What would you do to reform the railways?

[Euan]

I don't think I've seen this type of thread anywhere but if there is, let me know.

I thought that this would be quite an exciting thread to talk about how the railways could be adapted to be better suited for the future. This thread would be for what ideas you think could work in order to do this.

 

[PHILIPE]

I don't think I've seen this type of thread anywhere but if there is, let me know.

I thought that this would be quite an exciting thread to talk about how the railways could be adapted to be better suited for the future. This thread would be for what ideas you think could work in order to do this.

Get rid of Failing Grayling for starters

 

[daikilo]

This is a huge question of which public or private is a tiny part.

What role do we want rail to perform, and why? Personally, I am in favour of any sufficient bulk flows, freight or pax, being by rail. Probably, in many areas, this is currently being constrained by structural pinch-points and/or route capacity constraints. There is no question that resolving these will be extremely costly (witness HS2) but rail is the most cost-efficient country-wide solution.

Add to this the huge issues of pollution in certain areas (and not only cities) where electrified or e.g. hydrogen rail offers an almost instant solution if the willing is there.

 

[whhistle]

Perhaps:

Websites:
One website to purchase tickets, to get rid of this confusion over being on the Virgin website but buying West Mids tickets. Let's face it, people go to the Virgin website because they want to travel on Virgin Trains. That's how every other ticket selling website seems to work.


Operators:
Perhaps split "Intercity" operations and "Local" operations.
Let's call them Intercity and Regional Railways for now. Tickets can be clearly marked to show what services it's valid on.


Ticketing:
Perhaps each operator (IC and RR) can have different teirs of tickets, the more expensive tickets will be valid on routes 1, 2, 3. The less expensive only valid on route 3. Route 1 is the quickest. Route 3 is the slowest.

• Scrap super off-peak fares, compensate by making off-peak slightly cheaper.
• Scrap most rail rovers, but have "shire" tickets, so you can travel all throughout Warwickshire on one ticket perhaps. It'll make things more complicated for some, but less complicated for others. Advertise these tickets better.
• Scrap plus bus tickets.
• Keep Advance tickets but limit their purchase to the day before (or longer) - no more buying on the day of travel.
• Re-think "child" tickets.
  If they take up a seat, why shouldn't they pay the same as an adult?
  (on a related note, this is why 12 year olds at Alton Towers pay the adult price. Normally, 12 year olds are as tall as the highest ride restriction. So because a 12 year old can access everything a 30 year old can, why shouldn't they pay the same?)

If/when the ticketing system works better, then consider adding layers of other tickets.


Peak / Off-Peak:

• Scrap the current peak/off-peak times.
  Nearly any train to anywhere 6am to 10am and 4pm to 7pm is peak.
  All other times are off-peak.
• No more super off-peak.

HOWEVER: Some journeys may be off-peak all the time (like Devon to Scotland).


Railcards:

• Get rid of all but the normal 5.
• Merge the 16-25 and 26-30. Limit it to those ages - no more mature students or Professors stamping the forms at their University.
  Get rid of the August easement.
  Reduce the minimum fare to £10.
• 5 year plan to have them moved online/via the app.

Lots to work through and massive change but the currently system is in a mess.
Some of these initial ideas clearly need development but they're a starting point to make the railway less confusing and better value for money.

 

[yorksrob]

I would sweep away a lot of the onerous routing restrictions. People would be given as many options as possible, so long as they are travelling in broadly the correct direction.

 

[Mag_seven]

Get rid of Failing Grayling for starters

Probably to be replaced by someone equally incompetent.

 

[PauloDavesi]

A few thoughts to improve the industry.

