The Future of UK Rail - Williams Review

[DLT]

I thought the RMT's response summed it up pretty well:

 

Mick Cash, general secretary of rail union RMT, said it had warned that "Keith Williams had been hand-picked by Chris Grayling and the Tories to try and get them off the hook over the privatised chaos on our railways".

He added: "RMT also warned that Keith Williams would side 100% with his big-business mates and duck the issue of public ownership of the railways - the option supported by over two-thirds of the British people.

"He has and after months of deliberation has come up with the classic cop-out of another unaccountable quango."

[BWsTrains]

12 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

Well, after all that, this report just seen, of Keith Williams' speech to the Northern Powerhouse, gives a very different view. "Franchises have had their day" he said, and "Revolution not Evolution". I feel a little more optimistic now, even if the end result is far from clear.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/16/uk-railway-needs-revolution-not-evolution-review

 

Mike,

 

If only; we can live in hope!

 

Thinking some more about the issues I was reminded of the old Irish joke about seeking directions to Dublin, "if it were me, I'd not be starting from here!". Everything I've read and seen suggests to me that a radical approach is the only way from here to break out from established and establishment thinking.

 

It's interesting Williams background is from the same industry as Alan Joyce, who turned a comparably st*ffed National Flag carrier / Domestic Transport Corporation around. I know its no real comparison given the scale of rail in the UK but before it happened the problems for Qantas seemed to be equally beyond resolution, with huge barriers in all the same areas faced here.

 

Colin

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by BWsTrains
correction

[Mike Storey]

3 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

One good reason for putting an arm's length body in control of the nation's railway system is that, as last year's timetabling mess demonstrated, the system needs a controlling body (not the DfT) that can take the operational decisions that affect both the infrastructure operations and the train operators without each side being able to blame the other. The same is true for major disruptions.

It is no more than has been normal for decades on the other European railways, even with the infrastructure/operations division that is required by EU law. SNCF is still a unified railway system, so is DB; the exception is the UK, whose railway privatisation model has long been held up as the example of how not to do it.

 

Jim

 

I presume you mean for long or medium term decisions? We used to have that with the SRA and OPRAF, but they were ultimately cut off at the knees, and the ORR became less effective too. What is notable is that direct involvement by the Scottish Government in transport provision, has been far more successful than that of Westminster (accepting that the issues are generally simpler), and that several of their TfS team are ex-SRA!

 

For short term / real-time operational decisions, that must surely be the infrastructure controller. Imposing another level above that will only slow such decisions down, and not necessarily reach different decisions.

 

As for France and Germany, they do not exactly have unified railway systems - in fact many of their problems are due to internal conflicts between their infrastructure and operational arms, especially track access charges in France. We should also note that they have had far less growth, have far more spare capacity and started with greater market shares, than the UK system. That has not stopped their financial and operational performances from becoming dire, especially in the last five years. I do not think it will be much longer before SNCF Mobilite shrivels further or even becomes extinct, once Open Access really kicks in. SNCF Reseau is not much better - the combined inability to build the CdG high speed link in time for the Paris Olympics, is disgraceful. NR, HS1, the TOCs (even the FOCs) and TfL all combined extremely well to plan, build and deliver for 2012, as a matter of national pride.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Mike Storey

[mdvle]

5 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

There's more than one way of looking at that. The post-privatisation fare structure has for some time now been held up as being complex and confusing to the average passenger. It is more than overdue for some sensible simplification.

 

Perhaps, but I don't necessarily see someone coming from the airline business where most of this fare structure stuff came from being the one to simplify it.

[phil-b259]

5 hours ago, DLT said:

I thought the RMT's response summed it up pretty well:

 

Mick Cash, general secretary of rail union RMT, said it had warned that "Keith Williams had been hand-picked by Chris Grayling and the Tories to try and get them off the hook over the privatised chaos on our railways".

