Return to Archive -by date - by topic - 2002.
Political correctness has generally been associated with the fashionable ‘isms' – feminism and ageism for example. But today in the railway industry you can experience political correctness with a capital ‘P'.
Devised by civil servants in the Department of Transport and the Treasury, privatisation was intended to get the railways off the Government's books. No longer would BR come round with its begging bowl when times were hard and the economy dipped.
But now, after years of sustained growth, the blighters are back again – but this time with a bucket rather than a bowl. But admitting that the railways were back on state life support, and in the High Dependency Unit, would be unacceptable to the Treasury.
Hence the outbreak of real Political correctness. Which meant that a radical change in the direction of the railways became the policy that dared not speak its name.
For in one week SRA Chairman Richard Bowker took three bold decisions aimed at restoring stability to the railway. And all three predicate a return to greater central control.
On 29 August Richard Bowker brought clarity to two of the biggest problems facing the railway – the shambles of the West Coast Route Modernisation and the failure oh his predecessor's vision of 20 years franchises taking responsibility for infrastructure enhancements through Special Purpose Vehicles.
Both announcements could have been handled better, with affected parties being caught on the hop. But they were the right decisions.
Old railway managers were horrified at the decision to blockade sections of the West Coast Main Line for months at a time. But when you look at the lack of progress and escalating cost of the project over the last year alone, an executive decision was the only solution.
And do not forget that Richard Bowker is under more political pressure than any British Rail Chairman ever experienced. BR was always seen as a problem to be managed. Its performance was rarely an issue.
In contrast Prime Minister Tony Blair has told the electorate to judge his administration on its record of improving public services. Railways now matter.
With an election likely in May or October 2005 the railways have to be visibly better by the end of 2004. In commuterland, Mk 1 stock replacement should provide the necessary triumph – traction power supplies permitting. By 2004 Operation Princess should see Voyagers and Super Voyagers settled down nicely. Which leaves the WCRM.
Quite simply, nothing less than Pendolinos tilting between London and Manchester at 125mile/h, preferably in the Winter 2004 timetable, will do. Equally, a WCRM still two years away from completion and running into double figure billions would not impress the voters either.
Someone had to take a JCB to this augean stable and Richard Bowker did it. It was a pragmatic decision of a high order. And with a degree of personal risk.
Later the same day the main man announced that the South Central 20 year replacement franchise was off the agenda. Instead, a seven year franchise will now be negotiated with GOVIA. While the SRA denied that this would apply to other proposed 20 year franchises, the logic is ineluctable. Certainly the existing franchise owners see it that way.
With failed franchises already under direct SRA control and more queuing up to renegotiate extensions with less onerous subsidy profiles, the role of the franchise has changed irrevocably from swashbuckling entrepreneur to diligent service delivery unit working to the SRA's prescriptive remit.
How prescriptive is that? Time for the third big decision.
A week after the West Coast and franchising were brought back under control the Capacity Utilisation Policy study was announced. This is a longer term project, although with the first benefits emerging in – wait for it - 2004. It will see the SRA specifying train lengths and train service frequencies, both passenger and freight on the main lines. Traction performance will be mandated and train fleets re-allocated to reduce differences in speed on high speed lines. Freight operators will have to have a minimum horsepower per tonne for longer and heavier trains.
As SRA Managing Director Strategic Planning Jim Steer explained it to us ‘We don't want entrepreneurial flair applied to timetables. We will set a framework but operators will still be running variations in train services, but there will be less scope'.
But when we suggested that the logical conclusion of this initiative was a UK Taktfahrplan, Political correctness kicked in. ‘We are certainly not producing a national integrated regular interval timetable' Jim Steer said, ‘we are not doing that'. Well, we shall see.
These decisions unveiled in just seven days in August and September owe nothing to dogma and everything to pragmatism. If the logical conclusion of these policies is a centrally controlled railway, and if Richard Bowker is the new John Welsby, you can see why Government, or rather the Treasury, is so touchy when the national press talks about ‘creeping renationalisation. Of course it is nothing of the sort, since, other than the ROSCOs, there is little of consequence to renationalise.
But having mentioned JKW, we should add that there is a big difference between the old fox and the young pretender. John Welsby controlled British Rail through a mechanical interlocking. He pulled the levers and people jumped. Richard Bowker has a moving block radio control system, subject to intermittent electromagnetic interference.
Thus when he sets a new route, trains on other lines may suffer Class B SPADs, such as the ROSCOs when 20 year franchises were scrapped. This is inevitable and the SRA and industry have to live with the occasional spat. And that includes the Rail Regulator who is going to find the SRA treading on his toes – as in the WCRM blockade strategy where, in theory, a TOC could (unwisely) seek to defend its access rights.
So it is not going to be easy, but in that week Richard Bowker did more to resolve the contradictions of the privatised railway than his predecessor achieved in three years. He probably won't appreciate our corporatist analysis of the ends, so we will limit our approbation, should he need it, to the means.