Reducing Railway Industry Fragmentation in the early 1900s

Christian Wolmar has written frequently that one of the major causes of the railway industry's current woes, in terms of operational costs and passengers fares being too high, is the fragmentation of the industry. Britain's railways as they exist contain a myriad of private companies interacting with each other within a web of complex working arrangements, most of which force costs up. Indeed, it is accepted by most experts that separating the management of the trains from the tracks was a disaster.[1]

But fragmentation within the railway industry isn't a new issue and was addressed by railway managers in the early 1900s. In the late 1890s the railway industry's profits were depressed by a mix of poor management, competition, increasing material costs and the growth of high volume low-margin traffic (However, historians are divided on which of these factors played the biggest role). Indeed, in 1885 the industry's operating ratio, which is expenditure expressed as a proportion of revenue, stood at fifty-two per cent. By 1900 this had been driven up to sixty-two per cent.[2]

In response to their change in fortunes, railway companies attempted to reduce costs through numerous means in the first years of the 1900s;  more efficient track maintenance, better locomotive designs, new technologies and improved goods operation. Yet, despite these vigorous efforts to improve how they functioned, inter-company rivalry and duplicated services remained one of the most serious and costly issues for industry leaders. Between 1870 and 1900 the railway companies of Britain, of which there over a hundred, unsuccessfully sunk resources and capital into competing for market share on certain routes and at cities which were served by more than one company. For Example, the Great Western and London and South Western Railways had a protracted battle in the West of England, both in terms of the services they provided and through line building to gain territory. But such competition only served to depress profits, not improve them.

Therefore, late in the first decade of the twentieth century railway companies came together to promote economical working, eliminate competition, pool resources and ultimately reduce overheads. While outright mergers were actively resisted by government, as they would hand companies regional monopolies, railway directors and managers worked around this objection by forming 'working unions'. In late 1907 the Great Northern and Great Central Railways announced an alliance in which they pooled receipts and the management of all rolling stock, lines and works were placed under the remit of a joint committee. It was an arrangement akin to amalgamation, however, it just wasn't a legal union. 

Other companies soon followed suit. In June 1908 the London and North Western and Midland Railways produced a less comprehensive scheme, where all receipts, except those from coal and coke traffic, were pooled, competitive capital expenditure was ceased and cooperative and economical train operations were sought. Indeed, this had considerable success in reducing these two companies' operational expenses. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway joined the agreement in 1909. Furthermore, early in 1909 the Caledonian and North British Railways drew up a very similar agreement. Lastly, in August 1910, after nearly a year and a half of negotiation, the Great Western and London and South Western Railways came to terms. [3]

While the fragmentation of the modern railway industry is different in many ways to that which existed immediately after 1900, there is no doubt that in the period knowledgeable industry leaders felt a sensible way to reduce their railway's operational and capital costs was to cooperate. Indeed, the particular success of the London and North Western and Midland Railway in reducing these forms of expenditure through unification, is a testament to the idea that when it comes to railways, collaboration, not fragmentation, can be preferable.

-----

[1] Wolmar, Christian, "Fragmentation is the problem, not the solution", Christian Wolmar's Website, 19 May 2011

[2] Gourvish, Terry, Railways and the British Economy 1830-1914, (London, 1980), p.42

[3] Cain, P.J., 'Railway Combination and Government, 1900-1914', The Economic History Review, 4 (1972), p.633

Lets get this straight, by the 1990s British Rail was very efficient!

On Monday I watched the despatches program that everyone is talking about that criticised the modern railway network. Boy, did I get frustrated. I wasn’t particularly concerned with the lack of descent analysis, nor with the dominance of subjective opinions. No, as a historian of the railways I got annoyed with the words of Steven Norris, one of the architects of British Rail’s (BR) privatisation in the early 1990s. In his view, BR was an inefficient and lazy organisation that did not give the taxpayer ‘value for money.’ Furthermore, he asserted that privatization was the only way to solve its internal problems. While I acknowledge British Rail did have a long history of inefficiency, what annoyed me was that this opinion flies in the face of all the evidence. Indeed, by the 1990s BR was, by all reasonable measures, one of the most efficient railways in Europe. Indeed, this post is about bursting Steven’s annoying little bubble. All figures are taken from the highly detailed history of British Rail by Terry Gourvish.

Firstly, a bit of background is required. From 1982 onwards the government shrunk BR’s budgets. Indeed, in 1982 central and local government funded BR to the tune of £1330.8 million (constant at 1989/90 prices). By 1986/87 this had shrunk to £950.8 million, and by 1989/90 the total funding was £568.8 million.[1] This reduction forced BR to become more customer focussed and led to a massive reorganisation of the company, named ‘sectorisation.’ Most importantly, it forced BR to become a more efficient organisation

If we consider that Britain's railways since the 1930s had never made overall profit, and consequently always required a subsidy from government to fund their operations, the level of loss that BR incurred in the 1980s and 90s would be indicative of the performance of the business. The central principal for BR operations under sectorisation was that the profitable parts of the business, such as Intercity, would actually reduce the burden on the taxpayer as they would mitigate losses incurred by other sectors that were loss-making, such as Regional Railways. The table below shows the profit and loss of BR's different operational sectors in certain years, as well as its overall total.

Source: Gourvish, Terry, British Rail 1974-97: From Integration to Privatisation, (Oxford, 2004), p.476-479

As shown, in 1982 Intercity, Railfreight and Network South East were all poor performers, with only Railfreight making a slight profit. However, all three became far more profitable by 1993/4, whether it be through cost control, greater efficiency, growing their trade, better public service or increasing their prices. Only BR’s Parcels service and Freightliner, the latter of which was a relatively new part of the business, did not improve their performance by 1993/4. Furthermore, Provincial and Regional Railways, which ran local lines and were effectively cross-subsidised by the other BR sectors, also became more efficient by 1993/4. Overall, the result was that by 1993/4 the burden on the taxpayer was £724 million, or 73.21 per cent less than it did in 1982.

Furthermore, most elements of BR’s costs reduced in the period. As an example I will look at maintenance costs, which declined significantly. The results are shown in the table below.

Source: Gourvish, Terry, British Rail 1974-97: From Integration to Privatisation, (Oxford, 2004), p.207

This indicates that between 1983 and 1989/90 BR’s maintenance costs dropped by 19 index points. However, the cost per train mile, which essentially relates BR's overall expense to the amount of work done by the organisation, fell by a massive 24 index points. While some of this reduction could be down to changes in the price of materials, there is no doubt that some, if not most, could be attributed to better cost control, improved operational practices and better project management.

But where did BR's efficiency stand against other European operators? The table below shows the number of kilometres that BR’s trains ran per member of staff in the period, against the average for the fourteen 'Community of European Railways' members (excluding BR).

Source: Gourvish, Terry, British Rail 1974-97: From Integration to Privatisation, (Oxford, 2004), p.292

Evidently, per staff member BR’s trains went further than thos of European operators. This was despite, in some cases, the British railway network being of a higher density than in many countries and requiring greater maintenance, more administration and having greater intensity of train movements. This means that BR was more productive per staff member than the European operators and that taxpayers were getting better ‘value for money’ from its operations. 

