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.

What will happen on the railways in the next 5 years...some musings

Ah, so all the budgets of all government departments are going to be cut by 25%. Well, all the budgets except the ministry of health and international development. This is therefore going to be a scary time for the railway industry, especially as they take up the majority of the Department for Transport's (DfT) expenditure. I honestly, do not think that any idea, project or whim will escape the axeman's wrath. Nor do I think that the existing rail network will be immune. In short, start screaming now. I will now attempt to rationalise what is going to happen, or at least may happen.

1.Firstly, those projects which have already been stopped won't have any chance of being restarted soon. Even under the previous Labour Government some things had been kicked out of the park. For example, the Intercity Express Project, that was designed to replace Britain's ageing HSTs and Intercity 225s, was put on hold by Lord Adonis. But the new Government has already cut schemes such as Network Rail's 'Better Stations Project' that was going to improve some of Britain's most passenger-unfriendly stations. Lastly, as I discussed in an earlier Blog post, over 700 new carriages are not going to appear. The overall theme therefore is that comfort on rail journeys is not an important thing in the new era of fiscal tightening. You are going to be squeezed, pushed and jostled on your journey. In a way I don't mind so much, I have to say I expected this. Is comfort really the most necessary thing when everyone in the country is having to pitch in to reclaim the debt? In truth, I don't thinks so, but I just really wish it wasn't happening.

2.The raising of fares will also be on the agenda...naturally. While I think a lot of people will jump to blame the new government, but then I'm not unfair. I should point out that increasing the price of tickets actually was on the cards under Labour. They wanted to reduce the amount of money that they paid to the Train Operating Companies (TOC), who in turn would have to put up the train fares to make up the funding shortfall. My only concern now is that with the DfT turning increasingly pro-road under Philip Hammond, they will allow a much more fervent rise in fares that may price people out of rail travel even further. This, however, in a way makes sense, especially given what I said above. If there is less space on the trains, a few less passengers would probably make my journey less stressful. This said, I'm not happy about it. Nothing should ever be done to discourage the public to use the trains.

3.So what of the big capital projects. Well, of course there is Britain's second High Speed Line (HS2), which was to link London with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds through new whizzy trains. I have to be honest, I don't think this'll happen. Firstly, it's just WAY WAY WAY too expensive. Simple. But more to the point, with the cost being roughly £34 billion, and with a 25% cut in the amount of money available to the DfT, I am convinced that that the cash will be needed to maintain the existing network. Further, when I think of the way that the project was talked about before the election, in that the issue was sustained by the fact that no party wanted to pull their support for it, I think that the government will realise that that it was a political marketing stunt and as such it will loose its importance. With the new coalition, I suspect, it will get quietly dropped. On top of this, I suspect that the electrification of the Great Western Main Line will be dropped...again quietly. All in all I feel the message for the railway industry in the next 5 years will be to make the best out of the country's existing infrastructure.

4.Lastly, I think that the government will be much more cautious about renewing franchise agreements. On the 18th June the DfT put all franchise renewals on hold and extended the length of time that the East Coast franchise would remain in public hands. Some part of me thinks that this move is a precedent and that the DfT has seen that renationalising franchises by stealth is the cheaper option. My hope is that over the next 20 years privatisation will fizzle out. Yea, this is whimsy. There's no chance. I just think they will take more time to formulate what they want from the franchise agreements, and then make them longer. This hasn't really been a bad thing, the Chiltern franchise, that is 20 years in duration, has been one of the consistently the best performing. Thus, I think that longer franchise agreements may actually be good for the traveller and will deliver better services. However, it may also mean that the DfT restricts the amount of money they put into the franchises and force the TOCs to put up fares and reduce the quality of the travelling experience. I think in the new anti-rail era, the latter is more likley.