1) Mandatory revision of contracts to reflect that the industry provides services 7 days a week.
2) Services to run every day, except Dec 25th
3) reduce tax payer funding of the industry
4) Introduce a fair, logical and consistent system for calculating fares, that makes use of current technology and payment methods.
5) A massive drive to improve efficiency, drive down operating costs and reduce overmanning, whilst maintaining safety and service quality levels
6) raise capital funds, to re-invest in infrastructural improvements, by disposing of surplus assets

 

[Twotwo]

Improve communication between control, staff and customers.

 

[Railcar]

Have an identifiable Station Master. Not some invisible 'manager' who has theoretical control over a group of stations but apparently no interest in any of them. Have someone who can spend time on the platforms, get feedback from passengers and has the upward chain that enables that feedback to get to the board of management.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Probably to be replaced by someone equally incompetent.

Quite. I have never understood why some people seem to believe that changing one person whilst leaving the statutory framework, economic realities, competitive environment, supply chain limitations, etc. intact would make much difference.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Get rid of Failing Grayling for starters

Probably to be replaced by someone equally incompetent.

Secretaries of State come and go with either government, you can never guarantee a benign one (whatever that means).
Recent ones have generally meant well, but the government in general is increasingly fed up with the performance of the rail sector after all the spend in the last decade.
We could change their powers over the railway though, which are currently pretty much total.

ORR is quasi-independent but seemingly ineffective, NR is still the elephant in the room, spending huge amounts for little return.
The SRA (invented by Labour) had an arm's length relationship with government but was hated by all sides and was dismantled (by Labour) after 5 years for not following the government's line. It also invented "no growth" franchises, from which we are still suffering.
The Tories want major private sector involvement, Labour want to centralise everything in a public monopolistic system. Take your pick.

Keith Williams has the unenviable task of coming up with a sustainable new structure, which maybe will resurrect something closer to the Big 4, combining TOC and NR roles in a smaller number of operating units than the current 20-ish.
But the government has to agree cede control to a responsible industry body to manage it all, and there is not much sign of that on either side of the political divide.
Fiddling with fares, franchise boundaries and rolling stock allocations is pointless until the bigger picture is sorted, and has to last through repeated government changes.
I'm afraid we are stuck with Grayling, or McDonald, or similar, for a while yet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would sweep away a lot of the onerous routing restrictions. People would be given as many options as possible, so long as they are travelling in broadly the correct direction.

Best way to do this would be to price segments of route rather than complete journeys (doesn't have to be kilometric though that's one way to do it), then you can calculate any route the passenger desires.

The issue isn't that some routes cost more than others, it's that the passenger is basically told "ner ner ne ner ner, you can't go that way" for some very reasonable, often quickest, routes. But if someone wants Dover Priory to Penzance via Wick, why not find an appropriate price to charge them and take their money?

Singles to be 50% of respective returns and be valid two days. All you get for a return is added time period validity. It's nonsensical to price people off three point journeys. Possible exception of deep discount CDRs which would be issued as a single piece as effectively a day ticket.

 

[yorksrob]

Best way to do this would be to price segments of route rather than complete journeys (doesn't have to be kilometric though that's one way to do it), then you can calculate any route the passenger desires.

The issue isn't that some routes cost more than others, it's that the passenger is basically told "ner ner ne ner ner, you can't go that way" for some very reasonable, often quickest, routes. But if someone wants Dover Priory to Penzance via Wick, why not find an appropriate price to charge them and take their money?

Singles to be 50% of respective returns and be valid two days. All you get for a return is added time period validity. It's nonsensical to price people off three point journeys. Possible exception of deep discount CDRs which would be issued as a single piece as effectively a day ticket.

I think that's a good idea for some of the more outlandish routes. Afterall, someone could have a good reason for travelling from Dover to Penzance via Wick. This would also solve the issue of triangular journeys.

I'm thinking more, if someone wanted to travel from Wakefield to Manchester, for example. At the moment, the return journey routes them via Leeds. IMO via Sheffield should also be allowed as it is a reasonable route - in the same direction, only one change. Yes, the route is a bit longer, but not ridiculously so.