Lastly, because of efficiencies, the level of support that BR received in real terms also reduced over the period. The table below indexes the funding of British railways against three major European operators between 1975 and 1991.Source: Gourvish, Terry, British Rail 1974-97: From Integration to Privatisation, (Oxford, 2004), p.292

While the real terms funding of French and Italian railways by their governments increased over period (Italy  by a substantial amount) the German and British Governments reduced theirs. However, BR's superior performance is shown by the fact that the German government’s funding of Deutsche Bahn rose in the late 1970s, falling off in the early 1980s; whereas BR’s funding was reduced overall, reaching its lowest level in 1989. Indeed, of the four operators BR had had the least success in securing government funding over the period. Thus, while reducing its operating losses substantially and increasing some sectors' profitability, this data indicates that BR was, at the point it was privatised, highly efficient in comparison.

Therefore, Terry Gourvish’s figures have shown that in the 1980s and first half of the 1990s BR improved the profitability and performance of its business, reducing the burden on the taxpayer. By the mid-1990s it was one of the most efficient railway operators in Europe, if not the most efficient. Of course, I have only scratched the surface of what actually went on within BR here, and its story in the period wasn’t one of unabated progress. Yet, this data shows that claims by Steven Norris (and others) that BR was inefficient in the 1990s are just plain wrong. Indeed, if privatisation hadn't happened there is no telling how efficient or productive Britain's railways may have become after 1997.

If you would like to read more about BR's business, I would really recommend Terry Gourvish's book. 

[1] Gourvish, Terry, British Rail 1974-97: From Integration to Privatisation, (Oxford, 2004), p.455-456

The Mighty Trek To Snowhere - "South West Trains Can I Have Some Information Please?"

Yesterday, I struggled in vain to get to a party. I suppose the lure of nibbles, socialising, intellectual conversation and alcohol would entice anyone. Yet I failed; foiled in my efforts to get to London by the culprit in most of Britain’s current travel worries, snow. The reality is that this is a story about not travelling on trains; after all, I travelled much further on busses yesterday. Instead, the tale is about the gaps in information that were endemic amongst South West Trains (SWT) staff and subsequently their customers.

My journey started at on the 3.54 train from Hampton Court. As I boarded the train there was no indication that anything was amiss. Thus, I settled in my seat, comfortable in the knowledge that the train was going to stop at the usual places and get me to Waterloo (sorry, ‘London Waterloo’) on time. However, out of the corner of my eye I did notice the guard move in a hurry to the back of the train. On reflection, this should have been my first warning something was up. Anyway, I forgot about it and began to read my book. One of the things about being savvy about the railways is that I notice the small changes in what the trains do. So, when after starting the train immediately jerked to the right onto the outside line, I realised that information had departed from reality on the SWT passenger information boards.

Then the voice of doom came over the speaker system “Ladies and Gentleman, due to adverse weather conditions we are running a shuttle service between Hampton Court and Surbiton, you will need to change trains at Surbiton to continue onto London Waterloo.” I don’t know if this was a practical joke that SWT was playing, but surely that is information I should receive before I commit to a journey, before I tap my Oyster card on the reader, before I start the next page of my book and definitely before the train starts moving. The frustrating thing was that it wouldn’t even have been hard to announce the change in the service just before the train started. I realise that the guard may have been thinking that the passengers may have been able to change at Surbiton, but in reality some of us may not have wanted the hassle, may have put our journey off, or may have travelled via another medium. After all, if one train’s timetable had been affected, we could be pretty certain that every other’s had also.

So, in an annoyed state, I got off the train at Surbiton and wandered over to platforms 1 and 2. Ominously, there were a lot of people already there waiting for a train. My onward journey didn’t look hopeful, and after descending the stairs a quick glance at the signals told me as such. Every signal was red, nothing would be moving from Surbiton for some while. After waiting for about 5 minutes on platform 2, which trains usually streak past without stopping, a class 444 Desiro came to a halt. Now, the class of the locomotive is significant as the class 444s are the long-distance Desiros. They never stop at Surbiton and usually can’t be seen adequately as they are moving so fast.

A frankly bewildered guard stuck his head out. And then the barrage of questions started, “is this train going to Waterloo?” “When do you expect to be on the move?” “How long are you going to be here?” Apart from the simple fact that his next stop, if the train was to move, was going to be Waterloo, he himself was in the dark regarding many of these questions. That said, the source of all the tribulations was finally known, and he informed us that all the signals at Wimbledon had gone down and nothing was moving on the main line. But, many people got on the train in the hope that at some point they would be on the move.

One of the joyful things in such times of trial is that generally people pull together and are good natured, and one of the reoccurring themes in this story is that people try their best to support strangers. Thus, once I had heard what was going on I spent a couple of minutes explaining the situation to a number of people that asked me what I had just heard. Other people did this too. Of course, I put my unique train-twist on things, (“there are two red lights…”) but people were thankful to be better informed, even if they were stuck.

Suddenly, another train arrived on platform one. I don’t know why they thought it would help, but to the cries of “oo, another one,” many people abandoned the class 444, and trotted over to the newcomer. I suppose they thought that, as a train they recognised (it being a local one), it may do better in getting to Waterloo. I watched them moving round the doors, clustering to get on, and then thought hard about my options. I could continue fight from here to get to the party, or I could try another station on a different line. I took the latter option. Kingston was my new destination. I thought that maybe SWT would do what they usually do when works are going on on the main line, in reversing trains there and sending them back to Waterloo. I ‘touched out’ of Surbiton with my Oyster at about 4.20. On my way out I went to the ticket booth to ask if trains from Kingston were still running. I don’t know what I expected, but the response was heartening, “yes, trains are running from Kingston.” That was positive I thought, at least someone, somewhere, knows something.

On arriving at Kingston, it appeared that I just missed a train. Looking up at the board I could see that the 4.27 to Waterloo via Wimbledon, was on time and ‘touched in’ with my Oyster. But, I trotted up to the ‘information point’ on the platform to ascertain the state of play. When I got there, two individuals were inside. They were having a conversation and the one closest the window had his back to me. “When is the next train to Waterloo?” I asked. The response was efficient to say the least, “on the other platform in a moment.” Yet, I was concerned. If the train that was due was scheduled to go ‘via Wimbledon’ and nothing was moving past that place on the Main Line, then how could the train’s onward journey be OK? I responded, “but that train is via Wimbledon, how is it going to get to Waterloo if Wimbledon is out of action?” Both of the SWT employees looked at me as though I was in a dream world. The response was far from encouraging “that next one is fine.” I wasn’t having that, and retorted that I had just come from Surbiton, where nothing was moving. He reiterated that the train that was due would get me to where I wanted to go, and so, I walked over to the other platform to wait for it. I was still very concerned, especially as it seemed that the men in the ‘information point’ didn’t know about what was going on at Wimbledon. There was no “that hasn’t affected our trains” or “we don’t foresee any problems.” No, they seemed that they just wanted to get rid of me so they could continue their chat.

I wandered up the ramp and then another ominous announcement came. “Ladies and Gentlemen, due to a signal failure at Wimbledon we are suffering severe delays. We are not sure if the next train will go any further.” The train rolled in as I reached platform level and stopped. Then it struck me. Was I the person that told them of the signal failures, a fact which they then looked up? I suppose it wasn’t outside the realms of possibility. In fact, the time difference between when I told them and when the announcement was made seemed to me long enough for them to call someone for the relevant information. If this was so, then it was simply shocking. Anyway, I was now faced with another dilemma. If I got on this train I could be stuck on it if it started to move towards Waterloo. That was something I didn’t relish. The alternatives were either to give up and go home, or try one last bid to get to the party from Twickenham. Trains from that place should have been better, as on route to Waterloo they did not go through Wimbledon. I decided to take that option.

