Great British Railways

[Mike Storey]

I cannot find a thread about the creation of Great British Railways, so I am starting one here for comments. It may not be the most interesting, romantic or appealing of subjects, but it will surely have one of the most influential impacts on the future of rail in the UK. So, perhaps, some comments now are worthwhile?

 

I attach an article from the Railway Gazette, which identifies the shortlist of six potential locations for its HQ, as a starter for 10.

 

https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/six-locations-shortlisted-to-be-great-british-railways-headquarters/62025.article?ID=z9xqh~9nh9h9~ttxt~W4ik~Ky0gk&utm_campaign=RG-RBUK-Filler -070722-JM&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=RG-RBUK-Filler -070722-JM

 

What I have never found so far, is a distinct and concise explanation of exactly what GBR will do, and what powers it will have, and how this will benefit over what we have now. Any offers?

 

[Trog]

I should think that it will add another layer of bureaucracy and paper shuffling. With large numbers of highly paid managers who would not recognise an F19  concrete sleeper if you inserted it where the sun does not shine. Holding meetings about holding meetings, to discuss the last meetings recommendation to curb spiralling costs by reducing the number of those scruffy orange clad trackmen and their conditions of service. As the way they are always standing about and not working as trains go by is not conducive to the image GBR wish to cultivate.

[John M Upton]

A lot of what has been proposed about GBR is political fluff and reheating of old ideas.  The supposed renationalisation means TOC's become Management Contracts which is basically exactly what they are now so effectively the old Privatisation model rebranded but with closer micro management by the DfT's crack team of accountants.

 

The only certain thing is the logo, the old BR symbol suitably Borised with red and blue crayons to add the now seemingly obligatory Union Jack reference which seems to have been deliberately chosen by someone in Whitehall to annoy the Scottish and the Welsh...

[Bucoops]

11 hours ago, Trog said:

I should think that it will add another layer of bureaucracy and paper shuffling. With large numbers of highly paid managers who would not recognise an F19  concrete sleeper if you inserted it where the sun does not shine. Holding meetings about holding meetings, to discuss the last meetings recommendation to curb spiralling costs by reducing the number of those scruffy orange clad trackmen and their conditions of service. As the way they are always standing about and not working as trains go by is not conducive to the image GBR wish to cultivate.

 

So cynical. And yet, probably exactly right.

[AY Mod]

If it's just going to be negative comment rather than anything factual, which was what was asked, it's not worth spending time reading such responses.

[AY Mod]

Following a polite request from @Mike Storey I've re-opened the topic. Can we please keep it more constructive than just politicised opinions?

[hexagon789]

In response to the original question:

 

GBR will take over from Network Rail as manager of the Railway infrastructure in Great Britain. It will also oversee the contracting of passenger services (TOCs will be replaced by management contracts), coordinate and set fares and timetables and collect revenue in England.

 

As part of the fares simplification, moves to abolish TOC-specific fares and end the viability of split-ticketing are to be undertaken.

Edited July 11, 2022 by hexagon789

[Wheatley]

Whatever the opinions expressed here, you will not get any detailed explanation of how it's all going to work from GBR or anyone seconded to them or carrying out work at TOC level for them until GBR are ready to announce it. A lot is yet to be decided, at the moment GBR consists of a transition team of appointees, consultants and cherry-picked secondees from the industry trying to attach detail to the WSPR.  

Edited July 11, 2022 by Wheatley

[Reorte]

19 minutes ago, hexagon789 said:

In response to the original question:

 

GBR will take over from Network Rail as manager of the Railway infrastructure in Great Britain. It will also oversee the contracting of passenger services (TOCs will be replaced by management contracts), coordinate and set fares and timetables and collect revenue in England.

Is the idea that freight will remain as is?

[Mike Storey]

7 hours ago, Reorte said:

Is the idea that freight will remain as is?

 

Not entirely, but that would appear to be being worked out. In the attached, see section under "Rufus Boyd". I worked for a while with Rufus, on and off between 1996 and 2005. If anyone can figure this out, he should be able to.

 

https://gbrtt.co.uk/

 

Also, generally, I attach the latest version of what GBR is supposed to be for, and about, from the usual Wiki source. One thing that stands out is the expectation that many of the functions currently undertaken by the DfT will be transferred to GBR. Unless they plan to micro-manage even that, this can only be a "good" thing.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Railways

 

 

[Mike Storey]

7 hours ago, Wheatley said:

Whatever the opinions expressed here, you will not get any detailed explanation of how it's all going to work from GBR or anyone seconded to them or carrying out work at TOC level for them until GBR are ready to announce it. A lot is yet to be decided, at the moment GBR consists of a transition team of appointees, consultants and cherry-picked secondees from the industry trying to attach detail to the WSPR.  

 

Very true. But they must announce a number of broad-brush decisions this year, in order for more detail and the necessary teams (for new and revised functions) to be established next year, so that they can be fully functional by 2024 (their stated target). I just hope it remains the strategy if Cabinet posts change, given the current hubris. 