He added: "RMT also warned that Keith Williams would side 100% with his big-business mates and duck the issue of public ownership of the railways - the option supported by over two-thirds of the British people.

"He has and after months of deliberation has come up with the classic cop-out of another unaccountable quango."

 

So, according to the RMT therailways problems are due to bungling ministers - yet in the next breath they say they want to have even more direct political control through nationalisation!

 

It is also the case that the country at large does not share the Comunist style Socialist Utopia the RMT loves so much - and as such even if Mr Corbyn and co do get into power - they won’t be there forever! In fact historical analysis shows that England has an underlying Conservative bias and all a ‘hard left’ Labour Government is likely to do is provoke a backlash and thus be succeeded by a right wing Conservative one.

[The Johnster]

On 16/07/2019 at 13:47, Phil Parker said:

 

I think it speaks volumes - essentially, he appears to say that our politicians are too p**s poor to run anything at all. If this is the case for railways, presumably it's also the case for absolutely everything that they meddle in.  The solution would be around 660 less MPs.

It is no use expecting politicians to be anything but useless at anything; they are people who take up politics because they can talk a bit but don't have the skill or intellect to be any use at anything else.  Those few that have the nous to make it into positions of power and influence have to spend all their time fighting off rivals and cannot actually exert any power or influence; just as well in some cases.  

 

Democracy is a useless form of governance, until you compare it with the others.  Capitalism is the most efficient known method of creating wealth, and least efficient possible at distributing it; again, the alternatives are worse.  

 

Our democracy is largely delusional; spin doctors and lobbyists wield the real decision making power and the rest is theatre to convince the electorate who can hardly be bothered with it all because they know it's a con.

 

And you thought you were cynical!

[andyman7]

17 hours ago, mdvle said:

"Fares and ticketing should be overhauled, he said, but warned that reform would “require tough decisions” and “create winners and some losers”."

 

I suspect that is a way of saying the regulatory limits on tickets prices need to be removed, and there is no way the commuters will accept that and hence no government is likely to implement it.

It's not about removing the regulatory limits but changing them. If you go into that project saying that no-one's price can increase ever, it becomes very expensive for the taxpayer. The fares reform modelling done for the industry suggests that a proper overhaul of the fares system would generate significant extra money just by better matching of trains to prices that people are willing to pay. This extra money can be used to cross-subsidise commuter fare changes because right now it is the season ticket that is the most subsidised fare. The problem is that a typical £5000 annual season ticket prices disguises the fact that the per- journey cost on a busy peak time train using standard industry factors works out at £12.50 a trip when the equivalent walk up single fare might be £25. This means that full-time workers get the subsidy but part time or zero hours workers don't. Fares reform is desperately needed to rebalance this but there is no way commuter fares are ever going to be deregulated, it just needs to evolve a bit and needs some extra cash from a reformed system to help fund it.

[andyman7]

5 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Perhaps, but I don't necessarily see someone coming from the airline business where most of this fare structure stuff came from being the one to simplify it.

Keith Williams has used the RDG fares reform work for his basis. I can speak personally to advise that whatever your biases, the best people in the industry, people who really know their stuff and are not in cahoots with Grayling, Williams or any of the politicians, modelled and developed those proposals. If 'privatisation' had not effectively paralysed the normal strategic development of fares and ticketing on the railways we'd be much closer to that kind of model, and it would work. Look at London - in 1995 would anyone have guessed that you can travel anywhere you want in the city by whatever mode by touching your bank card and letting the system work out the best fare?

Edited July 17, 2019 by andyman7

[Mike Storey]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

It is no use expecting politicians to be anything but useless at anything; they are people who take up politics because they can talk a bit but don't have the skill or intellect to be any use at anything else.  Those few that have the nous to make it into positions of power and influence have to spend all their time fighting off rivals and cannot actually exert any power or influence; just as well in some cases.  

 

Democracy is a useless form of governance, until you compare it with the others.  Capitalism is the most efficient known method of creating wealth, and least efficient possible at distributing it; again, the alternatives are worse.  

