On 26 May this year a First Capital Connect train on the Thameslink route caught a branch in its pantograph. When the pantograph was raised at Farringdon it shorted the power supply. The train managed to get to St Pancras but the passengers were not told to alight.
As it proceeded towards Kentish Town it shorted again and the passengers were stuck in a tunnel. No information was provided and no serious rescue was mounted for a period of hours. The air-conditioning also failed.
This is not unique. Indeed, on more than one occasion on the network, passengers have decided to abandon their train. They have sometimes been confronted by the rail companies’ private police force, the British Transport Police, who invariably side with the operator against the public.
For the past couple of months I have been campaigning for enhanced levels of compensation. Even though train operating companies (TOCs) survive on public money the management has refused to tell me (or any other elected representative) the level of compensation. They have, however, assured me that it will higher than the usual ‘delay repay’ scheme. The reality is different: passengers, deprived negligently of their liberty, are being offered little more than a tenner. And those with season tickets are being offered more than those who bought a ticket on the day.
Years ago British Rail decided to call us ‘customers’ instead of ‘passengers’, claiming that it was an enhancement of status. The reality is a reduction in the duties owed: ‘customers’, even when faced with a monopoly rail provider are seen as participants in a purely contractual arrangement.
Passengers are due something much broader: a duty of care well beyond that owed commercially. This includes the duty to look after passengers, ensure their comfort and consider them as more than objects to be transported from A to B.
I have now gone through the franchise agreement for the Thameslink route. It is strong on detail when it comes to the fitting out of St Pancras station – how many noticeboards (four, since you ask), the number of ticket gates, the number of excess counter fare positions (one)…
It requires the operator to develop systems for dealing with disruption including an incident room, a service status war room (seriously) and 18 (not 19 or 17, mind) ‘driver standards managers’.
It is, however, virtually silent on standards of compensation or indeed the primacy of the passenger.
So much micromanagement to so little effect! So many lawyers – so much time to bill!
A number of us are coming together to confront this monster of state centralism to seek:
- a change to the existing franchise to make it more passenger focussed
- a system of compensation which is fair and transparent
- a lower cap on fare increases, due to rise by 8% next year, despite service failings.
Please get in touch if you would like to join us. Email [email protected]
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
A bargain at 23 guineas?
20C night
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
22 Comments
To be honest, the railways are the prime example of a botched privitisation in this country. There are worse examples out there, certainly, directory enquiries comes to mind, but there has not been a botched privitisation that affects so many people in such a fundamental way. Although there have been some minor improvements, season tickets are cheaper for instance, on the whole it has led to additional expense, stories like these and, most importantly, very little improvement in the areas where it was supposed to be better than the old British Rail (e.g safety).
By and large I’m a capitalist, a bit proponent of globalisation and am of the view that our exceptionally peaceful times are largely due to the power of macro-economics. With the railways however, I don’t see how there even can be anything resembling competition on any significant basis as the main factors in choosing what train to get will always be where it goes and when it goes. In addition, on many routes you only have one train provider, certainly I’ve not seen more than two operators on the same stretch of the same route before, so even if the basis for competition was there I doubt that the market or the infrastructure would support enough providers on the current set up for any real competition to take place.
This is in contrast to, say, air travel, where other factors such as how comfortable the plane is and the cost kick in in a much bigger way, and the simple fact of where and when the plane goes are still important but less acute, as some locations have multiple airports and the time pressure is not quite so acute as you are less likely to travel by plane for your commute or to see an event. It’s not a perfect system, but you can at least see how competition functions in it.
There’s a dogma out there that the private sector is always efficient and that the public sector isn’t. This is overgeneralising and is not always true (it would be a bit of a tangent to describe in depth but the NHS is actually very money efficient compared to other healthcare systems, for example). This dogma is definitely wrong when there is no serious competition. Competition makes the private sector, and the private sector is worthless without it.
The particular problem posed in the OP could indeed be fixed by changing the guidelines but I think that it is just a symptom of a larger problem with the railway system, namely that most of it seems to just be a system of local monopolies. The state centralism in dictating the oddly specific contracts is not ideal but it’s really not the main problem, if that centralised document had contained a decent section on compensation then the document wouldn’t really be a problem.
