How could the UK rail industry be improved?

[TheIRO]

IRO Innovation Concept Awards 2014 - Your chance to win £1000, improve the industry and be seen by senior figures in rail!

Have you thought of a way to make the industry more efficient?

Or have you encountered a problem that shouldn’t be a problem?

The IRO Innovation Awards 2014 wants to hear how you think railway operations can be improved to make the industry more efficient! From rethinking training, enhancing customer service to promoting the health and welfare of customers and staff, no idea is too big or small. By entering you will have the chance to present your idea to a group of senior industry leaders and a live audience, to raise your profile within the industry and possibly gain some funding to turn your idea into a reality.

What do you need to do?
Write a brief paper (no more than 1000 words) that discusses your idea and submit it to us for your chance to present on the night.

The winner will receive a cash prize of £1,000 or an option to take further investment to develop their idea* or themselves.**

The awards will take place on the evening of Tuesday 4th November 2014 at the Charing Cross Hotel, London.

Closing date for entries is Monday 6th October 2014. All entries must be submitted via the ‘Submit your paper’ link found here: http://awards.railwayoperators.co.uk/

*The option to develop the idea is subject to the opinion of the judges.
**The winner can opt to undertake a course of study with the IRO –this is subject to the student being accepted by the IRO’s Academic Partner Glasgow Caledonian University.

 

[DarloRich]

Simple - do away with all the private companies taking a slice off the top for their shareholders and divert that money back into the railway. A bank transfer will be fine. My banking details are………..

 

[talldave]

I would suggest sacking everyone in Southern's customer services department and employing people who can read and have an IQ greater than 0. That would improve things no end for anyone unfortunate enough to have to deal with them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Get rid of the "senior industry leaders", they're the greedy fat cats that are causing most of the problems.

I'll accept a cheque or postal order, but unmarked twenties would be best.

 

[BurtonM]

'Nationalise'.
I don't need the other 999 words, now where's my £1000?

 

[Yew]

An Independent rail ombudsman to replace the Toothless passenger unfocused, and to have more power than the vested interests of ATOC? Possibly even having a 'softer' roll in things like new stock and refurbishments

 

[thenorthern]

Make people realise that railways cost money and not free and that if you "jump the train" you are a low life and not someone who Revenue Protection Officers are victimising because you can't afford a ticket.

 

[TimG]

We need to start increasing the density of our cities, so that it become viable for light rai and metro systems to be rolled out across the uk. Think Barcelona.

 

[Bantamzen]

Simple - do away with all the private companies taking a slice off the top for their shareholders and divert that money back into the railway. A bank transfer will be fine. My banking details are………..

Hey that's my idea

Money to be left in a brown envelope at the usual spot in Leeds staion...

 

[F Great Eastern]

Reduce the micromanaging of rolling stock by the DFT.

 

[21C101]

Start running buses. No I'm serious.

Take the old Sidmouth Branch for example. Get a pair of high quaity coaches, modify them so that level access is possible from a platform (a.k.a Heathrow Junction) and a first class section with first class facing seats in 2+1 formation with tables provided. Rest of coach has 2+2 facing seats full back.

Fully integrate them with the train service so that through tickets to Sidmouth can be purchased at any station and the driver has a Portis machine or whatever the modern equivalent. All railcards accepted.

Provide a warm lounge for pax waiting for them at Honiton along with a bus platform in the forecourt, which is numbered Platform 3 and all services advertised on station CIS and in TOC and national rail timetables, including as connection arrival/departure times in main Waterloo - Exeter timetable. Rename Honiton "Honiton & Sidmouth Junction"


At Sidmouth buy a high street shop in town centre. Erect a canopy outside it so you can board without getting wet, raise the pavement so level access. Inside provide heated waiting room and rail ticket office selling exactly the same tickets you would get at a station, along with CIS giving GPS based real time information on bus (as TfL do) and service information on Waterloo - Exeter.

Put big double arrow sign outside it with sidmouth station (plus TOC logo)

Bus runs hourly connecting with all trains, replacing the Honiton - Sidmouth part of route 52B, and serving the same stops.

Call it a "Roadsprinter" not a bus.

Run for three years and roll out all over the country if successful with services specified in TOC specification and subject to same process for closure as a railway.

 

[nuneatonmark]

The 'heady' days of British Rail where everything was perfect and the restrictive practices and inefficiency didn't cost a bean.

 

[ryan125hst]

Start running buses. No I'm serious.

They already do- The Pacers!

 

[Railsigns]

Ditch franchising.

 

[The Ham]

Two suggestions, first have emergency timetables which ensure that when there is a limited timetable (unexpected line closure, emergency engineering works,etc.) which ensures that people are able to get to every station on the network which is operational within 4 hours of the incident. Even if that involves using local buses.

