Update: train pain – our railways are stagnating while prices soar

I started work on the railway in 1951 as an apprentice fitter and turner at Doncaster Works. In terms of technology the railways were, in those days, relatively primitive. They made a small loss, but were generally efficient and into the bargain investing in a fleet of new standardised steam locomotives which probably formed the best the railway system had ever seen at that time. The railways were still in a state of recovery from the enormous setbacks in damage, neglect, replacing a fleet of clapped out locomotives and poor maintenance caused by WW2. But, the system was supported by in-house arrangements. A broken down locomotive usually had a replacement on stand by at the next main station. Breakdown cranes were placed strategically around the system and constantly manned to deal immediately with cases of derailments or accidents. It seemed to me, at the time, all to be a bit ramshackle, but it worked. At the time of privatisation the railways were slowly being modernised, despite the lack of investment by the Thatcher government: in the 1960s there were some very good Diesel and electric locomotives coming on stream as well as coaches and trains were also speeding up. Some of the new rolling stock was made by private companies and that wasn’t always good news. A fleet of electric locomotives made by the private North British company in Glasgow were a complete failure and, although there were plenty of them, they saw little service.

Bob Reid had a difficult time. On the one hand, he had to make the system even more efficient, whilst having to implement swingeing cut after swingeing: step forward Margaret Thatcher who disliked railways, or any kind of public transport to take the credit for this. Thatcher hid behind Bob Reid who took the blame for the cuts made by the Thatcher government. She was the woman who said that only failures over the age of 25 used public transport. So there!

All told, British Rail was a success story, despite it’s every creak and groan being headlined in the likes of the Express or Mail: one headline being “Nationalisation and Paralysation.” What a witty headline.

I have no doubt that everything that is wrong with the railways (I nearly wrote “our” railways except they’re no longer ours,) is that the once integrated system has been reduced to disparate entities farmed out to strange, unapproachable bodies and is, essentially, no longer answerable to anybody.

So far as I recall, the denationalisation of public utilities was a very popular move at the time. And I thought it was John Major who privatised the railways – the problem is that much of it is back under state control now through state ownership of Network Rail and through the detailed control over franchised passenger operations. I would go so far as to say that the railways are badly run because of the government’s detailed involvement.

Alan – As a matter of interest, what exactly did the Labour governments privatise – other than investment in public provision through the disastrous Private Finance Initiatives?

I know it was popular at the time John – there’s always plenty of people who will buy stuff that fell off the back of a lorry from crooks with no thought for future consequences, and Major was just carrying on the theft of the family jewels that Maggie started.
And I did mention that I found Tony, Gordon & Co just as “you ought to wear a face-mask!”

I guess if Northern’s workers are striking, then it is fairly safe to assume that they are very unhappy with their current conditions of employment.

It might go deeper than that. I suspect questions of culture, peer pressure, the need to adhere to group norms might all figure, one way or another.

It is interesting that in response to public pressure in light of the mutual intransigence of Northern Rail and the RMT, the government has stepped in and agreed to an adjustment of the Northern Rail franchise terms and conditions which will fund the employment of an additional crew member on trains where the driver will control the doors [the particular bone of contention in this dispute]. This might not satisfy the RMT, however, which is looking for a commitment that the second crew member will have safety-critical competence to manage passenger safety in the event of an emergency. No such commitment has been given, and there is also disagreement over whether there could be some relaxation of the extra crewing commitment in exceptional circumstances.

Whereas the RMT’s claim that the strikes are about maintaining safety standards might be somewhat disingenuous [as John Moyes suggests], I believe there is a powerful case for making sure that every train does have an additional member of staff in each separate unit [coupled but without a through corridor] to deal with any problems that might arise including any incapacity on the part of the driver. This is more important now that the railways are carrying record numbers of passengers and many trains are now formed of six, eight, ten or twelve carriages made up of coupled units containing three, four, or five coaches each [with no inter-unit passageway]. Higher passenger numbers should result in more revenue to meet the cost of the additional staffing [which can also be used for revenue protection, ticket sales and customer support].

I think this staffing issue is an example of the problem that commuter services cause. At two relatively short periods in the working day there are very substantial extra demands for trains, rolling stock and staff that for the rest of the day are not needed. Trains sit in sidings and depots waiting for the next rush. This inefficient use of stock and personnel all needs paying for.