So, to really fix up the railways we either need to bring competition to the railways (if it’s even possible) or just give up on the whole competition idea and nationalise. Or find some compromise position.
The problem, all of these require money. A lot of money. And they all have the potential to go hideously wrong or to not bring the benefits you’d hope for. Nevertheless, there’s a fundamental problem, going beyond just what is said in the OP that needs to be fixed some day.
Apologies that this post is somewhat of a tangent, but I’m of the view that this is a symptom of the botched privitisation and that this is just one of many problems on the network.
Since when has the BTP been the rail companies’ “private police force”?
After that I gave up reading.
Cogload, if you’d read two more sentences you would have got the rhetorical point being made. And if you’d read the rest of the article you might have had something interesting to say.
Chris is right, the priorities are misguided, and the practice shoddy. I have the advantage of two providers to choose from, but those travelling from anywhere south of Bedford (except Luton) do not.
I would like to see the public sector tender for rail franchises. Currently a Department for Transport subsidiary runs the East Coast franchise. It took over when National Express couldn’t hack it. This company should be allowed to compete against private bidders for other franchises..
I suspect that most taxpayers would disagree that they should pay more into the rail industry, and passengers less.
“virtually silent on standards of compensation”
That’s because most of the rules about compensation are included in the National Rail Conditions of Carriage which automatically apply to all operators regardless of what is in their franchise.
During my time working in the rail industry I would find numerous examples of where the national rules or the franchise agreement were unnecessarily specific, when in other places you could do what you liked. Some of these worked against making the railways more customer friendly, (yes I know people hate the word, but if the word customer is taken seriously then it should be a positive), and I think railways are now becoming less customer friendly than in the earlier days of privatisation. The latest franchises seem to be let purely on the basis of who can run the railway the cheapest way and at the same time provide more punctual services. The latter is of course crucial, but customer service appears to now be of no importance at all and that should actually be given some consideration as it does affect people’s perception of the railways.
Whilst making the railways publicly owned would of course resolve some issues, I do think however that we are deluding ourselves if we think making the railways publicly owned is a panacea. It’s much more fundamental than that.
Sorry, that last post should have been me writing as me not as ALDC.
I’m a FCC/Thameslink sufferer too. A priority must be to see their safety plans for events such as the one described here. It is unacceptable that people were kept on the train with no toilet, no drinks, no communications and no air conditioning for 3 hours. There should be a parliamentary mechanism to haul the managers in front of the transport committee and explain themselves (or if they have, it needs to be better communicated). They were extremely lucky that there were no injuries – think about people with diabetes for instance. I would to know whether they have planned for a terrorist attack on the line – it possibly could have the same effect of stopping all power to the train.
I wonder whether there should be some element of the “customers” having a say in the renewal process? I felt that many of us preferred the Thameslink company to FCC, even before the various problems they have had. Is there a way to weigh our opinions when the franchise next comes up? Also, unusually there is a second train company on the same tracks. I’d like to see a year-long experiment with East Midlands trains being able to pick up at Harpenden and St Albans, offering “customers” a choice. I know who I’d choose.
Also, we have to look again at how the railway was privatised. At the time everyone (except the Conservatives) knew it was madness to divorce the track and signals from the companies that run the trains (and I think from the company that owns the rolling stock). Many of FCC/Thameslinks problems seem to revolve around (a) bad/faulty rolling stock and (b) signalling around Kentish Town. I would like to see in our manifesto for 2015 a start towards integrating the network again. I don’t have particularly strong feelings re private sector/public sector, but I dislike FCC’s attitude to customers – their PR person has just an awful way of dealing with complaints.
