New structure for British railways

[LNER4479]

10 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

I thought the 1994 privatisation model was done away with years ago, falling away piece by piece over the years with subsequent reorganisations of the regulatory structure, the swift end to Railtrack after only a few short years, the increasing involvement of the dead hand of the DafT and the changing landscape and shape of the franchises?

.

Yes, tis true that the form of privatisation that exists now is somewhat different to that which existed in 1994. The major changes took effect in 2006 and were a fusion of two things:

1) the industry knew it had to change anyway in the aftermath of Hatfield (and - to some extent - Southall and Ladbroke Grove)

2) responding to EU legislation, notably the Railway Safety Directive

 

The latter in particular laid down that the Infrastructure Manager (Network Rail in our case) and Railway Undertaking (the TOCs) were of equal status in terms of safety responsibility (duty holder); prior to that, it had been what was referred to as a 'permissioning regime', whereby Railtrack audited the TOC safety cases. The establishment of ORR as the safety regulator (the National Safety Authority) now means that both IM & RU are equally beholden to it (ORR) who do the auditing and granting of safety licenses. At the same time, Railtrack's Safety and Standards Directorate was hived off to become RSSB. Finally, RAIB was established, taken over the accident investigation function from HSE.

 

Big changes in truth, which have coincided with the industry's enviable safety record in recent years (although I do think that TPWS has had a lot to do with that)

 

My more recent experience has been in this regulatory / safety field - I left true TOC land in 2002 so I only felt able to comment knowledgeably on such matters prior to that. My concerns over the number of contractual barriers and the commercial consequences does remain however - no more powerful demonstration of that than in the recent 800 cracking issues.

[TheSignalEngineer]

7 minutes ago, caradoc said:

And as to investment.... Crossrail ? HS2 ? 

Both London-centric. Crossrail was first mooted c1840 and HS2 stage 1 was discussed within BR over 30 years ago.

What is happening elsewhere? The Northern Powercut? Gapped Western Route Electrification?......

[Ron Ron Ron]

7 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Yes, tis true that the form of privatisation that exists now is somewhat different to that which existed in 1994. ......

 

You missed out a couple of key changes there

The creation of the SRA and its subsequent abolition, resulting in the DafT taking on direct responsibilities that many regard as the real reason for it all going gradually Pear shaped from around 10 years ago (2011/12 onwards).

 

.

[caradoc]

2 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

...and we think that ticket prices are expensive today?

 

The first 6 1/2 years of my railway career was as a booking office clerk. There was not a day passed without someone complaining about the fares, saying 'How much ?' (in an outraged tone of voice), 'Has it gone up ?', or 'It wasn't that much last time'. This was between 1978 and 1984, so I am afraid anyone believing that fares will magically come down under Government ownership is in for a shock. 

 

This article, with the headline 'I pay more than £9000 a year for my season ticket', appears in the Business section of the BBC News website today: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57186489

The gentleman concerned is also quoted as saying that his season (Peterborough/London) is still cheaper than buying a ticket each day, at a cost of..... £120 ! I thought, that is expensive so checked on line, and found, even travelling in the peaks both ways, Standard Class return fares of between £67 and £51; First Class however is between £115 and £71. Note; The article does not reveal whether his season or daily ticket are First Class, or that cheaper fares are in fact available. I would complain to the BBC but on past experience that is a pointless exercise. 

 

[LNER4479]

5 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

You missed out a couple of key changes there

The creation of the SRA and its subsequent abolition, resulting in the DafT taking on direct responsibilities that many regard as the real reason for it all going gradually Pear shaped from around 10 years ago (2011/12 onwards).

 

.

Indeed.