 

Our democracy is largely delusional; spin doctors and lobbyists wield the real decision making power and the rest is theatre to convince the electorate who can hardly be bothered with it all because they know it's a con.

 

And you thought you were cynical!

 

A bit harsh? I have worked with many MP's in my career, and most were surprisingly on the ball. Some most definitely were not. But the electorate gets the MP's it votes for. 

 

The issue here is that an "independent" has been called in to look at a possible future for UK rail, ending in a report supporting recommendations. The most interesting bit, whatever the recommendations, is surely what the government of the day does with it?

 

[Nearholmer]

Getting back to the RMT rhetoric for a moment:

 

Rhetoric it may be, but it does point to something that I think is very true: sticking something, call it a quango or whatever other word you prefer, on top of the current arrangements, in an attempt to pull all the threads together and get desired results, almost certainly wouldn't work very well.

 

See my previous about accountability without effective power.

 

IMO what the structure needs is not more entities, but fewer.

[Covkid]

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

The issue here is that an "independent" has been called in to look at a possible future for UK rail, ending in a report supporting recommendations. The most interesting bit, whatever the recommendations, is surely what the government of the day does with it?

 

 

Nail on head.  The Government have asked Keith Williams to submit a report, but are not guaranteeing they will deliver the recommendations. My optimism is severely tempered by the realities of what are before us, and for sure DfT will not be giving up their deadhand antics in micromanaging what we currently have. DfT signing deals on behalf of TOCs for new rolling stock based on their delivery partner upgrading the infrastructure.  Do DfT and Network Rail have each others telephone number  ?

 

 

[Bernard Lamb]

9 hours ago, Covkid said:

 

Nail on head.  The Government have asked Keith Williams to submit a report, but are not guaranteeing they will deliver the recommendations. My optimism is severely tempered by the realities of what are before us, and for sure DfT will not be giving up their deadhand antics in micromanaging what we currently have. DfT signing deals on behalf of TOCs for new rolling stock based on their delivery partner upgrading the infrastructure.  Do DfT and Network Rail have each others telephone number  ?

 

 

That reminds me of a story from my working days. The MOD and the Navy had office facilities in the same building in a small English city. 

One day my colleague asked "our" MOD chap to take a package for the Navy chap rather than send it by post.

The reply was to decline the request with the comment that he had worked there for 25 years, he had always said good morning to the Navy chap but they had never taken the conversation any further and delivering a package was totally out of the question.

Bernard. 

[caradoc]

On 17/07/2019 at 08:38, DLT said:

I thought the RMT's response summed it up pretty well:

 

Mick Cash, general secretary of rail union RMT, said it had warned that "Keith Williams had been hand-picked by Chris Grayling and the Tories to try and get them off the hook over the privatised chaos on our railways".

He added: "RMT also warned that Keith Williams would side 100% with his big-business mates and duck the issue of public ownership of the railways - the option supported by over two-thirds of the British people.

"He has and after months of deliberation has come up with the classic cop-out of another unaccountable quango."

 

The only way the RMT would have welcomed the report would have been if it recommended nationalising the railways tomorrow, with no compensation for any private companies involved, all wages to be raised to the highest level paid anywhere, and a Guard on every train, even those that have run without for 30 years or more. Not  likely, or achievable, by any Government.

 

 

[caradoc]

On 17/07/2019 at 14:18, phil-b259 said:

 

So, according to the RMT therailways problems are due to bungling ministers - yet in the next breath they say they want to have even more direct political control through nationalisation!

 

It is also the case that the country at large does not share the Comunist style Socialist Utopia the RMT loves so much - and as such even if Mr Corbyn and co do get into power - they won’t be there forever! In fact historical analysis shows that England has an underlying Conservative bias and all a ‘hard left’ Labour Government is likely to do is provoke a backlash and thus be succeeded by a right wing Conservative one.