@DunKhan: There are many routes on the UK rail network where there are 3 train operators on the same stretch of track. Some that I can think of off the top of my head are Cardiff–Newport (where at one time there were 5 operators!), Cheltenham–Birmingham, Watford–Milton Keynes). Also much of the railway in the North East of England probably has 3 or more oprators (East Coast, Cross Country and a local operator). Some routes have a degree of competition between the operators, others do not. But I think that on the whole, the benefits of ticket integration outweigh those of competition on routes with multiple operators. We should be thankful that we do still have through ticketing across the entire UK mainline rail network (although it is sometimes cheaper to split the tickets than to buy through tickets, due to different pricing policies of different operators).
Incidentally, if you want to see what might have happened if the UK railways had been privatised the way the Major government had originally wanted to do, look at cross-border rail services in Europe, where on the whole, operators only run the services they want to, and often have completely separate fare structures and ticketing. Thus:
— there is no ‘one stop shop’ for purchasing international rail tickets (even, e.g., Rail Europe do not sell a complete range of tickets), and flexible through ticketing is lacking. Remember when it was possible to buy an international through train-ferry ticket from your local BR ticket office?
— operators tend to neglect local and inter-regional services in favour of the headline-grabbing long-distance high-speed services. For instance, it is quite easy to travel between London and Paris by train, but impossible between Ashford and Calais. [There are many people who live in Pas-de-Calais and work in Kent or London, and vice versa, so why is there no cross-channel commuter rail service? Because Eurostar, which was given the monopoly (without corresponding regulartion) on cross-channel passenger rail services, just wants to be an airline on rails and is not interested in providing commuter services, even though there is probably a market for it.]
— there is little in the way of co-ordination of services.
If the railways are now treating people as customers (implying a contractual relationship) rather than passengers (implying that there wasn’t a contractual relationship) then they would arguably be giving people more power as regards duties owed.
But from a legal standpoint it’s irrelevant what name is given to the relationship as it would be a case of what it actually was rather than what it is called (and I don’t think it can credibly be argued that their isn’t a contractual relationship in any case).
As Anders suggests though, this is a case of customer service – in the sense of what Lib Dems might have referred to as “Putting People First”. Certainly I can’t recall the pre-privatisation British Rail being a shining beacon of customer friendliness.
@Maria M
Funnily enough, most people who use East Midlands Trains preferred their old franchise too and aren’t so keen on EMT. I suspect they may not be keen though on the trains stopping at two additional stations given the extended journey time for people further up the line.
I’m not sure I’m entirely sold though on the reintegration of track and trains as so many operators cross over on to those operated by other people, which in the case of someone like CrossCountry is almost impossible to resolve.
Hi Chris
Great piece. I live in North London and I’m one of the rarer (though not rare) commuters who live in London and commute outwards, against the flow, to Hertfordshire for work. This year, beacuse of the train company phasing out their Flexitime ticket for commuters on the quieter north-bound service, my season ticket has increased by 33%. It’s gone from £2024 to £3000. I have no idea how such an increase can be justified. I would be happy to lend my voice to yours in this campaign.
All I know is that, since privatisation, fares have gone up to the point where I can no longer afford to use the trains. And British Rail were always accommodating towards disabled people who needed help getting on the train, a place to park the chair while on, etc.
Now the private train companies can’t stand when someone on a wheelchair wants to use the train. We get passed from department to department and they patently act like they don’t want our business. I’ve been yelled at before by a Virgin Trains conductor who was quite cruel to me saying I should not be allowed to be on trains, etc. Why? Because the poor dear had to spend 2 minutes setting up a ramp for me.
IMO privatisation of things like communications has worked well. Privatisation of natural monopolies like the trains and utilities has been a disaster for anyone who is on a lower income. But society is run for those with high incomes these days, so what else should I expect other than to be a 3rd class citizen for the rest of my life?
The craziest thing about the privatisation of the railways is the fact that ever since, rail travel has cost the taxpayer more in subsidies than British Rail ever cost…. I think there is a good argument that the government should slowly be bringing franchises back into public hands as they expire.
As it is we have all of the worst aspects of both public and private ownership rolled into one…
Saying that, I am a regular and generally happy customer of rail. I’m travelling to London on Friday from Birmingham for £3.30. Then back on Saturday for £2.95 (with my railcard).