 

As I say, I feel I should only comment about what I have had direct experience of and / or know about. There's definitely a 'babies and bath water' element to all this in terms of retaining those aspects that are deemed to have been relatively successful in recent years and those that haven't. But that's a tricky call. Sometimes, changing one area of a complex, interlinked industry such as the railway industry can have unintended, negative consequences elsewhere. My experience in recent years has been of an at times 'uneasy peace' between ORR and DfT as ORR attempts to regulate in areas that DfT are also responsible for. There's certainly fertile ground for change there and quite how much impact GBR will have in that respect remains to be seen.

[Ron Ron Ron]

2 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

.......have the Government or Advisors for this move, looked at successful best practice in Countries where the Railways are thriving and successful with huge amounts of investment, e.g. Poland?  Railways,.....

......however the investment 'abroad' in thriving countries......

 

19 minutes ago, caradoc said:

Two points to make; As an ex-employee, and still regular rail traveller throughout the UK, I do not recognise in any shape or form your opinion of our railways. And as to investment.... Crossrail ? HS2 ? 

 

8 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Both London-centric. Crossrail was first mooted c1840 and HS2 stage 1 was discussed within BR over 30 years ago.

What is happening elsewhere? The Northern Powercut? Gapped Western Route Electrification?......

 

It's widely recognised that (in real terms spending) that the investment in the UK's railways over the last 20 years, has been higher that at any time since the Victorian era.

From schemes like Norton Bridge, Hitchin Flyover, Werrington etc, etc, to complete station rebuilds, such as London Bridge (a huge logistical task), Reading and St. Pancras, to major refurbishments or remodelling of stations, such as New St., Kings X etc. T

The list goes on.

Reopenings, such as Bathgate and the Borders.

The GWML and NW Electrification projects (although bodged in project management and costs)

Crossrail (a huge undertaking).

Freight route upgrades and gauge improvements.

Britains first High Speed line, HS1 from Kent to London and now the daddy of them all, HS2.

There are many more.

 

 

London biased?

Probably, but then again, London and the SE constitutes nearly 70% of all passenger traffic.

That's internally (i.e. not including travel into and out of that region).

 

 

.

 

.

[LNER4479]

22 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

It's widely recognised that (in real terms spending) that the investment in the UK's railways over the last 20 years, has been higher that at any time since the Victorian era.

From schemes like Norton Bridge, Hitchin Flyover, Werrington etc, etc, to complete station rebuilds, such as London Bridge (a huge logistical task), Reading and St. Pancras, to major refurbishments or remodelling of stations, such as New St., Kings X etc. T

The list goes on.

Reopenings, such as Bathgate and the Borders.

The GWML and NW Electrification projects (although bodged in project management and costs)

Crossrail (a huge undertaking).

Freight route upgrades and gauge improvements.

Britains first High Speed line, HS1 from Kent to London and now the daddy of them all, HS2.

There are many more.

 

 

London biased?

Probably, but then again, London and the SE constitutes nearly 70% of all passenger traffic.

That's internally (i.e. not including travel into and out of that region).

 

 

.

 

.

An additional point I was going to make - and you've highlighted it quite well there - is that Britain's railways are still largely surviving on a Victorian infrastructure, getting older by the year and only being upgraded in a piecemeal way. The real lesson from Europe is the 'start again' nature of the Trans-European high speed network. It's a wonderful thing to experience (having been fortunate to travel extensively on such railways in France, Germany, Italy etc over the last 15 years) but it comes at an eye-watering cost which can only really be seen as a 'for our grandchildren' investment for the greater good of the country. In that regard, I whole-heartedly approve of HS2 but we are decidedly behind the curve in terms of what the rest of Europe have been doing.

 

One thing not always recognised by those who simply scream for longer trains / platforms / extra lines on our existing infrastructure is that there is eventually a limit to what you can squeeze out of a basic trackbed / alignment, designed and constructed 150 years ago (and more) in an often fragmented manner and which couldn't possibly have envisaged 125+mph operation. Trains travelling at 125+mph require far more gradual transitions in both lateral and vertical sense which would take most existing alignments way beyond the current boundary and into farmer Giles' field. It was tackled to some extent with the WCML Trent Valley upgrade with a modicum of land purchase but if we are serious about creating a fit-for-purpose 21st century rail system then HS2 (and HS3 and 4) is the only way forward. Otherwise, we condemn ourselves to forever potter about on a patchwork railway and slowly slide into oblivion.