 

[Meerkat]

If singles are halved in price how does the revenue get made up without raising return prices?
Admittedly I have no idea how many (few?) singles are sold....

 

[Euan]

What about a franchising system by 'area' of the UK?
So one operator who operates all services to/from stations in a certain area (e.g. the East, the West etc.) and have one franchise for routes that link these areas up? (a bit like CrossCountry)

This obviously would need tweaking to ensure that it works effectively

 

[Captain Bigwig]

What about a franchising system by 'area' of the UK?
So one operator who operates all services to/from stations in a certain area (e.g. the East, the West etc.) and have one franchise for routes that link these areas up? (a bit like CrossCountry)

This obviously would need tweaking to ensure that it works effectively

Isn't that pretty much what we have at the moment though? Some operators focussed on regions (Southeastern, Southern, South Western, Great Western etc.) and some long distance operators which link them together (Virgin, LNER, Cross Country etc.). Admittedly there's no clear distinction between local and long distance operators and some (e.g. Great Western) do both, but what you've described doesn't sound a million miles away from the current reality.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

End franchising.
Start by moving all SE operators into one intergrated entity-having control over Crossrail/Overground projects with TfL (What you would call a railway Network based in the South East I have no idea...)
Keep most franchise structures how they are now, merge WMT, Virgin, Transpennine and GMPTE services into one entity-merge LNER and WYPTE and Tyne and Wear services into one entitiy.
Integrate Network rail between track and train ownership.
Rename Network Rail to British Rail.
So then you will have-
-British Rail South East
-British Rail Western
-British Rail West Coast
-British Rail North East
- British Rail Scotland

You can jazz up the branding how you wish.

Also, reopen an in-house research and engineering facility to bring more train building back to the British Isles.

On a side note, would the sectorisation system in the 80s and 90s have any merit today?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Much bigger franchises with simplified rolling stock for each and improved connectivity through integrated timetables and the entire country using a standard hourly repeating timetable (except for two-hourly services etc but they would slot in).

- "North Eastern" - Intercity trains from Kings Cross as well as a heap of local services where practicable (Metro services in Newcastle for starters and on the Tyne Valley, services via Darlington / Middlesbrough etc, services on the Hull routes for example) and the fast Kings Cross - Peterborough / Lynn trains.
- "East Midlands" - Intercity trains from St Pancras as well as Metro services in the Nottingham, Derby, Leicester, Sheffield areas; and other key regional services.
- "Intercity" - Cross Country and TransPennine fast trains (including Manchester - Scotland via Preston and such).
- "West Coast" - Intercity trains from Euston as well as certain 'local' trains such as Cumbrian Coast, Furness Line, Windermere and the like).
- "Northern" - All other services in those parts.
- "Wales" - Seems self-explanatory.
- "Western" - Pretty much as is now.
- "Southern Region" - What we now basically have as South Western, Southern, Gat Ex, Southeastern and Thameslink)
- "London Rail" - Existing London Overground as well as Moorgate - Welwyn / Hertford and a few other lines.
- "Anglia" - Much the same as now.
- "West Midlands" - Much the same as now but likely to have some services sent to West Coast such as the Trent Valley ones and potentially also some moved into Intercity (e.g. Birmingham - Liverpool).
- And whatever I've forgotten.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Quite. I have never understood why some people seem to believe that changing one person whilst leaving the statutory framework, economic realities, competitive environment, supply chain limitations, etc. intact would make much difference.

This is a huge question of which public or private is a tiny part.

What role do we want rail to perform, and why? Personally, I am in favour of any sufficient bulk flows, freight or pax, being by rail. Probably, in many areas, this is currently being constrained by structural pinch-points and/or route capacity constraints. There is no question that resolving these will be extremely costly (witness HS2) but rail is the most cost-efficient country-wide solution.

Add to this the huge issues of pollution in certain areas (and not only cities) where electrified or e.g. hydrogen rail offers an almost instant solution if the willing is there.

