Morning:
13°c
Once, we had British Rail. Now we have something that is neither a nationalised rail system nor one that is privately run.
The Government's decision to take over the East Coast line franchise between Edinburgh and London from National Express was probably inevitable, given the company's difficulties.
It had lost £20 million in the first part of the year and was pleading with the Government to renegotiate its contract, something that would have set an unhealthy precedent for other hard-pressed operators.
But we are left with a situation that is analagous to the banks after the credit crunch, whereby some of them are in state hands, some in private ownership, with the state-run companies trying to mimic the market conditions under which the others operate.
It is a situation that promises nothing but confusion. At least outright nationalisation would be more coherent. Unfortunately, it would also be prohibitively expensive.
The Government can take its share of the blame for the present situation.
It sought, and got, an unrealistically high bid of £1.4 billion from National Express to run the East Coast Line, based on optimistic projections for future passenger numbers which turned out to be wholly unwarranted.
Given that the previous operator, GNER, had encountered difficulties in funding its bid, ministers should have been wary of National Express's projections.
The Department of Transport is now considering whether to seek to take over the company's other rail franchises, East Anglia, which runs the Stansted Express, and c2c.
What this means is that our rail service is now an extraordinary hybrid. The state owns Network Rail - which manages the tracks and other infrastructure - and the East Coast Line, leaving all the other operators in private hands.
The Government must hope for a new financially secure private bidder to take on the East Coast operation but in the present situation that seems very unlikely indeed. We are left with a mess, and the one thing that seems certain is that taxpayers will foot the bill.
Parking for bikes
London's 50 largest rail stations currently offer one bike parking space for every 700 passengers. This is woefully inadequate.
Big cuts in emissions and in road and public transport congestion can be achieved when commuters switch to cycling even for only part of their journey.
Yet one of the main reasons why more people don't use a bicycle is fear of theft. Nothing is more infuriating than preparing to cycle to an important appointment, or simply to get home, and finding that a much-loved bike has vanished.
Too often, the racks at stations are non-existent, full - or sited down unsafe alleyways.
The Mayor has backed our Make Cycling Simpler campaign, acknowledging that if cycle use is to go on growing, there will need to be more than the 66,000 extra parking spaces he is due to provide by 2012.
It is up to Network Rail as the owner of most stations, as well as town halls and builders of new developments, to take the challenge seriously.
Cycling is no longer a fringe option but a key part of getting emissions down and making London more environmentally sustainable as its population increases.
Network Rail, as well as Transport for London, developers and boroughs, must respond.
Poetry please
The poetry of TS Eliot was celebrated last night with a fine reading of his verse by Jeremy Irons, Seamus Heaney, Dominic West and Anna Carteret, under the aegis of the admirable Josephine Hart, who has organised a long-running series of memorable public poetry readings.
The poet's widow, Valerie, attended. London is undergoing something of a renaissance in the art of reading poetry, with other events run by the South Bank and the Spectator magazine.
Who would have thought that poetry reading would be one of the capital's best nights out?
Reader views (2)
When will we learn that it's not who owns the railways but the way they're structured that's at fault. We used to have just one railway which did everything: signals, track, trains, stations. The unprofitable but necessary bits were cross-subsidised from the money-making parts. Let's not forget that in its last years, BR was actually making a profit from some of its operations, such as InterCity.
Now we have separate companies for the track, train operations, train ownership, track renewal etc, all trying to make a profit. Nothing wrong with making profit, but it does mean that cross-subsidy has gone, and that overall the "privatised" railway industry now costs us the taxpayers something like 3x what BR did! If that's not a sign of failure, what is?
The present structure was created because of a desire for "competition" within the rail industry. But this was always a red herring, as most places are only served by one operator, and always will be. Rail's real competitors are the roads and airways. Let's call an end to this failed experiment, and re-integrate back into one railway. It doesn't much matter if its the British Railways Board or British Rail plc, it needs to be a single entity!
- Roy, England
It is a pity we cannot lose our obsession with the ideology of ownership. As an occasional rail passenger I couldn't care less who owns the railway. I'm more concerned with the owner being able to appoint top-class professional managers, motivate staff, source finance from as many places as possible and impose the tightest possible safety measures. If the Government can do those things without undue cost to us then the present situation can stay indefinitely. If a private company can do it better, then sell the franchise on. If Britain becomes wealthy again then let the state run the system. Good transport services are provided by good managers, keen staff and the professional oversight of safety and efficiency irrespective of who "owns" them. Whispering "privatisation" or "nationalsiation" at the trains like some religious mantra will have no effect whatever, other than to keep idealists happy.
- John Reynolds, London