On my way out of Kingston station I touched out with my Oyster. I reflected on the fact that, once again, there had been a severe lack of information available. Indeed, 'touching in' and then 'touching out' with my Oyster at the same station, which cost me £1.50, could have been avoided by someone standing in the main station booking hall just informing people, or even just a sign detailing the problems being present. Yet, as I exited, the station was bereft of staff. There were no staff manning the ticket office, and the barriers were open with no one guarding them. Indeed, I sort of realised that the SWT staff at Kingston did know something was up, what other reason could there be for abandoning whole sections of the station? But, the situation was simply not good enough. From the guys in the office, who seemed to know nothing (either that or they did not care), to the lack of information outside the ticket offices, there was nothing to stop 100s of people wasting their money by ‘touching in’ with their Oyster and then going nowhere. Indeed, if the rail companies come down unnecessarily hard on honest people who make mistakes in buying the wrong ticket, then in return they should inform people as to the state of play on days like this so they can avoid paying for journeys they have no hope of making.

On my way out there were a number of people clustered round the information board all looking confused. I informed them of the situation, which was that a train had pulled up; however, it wouldn’t be going anywhere as Wimbledon was out of action. 5 minutes later, and after a lot of good-natured camaraderie, I left to get the bus to Twickenham. While on it, I checked on my phone the National Rail Enquiries website for the status of trains going from Twickenham to Waterloo. The site was not a joyful one to be on. While some trains were still running, clearly most were cancelled. Given my information problems so far, I was curious to see how close to reality this information was.

Passing into Twickenham station I noticed that the barriers were open with no one manning them, that the ticket office was closed and that there was no sign detailing the state of play. Where had everyone gone? Had they abandoned their posts like rats from sinking ships. However, the digital display was showing almost exactly the same information I had seen on the National Rail Enquiries website. What a surprise it was to have accurate information. A train was due, so I touched in and went down to the platform. As it pulled in, I thought long and hard. ‘This could get me to the party.’ But if things were still terrible later, my journey home may also not materialise, leaving me stranded in London. And so, at the very moment I could have achieved my goal, I turned and walked away. It was now about 5.30. I ‘touched out’ with my Oyster, which cost me another £1.50, and went to the pub.

Whose fault was my long journey? As the failures materialised before I started out, I can safely say that SWT were not communicating with their staff effectively. This, therefore, meant that we passengers were out of the loop. From the guard who knew nothing, to the ill-informed staff at Kingston, to the lack of information outside stations, and the lack of staff generally, the state of information provision was truly shocking. I know that because of the geographically spread nature of railways that information moves on it at a slower rate, especially if there is a need to get maintenance crews on-site to diagnose a problem which takes time. But, the fact that the staff at Kingston seemingly didn’t know about the problems at Wimbledon shows that SWT’s information flows had broken down.

On the positive side, the experience showed me that when times are tough and people face adversity together, they do help each other out and band together. Indeed, what it has also showed me is that people understand railway workers’ predicaments and are much calmer when they know what is going on. And while in explaining the situation I evidently gave people bad news, once they had the information as to the state of play they were much less frustrated. I cannot say that throughout railway history information flows for passengers have been much better, and in fact I think that we recieve the most information that any generation of passengers has ever had. But, quite clearly, SWT could keep improve things greatly. The level of service that they gave me yesterday was, simply put, inexcusable.

My 100th post - Some Highlights from the Past 9 Months

This is, believe it or not, my 100^th post on Turnip Rail. In anticipation of this momentous day, I have been reviewing some of my previous posts so that I can provide what I consider to be some of the highlights from the past nine months of blogging.

The Beginning

One of the goals of setting up the Blog was to improve my writing. When I looked back on my first post from the 14^th February, which was titled ‘Developing the British Railway Manager’, it showed me how far I have come. I cringe somewhat when I read it because I feel that my writing style has improved by leaps and bounds. I hope that these days I don’t make the simple grammatical errors of the past, and that I have a better (albeit not perfect) handle on when and where to put commas. Anyway, if you really wish to read it, it can be found HERE. I should also mention that in the early days of the blog I wrote much longer posts. However, I soon realised that this was not entertaining, and that shorter posts were much more pleasant for the reader. So, when I direct you to older blog posts below they will be longer in length than my current output.

Current Affairs

I have tried over the last 9 months to cover current railway issues. However, I realise that I have always been hampered by the fact that I cannot be as up to date with them as I would like, given the time constraints of the PhD. However, I do have some favourite posts in this area. I am particularly proud of my 11^th June post when I researched and revealed some of the current Secretary of State for Transport’s previous comments on rail transportation, all of which were negative. This post can be found HERE. I have also a soft spot for my Blog post of 12^th July, in which I drew links between the Beeching report, the Serpell report, and the current review of railways being undertaken by Sir Roy McNulty. This can be found HERE.

Management

Some of you may be aware that my PhD is about the quality of management on the London and South Western Railway between 1860 and 1914. Thus, this has been a prominent feature of my blog from the outset. Yet, as I realised quickly that some of my core PhD subjects do not make for entertaining reading, I have recently tried my best to only occasionally touch on the history of railway management. This said, there are some posts I feel are worth mentioning. My post on ‘Early Railway Administrators...The Good, the Bad and the Shiny’ of 15^th May, looked at some of the more interesting railway managers of the early years of the British railway industry. They had a range of different backgrounds and did not always behave well. It can be found HERE. In August, I discussed the Feltham Marshalling Yard, and explained how, firstly, it was the original inspiration for my PhD, but also how it was a major investment decision for the L&SWR at a critical moment in railway history (Found HERE). Lastly, there was my post from the 3^rd May on Viscount Pirrie, a board member of the L&SWR. He had many other directorships that allowed the L&SWR to gain a link with the other companies at which he was a director. Ultimately, however, Pirrie’s L&SWR directorship allowed him to benefit his own business empire by influencing the L&SWR’s policy. While my research on this subject has moved on, and there is more that could be said on this subject, you can read the post HERE.

Staffing Issues

I have recently become aware of how human stories can be of great interest to people. I have, therefore, recently written more posts on railway employees. In my post of the 18^th February I wrote about the editors of the L&SWR’s staff magazine, and how their positions within the company affected the content of the publication. (Found HERE). More recently, I wrote about ‘Crime and Punishment’ in the Victorian railway industry, and how the rules that the Victorian railway companies imposed on their employees were harsh, but the consequences of infringement may have been harsher. This can be found HERE.

Women

I have always been interested in the way that women were treated by railway companies, both as employees or as part of railway worker’s families. Therefore, I was particularly saddened by the story of Mary Ramsdale. She was widowed when her husband died while working on the railways and subsequently suffered a decline in her mental health. This had devastating effects for the family. Her story was detailed HERE. On the whole, however, I have focussed on Victorian Britain’s female railway workers. In my post of the 3^rd of September I covered the ‘Hidden History of Britain’s Railwaywomen,’ as I have always been acutely aware that women’s history has frequently overlooked by historians. Thus, I gave some examples of potential areas of research, and commented on what needs to be done to discover more about Britain’s railwaywomen. (Found HERE).