 

I too am surprised, given DFT's performance and reputation, by the belief that Government-run will automatically be better than privately-run. Here's an example, from local rather than national, Government, but I think still illuminating:

 

A couple of years ago Oxford City Council widened the pavement at the eastbound bus stops in High St, to give more space for pedestrians. However the resulting narrower road, combined with buses stopping on both sides (sometimes for extended periods) completely blocked High St and caused utter chaos in the city centre (even more than usual). The pavement was then narrowed again, the different road surface where this was done can still be seen. A complete and utter waste of (Council) Taxpayers money.

 

[Mike Storey]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

 

The only way the RMT would have welcomed the report would have been if it recommended nationalising the railways tomorrow, with no compensation for any private companies involved, all wages to be raised to the highest level paid anywhere, and a Guard on every train, even those that have run without for 30 years or more. Not  likely, or achievable, by any Government.

 

 

 

Perhaps, maybe. But as those options have not been offered, nor have they been presented as RMT's official position, we do not yet know.

 

But what is more illuminating is that a majority of the great unwashed, according to many polls now, support re-nationalisation. I doubt this is due to the RMT. So, when so many polls suggest public trust in politicians is at a very low level (some people interpret this is as an all-time low, but history suggests vastly otherwise, although a knowledge of history is no longer a prerequisite to making such statements any more, it seems), but this is, at least one item, that the public appear to believe would be better run by them. As do many on this forum.

 

The primary question, as opposed to union bashing, is why?

[phil-b259]

On 17/07/2019 at 23:00, Covkid said:

 

DfT signing deals on behalf of TOCs for new rolling stock based on their delivery partner upgrading the infrastructure.

 

 

 

Or not... as was the case with the SWR franchise where NR repeatedly told the DfT the winning bid wouldn’t work as the con rail infrastructure couldn’t supply enough power for the proposed timetable. Did the DfT listen?..... of course not!

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

But what is more illuminating is that a majority of the great unwashed, according to many polls now, support re-nationalisation. I doubt this is due to the RMT. So, when so many polls suggest public trust in politicians is at a very low level (some people interpret this is as an all-time low, but history suggests vastly otherwise, although a knowledge of history is no longer a prerequisite to making such statements any more, it seems), but this is, at least one item, that the public appear to believe would be better run by them. As do many on this forum.

 

I suspect it isn't one reason, but some possibilities:

 

- the passage of time plays with our memories, and unless dredging up specific memories we have a tendency to think of things as being better than they perhaps were, and overlooking any negatives (if any).  BR is now far enough in the past that those that had problems are either forgetting them, or deciding they weren't as bad as the current problems.

 

- much of the public believes the railways are an entirely private run entity, and if that isn't working then the obvious alternative is to bring it under government control.

 

- in some cases it does seem, at least superficially, that "a" government running things works better - London Overground seems to work (at least when they have the needed rolling stock), Scotland seems to be more responsive to problems that happen while improving services, etc.

 

- there is a general disillusionment amongst the younger generation with capitalism, as they have matured into adulthood into a world that seems to be conspiring against them - many / most of them have no chance to get on the property ladder (unless helped by the bank of mom/dad), good paying jobs with normal hours seem non-existent, etc. and so they don't have the same pro-capitalism feelings that most people since WW2 would have had.

 

- alternately, and somewhat my opinion, if the government is running things anyway then if you at least remove the illusion of the railway being privately run there is more of a possibility of the government treating it as a higher priority and reigning it some of the current problems thanks to voter scrutiny.  If the government can longer hide behind LNER, GWR, SWR, Southern, Cross-Country, etc. then there is more opportunity for railway issues to influence elections, hence more government focus.

