HS2....who/what should we believe?....

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Yes, but what do you have in mind for Aberystwyth's links? And for the Carlisle-Settle?

[Dave2002]

I don't know the details of the lines you mention, and perhaps if they're not used much there really isn't much which can be done. Depends if there's a chicken and egg situation - hardly anybody uses the services - therefore the services are minimal - so that hardly anybody uses the services. Maybe promote the lines a bit - though it may be a forlorn hope for some.

For some of the other lines I've mentioned there is a demand, and that can at least partially be improved by putting on more frequent and longer trains, and beginning and end of day issues have to be dealt with too. People will often not use a service if there is no early train, and no late train. It is not necessary to run electric trains for such lines unless they have a lot of traffic. However, I think that some rolling stock does look pretty tired, and again I think that people notice. Compare the Southern trains with SW Trains into Waterloo/Charing Cross/Victoria - Southern has better rolling stock even for commuters, and they do have toilets on board. However, some of the multiple unit trains in the north look really clapped out.

Another issue is to make sure that connections with other lines make sense. People do look at timetables, and they're not keen if there are hardly any connections, and some of the ones which are in place are very tight or inconvenient. This has been used as a trick on some lines, by operators wishing to close down services. The tube line from Chesham to Little Chalfont used to have morning trains which just missed a connection from Aylesbury. This seemed to have been deliberate, as some of the lines were under threat of closure. Once the threat of closure was eliminated by an intervention - I think in fact from Ken Livingstone - the timetable was almost immediately adjusted so that the connections were feasible and very convenient - as they had been before the closure threats were put into operation.

[jean]

I did indeed refer to the costs only, not the construction time, although the Tours/Bordeaux section does at least appear to be running to schedule (as one hopes will the trains that use in once consruction is complete!) and seems not (yet, at least0 to have gone over budget as so often seems to happen with such massive projects in UK.

And yet, even in France all is not well....

I happen to have spent some time in recent years in the area between Limoges and Poitiers.

There is bitter opposition to the new TGV Bordeaux-Tours line; the people there feel they will be completely bypassed.

[Dave2002]

And yet, even in France all is not well....

I happen to have spent some time in recent years in the area between Limoges and Poitiers.

There is bitter opposition to the new TGV Bordeaux-Tours line; the people there feel they will be completely bypassed.

Bypassed as in not able to use the new line usefully, or as in their views are being ignored? Perhaps both!

Many people in the Chilterns feel that the construction of a new line will disrupt their area significantly, and they appear to have very significant concerns that the new line won't benefit them anyway. Perhaps it won't matter so much if other rail services are also improved, but presumably there won't be any stations on the line between London and Birmingham, so there will be no sensible way for people living in the area to use the proposed new link. They are hardly going to take a train into London in order to take another train out to get to Birmingham, so they will either drive, or take one of the slower trains from local stations.

The people who plan railways often seem to ignore very basic things - though clearly they have to take costs into account. Eurostar used to run from Waterloo. It was very convenient for people who live in the south of London and the area south of that. Now it runs from St Pancras and the journey time to Brussels and Paris is reduced, but the overall journey time is considerably increased due to the addition time spent travelling from Waterloo etc. to St Pancras. The argument that the station capacity at Waterloo would be needed would appear to have been false, as so far there seems to have been little attempt to reclaim the additional platforms formerly used for Eurostar trains. Also I think it rather likely that the special trains which ran into Waterloo may now have been adapted to remove the third rail running capability, so that there would be no realistic chance of reopening a connection from Waterloo.

I could see some point in using Waterloo as an additional Eurostar station for access to the continent, but the planners seemed determined to ensure that wouldn't happen.

Reverting back to HS2, Emily Maitlis did a very feisty interview with the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin, on Newsnight last night, who stonewalled about the business benfits only moderately successfully, and looked as though he might "do a John Knott". http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ht_29_10_2013/ Her main point seemed to be that the business value was based on figures which are somewhat fictitious, and mention was made of BCR - Benefit Cost Ratio, which seemed somewhat obfuscated.

[ahinton]

And yet, even in France all is not well....

I happen to have spent some time in recent years in the area between Limoges and Poitiers.

There is bitter opposition to the new TGV Bordeaux-Tours line; the people there feel they will be completely bypassed.

Oh, there's opposition to it, of course, yet when France decides to build a train line all such opposition seems to be cast aside in order to get it done; it's the vast difference in cost between the French projets that have been mentioned and the HS2 one that interest me in the present context.

[Dave2002]

Oh, there's opposition to it, of course, yet when France decides to build a train line all such opposition seems to be cast aside in order to get it done; it's the vast difference in cost between the French projets that have been mentioned and the HS2 one that interest me in the present context.

I wonder if there's some other factor in the French accounting - perhaps a per km subsidy which is not obvious. Hopefully not, but one doesn't know.