Academic Issues

Because I am doing a PhD it has meant that on occasion I have written about the highs and lows of this process, as well as some of the day-to-day thoughts I have regarding research. In September I posted what would become my most read blog post, in which discussed how the processes of research had been changed by technology over the last decade (Found HERE). On the 26^th of February I discussed how strands of academic thought can lead researchers into unnecessary hunts for information, simply because they have a mystery they wish to solve. I detailed my own research on Albinus Martin, and told of how I became obsessed with finding information on him. Yet, this hunt had no particular value for my PhD, and it took me a while to realise this. This post can be found HERE.

I have not been able to list everything that I have written, but an index of all my blog posts can always be found at my main Turniprail website. Just click on 'Blog' on the left hand side and it will reveal a link to an index.

Thanks

Over the last 100 posts I have, on many occasions, wanted to give up. However, through much support and encouragement I have been egged on to keep going by many friends and colleagues. I now wish to thank some of these individuals. Firstly, thanks must go to Dr Terry Gourvish (LSE) and Dr Roy Edwards (University of Southampton), who over a few pints suggested that I undertake a venture of this nature. I also wish to thank Matthew Snelling, Louise McCudden and Jon Cranfield, my closest friends, who have always supported my blog and have been willing to put up with me babbling about it. I wish to thank Peter Sutton and Dr Kevin Tennent (Open University), who have also regularly interacted with me about the blog and shared ideas. I also want to thank Sophie Collard and Jools Stone, who I met on Twitter. They have helped me immensely, firstly by re-tweeting my tweets, and secondly by allowing me to become a guest on their blogs.

Of course, I have missed out mentioning many individuals who deserve thanks, but, lastly, I must thank you, the readers of the blog. I do hope that you have enjoyed it so far. Please keep reading, spreading the word and making suggestions, without your help it cannot be a success.

David

Is the Department For Transport Trying to Price us off the Railways?

I often get asked by many people why, if railways are a better way to travel, does the government allow the train operating companies to continually put up fares? Indeed, in the last few weeks, as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), we have seen the burden of paying for the privatised railway network shift towards the passenger. For three years from 2012 the price of unregulated fares will increase per year by a factor of RPI (a measure of inflation) plus 3%. This is after many years in which the formula was set at RPI+1%.

There are a number of reasons for this fare rise that I am confident that play a role in this decision. Obviously, the first is to reduce the government’s funding of the railway. If fares go up, the Train Operating Companies will earn more money, reducing the government’s need to subsidise their profits. In addition, if more money was coming into the Train Operating Companies’ coffers, Network Rail, also funded by the government, could put up the rail access charges. Thus, they in turn would earn more money, also reducing the financial burden on the public purse. Therefore, the cockamamie way that our railway industry is structured, in that the government essentially pays the private companies to run the trains, but also funds the infrastructure, is a factor in the price rise.

The second reason for the price rises is Philip Hammond, the Secretary of State for Transport, who is universally known for being pro-car, and who I suspect simply sees rail investment as a waste of money. Indeed, while in opposition he stated that road transport was the only thing that could ‘kick-start’ economic growth regionally, and, more damningly, that the railway was soaking “up ever-larger volumes of taxpayer's money” and was a “bottomless pit for public finance.” (See my earlier post on Hammond's pre-election Pro-car, anti-rail parliamentary activities HERE.) After all, through Network Rail, the railways cost the Government a lot of money through renewing rolling stock and investments in infrastructure. Therefore, on entering his post as Secretary of State for Transport, Hammond already had a view that roads were a preferable means of travel, and that railways cost too much. As such, I feel it is unlikely that his attitude has not played a role in trying to reduce the financial burden of the railways on the Department for Transport (DfT).

Considering these factors, I believe that there is a third reason for the fair rise that cannot be divulged to the public. In short, Hammond and the Government don’t want you to use the railways. Rail usage has risen considerably over the last decade, and is still predicted to increase further over the next. However, to accommodate this more investment will be required in infrastructure and rolling stock. But, with the new economic environment, and the attitudes of the Secretary of State for Transport, they’d rather not have to do this.

Thus, I suspect that the DfT may have a secret policy of effectively pricing people off the railways which would reduce the need for further expenditure in the long-term. Indeed, many commentators have commented that the RPI+3% will actually mean fewer people will use the railways. Travellers would be forced onto the roads, where, while congestion is still a problem, modification and maintenance of the infrastructure would be far cheaper for the DfT. Indeed, it is not surprising that in the CSR road projects received much more support numerically that rail ones.

Of course, it is quite possible that within the Department for Transport this is not a stated policy. All I am intimating is that if the fare rises are seen through a prism of the future infrastructure investment that will be required, Hammond’s view of rail transport and given the structure of the industry, it is possible that the DfT is secretly trying engineer how we travel through price rises to reduce their long-term costs.

Don't Mess with Revenue Protection...A Norwich Tale

This weekend I winged my way to Norwich by train to see my friends, Matt and Alina. Fun was had by attending a fireworks party, at which I met some lovely people; a pub, which is simply the best that I have ever frequented (The Fat Cat – really, look it up); and a Sci-Fi convention, at which I didn't feel completely at ease, but at least with my background in beer festivals and model railway exhibitions, I did not feel greatly unnerved amongst those who have specialist (and in some cases esoteric) interests.

Either side of this magnificent weekend were two journeys by train which were reflectively uneventful. However, what I realised on the outward journey, were the problems that ticket inspectors, sorry, 'Revenue Protection Officers,' (RPO) have to deal with. I'm not talking about the major incidents, I reckon they are pretty rare. No, I'm talking about the low-intensity conflicts they have with passengers who try and bend the rules. I don't know how many times a day RPOs hear ticket-based excuses, but they must hear some that could even stretch the phrase 'tall tale' to breaking point.

For my example I will recount the tale of the RPO on my journey from London Liverpool Street to Norwich. I boarded the National Express East Anglia train, which seemed to have last had a refurbishment in the 1990s, and settled down at a table seat. The thing about being a PhD student is that every mindless moment, however short, allows PhD type thoughts to slip in. Therefore, being at a table on a train is pure bliss, especially as I had no one opposite me (perfect for leg-stretching) and no one next to me (perfect for bag placing), and I could get my laptop out without bothering anyone.

Over the aisle from me, and a little way up, a woman settled down in her seat. Also, just behind me, another group of individuals were bedding in at a table. I presume they were students from their general demeanour and age. These people were a nuisance, simply because of what happened about an hour into the 1 hour 52 minute journey. The rallying call to attention for all of them was “tickets please.”

The woman just up from me was reached by the RPO first. She had conveniently forgotten that she couldn't buy Young Persons tickets without possessing a Young Person's Railcard. With no truth in her voice, she stated confidently “well, the ticket machine said 16 to 25 and I thought that meant that you received an automatic discount if you were between...” She was cut off. The revenue protection officer wasn't buying it, and he explained the situation to her. She'd have to pay the excess charge to make the price of the ticket up to a full single.

It was at this point that she again proclaimed that she didn't understand. I suspect this was a stalling method, and the RPO again explained the concept of a railcard to her. After much 'umming' and 'arring' by the woman, the officer lost his rag, but only slightly. “Look” he said with some force, “you have two options. I can let you pay the excess charge, which I shouldn't really do, or, you can pay the full fare of £52.” Faced with this choice, the woman relented, and still mumbled as the RPO moved on.