 

 

[jim.snowdon]

At least under BR, which is, after all, only 25 years ago, there was a single organisation that could take decisions in respect of both infrastructure and train operations when things went wrong. Now, at least as I see it, there is a disconnect between the infrastructure operator (Network Rail) and the various TOCs, who each see getting the railway moving again as being not their problem, and between whom cooperation seems non-existent. They are, after all, interested first in ensuring that any penalty payments are set off elsewhere and in making a profit. Their trains take priority over those of other operators. Vesting control of the operational railway in a single body (not the DfT, but one that does understand how to run a railway) to which both the Train Operators and the Infrastucture Operator are subservient would seem an obvious step. To an extent, it is what already happens in Scotland, and appeared to work well with the Southwest Trains / Network Rail alliance.

 

Jim

[Mike Storey]

The issue of a single competence and authority for operational decisions is incontrovertible, as per the last two posts, and appears to be where Williams is heading in one respect.

 

Assuming re-nationalisation of TOCs is not going to be on this government's agenda, at least any time soon, then realistically, we have to see what Williams recommends as that competence. Whether that will rely on the already touted, new Alliancing, seemingly to be written into every new franchise, alongside the devolvement of powers to NR Regions/Routes, or something else, is the question.

 

We can only hope that his experience in a highly fractured airline industry, with parallels to the existing rail industry, but one which works reasonably well, most of the time, does not make him pursue a further version of that.

[The Stationmaster]

10 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

At least under BR, which is, after all, only 25 years ago, there was a single organisation that could take decisions in respect of both infrastructure and train operations when things went wrong. Now, at least as I see it, there is a disconnect between the infrastructure operator (Network Rail) and the various TOCs, who each see getting the railway moving again as being not their problem, and between whom cooperation seems non-existent. They are, after all, interested first in ensuring that any penalty payments are set off elsewhere and in making a profit. Their trains take priority over those of other operators. Vesting control of the operational railway in a single body (not the DfT, but one that does understand how to run a railway) to which both the Train Operators and the Infrastucture Operator are subservient would seem an obvious step. To an extent, it is what already happens in Scotland, and appeared to work well with the Southwest Trains / Network Rail alliance.

 

Jim

I think the big problem with 'alliances' is that thus far they have been single TOC based and that has not worked in favour of other operators (certainly the case on South Western so I've heard).  The problem is really not overmuch different from what it has always been in that you need all the voices round the table when things go wrong so if an operator is not represented in the zone or whatever concerned they can't have as much input as those who are.

 

That was a big reason why at sectorisation reason TLF management were very insistent in having freight Controllers in all the main Control Offices - it gave us a voice and while it might not win at least we knew what was happening and could apply pressure elsewhere.  I don't necessarily subscribe to the view that co-operation is non-existent but it is definitely disjointed and at times decisions seem to be made which are not in the best overall interest.  I await with some interest to see what will happen on the GWML once Crossrail is up and running beyond Hayes and there is a need to reduce to a 2 track railway east of, say, Slough because of an incident of some sort and to see whose services will be thinned the most - logically it should be Crossrail stoppers - in order to give best utilisation of remaining infrastructure.  But would TfL stand for that?

 

So there are these occasions, even in everyday ops - and probably more so there than elsewhere - when a 'supreme being' is needed.  But is that really any different in practical terms from what happened in BR days where we stood our various corners (we could because we were all there) and normally in the end the operators told the assorted commercial types what they. would be getting having made a 'best use of what we have' decision in respect of the infrastructure and train running.   The big questions to my mind are two fold - firstly 'representation' (of all operators affected) and secondly are contemporary NR staff, with no experience of running a corporate railway,  able to genuinely make 'best use of infrastructure' decisions without being swayed by talk of contracts and who shouts loudest?