One way is to spread commuting over longer periods by altering the timing of the working day for different groups of workers. Another is to reduce the need for commuting by moving employers from over-used areas; using more of the UK can only help the economies of the more deprived areas, many in, or very near, very attractive parts of the country. We don’t, however, embrace solutions that require loner-term planning; sticking plaster will be used until the wound requires emergency surgery.

I think that any well-managed business can accommodate for busy and less busy periods in staff terms; after all, most retail and public-facing businesses have to, and usually manage quite well.

But while there may well be some theoretical merit in arguing for more flexitime work operations and even for suggesting companies relocate, neither can be accomplished quickly nor easily, as people build their entire lives around their employment and make the myriad adjustments necessary to ensure smooth life functioning.

The trains, however, are different: they already exist, as does the infrastructure, and many of the extremely justified complaints revolve around aspects that can be changed with comparatively little effort.

There’s also the case that many smaller areas would resent larger companies moving in and changing the entire nature of the areas concerned. And there’s no evidence that the problems would not simply be both repeated and exacerbated. One reason London is the base for many companies is that all roads and rail tracks lead there. However seemingly enticing it might be to relocate Unilever, say – to Beddgelert, I doubt the inhabitants of the latter would be enthusiastic about the former moving in, and communication between the newly located HQ and its European partners would be substantially increased in difficulty.

Finally, while I agree that long term planning is sorely needed, when the government attempts it – such as with the commendable HS2 project – there’s enormous resistance from those who feel it’s a waste of money.

I’m not sure about Beddgelert, but there are some buildings/sites in Harlech that could welcome new corporate owners…

harlech.org/?p=990

They’d also be served by more than just a “toy” railway 😀

In the case of Harlech and other seaside resorts the compulsory purchase laws need a great deal of work. This is fairly typical behaviour from corporate owners, and they’d sing a different tune if they knew once planing permission had been granted the buildings would automatically revert to the council if no meaningful work had commenced within a certain time frame.

Distortion of rail track did occur under the original forms of jointed track above certain temperature levels, but in those days trains generally went slower and services were suspended during extremely hot weather.

Before being secured to the sleepers continuous welded rail is stretched to compensate for the expansion caused by hot weather. The technical details are complex but the temperature of the rail would have to reach well over 50 degrees Celsius before buckling would occur. The spacing of the sleepers, the profile of the rail, and the depth and condition of the ballast all have a bearing on the ability of the track to withstand the heat without distortion.

A more common problem during heat waves recently has been sagging of the overhead electrical conductors on the older electrified lines. These are progressively being modernised with better support structures, improved cable tensioning, and better suspension geometry [to resist deformation of the contact wire which imposes excess forces on the pantographs which collect the current and can lead to dewirements]. This renewal work has been the cause of much longer disruptions as the overhead system is replaced, usually meaning complete closure of all tracks on each section of line, however the long term benefit is a much more reliable railway with fewer incidents and less suspension of services.

I concur and well remember a section of track on the Wirral becoming deformed owing to a heat wave in the 1950s. It seems, in fact, that it has become more reliable and safer to use CWR. From Wikipedia:

“Jointed rails were used at first because contemporary technology did not offer any alternative. However, the intrinsic weakness in resisting vertical loading results in the ballast becoming depressed and a heavy maintenance workload is imposed to prevent unacceptable geometrical defects at the joints. The joints also needed to be lubricated, and wear at the fishplate (joint bar) mating surfaces needed to be rectified by shimming. For this reason jointed track is not financially appropriate for heavily operated railroads.”

It’s a topic that’s always interested me, since we do a lot of rail travel, both in the UK and on the continent, and continuously supported track (CST) is now being explored for new runs for High Speed trains. I have noticed that when the TGV exceeds 190mph the movement and vibration increase significantly, possibly owing to track ballast easing over time.

The biggest issue for UK trains in heatwaves currently is the overhead gantry cable expansion, And replacing them is a very time consuming and passenger-inconvenient process. Still, that’s what you get when you were the first country in the world to have an extensive rail network.

See also:

networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/looking-after-the-railway/delays-explained/buckled-rail/

In nine years 2000/1 to 2008/9 there were 429 track buckle incidents in Great Britain:

wikipedia.org/wiki/Derailment

The modern flat-bottomed rail that has progressively replaced the older bullhead rail is much more resistant to movement as well, and the clips now used to grip the rail on the sleepers also provide more stabiliity.