I produced my ticket, as did a handful of others, and the RPO reached the table behind me. He checked one person's ticket, fine, then another's, and then....oh dear. I heard “can I have your Young Person's Railcard please?” I don't know why it made me laugh inside, but I thought it highly amusing when the last of the group proclaimed “I have a photocopy.” What a pathetic gesture. He had obviously lost his Young Person's Railcard, but was now hoping that he could get away without having one with him.

This, naturally, was not good enough. “Sorry sir” said the RPO, “I will need to see the physical thing.” Because there was some, albeit weak, evidence that a Young Person's Railcard existed, a debate ensued based on this premise. “But why” another of the group proclaimed, “would my friend have a photocopy if he didn't actually have one at home.” The RPO drew himself up and made the very logical argument that anyone could use a computer to doctor an image of a railcard. The response did not have any logic to it. “Yea but is that realistic?” A stupid question, and the RPO said as much. He stated that it had been done in the past, and if they didn't insist on the physical railcard every time, people could potentially get away without paying millions pounds in fares.

Again, this did not satisfy the group, and with a supreme amount of naiveté, one of the culprit's companions piped up, “yea, but we're honest, do we look like criminals?” This was the point at which, for the second time, the RPO gave an ultimatum. “Pay the excess, or the £52, it is up to you.” He also threw in the argument that he couldn't apply one rule for “that person down there” and not enforce it for others. He did, however, throw this chap a bone. If he took the ticket, receipt and the physical railcard to a ticket office, he may be able to get the money back. There were no guarantees though. Naturally, the offender paid up, and after the RPO had left a in depth analysis of the exchange occurred at the table.

The moral of this story is this; RPOs are very jaded to false excuses and the lengths people will go to get round the system, because they deal with cases like the ones cited multiple times a day. As such, it is no point trying to dodge their scrutiny, because, quite clearly, anything you say won't get you out of sticky situations. However, this state of affairs isn't the RPO's fault. Nor is it the fault of those of us who genuinely make mistakes. Rather, it is the fault of all those who try and dodge the system and try to take it for a ride. They are the ones that have ground down any sympathy RPOs may have had...

No Plan and lots of Groping - Rail Policy so far under the Coalition

So, at the moment the Department for Transport (DfT) isn’t really sure what it is doing with regard to investing in important rail projects. Well, that is my impression. On Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, stood up in the House of Commons and outlined a many of the department’s plans regarding transport. The railways did not, sadly, receive top-billing. Indeed, the majority of the projects that were announced were concerning investment in the road network.

In four categories, Hammond outlined the level of commitment the government had to various projects. Firstly, those investments that were cast in stone were upgrades to sections of the M1, M60, M6 and M25, as well as 12 other road projects. Yet, languishing in the second tier of projects, which are subject to ‘a best and final submission,’ were the extension to Midland Metro and a new southern entrance to Leeds station. These were guaranteed provisionally, but not with certainty. In a third tier of works, were the Leeds Rail Growth Project, the Rochdale Interchange and new vehicles for Sheffield Supertram. These will have to fight out with other road projects for a share of a £600 million pot of money. Lastly, there were another group of projects that are in a ‘pre-evaluation’ group, such as the Croxly Rail Link (linking the Metropolitan line to Watford Junction). These will be subject to further review.

And everyone went “hmm,” stroked their chins and exclaimed “hang on a minute.” Many planned large railway projects, which did not get a mention in last week’s Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), were also absent from Hammond’s announcement. The CSR did vaguely outline some funding of big projects, such as Crossrail, the second High Speed Line and Network Rail’s Station Improvement program. However, in the CSR and Hammond’s announcement we did not hear a peep regarding the Intercity Express Programme (IEP), which was to deliver replacements for aging high speed rolling stock; nor was there a croak about the electrification of the Great Western and Midland Main Lines; neither was there any announcement regarding new rolling stock for Thameslink. This was like Hammond saying that everything was fine, when all the while everyone is looking at the house behind him that was on fire. We all could see as plain as day what he was leaving out. Indeed, all he did say about the IEP, in response to a question, was that it was under review.

What this all amounts to, is that investment in Britain’s railways under the coalition is still very uncertain. Firstly, while many projects were confirmed in the CSR, there is no way to know whether they will be developed in line with their planned formats as the announcement was vague. Additionally, this status can also be applied to Hammond’s second tier of project’s that are ‘subject to a best and final submission.’ Further, other large projects that were planned are nowhere to be seen. Lastly, there is no certainty regarding many smaller projects that will have to vie for money.

I would suggest this is because the DfT doesn’t know where they want to go with regard to railway infrastructure projects and investment. Take for example the IEP. This major investment has been mulled over since Sir Andrew Foster’s report on it in July. But, there is another factor that is in play. The progression of the IEP would be heavily dependent on the electrification of the Great Western and Midland Main Lines, and vice versa. This is because the new trains will have to run under the newly electrified lines. Therefore, to cancel one project would imperil the other because they are interlinked. As such, the DfT have to consider the two projects together; but this means that it will take longer to decide on whether they go ahead as planned or in an altered format. Additionally, consider the number of rail projects that are not confirmed, but are still in the ‘provisional’ categories listed above. This evidences a lack of conviction regarding rail investment within the Department, as they are still open to review. HS2 is also not a certainty, as technically we are still in the planning phase and the actual work on the line would not start until after the next election. Thus, as it stands, after 6 months the coalition still has no firm commitments to rail investment.

Overall, it strikes me that the DfT has very little direction regarding investment in major projects on the railways. But this is a severe problem. Railways are different from roads, in that they require vast amounts of planning to make investments because of the high capital costs and the technology involved. Thus, Hammond and the DfT quickly need to develop a plan for major capital projects on Britain’s railway network, that moves them beyond such vague terms as ‘growth’ and ‘efficiency.’ It needs to be long-term and must encompass the wants and desires of all those that demand a modern rail network. Without a plan, they will be groping their way forward for the next 5 years, making one ad hoc decision after the other. This has the potential to lead to erroneous investment, poor management decisions and ultimately higher costs for the taxpayer and the travelling public. This has been a problem for the railways in the past, and it can’t happen again.

Increased Fares Means Increased Transport Poverty

While tackling the deficit, the coalition government has also wedded itself to the idea of decreasing the divide between rich and poor and increasing social mobility. Yesterday, on the 100 day anniversary of the coalition partnership, Nick Clegg said, "Our determination to fix the deficit is matched by our determination to create a more socially mobile society." Yet, the government still aspires to do this on the backdrop of savage cuts in every area from health to defence. While I am sure that they understand the inherent contradiction in trying to improve the lives of Britain’s poorest, while at the same time cutting their benefits and employment opportunities, I don’t think, with the level of cuts proposed, it can be done.

I am not alone though and the coalition’s proposed policies have been frequently attacked from the left, right and all those in between. There is an increasing body of comment and detailed statistical analysis in the blogosphere and elsewhere, that shows that if anything the proposed cuts will only serve to increase divisions in Britain between rich and poor. Kevin Meagher at Left Foot Forward recently quoted Danny Dorling, professor of Human Geography at Sheffield University, as saying that “Britain is a country pulling itself apart” along a North-South rich-poor divide (To be found HERE)Meagher went on to argue that the removal of Regional Development Agencies and their replacement with Local Economic Partnerships, will only exacerbate this divide as the latter will not have the scope because of their smaller sze to make an impact on the national economic imbalance. Indeed, he again quotes Dorling as saying that “The recession is exacerbating those [existing] differences and I suspect the dividing line will also move southwards as the government’s cuts take effect.”