[caradoc]

14 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

At least under BR, which is, after all, only 25 years ago, there was a single organisation that could take decisions in respect of both infrastructure and train operations when things went wrong. Now, at least as I see it, there is a disconnect between the infrastructure operator (Network Rail) and the various TOCs, who each see getting the railway moving again as being not their problem, and between whom cooperation seems non-existent. They are, after all, interested first in ensuring that any penalty payments are set off elsewhere and in making a profit. Their trains take priority over those of other operators. Vesting control of the operational railway in a single body (not the DfT, but one that does understand how to run a railway) to which both the Train Operators and the Infrastucture Operator are subservient would seem an obvious step. To an extent, it is what already happens in Scotland, and appeared to work well with the Southwest Trains / Network Rail alliance.

 

Jim

 

I have really had to bite my tongue here; All I will say, as someone who until 2016 was (in a small way) responsible for getting the railway moving again, your statement 'Network Rail) and the various TOCs....each see getting the railway moving again as being not their problem, and between whom cooperation seems non-existent' is complete and utter nonsense.

 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

 

I have really had to bite my tongue here; All I will say, as someone who until 2016 was (in a small way) responsible for getting the railway moving again, your statement 'Network Rail) and the various TOCs....each see getting the railway moving again as being not their problem, and between whom cooperation seems non-existent' is complete and utter nonsense.

 

 

The problem is however well the various bits of the railway co-operate in reality, the perception amongst the general public + politicians is they don't!

 

With BR having not existed for over 25 years (and its actions not able to be instantly debated on social media) the 'rose tinted glasses effect is very much in evidence these days.

Edited July 21, 2019 by phil-b259

[Mike Storey]

Best use of the infrastructure is probably the less problematic issue - there is a controlling mind in respect of long term planning (ORR - who make the final judgement on access paths granted, but with "advice" from all concerned). Short term or in peturbation, I think most already accept that NR are the key arbiter, right or wrong, basing decisions on current contracts, operating knowledge and any pre-agreed rules between all parties that may apply in any given situation.

 

Perhaps one area which we have not discussed, but which was very different in BR days, was the best use of rolling stock in disruption. I am not up to date enough whether special stop orders for the trains of other companies to stop at stations served by another, when a big gap emerges, is still commonplace? Can any current or recent TOC or NR operator comment?

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Perhaps one area which we have not discussed, but which was very different in BR days, was the best use of rolling stock in disruption. I am not up to date enough whether special stop orders for the trains of other companies to stop at stations served by another, when a big gap emerges, is still commonplace? Can any current or recent TOC or NR operator comment?

 

In answer to your second point, the general impression I get is that ordinarily, one TOC will NOT help out another with special stops etc (e.g. due to a train becoming defective on route) as this not only can cause issues with fare revenue allocation (if the 2nd TOC doesn’t usually call at the station concerned) or importing delays from a 3rd party which could age t the performance stats.

 

However if the disruption is due to an signifficant infrastructure failure then things are a bit different (mainly because there will be all sorts of penalty payments going on between NR and the TOCs anyway) and the chances are all TOCs opperating in the vacinity of the failure are going to be affected. At such times there is usually a big effort to try and make sure passengers needs are catered for (even if that means busses).

[The Stationmaster]

No need to worry too much about what Williams has to say unless he's mates with whoever gets Grayling's job.  There will be a new broom sweeping its way through Secretaries of State and Ministers(various) over the coming weeks with a keenness to be seen to be 'doing something' (anything) and the main priorities will most likely be set by external events and the thoughts on new boys and girls out to make their names.

 

If an intelligent being happens to end up in Grayling's present post they have an excellent excuse for giving anybody and just about everybody in their new department a good kicking and they might well chose that course to 'make their name'. Equally I doubt they'll want much to do with anything that had Grayling's name or signature on it - they'll be out to quickly establish a whole gulf of clear blue something or other between him and them.  Of course on the other hand we are talking about politicians so it could well be we'll get somebody who hasn't got a clue and does what their officials tell them to do.  Or, the truly Machiavellian angle, Boris will keep Grayling in the job to ensure that he has to hand an ideal scapegoat for sacking when something (anything) goes wrong just about anywhere in Govt and he needs a nice juicy Ministerial sacking story to divert attention.