McNulty fails the test

[whole diary]

[woody]

The Mcnulty report-the way foreward or a damp squid.Christian Wolmer writing in Rail 671 claims the latter.
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2011/05/rail-671-mcnulty-fails-the-test/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feed%2Fchristianwolmar+%28Christian+Wolmar%29
What do you think.Personally I do think he has a point.

[JayMac]

Wolmar has been very vocal in his criticism of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). Not sure he's ever referred to it as a damp squid though....

Methinks you meant 'squib'. 

[phile]

The cost of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) is probably rising at the present time due to the cost of taking on the NIMBYs, but overall is HS2 really necessary and expensive especially in the present financial climate.   Seems to be a pet of the Transport Minister.
Going back to McNulty, the actual subject of the topic,  I remember when 2 or 3 experienced railway staff who understood all the ins and outs would be seconded to a project to investigate the remit as to why the cost of running the Railways is so high.   Any railway person with a bit of "savvy" knows that fragmentation is the root cause as appreciated by Mc Nulty.     But because this was caused by privatisation, tje Government will not want to know because of it's political dogma, in fact McNulty may possibly have been briefed not to use the word privatisation for that reason, despite it being the prime cause of the high costs.
Had the experienced railway people I mentioned  worked on this, a report might have been ready within a week or two rather than months and also avoiding the costly use of Consultants as the answer is so blatantly obvious.

[ChrisB]

That is a very good summation of this month's Informed Sources that Roger Ford sends out!

Having given Sir Roy McNulty^s Rail Value for Money Study the classic Informed Sources ^tables ^ charts^ treatment in the February column, based on the Interim report, this month I look ahead to the what, how and when of implementation.

Despite a daunting list of 11 barriers to efficiency, plus an analysis of the ^many and complex^ causes of rail^s ^excessively high^ costs, Sir Roy is optimistic. He declares: ^The Study does not see this set of barriers as a cause for despair. On the contrary, given that the issues are already fairly widely recognised, it believes that the barriers can be overcome with strong leadership and with concerted efforts from all concerned^.

Talking to a wide range of senior sources, it is clear that the railway industry, while applauding the analysis of the problem, is not always convinced by the solutions proposed. However, Informed Sources close to the Study point out that its real purpose is to get the industry committed to change. 

At the first meeting of the new Railway Delivery Group (RDG^‡(resolve)), Chairman Tim O^Toole reportedly urged members to rise above cynicism.  That the call was considered necessary, and at least one Chief Executive is alleged to have succumbed, pretty well sums up the industry reaction.
Central to Sir Roy^s vision is abandoning the current contractual relationships.  There is a lot of stuff about working together for the common good and the introduction of partnerships. 

So, tough on fragmentation and tough on the causes of fragmentation.  And there^s heavy emphasis on the need for the various parts of the fragmented railway to work more closely if the 30% efficiency gap is to be closed by 2019. ^We^re all in it together^ was a recurring phrase at the press conference to launch the report.

Yet, contrarily, other than calling for various approaches to vertical integration to be tried, the Report seems content to leave the railway fragmented. So top level leadership, in the form of the RDG will be needed to direct the ^substantial programme of change^, focused on cost reduction, culture change and a ^more-integrated whole-system approach^. 
Er, why not start to recreate a ^whole system^?  As my old chum George Muir has pointed out, we can be certain that in the European state railways against which  Sir Roy has benchmarked GB^▸ (Great Britain) Rail efficiency does not come from ^a thicket of strategy documents and cross-industry bodies^.

I^m particularly interested in Sir Roy^s proposed ^small, independent Change Team^, which will be responsible for ^planning, coordination, monitoring and reviewing implementation of a programme across all elements of industry of a complex series of actions^.  The Team should be set up by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) but be ^independent from industry and Government at the beginning^ so that it can pursue the reform agenda freely and impartially^. 

I can think of several chums who would be up for this ^inefficiency inquisition^.

Included to explain my comment.

If someone wants to start a specific HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) thread thaty phile mentions above, I've got something to add to that comment of his....

[phile]

Oh, I forgot to say the high cost of engaging Consultants for every little thing when people with sufficient knowledge are already in the Industry  or who have recently retired and may like a little extra pocket money, a practice which has been used in the past.

[Not from Brighton]

recently retired and may like a little extra pocket money

Sounds like a consultant to me!