Additionally, the TUC released yesterday a list that showed that cuts in education, health, housing, welfare and social care have the greatest impact on the poorest in our society. The 100 cuts that they can be found HERE. Furthermore, cuts in government run organisations and local authorities will disproportionately affect people above the north-south divide, as in these regions government is the largest employer. Therefore, the result is that the inevitable redundancies may lower many individual’s and family’s standards of living, and may even force them into poverty. These two examples are simply a small portion of the attacks on the government’s claims of fairness. Overall, my assessment is that the coalition government cannot really talk about ‘fairness’ and ‘social mobility’ when it is demonstrably true that their policies so far will only serve to breed inequality.

So what does this have to do with the railways? I have always been an advocate of the idea that there is a concept of ‘transport poverty,’ a divide between richer and poorer travellers. Many people are simply priced out of rail travel, and choose to make their journeys solely by car, because of their financial positions. This, therefore, has the obvious negative effects on the environment and the congestion on the roads, but it also disproportionately affects the poorest in our society. It was for this reason that I was pleased to see that in the Lib Dem manifesto there was a commitment to lowing fares. This was, however, watered down in the coalition agreement to simply a promise of ‘fair rail pricing.’ While less direct than the original Lib Dem manifesto, I originally thought, in the context of my own beliefs of course, that ‘fair’ meant exactly what it said on the tin; reasonable prices for all, which would subsequently increase accessibility to the rail network.

We have since learnt from the Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, that ‘fair’ is a word that can be twisted to mean whatever you want it to do. At the House of Commons select committee on Transport, in response to the question ‘You are committed to fair pricing. Fair to whom?,’ he stated ‘I think there are two aspects on this. First of all, there is the question of overall fairness policy on the railway and ensuring that any increases in fares can be justified in terms of improvements in the service that passengers receive. [....] It is not just about fares; it is about value for money for passengers. [...] It is about making sure that [passengers] are given proper information about the most advantageous fare available to them, that the information that is published is clear so that passengers can get the best deal that is possible within any given framework of any given fare structure.’ So basically, the coalition meant that prices would be ‘fair’ within the existing pricing framework. But then again, prices are not ‘fair’ if large numbers of people won’t use the railways because of the pricing structure, if the prices are some of the highest in Europe (in some places 60% higher) and if rail travel is therefore reserved for the better off half off society.

But rail prices, I suspect, are about to become more unfair. In years past the Train Operating Companies (TOC) have been allowed to raise ticket prices by the retail Price Index (now at 4.8%) plus 1%, a total of 5.8% this year. But it has been reported this week (To be found HERE) that in an attempt to reduce the £5 billion annual subsidy the Department for Transport (DfT) gives to the TOC’s, it may be ready to break this rule and allow the companies to increase the ticket prices by up to a possible 10%.

I think that this is a severe mistake for a number of reasons. If prices did rise by this much, a greater proportion of the population would be priced out of using rail travel. This would put greater pressure on the road and motorway network, increasing congestion on both long-distance and suburban routes. With increased car journeys being made this would, of course, be detrimental to the environment. The other possible implication could be that individuals would be more inclined to search for work in their locale, rather than further afield, because they would be unwilling to pay the higher train fares on long-distance journeys. Thus, this would also affect their economic situation. Lastly, it would increase the hardship on people who cannot, or do not, drive for whatever reason and who have no option to use the railways for work or leisure.

But, I do feel strongly that there are other ways to keep the level of the subsidy to the TOCs constant, while at the same time maintaining (or reducing) current fare levels. It is no secret that Network Rail, one of the biggest draws on the Department for Transport’s finances, is terribly managed. Figures put the cost of maintaining Britain’s railway infrastructure at 30-50% above continental networks. Yet if the management was improved, efficiencies made and the organisation was streamlined, then some of that saved money could be used to keep the cost of fares down and keep the subsidy at the current level. This would increase access to rail transportation and reduce ‘transport poverty.’

Given the Government's track record on fairness so far, I’m afraid all I can foresee is that the fares will go up as reported. However, this will only serve to increase the numbers of people who won’t pay the extortionately high price of railway travel, increasing the ‘transport poverty’ divide.

The Evasive Philip Hammond

I think I should keep returning to criticism of our new Secretary of State for Transport because at the moment I see little sign that he has anything pro-rail to say. Now of course this is because I am pro-rail and want him to do positive things for the rail industry. Truth be told, I can’t drive, so my view is naturally going to be skewed by my self-interest and I can’t expect every Secretary of State to naturally take the position that I want. This said, Philip Hammond has repeatedly shown himself to be ignorant of rail issues. Christian Wolmar, Britain’s most noted Railway commentator, recently did an interview with Hammond for RAIL magazine and came out with the conclusion that he was a man that saw everything through a car-shaped prism (RAIL 647 pp.44). Indeed, my own Blog entry of the 11th June showed that Hammond has a history of being a pro-car voice in parliament. Therefore, while I do suffer from an obvious bias in my perspective, I think that it is vitally important that railway commentators, journalists and anyone else with an outlet, criticises him and his policies so that he understands that the railways of Britain are not just an expense which has parts that can be cut, chopped and disposed of willy-nilly.

A few days ago I came across comments he gave to the Transport Select Committee on the 26th of July. His appearance in front of the committee was a good thing as it showed us how competent he was with his new responsibilities two and a half month in. I started to read the comments with an open mind, and I suppose I can’t be too harsh when critiquing his development. Before new government was formed he had never held a shadow transport brief and therefore his learning curve was naturally going to be steeper than other individuals who could have taken the job. This said, he does have the full resources of the Department for Transport, and serving under him are the former Liberal Democrat and Conservative shadow transport secretaries. So, it isn’t like he didn’t have any help, and he should, by now, be up to speed on the major and important issues facing the railway industry. I have to be honest; the man just came off as vague and evasive. This was shown particularly in reference to the questions he received regarding the rail industry.

Early in committee the chair asked Hammond ‘One of the commitments [in the coalition agreement] is, "We are committed to fair pricing for rail travel." It is a bit vague, is it not?’ Hammond replied that the government was facing a huge public deficit (yes we know that) and that ‘it is clear that we have to be prepared to look at all possible options in addressing the challenges of tackling fiscal deficit and also sustaining investment in our railways because it is clear that there are important investments in the railway, including investments that are directed at improving passenger comfort and passenger convenience, that it would be very unfortunate if we were to lose...’

So basically Hammond answered the question by not answering the question. So the questioner had another crack at him. ‘Q7 Chair: ....You are committed to fair pricing. Fair to whom?’ Again Philip Hammond did his best to avoid answering the question directly. ‘I think there are two aspects on this. First of all, there is the question of overall fairness policy on the railway and ensuring that any increases in fares can be justified in terms of improvements in the service that passengers receive. [....] It is not just about fares; it is about value for money for passengers. [...] It is about making sure that [passengers] are given proper information about the most advantageous fare available to them, that the information that is published is clear so that passengers can get the best deal that is possible within any given framework of any given fare structure.’ This is ridiculous. He is not only did not answer the question again, but he is also confusing quality of service with fairness.