Secondly, look at ways of using less busy sections of track (especially around London) to provide new services possibly by diverting off one line and onto another. By doing so it would provide better services with minimal extra track, especially between towns on parallel lines heading towards London.

 

[Dave1987]

The 'heady' days of British Rail where everything was perfect and the restrictive practices and inefficiency didn't cost a bean.

Indeed some people have this mantra in their head that because something is run by the state it's automatically better. Hopefully the £1k goes to someone who actually talks some sense and comes up with a good idea.

 

[Railsigns]

Indeed some people have this mantra in their head that because something is run by the state it's automatically better.

When did anybody say that?

 

[455driver]

When did anybody say that?

Dave1987 just did so it must be true!

 

[yorksrob]

I would have a fleet of diesel units owned publicly outright specifically for un-profitable socially necessary rural routes. I would also have these routes maintained by a public grant rather than through track access charges. That way, efficiencies could be directly reflected in the costs of running these routes, rather than subsidising a train service which indirectly subsidises the infrastructure.

 

[Abpj17]

Indeed some people have this mantra in their head that because something is run by the state it's automatically better. Hopefully the £1k goes to someone who actually talks some sense and comes up with a good idea.

But, the state is more likely to reinvest than to have money leave the system through dividends to share holders?

 

[Holmbridge]

The solution is to run the railway for customers, not for shareholders

Nationalised rail did not work due to bad management. We now have multiple franchised companies that not only have bad management but operate independently so we don't even have joined up bad management.

It has in no way increased competition as in many cases a journey has only one realistic option, but it has clearly has increased the cost of running the network with government, share holders in the multipleTrain operating companies, share holders in train leasing companies all taking a cut paid for by the customer

So either allow full competition. Ie allow virgin to run trains on the East coast route and vice versa for example or scrap the competion mantra and revert to one intercity company and four regional railways that liase and act as a network. If run by the state with a not for profit model all the money lost through franchising and privatising can be put back into running trains with suitable capacity, at times passengers want, to locations they need to travel to.

 

[Dave1987]

But, the state is more likely to reinvest than to have money leave the system through dividends to share holders?

Likely the money would be siphoned off to pay for other things and costs would no doubt be cut due to the treasury holding the purse strings for day to day running. This idea that the "huge" profits made by the TOCs would be reinvested has no substance, where's the proof that this would happen?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The solution is to run the railway for customers, not for shareholders

Nationalised rail did not work due to bad management. We now have multiple franchised companies that not only have bad management but operate independently so we don't even have joined up bad management.

It has in no way increased competition as in many cases a journey has only one realistic option, but it has clearly has increased the cost of running the network with government, share holders in the multipleTrain operating companies, share holders in train leasing companies all taking a cut paid for by the customer

So either allow full competition. Ie allow virgin to run trains on the East coast route and vice versa for example or scrap the competion mantra and revert to one intercity company and four regional railways that liase and act as a network. If run by the state with a not for profit model all the money lost through franchising and privatising can be put back into running trains with suitable capacity, at times passengers want, to locations they need to travel to.

So you think a nationalised railway wouldn't rely on PFI contracts for new trains and would buy the stock outright?

You do realise that many many services run throughout the country at a loss? How far do you take it? Run the railway network constantly 24 hours a day with full length trains? If the railway was run for the sole purpose of making money for shareholders all the loss making services would be withdrawn and only profitable services would run.

 

[NSEFAN]

It has in no way increased competition as in many cases a journey has only one realistic option, but it has clearly has increased the cost of running the network with government, share holders in the multipleTrain operating companies, share holders in train leasing companies all taking a cut paid for by the customer

Realistically, there cannot be competition for most passengers on the rail network, as most journeys have one route (with a few obvious exceptions). The competition is for franchises themselves, with the winning bidder supposedly providing the best value for the taxpayer.

The increased cost to the taxpayer is likely due to the fragmented nature of the industry. We have duplicated levels of management whilst desperately trying to reduce the number of frontline staff. There are all the legal cracks between each body in the industry, which are filled by expensive lawyers. Each additional manager and lawyer on their own doesn't add that much cost, but when you add them up they form a sizeable chunk of the industry's expenses. Perhaps reducing the number of bodies in the industry would help reduce this problem?

 

[Carlisle]

Realistically, there cannot be competition for most passengers on the rail network, as most journeys have one route (with a few obvious exceptions). The competition is for franchises themselves, with the winning bidder supposedly providing the best value for the taxpayer.