For all my speculation what will actually happen is a mystery. However, if the railways are going to be cut in such a horrific way one thing does need to happen that I don't think has happened in a long time. The government, DfT and all involved need to ask themselves one crucial question...what do we want our railways to do? Yes...we need a strategy. At the moment they are simply being looked on as an expense, a position that I think that will become more prevalent under the Conservative government. The railways to state their purpose, to define their role within the nation, within the economy and within the public's lives. If we know what the railways are for, if we have a clear-sighted goal, then all those involved can work towards making it (whatever it is) a reality. At the moment the TOC's, NR, the DfT, simply do their job without any purpose. They spend their time fighting, maintaining the status quo and not really affecting real change. What we need is a concerted effort to make Britain's railways the best they can be, for everyone who lives here so that we can survive the cuts to come.

Goodbye Lord Adonis...You'll be missed

What will happen to the railways of this nation in the next five years? I don't know, who knows? The media certainly didn't talk about it throughout the election campaign. I think this is principally as one of the most expensive additions to the British railway network, the new high speed line to the north of the county, High Speed 2, was debated by the parties before the election date was even announced. Further, because the three major parties broadly agreed on how this line would be built there was no real need to highlight the small differences in each of their approaches. This said at an estimated cost of around 34 billion, 14 billion more than the Trident renewal cost, you'd think it'd at least be mentioned...once. (Ok, it probably was, I just must have missed it)While I am in no way a Labour supporter, one of my main irritations about the fact they are now out of government is that Lord Adonis, probably the man in the country who least lives up to his name, will have left the Department of Transport (DofT). I think that at the moment it is a shame he will not go down in British political history for his work at the DofT. Every time I hear his name mentioned on the news it is to regale us with tales of how he was one of the members of the Labour party negotiating team that tried establish a Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition, against the wishes of many in his party. This is, unfortunately, not what he should really be remembered for. After all, he was only trying to keep his party in power. What's more, it is likley that he will also be remembered as the man who erroneously grounded everyone under an ash-cloud when the Icelandic volcano blew its top. Again this is not really something he should be remembered for.

What Adonis should be remembered for is the many policies that he enacted and drove forward to improve this country's rail network. He took office as Minister for Transport in October 2008 under Geoff Hoon, and succeeded him as Secretary of State in June 2009. Hoon was pro-plane and pro-car in his approach, but largely ineffective. Yet Adonis felt that the 'green' transport policies were the future, and as such railways took centre stage. As such, Christian Wolmar stated in Rail Magazine that 'the new Transport Secretary has effected a complete revolution in the government’s handling of the railways.' (RAIL No. 624, August 11th 2009)

Firstly, and it has already been mentioned, he was the man that got the plans for building a new High Speed Line to the north off the ground. This was after years of political indecision and having the proposal firmly locked away in a filing cabinet. On Adonis' advice, the Government set up the the High Speed Two Ltd company in February in 2009 to look into the viability of the project. Adonis therefore brought the issue to the forefront of politics and this had the effect of forcing the other two major parties into developing their own policies regarding a high speed line. Subsequently, there was universal consensus in the election manifestos that the development of High Speed 2 is now an economic, social and environmental necessity. Therefore there is now a real hope that building work will start in the next parliament (even if the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives do disagree on the finer details). This said, the sad thing is that if it does succeed Adonis won't be at the helm to take any credit for getting this gargantuan project off the ground.

Further, Adonis set out in July 2009 a Government plan to electrify important lines that still are dependent on diesel traction. These included the Great Western main line to South Wales and the Liverpool to Manchester route. This would electrify 300 miles of railway, would give faster journey times, and provide travellers with a more pleasant journey. This last part is particularly relevant to me. Having recently completed two journeys on the Great Western mainlLine I can say that the juddery, jiggery and jumpy service was more than a little irritating at times, especially when trying to consume hot tea. While the plans were given a very negative reception in the mainstream media, the railway media and franchise holders for once had the same opinion, and applauded the vision that Adonis had shown. However, I think the electrification plans are less likely to be undertaken by the incoming government. It was a proposal that came from Adonis and his team, and not from business or the travellers. Therefore with him gone, electrification probably won't see the light of day for a long time. In addition, while relatively cheap compared to HS2 at 1.1 billion pounds, it was only projected to break even after 40 years. With a massive debt the Government are highly likely to side-line it based on this projection.