Indeed, in the context of his recent RAIL magazine conference keynote speech, I think that he was avoiding the question because he has little intention of making rail prices ‘fair.’ He said that “we will face some stark choices, and it would be irresponsible at this point to rule out even considering an increased contribution from the fare payer as part of the solution to protecting investment in the railways.” If we consider that at the moment a large section of the population are priced out of using rail transportation because of the cost, and that the prices currently can in no way be considered ‘fair,’ then it seems that prices can only become more unfair. In the mind of the Hammond, putting fares up is all that can be done with them. Indeed, I think that the concept of ‘fair’ in the conventional sense does not seem to register with him. This was essentially because it was part of the Liberal Democrat manifesto to introduce ‘fair’ rail pricing, and hence why it made into the coalition agreement. For him, a dyed in the wool Conservative, fairness is not the underlying principal, the bottom line is. As such, Hammond avoided the committee’s question as he knows that it is a commitment that it is untenable to maintain. If only he’d have come out and said “yes, sorry, that one was the Lib Dems sticking their awe in…forget it,” then I might have had a bit of respect for him.

He was then asked about the cuts that would inevitably come, ‘The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills said last week that the UK needs to spend £42 billion per annum on infrastructure investment, including transport. How is that going to be achieved in current circumstances?’ Philip Hammond again didn’t answer the question effectively. He stated that there would be no reduction in any capital expenditure that had been pencilled in by the Labour Government. Yet, I think the word ‘pencilled’ is very telling. Combine this with the lack of specifics and there is a case for saying that he did not answer the question in full, again, because he knows that he cannot actually commit to cancelling projects that this point. This is another case where I’d really just appreciate some honesty from the man, yet, he says he will be keeping the investment. In no world is that really a reality and most rail commentators have pointed out the department will have to make cuts in capital expenditure.

Of course there is one area where costs could be reduced effectively, namely at Network Rail. NR does cost between 30 and 50 present more in maintenance per mile than continental railways, and Roy McNulty will report on how the not-for-profit organisation operates and can reduce the debt. At the RAIL conference Hammond said that he had received a ‘scoping study report from Sir Roy. I suspect that this gave him a number of preliminary conclusions about the state of NR’s finances. Yet, at the both the conference and in front of the committee he couldn’t give a cogent response to question as to where the NR may be scaled back. In fact there were no specifics. I’ll just post all of his response to the question here, so that you can get the full force of his evasion.

Q24: “Just thinking on my feet, it is not something that has been talked about actively in the department in the time that I have been there…Clearly, because of what I have already said about the way we will, in every day working terms, think about Network Rail’s debt, we will not be able to take the attitude that the previous administration did to ever rising Network Rail debt. We will have to look again at how we finance the capital investment in the railways. The mere fact that it may be borrowing by Network Rail does not mean we can ignore it. We will want to look at that as capital spending in the same way that we would if it was financed by public capital investment directly. That will mean that we need to look at the model once we have Sir Roy McNulty’s conclusions and hopefully have come to some conclusions before we begin the negotiations around the next control period, control period five.”

Did you read any ideas within that? No, I didn’t either. I find it hard to believe that a man who has been doing the job for nearly three months has no ideas whatsoever about where NR could make savings. I suspect that he is avoiding answering the question of where NR will have to cut back because to do so would reveal changes he wants to introduce that may actually go against the coalition and which would break promises. Either that or he is out of the loop to the point of incompetence.

You can read all of Hammond’s responses to questions HERE, but I suspect it won’t get you far because he never gives an informed response to a question regarding Britain’s railways.The reality is that he hasn't had that decency to tell the travelling public what he is really keen to do, put up fares and cut back services. He comes across as a man who is evasive but has an agenda that he is not keen to reveal. That, I’m afraid, is simply not good enough!

Philip Hammond's full keynote speech at the RAIL conference can be read in the latest issue of RAIL Magazine pp. 34-37.

Ticket Machines - Some people's thoughts....

On Wednesday it was plastered all over the news that ticket machines aren’t really that user friendly and as a result a third of queues at ticket offices had waiting times longer that the ‘industry standard’ of five minutes at peak times. This research was undertaken by Passenger Focus, an organisation that was set up to defend the rights of rail users, but who in reality are only listened to by the media. The Association of Train Operating Companies, Network Rail and anyone else in the industry rarely, if ever, take any notice of them. Now I could rant about ticket machines for ages, but in reality I have nothing to complain about. In all honesty I do not find them that confusing, but I acknowledge that it might just being a case of being well-versed in their operation to the point whereby it is second nature. My only gripe is when the touch-screens don’t work and I find myself repeatedly beating my finger against them like someone who needs a ticket to Narnia, but can’t find it. This said, I am also aware that my case is exceptional and many others do have problems.

Rather than discuss the results of the survey, which I felt was a highly imperfect one, I felt it would be far more interesting to get some views and experiences from my friends on the subject of ticket machines. Thus, I posted the BBC website’s article on Facebook and requested people’s opinions. However, what happened was that the discussion that started trailing off into lots of discussion about the quality of the railways generally and the various run-ins that a few of my friends have had with railway officials. Yet from amongst these I received some interesting comments.

Sarah said that she was “always paying over the odds” because she was “thick!” I think not Sarah. If anything has come out of the survey it is that ticket machines are confusing and sometimes do not show the cheapest price. However, this is what they are legally obliged to do. Simon followed this by saying that “I've picked up some very cheap tickets from the ticket office as opposed to the machines.” Therefore, as limited as this evidence is, my friends confirm that occasionally the ticket machines overprice which it seems from all prior pieces of evidence is not a new phenomenon.

But then again, Adrian recounted a story in which he was offered a ticket at the ticket office, as opposed to the machine which he was unable to use.

“I normally buy off-peak returns to Manchester Piccadilly from Thames Ditton or Surbiton, which allow me to make the inward journey at any time within a month. This, with my 16-25 railcard, costs me £45.60. When approaching a ticket kiosk the member of staff offered me a return for somewhere in the region of £120, even though the machine offered me my usual £45 snatch minutes earlier (but it wouldn't take my card). I even had an old ticket for a previous journey, which I showed him, and he paused, shrugged and said that £120 something was the price he was being shown. I then persuaded him to sell me a travelcard. This way I travelled to Euston and bought my usual £45 ticket from there.”

Therefore, it seems that there is not just a problem of ticket pricing at machines or at the offices, there is a very real problem somewhere in the software. If machines and offices are out of sync with each other this amounts to a form of corruption. Indeed, unless people are willing to check both the machine and the office prices, then this put the railway companies’ operatives in a position of power. Who has the correct knowledge, or time in this case, to be able to question what prices are presented to them? Very people I’m sure. Therefore, the companies can effectively stop people from receiving the cheapest prices. They might try to deny they do this, but the evidence is plain to see in the cases recounted by my friends and others.

Only Simon talked about the actual quality of the interaction with the machines. While in no way representative of the nation’s experiences, the lack of commentary on how user-friendly they ticket machines were in the discussion I started, possibly shows that the quality of this interaction is secondary to people’s concerns over receiving the correct and cheapest price. Simon said:

“I think the machines operated by South West Trains are okay. It's Southern's that are rubbish! You don't seem to be able to buy multiple tickets of a single type. However, Southern do provide Oyster services which SWT do not.”

