Hugh Burkitt’s reaction to the Mori report on the implications of the post-Hatfield disruption for the rail industry (MW January 18) is understandable – given that he had clearly not read the report.
If he had done so, he would have seen that it was not based on new research but was an analysis of a considerable amount of research undertaken for parties within, and outside, the rail industry.
The conclusion it could take four to five years for the industry’s reputation to recover was based on:
– what we know customers value in their relationship with the rail industry and how this would have been damaged
– structural problems facing the industry which go back to privatisation and beyond and make it difficult to recover rapidly
– looking at how long it has taken other national industries and companies to recover after major and prolonged damage to core services.
The report pointed out recovery “could be escalated on certain routes by effective marketing campaigns”. If the report did nothing more than to stimulate such campaigns, then it has served a useful purpose.
Deputy managing director (and author of the report)