 

[adb968008]

GBR..

GBRF…

confusing isnt it…

[mdvle]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

I just hope it remains the strategy if Cabinet posts change, given the current hubris.

 

There is potential for anyone involved who wants to make things better to get some stuff done in the next several months while focus is on the turmoil around selecting a new leader.  It all depends on if there is someone with the desire and ability to take advantage of circumstances.

[DCB]

With the present economic situation letting the passenger railway companies go bankrupt would have made an awful lot of sense. About 80% of the costs have been paid by taxpayers at times, and cost reductions are impractical as so much investment has been made on the basis of increasing patronage, you can't suddenly de electrify lines to save money in the way you could run less diesel or steam trains.  Wages however have gone through the roof compared to other similar careers such as nurses and Policemen.  But now post Covid the   9 to 5 or 7 till 7 with 2 X 2 hour commutes office life is dying. It is a huge waste of resources and producer of C02..   We do need passenger railways for leisure and essential business use so basically 100% of services in the far reaches of the Highlands and equally Devon Cornwall are probably necessary around London, the proportion is more like 10%.  I have seen 800 units, 9 car with 8 passengers.  It's horribly uneconomic, shortening trains would reduce the costs only marginally.  Closing many commuter routes completely makes compete sense, closing, removing selling the City real estate, and using the proceeds to relay Okehampton to Bere Alston etc dismantling failure prone and expensive to maintain overhead electric wires to allow easy access to larger containers and making more paths available for freight and leisure travel would make sense.   We got rid of Boris who was keen to maintain the Status Quo, by heavy borrowing and sod the balance of payments  and we now have Tax cutting budget balancing Tories so slashing London commuting infrastructure to Lib Dem and Labour constituencies makes complete sense. To a Tory.  Offering railway personnel  a 50% pay cut would be a good start, the resulting 6 month strike would drive passengers away to their personal computers in their own homes with four hours a day extra leisure, and a huge saving of fares, and save the country a lot of money.
Do we want to pay high taxes so a minority can endure nightmarish commuting at pip squeakingly excessive fares? 

No.   Its like they said in the US, we have thousands or ten Dollar jobs, Hundreds of twelve Dollar jobs or no  Fourteen Dollar jobs at all...    

[Phil Parker]

26 minutes ago, DCB said:

With the present economic situation letting the passenger railway companies go bankrupt would have made an awful lot of sense. About 80% of the costs have been paid by taxpayers at times, and cost reductions are impractical as so much investment has been made on the basis of increasing patronage, you can't suddenly de electrify lines to save money in the way you could run less diesel or steam trains.  Wages however have gone through the roof compared to other similar careers such as nurses and Policemen.  But now post Covid the   9 to 5 or 7 till 7 with 2 X 2 hour commutes office life is dying. It is a huge waste of resources and producer of C02..   We do need passenger railways for leisure and essential business use so basically 100% of services in the far reaches of the Highlands and equally Devon Cornwall are probably necessary around London, the proportion is more like 10%.  I have seen 800 units, 9 car with 8 passengers.  It's horribly uneconomic, shortening trains would reduce the costs only marginally.  Closing many commuter routes completely makes compete sense, closing, removing selling the City real estate, and using the proceeds to relay Okehampton to Bere Alston etc dismantling failure prone and expensive to maintain overhead electric wires to allow easy access to larger containers and making more paths available for freight and leisure travel would make sense.   We got rid of Boris who was keen to maintain the Status Quo, by heavy borrowing and sod the balance of payments  and we now have Tax cutting budget balancing Tories so slashing London commuting infrastructure to Lib Dem and Labour constituencies makes complete sense. To a Tory.  Offering railway personnel  a 50% pay cut would be a good start, the resulting 6 month strike would drive passengers away to their personal computers in their own homes with four hours a day extra leisure, and a huge saving of fares, and save the country a lot of money.
Do we want to pay high taxes so a minority can endure nightmarish commuting at pip squeakingly excessive fares? 

No.   Its like they said in the US, we have thousands or ten Dollar jobs, Hundreds of twelve Dollar jobs or no  Fourteen Dollar jobs at all...    

 

Struggling to work out if this sarcasm or madness. Your solution is essentially to close the entire railway system?

 

Still, at least the 40% of the population who CAN work from home will be OK*. The others, nurses, policemen, plumbers, shop staff, warehouse operatiors etc. Well, presumably they don't matter in your brave new world. 

 

*until they realise that WFH is a clever way to transfer all the costs of running an office on to the employee, with the added benefit of being available to work 24/7/365. 

[jjb1970]

In some ways the idea is perhaps less important than how it is executed. Any idea can be executed well or badly. 

[KingEdwardII]

3 hours ago, DCB said:

9 to 5 or 7 till 7 with 2 X 2 hour commutes office life is dying.

Tell that to the folks still packed on the 07:38 from Sidcup.

 

Yours, Mike.