The last area where the loss of Adonis will be felt is in his support for the travelling public. He demonstrated frequently that for him the traveller came first. Mainly this ethos was expressed through the DofT's increasing influence over the companies running the franchises. Yes, Adonis was accused of micromanagement, but there are a number of cases where this was of very large benefit to the customers. Additionally, there were none that come to mind where it was not. Firstly, he beat South West Trains up (something that I am never unhappy about) regarding their plans to close ticket offices, reversing the decision. Secondly, as National Express East Coast's own money worries were beginning to hit the quality of the service, he told them that their game was up and stripped them of their franchise. As a result we now have the Government running East Coast as a not-for-profit company. I certainly have no complaints and to my mind the service has improved. Lastly, he conducted a rail tour round the country experiencing the delights of the British rail network. The joy at the end of it was that he complained about the fare prices and gave an ear-full to the Train Operating Companies (TOC). This was a man who frequently supported the rail user over the TOC's lust for profit.

There were of course mistakes, and the Intercity Express Programme (IEP) springs to mind. This was a project to replace all of Britain's ageing high speed trains, some of which are nearly 35 years old, at a cost of 7.5 billion. Yet, the plan was correctly put on hold in February this year after £20 million had been spent. The project's value for money was to be reviewed given the financial crisis. Yet, as I have stated before in my blog, it was better to spend 20 million erroneously, than waste 7.5 billion. I suspect, given the fact that Labour dropped the plan in February, that this project will not be revived. This is one case where I won't complain and for various reasons I am happy to see the back of it.

As I write there is no Secretary of State for Transport, the new government hasn't appointed one. Lord Adonis was a man who could see into the future. He envisioned a Britain where people used trains more than cars, where rail transportation was clean and comfortable, and where the rights of the rail user were above those of those of the TOCs. He saw that long-term rail policy is not something that interests a great many people, that the rail user is essentially concerned with those aspects of travel that confront them from day to day, such as fares, open ticket offices and quality of service. He addressed these things, yet at the same time realised that their were bigger issues that needed attention to make the railway industry a success, such as long term strategy, funding and the environment. He realised that the media and the public would not demand these changes, rather that the big initiatives needed to come from his office, from his mind. Therefore this is why I feel that in the last year and a half Britain probably had its best Secretary of State For Transport in a very long time (well, as far as the railways go). It is just a shame that his tenure is now cut short.

What, therefore, are the priorities for the new Secretary of State for Transport regarding Britain's railways? The important things are having vision and the protection of the interests of the traveller. It is not good enough for the new Secretary of State to simply accept the 'way things are.' He or she needs to push to make Britain's railways the best they can with ideas, confidence and having the railway user always in mind. Adonis' momentum needs to be continued, but I suspect it will not as it will be hard to better this exceptional Secretary of State for Transport. Goodbye Lord Adonis.

Why this was a big week for the rail industry

What with election fever and volcanoes, the fact that it has been a big week for the railway industry in Britain has largely been ignored by the media. I'm not talking about all those extra trains laid on by Eurostar to get people to and from Continent, nor the extra services put on by railway companies to move people around this country. I am instead talking about two pieces of news that may affect the humble traveller in the future. The first may leave you grinding your teeth, while the second may, depending on your perspective, leave you dancing for joy.

Arriva

On Thursday Deutsche Bahn, (DB) Germany's national rail operator and the world's second largest transport company, took over Arriva, who run buses and trains throughout the country. They did this for the not inconsequential fee of 1.59 billion. Of course the Daily Mail went wild, bemoaning the fact that yet another British Company was now owned by the evil foreigners. What also made the situation worse for the Mail was the fact that DB was a German company, the online headline being 'Now Britain's railways are taken over... by Germany.' Of course they handily forgot that Arriva themselves have engaged in overseas ventures, currently running trains and buses in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Portugal, The Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. But hey, the Mail only hates the global market place if British companies are threatened; if they are taking over companies elsewhere I suppose they see it through the prism of a new financial British Empire.