 

Quite how much GBR will assist in grasping that particular nettle I'm even less sure!

[Nearholmer]

Yes, there are almost two separate questions:

 

The revenue question: what is the most effective and efficient way to organise the operation and maintenance of an existing national rail network, while broadly maintaining its existing capacity?; and,

 

The capital question: how much money is it justifiable, in terms of affordability, visible payback, invisible payback etc, to spend on growing the capacity, in terms of speed, tonnage, passenger km/year etc, of a national rail network?

 

This review seems to focus almost wholly on "the revenue question", while hinting at marginal increases in capacity when it comes to "the capital question". Both are worthy of answers.

 

(Renewing train fleets often gets thought of as "capital", but IMO it is only really "capital" to the extent that the new trains help deliver increased throughput capacity. Simply replacing a clapped-out one to maintain the same capacity feels very "revenue" to me.)

[Gwiwer]

Reading through the official document, which seems long on promise but very short on detail, I am left with many questions.

 

Will ORCATS become a thing of the past?  With one GBR managing all the revenue will the "need" felt by some TOCs to run a token service deep into "enemy territory" in order to offer a daily through service pinch a bit of revenue from the major operator cease?  Or will the opposite become the case where operating territories blur because there is a demonstrated demand for direct journeys where they don not currently exist?  

 

Southern has run a Sussex - LMR service of some sort for some years now and currently provides an hourly link between Clapham Junction and Milton Keynes which is sufficiently popular that it has had to offer 8-car trains up from the original 4-cars used on the one-time Brighton - Rugby service.  Anglia tried and failed with a  novel Ipswich - Basingstoke link which was irregular and perhaps attracted little support for that reason.  But could we see a return of the Brighton - Exeter / Waterloo - Plymouth direct trains subject to rolling stock being found?  Not because there is necessarily a lot of end-to-end demand but because there is enough between intermediate stations to warrant occasional direct trains.  GWR has suspended its Brighton - Great Malvern service  during Covid but far too often provided a very basic class 150 unit for the trip which put people off making a second journey.  It was once fairly popular but word got around that it would "only be a Sprinter" and people made other arrangements.  

 

The document specifically mentions that there are "400 people arguing among themselves over delay minute attribution" which, in a GBR world, may become less important or even irrelevant in the current context.  Does this mean internal systems such as Quartz will also become redundant?  That is one which occupies excessive time at a busy station and can result in delay attribution going unrecorded when staff are occupied as a priority with safety-critical tasks.  The public might see "Owing to a problem under investigation" which is a default message when delays are not attributed but operating staff will receive any or all of phone calls, emails and "please explain" sessions when Quartz is - shall we say - overlooked.  

 

Much is made of the return of the "barbed -wire" logo in a slightly modified style.  I'm sure any copyright on the original and on the corporate typeface (also being "modernised") has been considered before such an announcement in the same way that GBRf might have been consulted over the national use of a very similar name for all rail operations.   Nothing has been said about livery colour or style but words have been passed from suit-level to the ground to the effect that "skins" on trains (meaning the livery vinyls) will eventually all be one colour but not in the shorter term.   We shall see.  

 

 

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

33 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Renewing train fleets often gets thought of as "capital", but IMO it is only really "capital" to the extent that the new trains help deliver increased throughput capacity. Simply replacing a clapped-out one to maintain the same capacity feels very "revenue" to me.

Not sure if accounting is still the same but the LMS nominally rebuilt some Claughtons into Patriots then Patriots and Royal Scots to 7Ps and these although largely new locos albeit using some second hand bits were considered revenue expenditure.