Yes but at the end of the day Governments can usually borrow funds far more cheaply than these private concerns ,so whilst they may provide us with shiny new trains we will all end up paying increased costs eventually (IEP for example)

 

[TheIRO]

Great to read all of your responses!

Please be sure to submit your great ideas here by 6th October 2014: http://awards.railwayoperators.co.uk/

What do you all think of how railway operators are trained? Do you think some aspects of that process could be modified or improved to improve the industry?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Indeed some people have this mantra in their head that because something is run by the state it's automatically better. Hopefully the £1k goes to someone who actually talks some sense and comes up with a good idea.

Firstly, who's said that? Stop making up straw man arguments.

Secondly, the railways are still largely managed and paid for by the state. We just now have a middleman, who adds no value to the process, taking a cut of between 3 and 10%.

Northern Rail, for instance, take £40m a year out of the industry. Other than painting their trains purple, I genuinely can't see what they do that Regional Railways North East weren't doing (for less money) back in 1995.

So you think a nationalised railway wouldn't rely on PFI contracts for new trains and would buy the stock outright?

The new trains are on PFI contracts, and that is the way the country is going. But PFI contracts or maintenance contracts are not the problem.

The problem is the rental costs of trains that have already been bought and paid for, in full, by the taxpayer. A single class 142 unit costs over £100,000 a year to rent, despite the value of the unit basically being £0 due to depreciation. That's £9m a year poured down the pockets of the fat cat bankers in exchange for nothing.

If the railway was run for the sole purpose of making money for shareholders all the loss making services would be withdrawn and only profitable services would run.

Again, another straw man argument, as the operators are told what the minimum service level agreement is. Where trains can be withdrawn they are withdrawn. Where trains can be short-formed they are short-formed. Look at Northern Rail, who had several class 142 units parked up in Blackpool sidings but refused to use them to combat overcrowding unless someone else paid. That sums up the industry perfectly.

 

[Kneedown]

I would have a fleet of diesel units owned publicly outright specifically for un-profitable socially necessary rural routes. I would also have these routes maintained by a public grant rather than through track access charges.

The problem is if you replace diesel units with more diesel units, then those routes will remain unprofitable for all time. If, however, those unprofitable routes were electrified then, after the initial big investment, the routes may well eventually become profitable after a period of time as the running costs of EMU's, track access charges, etc are much lower. The only problem is who cops for the initial investment, but as I said, just running a diesel fleet into the ground and then replacing it with more diesels is never going to reduce the long term costs.


As regards how to improve the service, Instead of just having Intercity and Regional franchise's, I would combine the Intercity franchises with the local franchise's along the route concerned. This would enable harmony with local areas to the long distance route without two seperate TOC's falling out over pathing, connections, revenue, etc, and also ensure a fairer distribution of profits and losses. Some of the profits of the Intercity routes would go to offset the losses of the connecting local routes.

 

[Abpj17]

Likely the money would be siphoned off to pay for other things and costs would no doubt be cut due to the treasury holding the purse strings for day to day running. This idea that the "huge" profits made by the TOCs would be reinvested has no substance, where's the proof that this would happen?

Paying for 'other things' would be illegal...unless they have at least a vague association with the railway (training, salaries etc.). Even with the Treasury holding the purse strings, there are ways to ring-fence income, and for the Treasury to only take a dividend from any profits. If there are profits, well that can then go on other expenditure (so not a taxpayer loss per se).

I'm not sure anyone has suggested there would be "huge" profits - not sure why you are quoting?? But the private rail companies are, indeed, making profits. It is, of course, self-evident that profits from a nationalised company doesn't go to private shareholders or overseas governments.

Network Rail's profit were, however, reinvested. Does £1bn meet your definition of massive?

 

[21C101]

But, the state is more likely to reinvest than to have money leave the system through dividends to share holders?

You are joking arn't you? Im the late '80s when BR made an operating profit of up to £300m a year, every penny was confiscated by the treasury.

 

[NSEFAN]

I'm not sure anyone has suggested there would be "huge" profits - not sure why you are quoting?? But the private rail companies are, indeed, making profits. It is, of course, self-evident that profits from a nationalised company doesn't go to private shareholders or overseas governments.

Network Rail's profit were, however, reinvested. Does £1bn meet your definition of massive?

There are questions over whether the profit made by TOCs is valid, due to NR track access charges which are supposedly lower than the true cost of maintaining the railway. This gives the illusion of a profitable service when in reality NR is accumulating a massive debt, a debt which now belongs to the taxpayer. If the railways were fully renationalised, I can see that such a debt would be a good excuse for cuts, not further investment.

On a slightly different point, when you say private companies, do you mean every single one in the industry, or just the TOCs? Do you feel that as well as running services, the state should also be doing all construction in-house, including trains and infrastructure?