Another person that went mad, reputedly representing another interest group, was Bob Crow General Secretary of the 'Rail, Maritime and Transport Union' (RMT). Firstly, before I quote Bob, I'm going to give a warning. In the quote I will provide, it will refer to safety. But please, don't take it seriously. Anyway, are you ready? Bob said this was a "huge step in the wrong direction for rail workers and passengers". He also stated that "It should sound a warning that we're heading towards a dangerous monopoly of rail and bus services across Europe in which profit comes ahead of safety and service." There, now wasn't that fun. I think a more measured response, but equally unrealistic, came from the leader of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA), Gerry Doherty, who said: "If Germany believes railways should be run by the state in favour of the passenger, why don't we do the same here in Britain?" In short these union chiefs simply gave rabbit-fashion sound-bites, reverting to their default positions of attacking the usual suspects of privatisation and corporate empire building. While I am against both of these things, I think that the unions should provide constructive criticism so as to stimulate discussion and allow for debate, rather than reverting to the old positions that we know they are going take. In addition, I think these unions should try and cooperate more with the industry. At some point they have to get used to the fact that the franchise system isn't going away and will have to work better with it. But then, as we'll see later, one union is.

I think that the comments of the Mail and the unions should be ignored regarding DB's new acquisition (although a consistent policy of ignoring the Mail should be adopted). A more objective approach to the takeover should be taken, weighing up the pros and cons of what DB can give to the British rail industry. Firstly lets be clear, DB is already in out midst. Firstly they already own Chiltern Railways (from January 2008) as well as what was known as 'English, Welsh and Scottish Railways', Britain's largest freight haulier, now called DB Shenker. This therefore gives us, especially in the case of Chiltern Railways, a good benchmark as to the level of service we passengers can expect from the new owners.

Guess what, Chiltern is a pretty darn good company. Over the period of 10^th January to 6^th of February 2010 94.2% of all their trains arrived within 5 minutes of schedule, the fourth highest Train Operating Company (TOC) for performance. Further the company service very rarely has less than 95% of trains arriving outside of the 5 minute window in any measured period. In addition Chiltern was the first railway company to pilot e-ticketing, allowing customers to print off their ticket or have it sent to their phone as a bar-code which is then scanned at the station. Since April 5^th 2008 40,000 such tickets have been sold, significantly speeding up the time passengers spend waiting and queuing at stations, and improving their overall convenience. Further, on 14th December 2008, and in connection with Network Rail, the company opened a new station, Aylesbury Vale Parkway. This is a new terminus sited 2 miles north of Aylesbury, that reopened this part of the line. The company has also spent considerable money on improving and refurbishing their rolling stock.

Lastly, Chiltern agreed the Evergreen 3 project with Network Rail in January 2010. Firstly, this is to upgrade some Chiltern's main line, as well as doubling the line between Oxford and Bichester, allowing trains to run from Marylebone to Oxford direct. Secondly it will upgrade the Chiltern Main Line between Marylebone and Birmingham, that will allow 100 mph running, reducing journey times from 117 minutes to a mere 92. Overall, Network Rail say that their costs will be recovered by a 'facilities charge' that Chiltern will pay for the next 12 years (the charge to be taken over by whoever holds the franchise in 2022 when Chiltern's expires).

Chiltern also benefits from a longer franchise that most TOCs, and in 2002 the then owners signed a 20 year contract to run the service. This means that the company has been able to propose a raft of bold projects that will improve journey times, enhance the passenger experience of rail travel and make the company more efficient. A lot of the proposals that I am going to cite were initiated under the previous owners, Laing, however DB have not, to my knowledge, put a hold on any of them. Indeed many of them have been proposed after DB took over in January 2008.