I managed to pull a similar stunt replacing semaphore signals with judiciously placed colour lights, thus resignalling a section of line over three or four years from the revenue budget before The Management twigged what I was doing. It did however result in being told to draw up a theoretical resignalling scheme for all of our remaining semaphore sections and make sure all budget renewal proposals fitted my plans.

[Nearholmer]

I’m not well-up with accounting law and conventions as regards tax, declarations on the balance sheet etc, which I do know have changed over time, and was thinking more of practical purposes. Perhaps I should have used the terms ‘maintenance and renewals’ and ‘investment’, but they are equally open to interpretation.

[Nearholmer]

52 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

currently provides an hourly link between Clapham Junction and Milton Keynes

Well, sometimes. It very often gets turned short at Watford Junction. But, it is (was) massively popular.

 

On the question of service planning: railways have always employed people to attempt to work out where and when it might be worth running trains, and latterly there have been both private and public sector bods doing that in different places, for different reasons, sometimes reaching different conclusions. My reading is that GBR would employ the bods to do that in future, just as TfL employs some very clever bods to do it now, and that some regional/devolved authorities will also. That will then get baked into each service contract.

 

With luck and good judgement, they will get it spit-on, demand will precisely match capacity, in a symphony of efficiency. Except that crystal balls are always a tiny bit unreliable.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Nearholmer

[DK123GWR]

58 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Much is made of the return of the "barbed -wire" logo in a slightly modified style.  I'm sure any copyright on the original and on the corporate typeface (also being "modernised") has been considered before such an announcement

All copyright on BR-related symbols is, I believe, held by the Secretary of State for Transport.

[Dunsignalling]

The "Arrows of Indecision" have never gone away, they still appear on road signs showing directions to railway stations, irrespective of operator, and our local stations have large ones on tall posts in their car parks to enable people to home in on them.

 

John

 

  

[C126]

At the risk of lowering the thread's tone to the lowest form of wit, I saw this gem on par. 1, p. 98:

 

"Reform of the railways must begin with ensuring that everyone working in the sector has a fulfilling, challenging, flexible and modern role ... "

 

How many people are lucky enough to say their job is thus?  (Actually, this is more 'cynicism' than sarcasm.)

[corneliuslundie]

Certainly in the old days replacing worn out assets with similar assets (ie replacing clapped out trains) was properly regarded as "renewal". If it was extra capacity (more trains, extra lines of rails, more station platforms etc) it was "capital" and was funded by increasing the share capital. But that was already getting blurred by 1923 and was further blurred between the wars with government loans etc. Since nationalisation it has become largely irrelevant as there have been no shareholders of railway companies - as opposed to the current operating companies which are not governed by the legislation that covered railways created by act of parliament. But in general, renewal should be just that and capital expenditure should be addition to the assets. But politicians like to call renewals capital expenditure because it sounds better. I am not sure what the Treasury thinks (does it?).

Jonathan

[Pete the Elaner]

Does anyone think this is history repeating itself?

WW1 places pressure on the railways so in 1923, they are grouped into 4 to make them more manageable.

WW2 places pressure on the railways so in 1948, they are grouped into 1.

Almost 50 years later, they are split up to be run by several private companies (Given the 1948 grouping, I always felt this was a backward step from people who do not learn from history).

Now a different type of economic issue has hurt the railways & the way forward seems to be grouping but a strange, halfway measure.

[The Lurker]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

I’m not well-up with accounting law and conventions as regards tax, declarations on the balance sheet etc, which I do know have changed over time, and was thinking more of practical purposes. Perhaps I should have used the terms ‘maintenance and renewals’ and ‘investment’, but they are equally open to interpretation.

In terms of current accounting and (UK) tax practice, new rolling stock, whether purchased or leased, would be taken on to the balance sheet as a fixed asset and depreciated over its useful economic life. The depreciation charge would be ignored for tax purposes and capital allowances ("tax depreciation") given as a deduction vs profits.