I agree with Alex Macfie about the lack of a cross-frontier commuter service on the Channel routes. Living in Brussels, it takes longer nowadays to get to Dover than when we had the Jetfoil service from Ostend. But I wouldn’t just blame Eurostar. I suspect the main reason is that Britain is outside the Schengen area. The cost of immigration control is kept down by severely limiting the number of stations served by trains that have passed through the tunnel. This would also explain why we have never had Channel Tunnel trains to destinations north or west of London even though it was originally planned. In fact, the sleepers for Edinburgh and Glasgow were actually built, but the service was cancelled before a single train ran. Given the amount of money spent on the rolling stock (which I think was sold to Canada) I don’t understand why it wasn’t “tried out” for a few months.
Interesting piece.
On the question of the over-specification in some areas of franchise agreements and under-specification in others, here’s another story. In my part of the world Southern trains have, since last year, been running trains from Brighton to Portsmouth without toilets, on a journey of 1 hour 21 minutes. On looking into this I found that the provision of toilet facilities is, amazingly enough, not a requirement placed on any operator for any journey, no matter how long.
Worse still, the current DfT policy for future franchising (outlined here: http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/2010-28/govresponse.pdf ) is for even lighter regulation post 2015. What a disaster.
Maybe you can’t blame Eurostar for the airport-style check-in at St Pancras, or for having to run ‘sealed’ in the UK, but you can certainly blame Eurostar for its horrible low-cost-airline-style booking and fare structure; again, this suggests that a mostly unregulated rail industry might have moved towards pure airline-style ticketing, with no off-peak walk-up fares or season tickets.
Although I would much prefer the UK to be in the Schengen area, it should be noted that pre-Schengen international trains in continental Europe did not have airport-style check-in at stations: the standard practice was to check passports on the train, either at the border or while train was moving. This was true even for trains that crossed the Iron Curtain — and they usually carried domestic passengers in every country they passed through. I do not see why passport checks couldn’t be done while trains are in the Channel Tunnel, unless it’s the result of a paranoid UK Border Agency.
In many ways, British Rail immediately before privatisation was the best way of running the railway: state-owned but operationally independent, so train services were determined by local and regional managers who knew what worked in their areas. This also continued for a time after privatisation, as franchises specified only minimum services. But nowadays timetables are often dictated from Whitehall, not just in terms of how many services to run, but when. Some years ago Wessex Trains (former franchise-holder for local train services in SW England) increased the number of trains running from Westbury to Swindon via Melksham from 2 to 5 a day each way; this proved successful, but after Wessex Trains was absorbed into First Great Western, the DfT ordered a return to the original 2 a day. It was also by Whitehall diktat that the Bicester/Oxford-Bristol service was abolished after a few years. So yes, there is under-regulation in a lot of things, such as service quality, but also over-regulation: in particular, civil servants based in Whitehall should NOT be setting train timetables!
In “Thatcher & Sons” Simon Jenkins has some trenchant observations about the original privatization.
A desire to de-monopolize an established industry was admirable in itself. But a rail network is not a fluid market. It is a myriad of non-competitivel ocal monopolies which, the more they are fragmented, the more they require regulation.
The story of how the worst case option came to be adopted has been well told…
…The result was an extraordinary mistake. All reports on options for privatization had concluded that he one thing that should not happen was a break in managment responsibility between infrastructure and thsose running the trains.
…. Within ten years of privatization Britain’s reailways were costing the Treasury five times what they had…
All very depressing.
I understand that in the airline industry the insider term for passengers is “self-loading cargo”.
On the railways, when the memo notifying employees of that passengers would now be referred to as “customers”, in one office someone created a spoof follow-up outlining a change of a heart: rather than “customers”, passengers would now be referred to – “more accurately” – as “nuisances”!
Unfortunately, that seems to reflect all too accurately how the railway companies really view us.
/@
@LiberalEye:
Indeed. It is disgusting that the trains receive more money in taxpayer subsidy right now than they did when the whole thing was state-owned.
If there was ever an argument for bringing the trains back into public ownership, then this is it. As well as the many, many non-profitable destinations have been greatly reduced or simply removed.