In my own experience I have found that the difference between different companies’ ticket machines can make a very real difference in the quality of the buying experience. I agree with Simon that SWT’s ticket machines are okay, but they could be improved. The only other experience that comes to mind is East Coast’s machines which are very user friendly. I think, however, the report that Passenger Focus presented is quite poor because it was not a complete survey of ticket machine services across the nation. PF only looked at the machines operated by four companies (South West Trains, First Great Western, East Midlands Trains and SouthEastern). This is no way to run a survey and what is required is more data from which to draw conclusions. Indeed, if the Association of Train Operating Companies’ (ATOC) own figures show that ticket machine users are satisfied 7 out of 10 times, then there seems to be a discrepancy that can only put down to regional variations that haven’t been accounted for in PF’s work (even if ATOC’s figures can also be considered dubious).

Overall, I think that the process of purchasing tickets by all means, from machines, offices or online, needs to be looked at more carefully and using far better research. Perhaps there should be a standard machine or software? Or what about a poster with the prices of the most used tickets at each station? Of course, with such a fractured industry this is unlikely to happen. I think first we need to get the prices altered…oh dear, well, that’s another problem!

'Big Society' and the railways...any options?

I was thinking how under David Cameron’s idea of a ‘Big Society’ (BS) the railways could be included. The only reason I was putting my mind to this was because in his launch speech mentioned transport as an area where volunteers could play a role. So I tried really hard to think how BS could be applied to the railways by screwing up my eyes and thinking with all my might; but, alas, little came forth and in total I only came up with one idea. I think that the reason I had a lack of ideas is because the railway industry is almost impenetrable for volunteers as there are a number of factors in the way.

This said, I’m sure that the Train Operating Companies would be more than willing to take on some volunteer ticket collectors. Oh, excuse me, I meant ‘Revenue Protection Officers’ (Thinks: “Protect the revenue men, it’s being attacked”). Or what about volunteer carriage cleaners, office staff or even drivers. There must be a veritable cornucopia of volunteering opportunities for the public. Alas, it will never happen. Firstly, quite rightfully the unions would kick up a fuss. They’d complain about an influx of volunteers taking over their members jobs, reducing safety and the general annoyance of having less than knowledgeable members of the public getting in their way. Indeed, I think the latter may be a particular problem when you think of the number of people who will want volunteer on the railway by simple virtue of the fact that they are interested in the industry and its history.

The second problem with introducing BS to the railways is that the TOCs operate across county and borough borders. Therefore if we take my local outfit, South West Trains (SWT), they operate in such diverse places as Greater London, Surrey, Hampshire, Berkshire, Dorset, Devon and West Sussex. Now if we expect all the ‘big society’ volunteers to group together across this wide area then that’s fine, I’m all for that. But someone is going to have to pay for it to be organised and the individuals to be transported, and that isn’t going to be Cameron, because he hasn’t any money and I suspect that the whole BS thing is to reduce cost. But let me get off my political hobby-horse and get on my railway one.

So what is my big idea for BS? How can I dodge the bullet of not annoying the unions while at the same time keeping things cheap and local? Some time ago on my last blog (which if you can find it it’d be a miracle, because I can’t) I wrote that local stations are things that communities can help improve. Of the railway infrastructure the public interact with two elements the most, the trains themselves and the stations. Now the trains are a ‘young’ piece of railway kit and unless you are lucky most rolling stock on the network today will be only up to 25 years old. It is also incredibly hard to get attached to a moving electric carriage which, at the end of the day for the general public, is really just boredom in railway form.

So that only leaves the station. The station is not just a replaceable piece of kit. In many places all around Britain (and indeed throughout the world) some railways stations are very old and part of the fabric of the local town or village. Take for example my local station Hampton Court. Built in 1849, it is now coming up to the ripe old age of 172 years old. It was designed by William Tite who was one of the most noted architects of the 19^th in a style that was to match Hampton Court Palace. It is a magnificent building. However, years of neglect mean that it now looks like a disaster; boarded up windows, a skip outside and a funny smell lingers if you catch it on the right day. Thus, it is now a shadow of its former self.

It was Hampton Court that got my mind racing. The station is part of the fabric of any local community, and in some places is its main exit or entrance. Therefore, what if communities looked after and maintained the superficial fabric of their stations? Indeed, if Cameron really wants people to adopt BS then getting a number of them to ‘adopt’ a local railway station could actually be a useful and productive thing. Further, moves of this nature may have other longer-term benefits.

Firstly, it would generally improve the travelling experience for the general public. Nobody wants to turn up to start their journey at an unkempt grotty little station. In the old days (a dubious phrase at the best of times), nobody would. Even the smallest stations would be well turned out with wooden seats, flowerbeds, plant pots and regular painting. Since the 1960s, perhaps even since the 1950s, this standard has not been maintained anywhere but at odd little stations. But just think of the possibilities under BS. Imagine what it would be like to turn up at a station and be greeted by not just by the usual corporate décor, but by an environment which has been tended to by the local residents and reflects their community. The station would truly become the exit or entrance to a community because it would be the first thing visitors would see. This would also, I presume, reduce maintenance costs for the TOCs, reducing the burden on the taxpayer and therefore David Cameron will be satisfied because let’s face it that’s what BS is all about. (A side note: I really wish Cameron would just be honest with us and admit BS is all about cost-cutting, we’re not children!) Initiatives like this also wouldn’t attack union members’ jobs, as in many cases they maintain the superficial aspects of their stations on a voluntary basis anyway through sheer devotion (something truly admirable where it happens).

Secondly, I think that initiatives like this would bring the opportunity to re-establish a long-gone link between the railway staff and the railway users. While I think that in the past the relationship between railway employees and the communities they served was never as strong as collective memory would have us believe; I still think it was 10 times stronger than it is now. I have got sick to death of being treated like a sheep to be herded, which in turn forces me to see railway staff simply as shepherds. Of course there are rare cases where this isn’t the case. Recently a member of staff at Teddington station, Alan Hopgood, got an MBE for his devotion to the travelling public. But this is a unique example. Therefore, I think that if volunteers worked at stations it would create a better bond between the public and the staff which would increase understanding, improve relations and build mutual respect.

Lastly, it may also increase the numbers of people using the railways. If we are to take the above points into consideration, personal investment in the wellbeing of the station and a reconnection with the staff, it may incline more people to use the railway because they will have greater understanding and connections with it. Additionally, growing passenger numbers are always good, as they would increase the revenue for the TOCs and reduce the cost of running the railways. Again, this what I think BS is all about.

There is one problem to all this. What I have presented above is a rosy view of what could be done. There is still the TOCs to get round. Would they really want people clambering all over their stations? Possibly not. I suppose at the end of the day it depends on the ethos of the company concerned. South West Trains I doubt would want anyone ‘alien’ near their operations as their only goal is to have an easy life and make money. Additionally, health and safety legislation and bureaucracy would be a barrier and a deterrent to people getting involved. While I am a fervent advocate for H&S, I do feel that things do need to be simplified at times. Lastly, there is the issue that Cameron has brushed aside but is probably the most important; namely, the numbers of people that could be encouraged to help out. I suppose there are some obvious choices, residents associations, social clubs or even model railway clubs. But at the end of the day do these people really have the time? Well, we’ll see.

On a personal note, I would love to help maintain Hampton Court station, but I too have no time at the moment (and here I am writing a blog). I think that all I have described above is wishful thinking, something I feel is true of the whole BS project. There is one condition though if BS will win my support. You know those ‘community pubs’ Cameron talks about? If any group wants to set one up in the top of Hampton Court Station, I’m in. (NOTE: It must serve at least 5 real ales).