In cooperation with Network Rail they have a range of improvements They want to lengthen platforms at South Ruislip, West Ruislip, Saunderton, Kings Sutton, Sudbury Hill Harrow, Sudbury and Harrow Road and Northolt Park to accommodate eight coach trains to improve capacity. They hope to add an extra track (to make the number up to four) between South Ruislip (Northolt Junction) and West Ruislip, double the line between Princes Risborough to Aylesbury and reopen the link between Oxford and Princes Risborough. In addition, their goal is to build an interchange at West Hampstead which would allow passengers to connect with London Overground, Jubilee Line, Metropolitan Line and First Capital Connect services. Further, they wish to re-open the line between Aylesbury to Bedford via Milton Keynes and the line from Oxford to Bedford. Lastly, and I do think this is a little 'pie in the sky,' they also want to extend Oyster Pay-as-you-go to Aylesbury and High Wycombe.

These are just some of the many ideas for improving the service that they have provided. I think whether you agree or disagree with the franchise system or corporate empire building, under DB Chiltern has consistently acted as we would wish a franchise holder to. They have attempted to improve the service for travellers by investing in the infrastructure, improving the rolling stock, running to time and making the traveller's journey more pleasant. Therefore Chiltern have become since 2002 an industry leader, acting as a benchmark against which all other companies are measured. DB's recent takeover of them has not affected this position and has even improved it. When DB acquired Chiltern in January 2008, they knew what an ambitious and forward thinking company they were getting, as well as the fact that they had a long-term franchise commitment. As such because Chiltern have continued with their ambitious plans and still generate new ones, I think that this must represent that DB also have an ethos of network, performance and service improvement.

Therefore, part of me is pleased that DB have acquired Arriva. It will expand the benchmarks against which those companies that do not perform well and which are driven by veracious profit motive, such as Stagecoach and National Express, can be measured. Further it will allow the passenger and service orientated ethos that Chiltern posses to spread to other parts of the British Railway industry. Lastly, and most importantly, we may see more investment, better trains and a better ride for our buck on Arriva owned TOCs.

East Coast

Earlier in my post I mentioned that I thought Bob Crow of the RMT and Gerry Doherty of the TSSA should try and work with the franchise system as it isn't going anywhere soon. The potential for unions to interact with the franchise system was given full expression on Monday when the Train Driver's union, The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF), announced that they were going to bid for the East Coast franchise that is currently run by the state after National Express had the franchise stripped from them. They will run it as a not-for-profit company, meaning that all the revenue could be re-invested in the service and potentially allowing the fares to be reduced.

Surprisingly, this news did not receive much coverage, probably the result of a big ash cloud. Indeed I had to be alerted to it by my friend Katie (thanks Katie). But this is very important news, and if ASLEF succeed in their goal then it may signal a change in the way that we start thinking about Britain's rail franchises. Firstly, as I have stated, we all have to get used to the fact that the franchise system isn't going away and that re-nationalisation is not on the cards. None of the three major parties have committed to it in their manifestos and with the massive national debt it would not feasible for the government to pay off the different Train Operating Companies and take over the services. Therefore ASLEF have shown us that their may be cooperative route to pseudo-nationalisation, that will reform the privatised network that will keep costs low, improve services and reduce fares. With sketchy information it is not clear how this proposal by ASLEF will pan out, but I feel that it is an exciting move.

Conclusion

Perhaps the events of this week, have signalled the start of the 'mature phase' of the privatised railway network, where an ethos of good service and dedication to customers can proliferate and where new ideas come to the fore. Perhaps, even, there may be a case for saying this is when the privatised network may even start to work, and maybe, at last, we can start again to have a railway network we can be proud of. But then again...we'll see.

The child who sits out games...the Tories and High Speed 2

Now I didn't think I could get away without mentioning a little announcement that came on Thursday regarding plans to build a second high speed line northwards out of London. However as an avid reader of left-leaning and liberal blogs, I was surprised not to find any criticism of the Conservative position on High Speed 2 (HS2) beyond the established press. OK I may not have been looking that hard, but at least I did look. In truth I, and most rational people, feel that High Speed 2 should not be a party-political problem, as its development and construction will take place over a period of 20 years. Therefore given it could take four parliaments, possible alien invasions, and hover-boots to get going, the parties have to work together to make this happen.

