a staffing policy based on the assumption that you can have a general purpose civil servant who can work on anything. For a while that was overcome in DfT by the influx of experienced railway people from SRA, but that was a long time ago and they have all retired by now. It takes guts, experience and domain knowledge to stand up to and argue a politician out of a bad idea, and too often it just doesn't happen.

As someone who also worked at DfT I totally agree especially with the comment that most civil servants are regarded and encouraged to be generalists, so that their careers and promotions can take them to almost any Department. Sadly this culture didn’t always value those with particular expertise and who wanted to stay within their speciality. There was an influx of experience when the SRA was disbanded though after almost 20 years like myself most have now either retired or moved on.

An arms length organisation might be able wrest itself from the current set up where there is far too much second guessing and too much focus on inputs rather than outputs but the Civil Service has a long memory and doesn’t like giving up power easily!

 

[Meerkat]

I can't help feeling that the CS operates despite the politicians. They continue through as the politicians come and go, and flex minister's desires to suit themselves.
My main reason for this is the almost rabid anti-electrification regime that continued through Tory and Labour governments.

 

[SamYeager]

I can't help feeling that the CS operates despite the politicians. They continue through as the politicians come and go, and flex minister's desires to suit themselves.
My main reason for this is the almost rabid anti-electrification regime that continued through Tory and Labour governments.

To a large extent the whole point of the CS is to provide continuity throughout change of ministers and governments. There is a fair amount of truth in both 'Yes Minister' and "Yes Prime Minister' although it's a matter of opinion as to just how much it's exaggerated. I suspect a fair amount of the opposiition to electrification stems from the treasury which may in turn be driving DfT opposition because they know how reluctant the HMT is to cough up the money.

 

[Adam Williams]

Not just limited to the DfT, the whole of the civil service is full of incompetent cretins wasting money and creating bureaucracy to justify their own jobs.

This is a really tired, inaccurate trope.

Civil servants generally get paid significantly less than equivalent private sector roles. Historically, a pretty good DB final salary pension made up for it, but nowadays this has seen further cuts.

The civil servants I've worked with are - on the whole - passionate about improving public services and working for the good of the British people. In areas such as rail, they have HMT / RDG / ministerial priorities and political nonsense to deal with, whilst having to put up with restrictions on the opinions they're allowed to divulge in public. And, if you're senior enough and government screws up, you might just find yourself a convenient scapegoat for incompetent politicians (anyone remember what happened in DfE?) and shown the door. And don't forget the media (and much of the general public) hates you, doesn't want you to work flexibly/remotely and thinks you're a colossal waste of taxpayer's money - if you needed some help with departmental morale! All too often the only way to get an increase in pay is to apply for a higher-grade job (often in another department), which then leads to a loss of institutional knowledge.

You genuinely couldn't pay me enough to put up with all this BS.

 

[Sm5]

As well as ministers moving on, so do civil servants. In the years between a decision being made and the resulting outcome of that decision being known, there may well be nobody still doing the same job.

This is where the HM Treasury 'Magenta Book' should kick in. Decisions result from processes and the decision on say rolling stock will be based on trying to fulfil dozens of policies, within many constraints, with limited data and a very large dose of uncertainty about the future. Hindsight is easy, foresight is really difficult. If someone does manage to predict the future, it's more likely to be luck than skill.

Yet any ordinary business make similar decisions, based on monthly, annual, decade or sometimes multi-decade investments, on a daily basis, and the world turns, profits are made, shareholders get paid, staff are employed and customers are served.

 

[Horizon22]

Very very simply put, the general public is through general elections which elects a government whose policies are enacted via the various departments.

This government has an agenda which seems to be rather short-termist, “cost of everything, price of nothing” approach (not just for the railway), and therefore the DfT carries out those actions. They also have budgets to adhere too, which seems to be “cuts” when it comes to the railway. In my view the electoral system isn’t fit for purpose in this country, which leads to a myriad of problems - one of which is compromise and continuity - but that is for another thread!