 

The LMS accounting, and indeed similar accounting on Southern Railway when the old Drummond 4-6-0's were "rebuilt" as H15s were regarded as "clever accounting" even then if what I have read over the years is correct. Accounting standards have become increasingly formalised since the 1920s.

 

Renewals tax treatment as almost entirely disappeared from the UK (it may have done completely but it is a long time since I worked in a capital intensive industry) but this was an alternative to the tax treatment described above.

 

Sorry for the digression.

[RJS1977]

16 hours ago, LBRJ said:

 

 

Overall though back on topic, from my "outsider, looking in to what once was, and may be again" perspective this doesn't seem to be the worst idea about the future of the Railways I have ever heard.

 

I'm not sure what it will actually achieve though, other than Government being seen to be Doing Something.

 

If we look at the main causes for delays, this won't make a jot of difference.

 

The infrastructure has been in public hands for 20 years, and we still get points failures, signal failures etc. It won't stop scrappies stealing signalling cable, (or even mice getting into relay cabinets), or severe weather flooding the line or bringing wires down.

 

It won't stop lorries hitting bridges, or passengers holding the doors open for their friends, or being taken ill on board trains.

[Nearholmer]

You hugely underestimate the net negative effect of half a dozen or more different organisations, each incentivised slightly differently, all pulling in very subtly different directions, and the net negative effect of the biggest and loudest of them (NR) being so far removed from the real customers.

 

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Nearholmer
Effect vs affect

[Compound2632]

On 20/05/2021 at 00:17, uax6 said:

I wonder what the logo will be?

 

On 20/05/2021 at 06:43, Grizz said:

I wonder if we will go back to the Ferret and Dartboard logo?.

 

Ah probably more likely to be a unicorn holding a triangular wheel, surrounded by a circular rainbow.....

 

Sorry coming in a bit late on this but Steve Bell has though this one through:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/may/20/steve-bell-on-the-governments-uk-rail-industry-reform-plan-cartoon

 

 

[caradoc]

5 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Both London-centric. Crossrail was first mooted c1840 and HS2 stage 1 was discussed within BR over 30 years ago.

What is happening elsewhere? The Northern Powercut? Gapped Western Route Electrification?......

 

I agree that GW electrification must be completed, if not extended (although would that not be just as London-centric as HS2 ?), and Northern Powerhouse Rail must move forward. However as detailed elsewhere in RMWeb, small steps are being taken eg Manchester/Stalybridge and Leeds/York electrification. And as per RAIL magazine 929 there are plans for major changes in the Huddersfield/Dewsbury area, with additional track and platforms. So things are happening elsewhere !

 

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by caradoc
Grammar

[mdvle]

51 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

If we look at the main causes for delays, this won't make a jot of difference.

 

Not necessarily true.

 

51 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

The infrastructure has been in public hands for 20 years, and we still get points failures, signal failures etc. It won't stop scrappies stealing signalling cable, (or even mice getting into relay cabinets), or severe weather flooding the line or bringing wires down.

 

It won't stop lorries hitting bridges, or passengers holding the doors open for their friends, or being taken ill on board trains.

 

But it potentially offers many other things that can help.

 

Several months ago there was a post on here about a comment from someone at NR on how in the future there may need to be fewer trains.  Several ran with the conclusion that NR was referring to people not returning to the railways, which wasn't what NR said.  What they said was with fewer trains, the potential for small failures to cascade into big problems disappeared and that in general the network ran more efficiently - the point being that attempts to cram as many trains into the timetable as possible was actually making things worse for the customers by creating delays.  Remove the franchise stuff and (in theory) the GBR can set schedules to get as many trains as possible without going past that point where each additional train makes the situation worse.

 

Similarly, a unified GBR will remove the problems of franchise bidding promises colliding with what NR has planned - so NR doesn't need to cancel A to provide B that was in some winning franchise bid.  This means NR can plan things in a more pragmatic manner.

