Re: Northern Rail Cl 180's

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:47:01 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T <mizter.t@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

The thing is that I really can't help but think that something like
the SRA is really needed these days - that is, a body that really does
have a strategic overview of the railways and can act with a degree of
independence from central government. A kind of British Railways Board
for the 21st century, if you will.

Yes this is most certainly needed. Ideally you would have proper
railway professionals running it.

I wasn't really so into following the mechanics of the railway
industry a few years back when the SRA came and then went, so I don't
really hold properly informed views on how it went about it's business
(though I did get the overall impression the whole arrangement was
somewhat dysfunctional) but abolishing it seemed like a retrograde
step to me - if it wasn't working properly it should have been
reformed under new leadership i.e. a new chairman and new chief exec
(both roles that Bowker was fulfilling, which shouldn't really have
been the case - arguably that was one of the big faults of the SRA).

I don't really know why the SRA was suddenly deemed redundant other than
a case of "civil servants' revenge". The shame is that Alastair Morton
had to step down when he did. He was beginning to shape things in a
positive way even if he was a tad "rough round the edges". Still he got
stuff done. I think Government possibly feared that his SRA was looking
too far ahead with expensive schemes and long term franchises which
would make things far too cozy for the TOCs. Remember SWT with tunnels
under London and GNER being a potential bidder?

The counter balance is that there was the possibility that the TOCs
*might* have opted to take some real risk and spend some cash on network
expansion in the way Chiltern are doing. The current approach of short
"lean and mean" franchises is doing nothing to support a proper drive
for growth and expansion with the proper involvement of operators. How
the hell something like Thameslink or Crossrail can be taken forward
without proper operational input into a wide range of topics I know not.
One of the key reasons for failure on projects of this scale is not
getting the end user properly involved sufficiently early.

Bringing the functions of the SRA in-house within the DfT means that
there's a lot less room for movement - they have to follow government
policy which flaps around in different directions according to the
prevailing political winds of the moment. Of course Dr Mitchell not
only follows govt policy but also helps to formulate it as well, but I
just get the feeling the current arrangement is stiflingly
constrictive.

I'm not convinced about the current structure. Heaven help us if there
is ever a serious accident and the DfT get within 10 miles of being
culpable. All hell will break loose. Government should set policy with
the civil service doing its normal function in supporting them. The
execution of the policy and strategy should be via others who are
competent to perform the task.

As to the whole issue of competency, well Tony Miles' revelation that
the DfT Rail's rolling stock plan (the '1300 extra vehicles') was so
muddled that it took Roger Ford's questioning to unravel it was quite
frankly jaw dropping - here's the relevant post from early September:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.railway/browse_frm/thread/7c77e07d73ca7e35/720021ab2490c11b

I don't think that would have happened if it was the job of a body at
an arm's length from central government, not least because they might
well have insisted on there being a proper plan in place before OK-ing
the announcement of that ever so neat number of 1300.

You can't say with 100% certainty it would not have happened - people do
make mistakes. However for the errors to have been perpetuated for this
long and for no apparent control to emerge to rectify the mess is what
is genuinely concerning.

Of course what we really need is a move away from the whole rather
absurd present system of rail franchising, and the only people that
can make that happen are government ministers. And crucially they'd
need to get any such plans past the dead-hand of the Treasury. What a
mess...

A mess? - yes. Change required? - most certainly. Chance of it
happening? - nil.
--
Paul C
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SRA Legacy Starting to fade
    ... I suppose it remains to be seen whether replacing the SRA ... >> with the DfT results in more political interference from the Government (and ... >> of the SRA and so the DfT can actually get on with some strategy... ... officials to work on roads and very few to work on railways. ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...
    ... And the violation of those property right via redistribution? ... It's called the "proper functions of government". ... protect rights. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...
    ... enforcement of property and other civil rights through the support of ... create the wealth in the first place. ... It's called the "proper functions of government". ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Are There Any Actual Physicists/Scientists Here?
    ... And that assumes a benevolent government. ... It is entirely proper to track ... much more concerned with the abuse of power than the accumulation of power. ... There exists a primal core of ethics, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Savage rails cuts urged for North
    ... DfT out to make truly massive cuts in expenditure, ... Pessimist, yes, but in the medium term it is what the government wnats. ... Someone asked on this thread what has the SRA done that is good? ... is/was a non-departmental arm of government and as such does/did exactly ...
    (uk.railway)