All the parties endorse high speed rail. Indeed it was the Lib Dems that committed themselves to it first, the Conservatives followed, and lastly Labour signed up. So with this consensus established, in January 2009 they rallied around the company set up by the Government to look into building this line, the imaginatively named 'High Speed Two Limited' (HS2 Ltd). This cross-party cooperation was consistently and unequivocally backed by the Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Adonis who stated that the issue should be “above politics.”

Get to mid-February and the Conservatives bolted from the consensus, refusing to see advance versions of HS2 Ltd's plans and waiting, like the rest of us, to see the report which was released on Thursday. In the process they also drew up their own plans using some 'industry experts.' Theresa Villiers, The Shadow Transport Secretary's, reasoning behind this lack of cooperation was that the Conservatives were "not going to give a political blank cheque to Labour." Withdrawing was a matter, or so she said, of holding onto their rights to draw up a separate alternative to the HS2 Ltd plan. She also stated that it would be “unfair” to make a deal behind closed doors. The problem with this argument was that it was all part-politically motivated, an attempt in an election year to separate themselves from what has, in all honestly, been a well thought out, well run, process.

Their arguments for withdrawing from the consensus were so wishy washy that you'd worry that the Conservatives were serious politicians. Firstly there was no indication that there was a political blank cheque anywhere. Such a thing would entail Lord Adonis standing up and saying “Look what I did! Praise the Labour initiative.” Well sorry Theresa, you can't win this one. Of course, the fact that Labour is in government means that they are the driving force behind the project, but Adonis has consistently and repeatedly stated that this is not a party political matter and has promoted this fact. In addition Lib Dem Transport spokesman, Norman Baker, said on the Guardian Daily Podcast, that he, and Villers, have had been given access to Lord Adonis, HS2 Ltd and all briefings. Additionally he said he was involved in the formulation of the proposals all the way. How then, Theresa, has the HS2 initiative been a blank political cheque when the project has consistently and loudly been shouted from the roof-tops as being cross-party and there has been no attempt by the Government to restrict the other parties' access? In truth the the fact that the Conservatives bolted is because it was an election year, and they would rather not be seen cosying up to Labour on anything. This was a mistake for them though. In reality the prominent cross-party nature of the project meant that, even in February, their rejection of this principal meant that they just ended up looking petty and isolated.

But it got worse on Thursday. It is not surprising that on day of announcement the Conservatives rejected, in part, the plan proposed by HS2 Ltd. While still wedded to the idea of the high speed line their two main objections were the proposed connections to Leeds and to Heathrow. Firstly lets take a look at the Leeds debate. In the HS2 Ltd plan the second stage of the route proposes that the line makes a Y shape after Birmingham, with one line going off to Manchester and another to Leeds. I would think this is a common sense approach considering that the aim of the line is to speed up the links between the North and South, and therefore stimulate economic growth. Well guess what, the Conservatives alternative plan rejected this logical simplicity. Their projected line would be run to Manchester and cross to Leeds in a L-shape. Why on earth would anybody wanting to go to Leeds travel to Manchester first, particularly when there is already a 2 hour link from London out of King's Cross? There would be no benefit in time saved for the traveller! This is a ridiculous plan, and just another attempt by the Conservatives to distinguish themselves from Labour.

The second bone of contention for the Conservatives was the Heathrow question. The line planned by HS2 Ltd would run out of Euston, through Old Oak Common, where travellers can connect with Crossrail and a 11 minute link to Heathrow through the Heathrow Express. There would be no direct link between HS2 and the airport. Again the HS2 Ltd plans were logical for a number of reasons that they set out, including the high cost of tunnelling under Heathrow itself and the fact that a direct route would add 15 minutes to the journey time from Birmingham. Thus the final route they proposed has been supported almost universally by the transport press, by Labour and the Lib Dems. It is the best plan, that avoids unnecessary effort and keeps an efficient and quick, albeit not direct, link between HS2 and Heathrow.

