Delay electric trains, says Network Rail

[whole diary]

[Timmer]

Another hint from Timesonline that HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) still have many years of service still ahead of them!
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article7143701.ece

Network Rail has singled out electrification of railway lines as a major area of investment that could be cut back as public sector spending is squeezed.

The ^1 billion electrification of the main rail route between London and Wales and a line between Liverpool and Manchester was announced by Labour last summer.

Electric trains are quieter, cleaner, more reliable and faster. At the time, Lord Adonis, then Transport Secretary, said that electrifying lines would pay for itself over 40 years but that it was important to invest upfront in railways.

Iain Coucher, chief executive of Network Rail, the infrastructure operator responsible for maintaining and upgrading most of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)^s overground railway, said yesterday: ^If the Government wants to phase spending, we can slow down some big projects. Electrification is one such scheme. There is already an inquiry into the purchase of electric trains, so it makes sense to look at that again.^

[grahame]

Mr Coucher, who is paid more than fives times as much as the Prime Minister, said: "If the Government wants to talk to us about this and what they want to do differently, then we are here to listen."

"You have to be pragmatic about this ^ you can^t reduce the cost significantly without specifying a smaller railway."

Err - sorry, Mr Coucher, if that's what you said, you have it wrong - or what is your definition of a smaller railway?

Sixty years ago, railways were powered by steam engines, with a crew of two, each engine needing to stop for water and servicing between most trips.  The trains were passed from signal box to signal box, each staffed on multiple shifts.   Today, there have been dramatic changes and the railways if still run on steam engines, with manual signalling, would cost so much as to be impracical.

Does Mr Coucher really think that we've now reached the end of changes through which we can make more effective use of resources and improved technology - if that's the case, then perhaps he sees them as becoming more anachronistic into the future, and slowly fading away.  If that's the case, he's not the inspirational bloke to be in charge, and I would wonder at the pay rate he's said to be on ... and I would hearby apply to replace him at a half of his salary, placing the other half into the funding of the service which the GWRUS^▸ (Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy) says is appropriate in our parts.

Has Mr Coucher been misquoted by "The Times"

[Electric train]

Mr Coucher, who is paid more than fives times as much as the Prime Minister, said: "If the Government wants to talk to us about this and what they want to do differently, then we are here to listen."
"You have to be pragmatic about this ^ you can^t reduce the cost significantly without specifying a smaller railway."

Err - sorry, Mr Coucher, if that's what you said, you have it wrong - or what is your definition of a smaller railway?
Sixty years ago, railways were powered by steam engines, with a crew of two, each engine needing to stop for water and servicing between most trips.  The trains were passed from signal box to signal box, each staffed on multiple shifts.   Today, there have been dramatic changes and the railways if still run on steam engines, with manual signalling, would cost so much as to be impracical.
Does Mr Coucher really think that we've now reached the end of changes through which we can make more effective use of resources and improved technology - if that's the case, then perhaps he sees them as becoming more anachronistic into the future, and slowly fading away.  If that's the case, he's not the inspirational bloke to be in charge, and I would wonder at the pay rate he's said to be on ... and I would hearby apply to replace him at a half of his salary, placing the other half into the funding of the service which the GWRUS^▸ (Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy) says is appropriate in our parts.
Has Mr Coucher been misquoted by "The Times"

No Mr Coucher has not been miss quoted, Network Rail actually wants to grow the railway.  Redoubling of the Cotswold line is an example, NR^» (Network Rail - home page) wants to see more railway, more trains.  It has been refreshing for the last 4 or 5 years to actually hear about building railways unlike my previous 30 years where most of the time was reduce the railway.

Mr Coucher may come over arrogant but quite frankly he can afford to be as I suspect he will have a lot of public opinion behind him, train performance is at it highest since BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) this is part due to NR and part due to ToC's in the main it is NR willing to take an industry lead which the ToC's are content with.  I believe he is placing a warning to the Government not to destroy the past 8 years of success that NR has worked at.

[onthecushions]

When a publicly funded body is asked by Govt for proposed savings, a common ploy is to offer the most damaging and least attractive options in the hope that the cuts will pass it by.

Both the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) and the MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) wirings have positive financial cases so that delay/cancellation would actually need an expenditure increase. Both XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) and TP are also likely to come in this category, eventually.

If NR^» (Network Rail - home page) is serious about this then it is financially incompetent.