[John M Upton]

Off peak, trains are rammed to the rafters along the Sussex Coast and up to London pretty much all the time now.

 

Peak Time is a little quieter than pre Covid but its catching up pretty quick, the Working from Home bubble is deflating fast as many employers have cottoned on to the fact a lot of their employees who were supposedly WFH were in fact doing naff all, and getting paid for it...

[Phil Parker]

[great central]

25 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Those of us at the sharp end are only too aware!

[Steamport Southport]

I think people have got to realise it's not just "workers" that use trains.

 

I had reason to go to Liverpool City Centre a couple of weeks ago during one of the strikes. It was empty. There was me, a few others and a few stag/hen dos. Half the retailers/pubs/eateries/etc. hadn't bothered opening. People weren't travelling even with the buses running. Getting a train that takes 15 minutes or an hour on the bus? Easy decision for me.

 

It was actually quite nice in a way. But I wouldn't like it to be like that all the time.

 

That's a city that would probably be getting a few hundred thousand through the ticket barriers a day. 16.5 million passengers use Central per year alone. Then you've got Lime Street, Moorfields and James St.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Central_railway_station

 

 

 

Jason

[KingEdwardII]

26 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

it's not just "workers" that use trains

That's certainly true.

 

Use of railways by commuters varies around the country - London is the place with a really dominant population of folk who commute by rail. There, the railways even helped create the very suburbs that today generate the commuter traffic. I think Birmingham is in second place for commuting by train, but the overall percentage of commutes by rail compared with road is much lower than London.

 

Elsewhere, the railways are used by different kinds of travellers. Some are business users who are not commuters - I think that a fair proportion of first class travellers are like this, although I myself always travelled in second class for these journeys due to company policy. I've travelled in first class when paying myself! Many more folk are travelling for their own reasons, be it leisure, shopping, visiting relatives, etc.

 

The busiest trains on our local line between Southampton and Bristol are on the weekend, except for that section from Bradford on Avon to Bristol where the Bristol commuters pack the early morning trains on weekdays.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Nearholmer]

I don’t quite get why people need to come over all apocalyptic and extreme about this stuff.

 

Yes, there is bound to be a change in usage profile, not simply quantities, in the light of the pandemic and big-war-on-put-doorstep-shock, and any government of any colour would be looking to reduce unit costs (subsidy per mile travelled is significant), but rail has some huge advantages for maintaining personal mobility in an era of high fuel costs, and reasonably decent energy efficiency compared with the alternatives, so after a bit of turbulence a new ordinary will emerge.

 

As I’ve said before, I hope to goodness that the combination of factors lead to a flattening of peaks, more even load factors across the day, because that is the real way to cut costs or to offer more capacity at very low marginal cost. Vastly simplifying fare structures, so that normal human beings can understand them, and having very clear peak pricing would help no end.

 

IMO there is a lot that could be done to make rail less costly, and much, much easier to use, but it would do us well to remember that a significant proportion of the population don’t live anywhere near a railway, and/or have no call to use one of they do, so it isn’t the “be all and end all” of transport. It might actually be better in the round to sort out the mucking fess that is bus services outside of large conurbations.

 

Anyway, what is GBR’s job? Very similar to BR’s job, but contracting train services instead of directly providing them.

[Mike Storey]

8 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Anyway, what is GBR’s job? Very similar to BR’s job, but contracting train services instead of directly providing them.

 

At last, we seem to have found our way back to the topic. Indeed, it struck me as very similar to the original BRB remit, without calling it that.

 

Can we please avoid a general rant about current adjustments to traffic levels - there are plenty of other threads for that, or start your own. This thread is about the potential for the longer term management of the railways.

 

Thank you.

 

[Mike Storey]

Just thought I would post the results of the extensive consultation that GBR has conducted (on behalf of ??) which came out last month, although this is the first time I have seen it on line. Andrew Haines has signed it, rather than (or with) any faceless official from the DfT or indeed, Mr Shapps (who I guess is more into other stuff at the mo). So that gives it some credibility.

 

I have not read the whole thing, which could take days, in between falling asleep and going to find a real drink, but feel free to be the first to comment!!

 

 https://gbrtt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WISP-Call-for-Evidence-analysis-report-JUNE-2022-Final.pdf

 

But just in case you are not champing at the bit, I have read the first dozen or so absorbing pages, in between long naps and valium, and the purpose seems to be to create a 30 year Strategy based around what the government wants. But it is so "high level", which is not what the majority of respondents clearly wanted (and the report admits that), that I feel sure a final "Strategy" will emerge, fit for anything and anybody that wants it to be what they want it to be. Not quite what Mr Haines or any of us really expected, but he is not far off his pension now, and looks forward to commenting on here, along with the rest of us "has-beens".....

 

What it appears not to be, is a concise forward plan giving certainty to an industry that so badly needs it, and an environmental lobby that so wants it to be (bar a certain Eco Warrior, Mr Packham, flying around in jets to get to his latest book launch).

 

Hey ho!