It is surely the fundamental issues as raised by the above posts that need to be addressed before any worthwhile changes can be implemented. In a sense it's like Brexit: lots of opinions but almost no discussion about the bigger picture. Until politicians realise they need to pay far more attention to all the disparate voices around the country and much less to their ideological doctrines (and that applies to most other issues!) then we will never be able to make worthwhile and lasting reforms. Without a different way of "doing politics" all we will have is grandiose statements of vision which lead only to confused reorganisations that fail because not enough people buy in to them. Essentially I think that we need a massive shake-up of how politics works in this country: there are signs that the fallout from the current Brexit chaos may lead to the beginnings of that. And without that I am not going to expend mental energy on dreaming up schemes that ultimately reflect my own personal preferences when I am well aware that there are plenty of other options which might actually command more support.

 

[Meerkat]

Why is there such a fascination with bigger franchises?
Bigger franchise leads to more complication, more risk, and therefore fewer bidders.
I think smaller more specialised franchises would bring more bidders, more innovation, more local focus, more local control.
I can’t find any useful details about German franchising but they seem to let at a much smaller scale.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Why is there such a fascination with bigger franchises?
Bigger franchise leads to more complication, more risk, and therefore fewer bidders.
I think smaller more specialised franchises would bring more bidders, more innovation, more local focus, more local control.
I can’t find any useful details about German franchising but they seem to let at a much smaller scale.

Fewer larger franchises would mean fewer interfaces ie less inefficient bureaucracy. Not to mention fewer empire builders all trying to do their own thing. Micro-franchises may be a free marketeer's wet dream but on the big bad railway will only work in very specific situations. And regardless of size there are more and more signs that the DfT is struggling to find enough bidders to make any franchise competition worthwhile.

The German situation is not analagous as they are even more heavily prescriptive than here, effectively being management contracts.

Regardless of politics the wind is definitely starting to blow in a different direction.

 

[Meerkat]

I am not convinced bigger means more efficient bureaucracy!! I don’t understand why the rail industry struggles with interfaces more than the very fragmented airline industry which even straddles countries.
Not micro franchises, just by local area and service type - I would say nothing unusually small, unless Lincolnshire or Cumbria really wanted to run their own trains.....
I believe there would be more bidders for smaller franchises as they would be less risky, require smaller company backing, and be easier to build a bid for.

As for management contracts if you mean like London Overground then I think that is a good way of running local, particularly metropolitan, systems that need significant subsidy.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I am not convinced bigger means more efficient bureaucracy!! I don’t understand why the rail industry struggles with interfaces more than the very fragmented airline industry which even straddles countries.

Whatever you may think the fact is that the situation on our multi-TOC railway is riddled with inefficient interfaces and duplicated effort: think HR, Training, Timetable Planning, Marketing etc. Airlines these days are expected to be profitable and such interfaces as exist between them, as opposed to dealing with "independent" airports and internationally regulated ATC services, do so because there is a commercial imperative, not because an outside body thinks they are necessary. Nobody tells airlines what services to run unless there is a subsidy on offer.

Not micro franchises, just by local area and service type - I would say nothing unusually small, unless Lincolnshire or Cumbria really wanted to run their own trains.....
I believe there would be more bidders for smaller franchises as they would be less risky, require smaller company backing, and be easier to build a bid for.

If this was actually true I suspect the DfT would already have made serious efforts in this direction. But they haven't. Remember that a TOC is a temporary device created to deliver a particular franchise agreement. They are not true commercial enterprises and are unable to make plans for any point beyond the franchise expiry date.

As for management contracts if you mean like London Overground then I think that is a good way of running local, particularly metropolitan, systems that need significant subsidy.

They can be equally appropriate for potentially profitable operations, it's just a case of specifying appropriate outcomes with penalties for non-delivery and, in all probability, an agreement on profit sharing. But that could be just as risky for bidders as franchising: look at East Coast.