That is not to say the Civil Service is completely blameless and poor decisions have been advised (crucially not made, albeit it’s too ministers with no expert knowledge) and there’s probably a fair few opinions.

Also the Treasury wields a lot of power over other departments and is no doubt leaning heavily on the DfT.

 

[Sm5]

This is a really tired, inaccurate trope.

Civil servants generally get paid significantly less than equivalent private sector roles. Historically, a pretty good DB final salary pension made up for it, but nowadays this has seen further cuts.

The civil servants I've worked with are - on the whole - passionate about improving public services and working for the good of the British people. In areas such as rail, they have HMT / RDG / ministerial priorities and political nonsense to deal with, whilst having to put up with restrictions on the opinions they're allowed to divulge in public. And, if you're senior enough and government screws up, you might just find yourself a convenient scapegoat for incompetent politicians (anyone remember what happened in DfE?) and shown the door. And don't forget the media (and much of the general public) hates you, doesn't want you to work flexibly/remotely and thinks you're a colossal waste of taxpayer's money - if you needed some help with departmental morale! All too often the only way to get an increase in pay is to apply for a higher-grade job (often in another department), which then leads to a loss of institutional knowledge.

You genuinely couldn't pay me enough to put up with all this BS.

If they were any good, they could of course get a job in the pricate sector and earn more.

A Darwinian analogy, if everyday you take the largest fish out of the pond, eventually you will end up with a pond full of small fish. You shouldnt therefore complain if the fish are small.

 

[43066]

If they were any good, they could of course get a job in the pricate sector and earn more.

This statement assumes that nobody could possibly be motivated by anything other than earning the highest possible salary.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There were HSTs but generally stuck to the Neville Hill starters at peak times and the hourly Nottingham services

The uniform fleet of 810s means that platform space at St Pancras can be much more efficiently used, rather than the “fast” Nottingham HSTs needing a sixty five minute layover because they couldn’t work other northbound departures. In future an arrival from Nottingham can be a departure to Sheffield or vice versa

Why can't an HST do London-Sheffield?

I'm sure I remember back in the 1990s travelling between London and Sheffield on HSTs. What's changed to stop that today?

 

[Adam Williams]

If they were any good, they could of course get a job in the private sector and earn more.

I think the suggestion that the only reason you'd stay in the civil service is if you "aren't any good" is a pretty stupid one, to be honest.

I don't think there's any other sort of career that'd give you the same opportunities in terms of variety of work and ability to work on high-profile projects with (hopefully - govt policy dependant) substantial public benefit. We are lucky that skilled individuals choose to stay employed in the civil service instead of leaving for the private sector in spite of the challenges that they face day-to-day. Unless you don't think we should even have a civil service!?

 

[Horizon22]

If they were any good, they could of course get a job in the pricate sector and earn more.

A Darwinian analogy, if everyday you take the largest fish out of the pond, eventually you will end up with a pond full of small fish. You shouldnt therefore complain if the fish are small.

Well that’s a somewhat backwards way of looking at it. You could say “pay peanuts, get monkeys”. There might be plenty of people willing to take a role at the DfT, compared to say, some random consultancy but the overall package isn’t attractive.

Yes some aren’t motivated by money but if there are big discrepancies you will run into issues. Eventually good people have enough and see that their skills and talents are valued more elsewhere. And this is true across all sectors - as we’ve have seen in recent years.

 

[43066]

Why can't an HST do London-Sheffield?

I'm sure I remember back in the 1990s travelling between London and Sheffield on HSTs. What's changed to stop that today?

EMR no longer having any HSTs is a pretty good reason.

The HSTs did occasionally run to and from Sheffield, generally on Sundays, but tended to be diagrammed onto the fast Nottinghams, with “relaxed” diagrams including a hour or so’s dwell in London. This was in part because they lacked the performance to keep time on the semi fast services.

The equivalent 222 diagrams nowadays are more efficient, with more inter working of Nottingham and Sheffield services.