The real savings should come from reversing the bureaucracy of privatisation - returning the railway to its Engineers and Officers, with real public accountability for cost and performance. How many Board Directors, lawyers, Annual Sets of Accounts, barrowloads of contract documents, HR^▸ (Human Resources) staff etc, does the industry really need?

OTC

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Network Rail profits see sharp fall

Profits at Network Rail fell by nearly 75% over the past year but the company said a record number of trains were running on time.
Network Rail, which operates the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s rail infrastructure, made pre-tax profits of ^395m ($572m), down from more than ^1.52bn last year.
The company receives most of its money from the taxpayer.
The fall in profits is due to a revaluation of its assets as well as a drop in revenue from train companies.
Part of it reflects higher investment in the network.
Its regulator, the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)) sets the returns Network Rail is allowed to make and orders reinvestment.
The ORR has described this year's as "mixed" and warned that bonus payments must reflect performance.
Last year, payments to its top executives totalled ^1.2m despite shortcomings identified by the ORR and provoked strong criticism - although Network Rail's chief executive, Iain Coucher, did not take up his own bonus.
Any extra remuneration for this year will be announced later this month.
Network Rail's current government funding runs from 2009 to 2014, and although the coalition government is keen to cut public spending it would have to reopen negotiations to do so.
Iain Coucher told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he was ready to talk to the government again if need be. He said: "We will certainly talk to the government about their priorities if they have changed." But he added that he was not expecting any change to his budget.
Another source of income comes from the fees it charges its users, the train operating companies, such as Virgin and First Great Western to use its tracks.
Part of the fall in its profits was down to an ORR-enforced cut in these charges.
Network Rail said it had improved punctuality, with a record 91% of trains arriving on time.
However, the head of the Transport Salaried Staff Association (TSSA^» (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association - about)) rail union, Gerry Doherty, described Network Rail's claim of record punctuality as "poppycock". He said the figure of 91% was only a record because British Rail did not announce national figures.
And said the largest region that did disclose performance, Southern Railway, regularly achieved 95% punctuality figures.
"Network Rail does not own one single train - it is a maintenance firm looking after track and signals. Punctuality is down to the private train operators who actually run the trains," Mr Doherty said.
He said the issue of punctuality should not be part of any bonus decision.
TSSA and another rail union, the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers), are in dispute with Network Rail over plans to cut 1,500 maintenance and signallers' jobs.
Industrial action planned for last month was suspended after the company succeeded in getting a High Court injunction against it.

[woody]

This also from the Times-"Rail fares will rise as investment falls"
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article7143817.ece
 Its not looking good folks.My advice is,hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

[Henry]

 If history serves me correctly, and it was a bit before my time,  Croucher could be perhaps accused of
 very much a 'Beechamesque' response.

 Was it not in 1948 when the Railway was first nationalised, that Beecham used a similar argument.

[John R]

I'm wondering what Sir Thomas Beecham had to do with the rationalisation/modernisation of the railways.

[Henry]

 If my history knowledge is correct, the cost of subsidising the then nationalised British Rail was not
 considered viable. It was down to Beecham to install the closures of certain lines etc, particularly
 here in the South-West.
 
 
"You have to be pragmatic about this ^ you can^t reduce the cost significantly without specifying a smaller railway."

  So excuse my historic ignorance but are NR^» (Network Rail - home page)  (Croucher) once again looking at a smaller railway ?.

[TerminalJunkie]

Spot the difference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Beeching

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Beecham

[JayMac]

Here's me thinking that a very young Stephanie Beecham was somehow involved in 'The Reshaping British Railways'!! 

[Electric train]

"You have to be pragmatic about this ^ you can^t reduce the cost significantly without specifying a smaller railway."
  So excuse my historic ignorance but are NR^» (Network Rail - home page)  (Croucher) once again looking at a smaller railway ?.

Coucher and Beeching are poles apart, Beeching shrank the railways to reduce cost's Coucher is warning that reducing, significantly, cost's will result in a smaller railway.  Unlike Beeching, the henchman of Marpels (the Minister for Transport) Coucher and the NR board want an expanding (yet efficient) railway Beeching wanted a small efficient railway.

Coucher is warning the public and the Government that slashing cost has the potential to reduce the railways which could have an impact on the economic recovery of the country

[TerminalJunkie]

Here's me thinking that a very young Stephanie Beecham was somehow involved in 'The Reshaping British Railways'!! 

That's Stephanie Beacham, not Beecham. Only an idiot would get them mixed up.

[JayMac]

Pah! Try stretching a joke and a pedant (like me!) comes along and ruins it. Thanks TJ. 

[Henry]

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/91159