Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Railtrack
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Issues and controversies=== The [[Southall rail crash]] in 1997<ref>{{cite web |url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/19/newsid_2524000/2524283.stm |title = Six dead in Southall Train Disaster |publisher = BBC News |date = 19 September 1997 |access-date = 28 December 2008 |archive-date = 7 March 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080307133204/http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/19/newsid_2524000/2524283.stm |url-status = live }}</ref> and the [[Ladbroke Grove rail crash]] in 1999<ref>{{cite web |url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/467919.stm |title = Ladbroke Grove Crash |publisher = BBC News |date = 11 October 1999 |access-date = 28 December 2008 |archive-date = 13 February 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080213193248/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/467919.stm |url-status = live }}</ref> called into question the negative consequences that the fragmentation of the railway network had introduced to both safety and maintenance procedures. Railtrack was severely criticised for both its performance in improving Britain's railway infrastructure and for its safety record.<ref name = "parliament summary2010"/><ref>{{cite journal |url=https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/22433/1/2008-01.pdf|title = The rise and fall of Railtrack PLC: an event study |journal = Applied Economics |volume = 43 |date = 2011 |issue = 23 |pages = 3143–3153 |doi = 10.1080/00036840903476379 |last1 = Glass |first1 = Anthony |s2cid = 154603770 }}</ref> It was observed in [[William Cullen, Baron Cullen of Whitekirk|Lord Cullen's]] inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove accident that trains would have been prevented from passing any signal at red had an [[Automatic Train Protection]] (ATP) system had been fitted and operational; however, ATP's national adoption, a recommendation made after the [[Clapham Junction rail crash]] in 1988, had been abandoned as the cost was considered to be excessive for the increase in safety.<ref>[http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HSE_Lad_Cullen001.pdf The Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry Part 1 by The Rt Hon Lord Cullen PC] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221028132338/https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HSE_Lad_Cullen001.pdf |date=28 October 2022 }} (3.2 MB pdf file) – The Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry Part 1, paras 8.3–5.</ref> [[File:Railtrack PW train.jpg|thumb|Railtrack rail cleaning train at Northam]] One particular area of criticism was that the regulator was not tough enough on Railtrack and, as a result, the company had been able to abuse its [[monopoly]] position. In particular, Railtrack's customers, the passenger and freight train operators, were allegedly desperate for regulatory action to compel the company to improve its stewardship of the network and its performance. During 1993, Swift had been appointed rail regulator by the then Conservative transport secretary John MacGregor MP. When the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] government took over after the [[1997 United Kingdom general election|general election in May 1997]], the new transport secretary (and deputy prime minister) [[John Prescott]] took a much harder line. When Swift's five-year term of office expired on 30 November 1998, he was not reappointed.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/176784.stm |title = Rail Regulator to go |publisher = BBC News |date = 21 September 1998 |access-date = 28 December 2008 |archive-date = 28 July 2020 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200728132043/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/176784.stm |url-status = live }}</ref> After an interim period, during which [[Chris Bolt]], Swift's chief economic adviser and effective deputy, filled the regulator's position, in July 1999 a new rail regulator began a five-year term, starting a much tougher regulatory era.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19990324/ai_n14218511 |title = City lawyer will be the new rail regulator |work = The Independent |date = 24 March 1999}} {{dead link|date=May 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> [[Tom Winsor]], the new rail regulator, had been Swift's general counsel (1993–95), and adopted a more interventionist and aggressive regulatory approach.<ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.theguardian.com/business/1999/mar/24/6 |title = Get-tough regulator named for Railways |work = The Guardian |date = 24 March 1999 |access-date = 12 December 2016 |archive-date = 14 April 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160414024132/http://www.theguardian.com/business/1999/mar/24/6 |url-status = live }}</ref> The relationship between the two parties was reportedly stormy at times; in April 2000, it was reported in ''The Guardian'' that "Railtrack is adopting a deliberate 'culture of defiance' against the rail regulator".<ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/apr/03/1 |title = Railtrack Declares War on Regulator |work = The Guardian |date = 3 April 2000 |access-date = 12 December 2016 |archive-date = 14 April 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160414024132/http://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/apr/03/1 |url-status = live }}</ref> [[Gerald Corbett]], Railtrack's chief executive at the time, and Winsor did not share the same vision for the network. Railtrack resisted regulatory action to improve its performance, and as the regulator probed ever more deeply, serious shortcomings in the company's stewardship of the network were revealed.<ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.lgcplus.com/archive/report-slams-railtracks-record-14-04-1999/ |title = Report slams Railtrack's record |website = lgcplus.com |date = 14 April 1999 |access-date = 5 December 2022 |archive-date = 5 December 2022 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20221205025313/https://www.lgcplus.com/archive/report-slams-railtracks-record-14-04-1999/ |url-status = live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prescott-orders-probe-into-rail-repairs-633912.html |title = Prescott orders probe into rail repairs |work = The Independent |date = 24 October 2000}} {{dead link|date=August 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> Winsor informed Railtrack that if it did not improve passenger train performance by 12.7 per cent by March 2000, the company would have to pay fines out of its profits.<ref name = "sciencemuseum summary"/> On 17 October 2000, the [[Hatfield rail crash]] occurred;<ref>{{cite web |url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_2491000/2491425.stm |title = Four dead in Hatfield Train Crash |publisher = BBC News |date = 17 October 2000 |access-date = 28 December 2008 |archive-date = 7 March 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080307134427/http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_2491000/2491425.stm |url-status = live }}</ref> this would prove to be the defining moment in Railtrack's subsequent collapse.<ref name = "wolmar 2005"/> The cause of the fatal accident was quickly determined to be an infrastructure-related failure, and thus within Railtrack's remit.<ref name=times>{{cite news |url = http://find.galegroup.com/ttda/infomark.do?&source=gale&prodId=TTDA&userGroupName=wes_ttda&tabID=T003&docPage=article&searchType=BasicSearchForm&docId=IF502372356&type=multipage&contentSet=LTO&version=1.0 |first1 = Ian |last1 = Cobain |first2 = Michael |last2 = Harvey |first3 = Steve |last3 = Bird |title = Four killed and 33 hurt: mechanical failure blamed |newspaper = [[The Times]] |date = 18 October 2000 |access-date = 16 August 2016 |url-access = subscription |archive-date = 12 January 2021 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210112000144/https://galeapps.gale.com/apps/auth?userGroupName=wes_ttda&origURL=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.gale.com%2Fps%2Fi.do%3Faction%3Dinterpret%26id%3DGALE%7CIF0502372356%26v%3D2.1%26u%3Dwes_ttda%26it%3Dr%26p%3DTTDA%26sw%3Dw&prodId=TTDA |url-status = live}}</ref> In Hatfield's aftermath, major repairs were undertaken across the whole British rail network which were estimated to have cost in the order of [[Pound sterling|£]]580 million.<ref name = "sciencemuseum summary"/> Railtrack had no idea how many potential Hatfields were waiting to happen, nor did they have any way of assessing the consequence of the speed restrictions they were ordering, largely because the majority of the engineering skill of British Rail had been sold off into separate maintenance and renewal companies. These restrictions brought the railway network to an almost total standstill and drew significant public ire.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/989218.stm |title = Railtrack shuts down West Coast Main Line |publisher = BBC News |date = 25 October 2000 |access-date = 28 December 2008 |archive-date = 9 April 2003 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20030409215759/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/989218.stm |url-status = live }}</ref><ref name = "timeline guardian2002"/><ref>{{cite news |url = https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1482439/Hatfield-crash-was-disaster-waiting-to-happen.html |title = Hatfield crash "was disaster waiting to happen" |newspaper = [[The Daily Telegraph]] |date = 31 January 2005 |access-date = 22 August 2016 |archive-date = 10 February 2018 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180210181641/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1482439/Hatfield-crash-was-disaster-waiting-to-happen.html |url-status = live}}</ref> According to Wolmar, the Railtrack board had panicked in the wake of Hatfield.<ref>{{cite book |last = Wolmar |first = Christian |title = On the Wrong Line |publisher = Aurum Press |date = 2005 |isbn = 978-1-85410-998-9 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=HSMzj9wC_soC&pg=PT290 |page = 290 |access-date = 19 March 2023}}</ref> [[File:Railtrack sign.jpg|thumb|A sign identifying a bridge maintained by Railtrack]] Around this time, regulatory and customer pressure on Railtrack audibly increased while the company's share price fell sharply as it became apparent that there were serious shortcomings in the company's ability to tackle and solve fundamental problems with its core activities.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_/ai_n14386329 |title = Railtrack drops out of FTSE 100 as shares fall 17% on brokers' note |work = The Independent |date = 6 June 2001}} {{dead link|date=May 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} </ref> During February 1999, a significant fall in Railtrack's share price occurred in response to the company's launch of a [[Bond (finance)|bond]] issue intended to finance the [[West Coast Main Line route modernisation|West Coast Main Line modernisation]] and [[Thameslink Programme]]s.<ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/pounds-400m-issue-derails-railtrack-share-price-1071597.html |title = £400m issue derails Railtrack share price |work = The Independent |date = 18 February 1999 |first = Philip |last = Thornton |access-date = 10 September 2017 |archive-date = 14 April 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160414024130/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/pounds-400m-issue-derails-railtrack-share-price-1071597.html |url-status = live }}</ref> The modernisation of the [[West Coast Main Line]] had suffered from spiralling costs, rising from an estimated £2 billion to roughly £10 billion.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/565507.stm |title = Repair costs spiral to £5bn |publisher = BBC News |date = 15 December 1999 |url-status = live |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20131110021245/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/565507.stm |archive-date = 10 November 2013 |df = dmy-all}}</ref> The modernisation programme had failures that were technical as well as managerial, such as the [[moving block]] signalling apparatus being immature for such a busy mixed-traffic mainline.<ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/apr/01/transport.uk |title = The main players in the £10bn rail fiasco |work = The Guardian |first = James |last = Meek |date = 1 April 2004 |access-date = 5 December 2022 |archive-date = 13 September 2014 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140913131947/http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/apr/01/transport.uk |url-status = live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title = The Modernisation of the West Coast Main Line |url = https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-modernisation-of-the-west-coast-main-line/ |access-date = 21 July 2021 |website = [[National Audit Office (United Kingdom)|National Audit Office]] |date = 22 November 2006 |language = en-gb |archive-date = 21 July 2021 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210721150856/https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-modernisation-of-the-west-coast-main-line/ |url-status = live}}</ref> In 2000, reports emerged that Railtrack might not be able to go through with its planned commitment to purchase section 2 of [[High Speed 1]], resulting in disruption and uncertainty for that programme as well.<ref>{{cite news |url = https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/may/30/7 |title = Railtrack funding of Channel rail link in doubt again |first = Keith |last = Harper |date = 30 May 2000 |newspaper = The Guardian |access-date = 1 August 2009 |location = London |archive-date = 8 May 2014 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140508231457/http://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/may/30/7 |url-status = live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url = https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/railtrack-could-ditch-new-channel-rail-link-702632.html |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20091201134427/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/railtrack-could-ditch-new-channel-rail-link-702632.html |url-status = dead |archive-date = 1 December 2009 |title = Railtrack could ditch new Channel rail link |first = Michael |last = Harrison |date = 16 January 2001 |newspaper = The Independent |access-date = 1 August 2009 |location = London}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url = https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/railtrack-to-lose-its--newline-monopoly-689651.html |title = Railtrack to lose its new-line monopoly |first = Colin |last = Brown |date = 1 April 2001 |newspaper = The Independent |access-date = 1 August 2009 |location = London}}{{dead link|date=August 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> In February 2001, Steve Marshall, the company's chairman, stated that Railtrack could have a net debt of approximately £8 billion by 2003.<ref name = "sciencemuseum summary"/> During May 2001, Railtrack announced that, despite making a pre-tax profits before exceptional expenses of £199m, the £733m of costs and compensation paid out over the Hatfield crash plunged Railtrack from profit to a loss of £534m.<ref>{{cite news |title = Railtrack in line for all-clear on borrowing |first = Arthur |last = Leathley |newspaper = [[The Times]] |date = 25 May 2001 }}</ref> This loss compelled the organisation to approach the government for funding, which it controversially used to pay a £137m [[dividend]] to its [[shareholder]]s in May 2001.<ref>{{cite news |url = https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2720891/Railtrack-shares-dive-to-all-time-low.html |title = Railtrack shares dive to all time low |work=The Daily Telegraph |date = 6 June 2001 |place = London |first = Alistair |last = Osborne |access-date = 20 May 2010 |url-status = live |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110312232151/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2720891/Railtrack-shares-dive-to-all-time-low.html |archive-date = 12 March 2011 |df = dmy-all}}</ref> Months later, Railtrack sought another bailout from the government.<ref name = "wolmar 2005"/><ref name = "timeline guardian2002"/>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)