However on Thursday Theresa Villiers raised strong, but factious, objections to this plan. The Conservatives have been pushing for a direct link between HS2 and the airport from the start of the process, in an attempt to offset the mess they have got themselves into over the third runway. Villiers said that HS2 Ltd's plan was a 'betrayal' of the original vision and that not connecting Birmingham with Heathrow was a 'big mistake.' Thus the Conservative alternative proposals have the Heathrow embedded in them, like a tick, with a direct link between HS2 and the airport. This said, their plans actually don't have a perfect link between HS2 and Heathrow, and their route still means that travellers would have to get off the train just short of airport and get a shuttle bus service. Therefore how long would that take out of the passengers journey times? 11 minutes perhaps? Add the 15 extra minutes on the train journey and this adds a significantly large amount of unnecessary time onto journeys from Birmingham. Therefore, like their alternative route to Leeds the, the Conservative's Heathrow alternative has thrown logic out of the window, in an a paper thin attempt to differentiate themselves from Labour. This, however, has once again made them look ridiculous and confrontational.

In an interesting postscript to Thursday's events, yesterday Villiers' objections to HS2 Ltd's plans were further exposed as wishy-washy by resistance to the alternative proposals from individuals within her own party. Firstly Boris Johnson rejected the alternative scheme. While he did not commit to Labour's plan explicitly, he stated that, “A central London terminal is essential as well as an interchange with Crossrail to the west of London in order to whisk people to and from Heathrow as speedily as possible.” This, in essence, was a tacit acceptance of the HS2 Ltd plan. Further, on Thursday Villers made the foolish mistake of calling the Old Oak Common interchange site, which is in the Conservative controlled Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, “Wormwood Scrubs International.” This quite naturally brought ire of the local council, and Mark Loveday, the council's head of strategy came out saying “It is unrivalled as a site for west London's High Speed 2 interchange.” While I wouldn't like to speak for the whole of the Conservative party, it is clear that the illogical stance of the Shadow Transport Secretary has divided internal party opinion.

Therefore from start to finish the position of senior Conservatives has been to go with their partisan instinct, rather than act with their brain, by consistently making this a party-political issue. They have consistently presented alternatives to the HS2 Ltd that are illogical and are simply different for difference's sake, in bumbling efforts to differentiate themselves from the consensus and Labour. However their plans, and their objections to the HS2 Ltd plans, have been rejected by the transport media, the other parties, and most notably voices within their own party. This has therefore made senior Conservatives look weak, confrontational and obstructionist. By separating themselves from the political consensus they are now simply the child who sits out games, when everyone else is having fun.

Your new train will not arrive

I suppose I couldn't write a new Blog entry without mentioning the plans announced by Lord Adonis to put the Intercity Express Programme (ICP) on hold. This programme was initiated by the Department for Transport (at that point under Geoff 'you send me an email and I won't give you my support' Hoon) in November 2007 and was designed to replace the ageing class 125 HSTs and class 225s currently at work across the network. The project would cost £7.5 billion, would be a 30 year commitment by the government and see the introduction of 1400 new carriages. The DfT specified that the trains were to be low-emission, have both diesel and electric variants (as well as a bi-mode) and would be suitable for both suburban and long distance routes, reaching speeds of up to 125 mph. Time passed and in February 2009 it was announced that the highly un-imaginatively named 'Agility trains,' a consortium led by Hitatchi, was the DfT's preferred bidder. And then we had mostly silence from the DfT...until now

What happened on Friday was that Lord Adonis simply said 'hang on a minute!' He postponed the programme, and asked Sir Andrew Foster, who was previously at the helm of Audit Commission, to look into the value for money of the project, as well as determining whether any other courses of action are viable. Originally all contracts were to be signed in April 2009, however as April has come and gone it is clear that the DfT was either dragging its heels, the circumstances within the railway industry changed or that there was a problem with the original concept.