 

So, not a silver bullet to the problems, and may not help as much as some want, but it does have the potential to stabilize things so competitive pressures don't make things worse.

[TheSignalEngineer]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

However as detailed elsewhere in RMWeb, small steps are being taken eg Manchester/Stalybridge and Leeds/York electrification. And as per RAIL magazine 929 there are plans for major changes in the Huddersfield/Dewsbury area, with additional track and platforms. So things are happening elsewhere !

Manchester - Stalybridge is only getting done because of something we knew when we were working on the Bury Tram and transport proposals for the 1992? Olympic bid i.e. Victoria station as altered would struggle to cope with the required number of peak services even then so most trains from the west would have become through trains to Stalybridge to reverse or Rochdale - Oldham loop services 

 

Regarding other lines, somewhere beyond 30 years ago I was the Designated Signalling Project Engineer for alternate stages of what has ultimately become Manchester ROC or whatever it is called now. My last big job before retirement was to be resignalling and track improvements from Hazel Grove/Ashburys/Hyde via the Hope Valley line to the MML due for completion 13 years ago. So far the job has got as far as recontrolling the existing signalling at Romiley and New Mills Central and not a lot else.

[RichardT]

On 21/05/2021 at 11:03, Mike_Walker said:

 

I see it only took him a few hours to admit fares "may continue to rise" when what he really meant was "will continue to rise".  Worse, if GBR are going to be responsible for all ticketing, with a simplified structure and no use restrictions, has anyone among the Great British Public realised what this implies?  Logically, an end to all APEX and other journey specific "bargain" fares which TOCs offer to sell otherwise empty seats on less popular services. 

Spot on Mike, and the lid is already coming off this can of worms.

 

I’m a member of the LNER Viewpoint panel (online market research focus group) which I’m sure many others are.
 

I’ve just completed the most recent survey, which was billed as “your opinion on a new type of ticket supplement which LNER are considering introducing”.

 

When I got into the survey it was revealed that in future all tickets will be Anytime or Advance for a specific train (off peak & super off peak will be withdrawn) and reservations will be compulsory. The ticket “add-on” which was the subject of the survey is an idea for a supplementary fare which will allow you to change your advance ticket to another *LNER* train (not to *any* other train) departing up to one hour before or after your booked train. (What value this is if your station has only one LNER service per hour (e.g. Durham) wasn’t explained.)

 

The survey was trying to gauge how much you’d be willing to pay for this add-on and how useful you’d find it.  I said “no more than £1” and “not at all”. There were no options to express the view that withdrawal of off peak tickets and making all LNER trains reservation only were even more likely to

put me off train travel.  

 

The survey kept emphasising that currently Advance tickets charge £10 for changes, but failed to mention that the £10 charge allows you to move your Advance days or weeks into the future, not one hour.  Nor did it allow me to point out that making LNER trains all reservation only might be fine if you think LNER only serves Londoners travelling to Edinburgh, but is a major inconvenience for us  for whom LNER is a provider of regular shorter intermediate journeys (e.g. Durham to York). The implication is also that the retention of TOCs under “GBR” will still allow this kind of TOC-specific restriction to continue, getting rid of which I thought was one of the major arguments in favour of a unified railway.

 

I am pretty sure that this survey is not a genuine options appraisal exercise, but simply about gathering PR information to mitigate the outrage when (not if) this new structure is introduced.    
 

Still, all the journalists, pundits and comedians who’ve made a living pretending that the current ticket system is incomprehensible (when they seem to manage the airlines exactly similar systems OK) will be happy. They will see exactly what they get when their moans about “why can’t we just have a single price for the same journey” are put into effect.  All the disadvantages of a monolithic inflexible railway PLUS all the disadvantages of TOC-fragmentation.  Well done Shapps, your paymasters are proud of you.

 

RT

Edited May 22, 2021 by RichardT
Clarity and paragraphing