Bottom line is that running passenger railways at profit in western democracies has proved to be very difficult and nobody wants to risk a complete failure. It would be interesting to know just how things are done in Japan where it appears they may be succeeding.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Interesting suggestion that TfW are considering removing both schd 4 and schd 8 payments / receipts. (delay attribution and engineering works compensation) - allegedly costs about a £1m to collect £800,000 "revenue". Source "Modern Railways" today.

Now this could put a shiver through the hearts of people who's sole point in work life is to move delay mins around the system and to claim / dispute charges.

Good start I reckon , as the so called "incentive" to improve performance does not always (if ever ?) , seem to work. I await the backlash.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TBH I'd even happily (as a passenger) give up Delay Repay completely if it meant they could spend the money on a proper customer services department that would actually investigate issues and make plans for long-term resolution where appropriate (and giving a proper, personal explanation of why not if it can't be fixed) rather than sending fob-offs.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

TBH I'd even happily (as a passenger) give up Delay Repay completely if it meant they could spend the money on a proper customer services department that would actually investigate issues and make plans for long-term resolution where appropriate (and giving a proper, personal explanation of why not if it can't be fixed) rather than sending fob-offs.

Which could probably be achieved by not outsourcing it to distant "back offices" - where with no disrespect , the operatives have not got much of a clue as to what they are replying to , let alone - even if they are in the UK - the area / region they are dealing with.

Great idea , we could actually have an Area Manager's organisation , located on the patch , with people who -if chosen properly , could actually add some value to this process.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Why is there such a fascination with bigger franchises?
Bigger franchise leads to more complication, more risk, and therefore fewer bidders.
I think smaller more specialised franchises would bring more bidders, more innovation, more local focus, more local control.
I can’t find any useful details about German franchising but they seem to let at a much smaller scale.

My understanding is that the German Inter City is specified entirely by the operating section of the DB that runs the trains , with no central input from "Berlin politics" , but obviously strong linkages to the cities and regions etc that they operate in. They obviously have good relations with other associate operators , judging by the "commercial" long distance ICE type trains they operate ..e.g Zurich to Hamburg and many others.

"Regional" of "Lander" services are much tightly specified as to the UK model (first and last trains / frequencies/ capacity etc) , as indeed is the / are the S-Bahn networks. Attempts to cost cut the Berlin S-Bahn to "save money" led to a catastrophic shortage of working trains for a good while. The threat to put it out to tender and some managerial action put that right. *


(*illustrates nicely how "contracts" are often there to be tested ....)

 

[Meerkat]

Whatever you may think the fact is that the situation on our multi-TOC railway is riddled with inefficient interfaces and duplicated effort: think HR, Training, Timetable Planning, Marketing etc.

Are they inefficient because they exist or because they are managed badly?
I work for a very big company and I am not convinced that makes it efficient, rather it gives it massive inertia and a lack of focus, and some areas get neglected.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Are they inefficient because they exist or because they are managed badly?
I work for a very big company and I am not convinced that makes it efficient, rather it gives it massive inertia and a lack of focus, and some areas get neglected.

Sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes both!

As for your own situation I would suggest that reflects the very wide problem we have in this country with the idea that responsibility should be devolved down to the lowest possible point in a large organisation. We are far too supportive of empire building, a reflection perhaps of our imperial heritage?!

 

[PR1Berske]

The stand out response for me to that question is ticketing. There is so much fragmentation across the UK, within specific regions even, making integrated transport almost impossible.

Whether it is regional or national or however so designed, I would love to create a system by which joined-up ticketing, with the railways at the heart, would ultimately bring down prices for customers.

It must seem so alien to people accustomed to European ticketing models to see the UK continue with mostly "A to B" ticketing rather than zonal ticketing, and that's before we get to having one ticket for the train and another for the bus outside the railway station!