Firstly I'll turn to Theresa Villier's, Shadow Transport Secretary's comments. She said "The intercity express programme has been blighted by Government incompetence at every turn.” She also charged the government with "micro-management" and costing the tax payer millions of pounds for no return. By now it is clear that what Villiers has done is just put on the old Tory record with three tracks, 'incompetence,' 'micro-management' and 'loadsamoney.' There is no real substance to the argument...but then that's what we've been used to from the Conservatives.

It is clear that the postponement is due to a number of quite logical factors. Firstly, like everything at the moment, lets blame the financial crisis. If we consider that the deadline for contracts to be signed was April, and that the Hitatch consortium was announced as the front runner in February, this indicates that at that point the DfT were on the verge of signing and meeting its target date. But as the financial crisis deepened the DfT held off committing the government and the country to a £7.5 bn project over the next 30 years. This is not, I'm sorry to say Theresa Villiers, incompetence. It it simple common sense not to flush shit-loads down the drain when the ability of the Government and the Taxpayer to bare the load was dubious. Therefore they just held up spending the money at this point, until things stabilise, especially as the money was probably needed elsewhere. This is evidenced by Adonis being very upfront about one of the reasons he held up the project, stating that "Over the course of the procurement there has been a reduction in the capacity of the debt market to support the transaction as originally envisaged, and passenger growth has also slowed." Thus it would be ill-advised to spend large sums of money when the country cannot afford it. But what's more the DfT's plans for the railways have changed, rendering the ICP project not as necessary as previously thought.

This is not really as surprise. Hoon, who initiated it, wasn't a railway man, or, to my knowledge, even had an interest. He was just given the DfT as a demotion after being Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Privy Seal and Minister for Europe. His instillation as Secretary of State for Transport was the twilight of his political career, and as much as I love Transport, being assigned the DfT is not glamorous and comes with next to no prestige. Therefore in the eight months I'm not sure how much enthusiasm the man could muster when he realised he had been put 'out for pasture' there. As such this was the only major new initiative he announced. To be fair it isn't a bad idea to replace the ageing trains, its just not that imaginative, and doesn't solve the real long-term problems of the railways.

However when he resigned last June to 'spend time with his family' and then plot against Brown, they got the Adonis in. Adonis came from a different direction having been Minister for Transport under Hoon. Here was a man who wasn't just interested in railways, but genuinely cared about them. It is an understatement to say that the majority of people like Adonis, even if they don't agree with him. In the eight months since his appointment has commissioned a report investigating a north-south high speed line, has kicked out a failing franchise holder, National Express East Coast, only to nationalise the service as well, and he has announced the electrification of various routes most notably the Great Western and Midland Main Lines. This, quite evidently, is a man that actually has a vision for the future of the railways and pushes for that vision within government. Hoon was, for the railways, a bit of a damp squib in comparison.

Importantly for the ICE programme is that by announcing the Electrification of some routes Adonis has changed the rolling stock requirements on them. This therefore would have been a considerable factor in the delaying further the project. Again, why should the taxpayer pay for a project that was unsuitable within the new framework of policy proposals that have been initiated by a man that sees the future of the railway network more clearly than anyone has in the last 25 years? Why should the DfT press ahead with a project that would not slot in well with the current thinking about what is needed for Britain's Railways? Villiers likes to charge the DfT with the usual problems, in reality I think the Tories would be jumping up and down far more if the government had signed contracts and committed the country to an unsuitable set of investments.

Yes money has been spent on the project, but the waste of a few millions, essentially small change for the Government, is far better than wasting 7.5 billion now isn't it? It is possible the postponement and reassessment could have been made sooner, however I tend to think that rushing decisions about such an expensive projects, even if they are going to be put on hold, is never a bad thing. Adonis, I feel, has taken his time and made the right decision.