Re an earlier project - the Channel Tunnel - arguably that could now be considered a success. However the financing of that was very dubious, with Mrs T. insisting that it be funded privately in the UK, yet in the end the banks and other investors lost all of their money, as far as I can see, relating to the construction effort. After the event it was announced that the tunnel trains were making "an operating profit" - in other words totally disregarding the construction costs. One suspects that the banks got their money back later, in bail outs etc.

So despite everything and Mrs T's protestations to the contrary, I feel that there was substantial investment by "the British taxpayer" - but not in the obvious and transparent way. Maybe this was intended - we'll probably never know.

Alternatively, I may have completely misjudged this historical situation, in which case I hope someone else will enlighten me.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Aren't all the French trains nationalised, and financed from the public purse. In which case, there's no cost of capital considerations involved. And besides, I hear the debt on the TGV system is enormous.

[jean]

Oh, there's opposition to it, of course, yet when France decides to build a train line all such opposition seems to be cast aside in order to get it done...

And that's a good thing?

I used to be very enthusiastic about the TGV when I was travelling long distances in France. I've only recently become aware of how poor local transport in France is, and I understand the bitter opposition to the new TGV line.

Those that make the decisions may have cast it aside - the people protesting certainly haven't.

(I realise that this has nothing to do with the economics of the thing. Obviously a state-run railway is going to do whatever you want it to do far more cheaply and effectively than the mess we've got.)

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Obviously a state-run railway is going to do whatever you want it to do far more cheaply and effectively than the mess we've got.)

I don't think that's obvious at all.

[jean]

It is if you know where to look.


East coast mainline: profitable and publicly owned – so why sell it?

...In November 2009, the then Labour government took the line under public control because its private operator, National Express, could not afford to run it on the terms it had rashly promised back in 2007. Back then it had beaten off opposition from competitors, agreeing to pay the Treasury an increased £1.4bn to operate the franchise until the end of March 2015.

The previous owner of the franchise, GNER, had been stripped of the route after its US parent firm was struck by financial troubles. National Express, a seemingly solid company, was saving the day, and promising to inject £7.4m into upgrading stations, including the creation of 2,000 car park spaces, while the number of weekday trains would rise from 136 to 161 and a new London-to-Lincoln service would be added.

It was, according to then transport minister Tom Harris, very good news. Within two years, National Express realised it was losing money hand over fist – but the government was not willing to renegotiate. Lord Adonis, then transport secretary, set up Directly Operated Railways, a not-for-dividend subsidiary of the Department for Transport, to manage the service. The last four years, according to DOR's own accounts, published this month, have been an extraordinary success.

The first half of this year has seen levels of punctuality not achieved by any operator of the east coast mainline "since records in their current form began", although poor weather affected the latter part of last year. The company has won 13 industry awards since April 2012, including that of being Britain's top employer. There has been a 4.2% increase in ticket sales year-on-year, £208.7m returned to the taxpayer during the year in premium and dividend payments, and a record level of customer satisfaction.

And while Virgin, on the west coast, has received £179.6m in revenue support from the government since 2009 and a £1.2bn network grant, DOR has had no revenue support and a lesser, £980m network grant. Back on the 17.30 service, Tracy Sowersby put it succinctly: "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"

[An_Inspector_Calls]

And that would the Guardian, the teacher's source of all knowledge . . .

Fine if you want to argue from the particular to the general.

[jean]

You mean that you can explain away the success of the East Coast Main Line under public ownership by arguing from the general?

Go right ahead.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Studying the particular.

The NAO have a report.

NE failed because it over-bid for the franchise and fuel costs rose. It was simply paying too much to us.
Most of the delays during NE franchise were caused by Network Rail, not NE. Eliminate Network Rail's problems (as happened post NE) and the delays slip away .
The public lost no money because of NE's collapse, in fact they made money from the franchise.
The auditor concluded that the franchise system was operating satisfactorily, and that the failure of NE had been handled skilfully.

[scottycelt]

I don't think that's obvious at all.

It's also not true, imho.

Some of us 'of a certain age' well remember filthy trains and stations, numerous cancellations, late-runs and frequent strikes, mouldy cheese sandwiches, cold 'tea' and surly, boorish staff.

Rail travel has improved immensely since those dark days of nationalisation.

[jean]

The NAO have a report.

The auditor concluded that the franchise system was operating satisfactorily, and that the failure of NE had been handled skilfully.

Since the franchisee over-bid in order to secure the franchise, and the Treasury (of course) accepted the lowest bid, you can see that failure is built into the system. That being so, it is hard to agree with the auditor's conclusion.

There is more public money going into the privatised railways now than was ever the case when they were nationalised. If a fraction of the subsidy the private companies now get had been spent in the last days of BR, the sandwiches might not have been quite so mouldy (funny, that's not something I remember, although people keep telling me about it.)

And in spite of all the subsidy, ticket prices are at ludicrous levels.