Return to Archive -by date - by topic - 2006.
Modern Railways is the last to complain when controversial news stories pour into our word-processors of their own volition, But recent events make us wonder whether it is any way to run a railway.
Take the Office of Rail Regulation’s decision to award, what Network Rail and GNER, claim are the remaining paths on the East Coast Main Line to Grand Central and Hull Trains. Given that the railways are supposed to be under the iron grip of Dr Mike Mitchell and DfT Rail, how come that open access entrepreneurs are allowed to put at risk GNER’s eye-watering premium payments?
Open access was, of course, a fundamental part of the original privatisation model, with competing operators driving up quality of service and bidding for timetable slots every eight weeks. Of course, reality soon intruded when it was realised that competition could destroy the revenue line of a franchise plan.
If we could be bothered to blow the dust off the archives we could provide Chapter and Verse on what was known as Moderation of Competition. But from memory the policy was a gradual relaxation of regulation. Meanwhile, no one was going to rock the boat – were they?
Happily, if you live in Hull, some people did. Not dynamic thrusting entrepreneurial newcomers shaking up the moribund railway, but deeply experienced old railway managers, with the very skills needed to run profitable open access services. Skills developed and honed in Sir Robert Reid’s academy of the business led railway.
And today Hull Trains, small but perfectly formed, flourishes. And another business created from the old railway, Grand Central, now has its foot in the door on the East Coast, having previously had the door slammed by the Rail Regulator when it applied for trans-Pennine open access rights.
Not only that, Hull Trains’ progenitor Renaissance Trains has linked up with Laing Rail, legacy of another old railway manager, to create the excruciatingly named Wrexham, Shropshire & Marylebone Railway Company. This is the sort of whimsical nomenclature, redolent of top hats and crinolines, that gets professional railway managers a sad name.
Of course, these latter day George Hudsons get the franchised operators in a tizz. If you want to see rabble rousing lobbying at its most intense, GNER’s campaign against Grand Central is a classic. If only they could apply such ferocious energy to, say, grade separation of Cambridge Junction.
Open access operators have their opportunity only because franchising sets passenger services in aspic at a time when Transport Secretary Alistair Darling tells us that demand patterns change. And not just timetables.
One of the downsides of the past ten years has been a tendency to ossify the pre-privatisation railway. We have, frankly, lost all tolerance of rail managers whinging about the shortcomings of infrastructure specified two decades ago.
For us the issue is not that British Rail’s electrification of the southern end of the East Coast Main Line has run out of traction current in the peaks of today’s more intensive services. What really matters is why nothing has been done about it since 1994 – other than to whinge.
Equally when something has been done, as with the Southern Region Power Supply, nothing has been learned from the past and after spending £700 million we have the same limitations as before, applied to heavier trains. Regenerative braking, surely essential at a time of rising energy costs and heavier rolling stock, was not considered affordable.
Similarly, at a time of rising demand, the Office of Rail Regulation is keen on scope reduction and life extension was a way of reducing signalling costs. Once again the 20 year status quo ante privatisation is being hard wired into the future railway.
But the deadest hand of state control comes from the current round of replacement franchises where a 10 year term, the last three conditional on performance, appears to be the norm. Could there be a better way to stultify commercial initiative?
When an operator has sighed up to a rising premium profile, what incentive is there to explore and exploit new markets which will take several years to turn a profit? GNER simply could not take its eyes off the franchise plan and meeting performance targets to consider extensions to its timetable to serve Hull, Sunderland or wherever. Nor, we suggest, would DfT Rail have the commercial wit to spot emerging opportunities and renegotiate franchise terms in mid-contract.
Thus, while they may be seen as anachronisms, open access operators provide an essential service in today’s railway – they bring better services to passengers outside the state’s franchise cartel. That said, they are an endangered species, as Route Utilisation Strategies (RUS) gradually drive out the niche environments in which they flourish and timetable recasts to improve performance ignore their existence.
To see the chilling future consider the recent Southern RUS, for historic reasons under the control of DfT Rail rather than Network Rail. Here we see ossified infrastructure at its myopic worst.
Gatwick Express, as with Heathrow Express, is what travellers between the two major airports and one of the world’s great capital’s have every right to
Expect when they roll up on the platform with their ménage, goods and chattels. A train on hand with, at most a 15 minute wait.
For ostensibly sensible people, such as junior transport ministers, even respected consultants turned civil servants, to argue otherwise with a straight face insults our intelligence. Modest engineering work could avoid conflicting moves while the answer to more capacity for commuters is longer trains
Sadly, faced with a coming funding squeeze, when it comes to capacity issues the Government is determined to bodge and dodge. Open access operators may be an operational and commercial pain in the neck for the franchised establishment, they are a reminder that the business led railway cannot work to a ten year cycle.