Leaving aside Network Rail’s 7,000 signalmen, there could be perhaps 1,400 staff reductions.The biggest cost savings will come from the renewals budget where Network Rail believes it can cut costs by up to £500m a year. One way it aims to achieve this is through much better management of “possession” of the network. If Network Rail takes possession of part of the track without notifying the train operator in advance, it must pay 100 per cent compensation for loss of revenue. If the possession is planned then the compensation falls to 40 per cent.Network Rail also intends to make inroads into its £1bn-a-year maintenance budget by taking three of the 20 contracts in-house to see how much more cheaply and efficiently the work can be done.The sharp rise in Network Rail’s budget came as a jolt yesterday to train operators but most assume it will be taxpayers rather than passengers who end up footing the bill. Despite the adoption of more modest performance targets, there also appears to be continuing support for Mr Armitt and his team. The chief executive of one of the country’s biggest train operators said: “We have had full and frank discussions with Network Rail and although it is going to take longer than we would like to bring the network up to scratch we still have faith in them. Speed restrictions and delay minutes are the things we are concerned about because that is what affects passengers.

It is disappointing that the targets have been moved but we have certainly seen a greater commitment to resolving the problems.”Railtrack’s big problem, so the Government constantly told us, was being answerable to shareholders and not passengers. Mr Armitt does not have any shareholders to keep happy but he knows the travelling public will prove an equally hard taskmaster. “This is not going to be a quick fix but at the end of the day, yes, we must be judged on performance.”. Reporters are dug in, camera crews are keeping up a 24-hour bombardment and news executives are holding briefings on the encouraging progress in the ratings and circulation battles.

It is often said that this is a war unlike any other, fought in the media as much as on the battlefield. So what do the armchair generals and defence experts think of the journalists’ campaign so far? Their verdict: “The Media are not having a Good War.”

Reporters are dug in, camera crews are keeping up a 24-hour bombardment and news executives are holding briefings on the encouraging progress in the ratings and circulation battles. They say that basic errors, misleading images, and a lack of understanding in newsrooms of the nature of war make a nonsense of claims that we have never been so well informed about unfolding events in a conflict zone.Some military experts call the jingoistic tone of The Sun “revolting” and The Times “chauvinistic” and claim that the anti-war coverage in the Daily Mirror is “ridiculous”. Television news is so distorted, according to these “armchair generals”, that they choose largely to ignore it.Major General Julian Thompson, who commanded British forces in the Falklands War, says many of the journalists covering the conflict seem “very inexperienced”.