Rail Review: You are in charge!

[Jorge Da Silva]

If you were to be doing the rail review what would you do? How would you organise the system? Please come up with something more creative than Nationalisation.

 

[MalaiseForever]

Deleted. Misread the question.

 

[Along the bay]

If you were to be doing the rail review what would you do? How would you organise the system? Please come up with something more creative than Nationalisation.

A travel card like the ones in London for the entire network would be great , it could also be used for connecting bus and tram services.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

A travel card like the ones in London for the entire network would be great , it could also be used for connecting bus and tram services.

That seems to be very likely. Williams is hunting in that direction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That seems to be very likely. Williams is hunting in that direction.

Isn't PlusBus sort of that? It would be nice to see a more DB CityTicket like thing, though - so a ticket to "Manchester" wouldn't just be to Manchester Piccadilly, it'd be (possibly for a fixed add-on or possibly just by default) to any station on the urban rail, bus or tram network.

 

[Along the bay]

Isn't PlusBus sort of that? It would be nice to see a more DB CityTicket like thing, though - so a ticket to "Manchester" wouldn't just be to Manchester Piccadilly, it'd be (possibly for a fixed add-on or possibly just by default) to any station on the urban rail, bus or tram network.

The city ticket idea sounds great. Plus bus is similar i guess but it would be simpler.

 

[PR1Berske]

That sort of ticket would be a game-changer, though it would require a lot of administrative shifting about. A true "regional rover" would need the railways (at all layers and levels) and local councils and local bus companies to agree on cost, price, boundaries and fine print. Were I in charge, I'd kick them up the backside to ensure they did it. Real life doesn't quite work that way.

 

[Indigo Soup]

That sort of ticket would be a game-changer, though it would require a lot of administrative shifting about.

Beeching identified this issue back in the 1960s. Transport is a system, and railways are just part of that system. Reviewing the functioning and organisation of the railways, without considering other elements of the transport system on the same footing, is never going to have a significant impact.

 

[markymark2000]

I would be transferring some routes to other operators which make more sense. For example Milton Keynes to South Croydon move that to LNWR with Southern not having a great reputation and as soon as something happens on the Southern network, the trains to Milton Keynes are dropped. Whereas, LNWR can run them from the other side of the route and therefore when an incident happens, they can terminate at Clapham Junction without messing with staff rosters.
Also moving the Windermere and Barrow services back to TPE.
Possibly move the North East Northern operations over to a brand new franchise with it being so separated from the rest of the Northern franchise, it makes little sense keeping it in Northern.

Something else I would be doing is trying to get a UK wide smartcard for the season tickets which can include PlusBus (and therefore read by bus operator ticket machines). Saves all of the paper tickets but a UK wide version means that when an franchise finishes and the operator changes, the card will still be valid.

I would remove Gatwick Express as this would free up 4 paths per hour from Victoria. Normal Southern and Thameslink trains are fast enough. Gatwick Express saves you all of about 2 minutes.

A huge thing I would do is get more parking introduced at stations. While I know this doesn't promote full sustainable travel, but you need to improve station parking at an affordable price would encourage people to use the train and not drive.

If possible, I would close underused stations and the parliamentary trains. While there are costs involved, it might be cheaper in the long run than specifying trains run daft routes a few times per week just because people won't shut a station or a disused line. Then you can recycle these materials to create new stations.

Where possible, to reduce the cost of creating stations, I would introduce more barrow crossings. I know this isn't as safe but only a few people would be using it as a normal bridge would be in place but you don't need all the lifts. Barrow crossings could work off a gate which is automatic but Radar keys unlock the gate when it is safe to cross for the next 2 minutes (as less able people will take longer to get around. Maybe also enable the gate to be unlocked remotely so a person can press the help point to get in touch with someone who has CCTV over the station and can open the gates. Building new stations costs so much mainly due to the lifts costing so much. In most cases, those who use the lifts do so because they can. Those who really need the lift can be few and far between and therefore the cost is really high when there is another option out there. The lock on the gate would deter youths from.... being youths and messing on the track or people crossing when it isn't safe.

Finally, I would be trying to reduce First Class on local trains and on trains where it is underused. This frees up more space then for standard class passengers and the masses.

Obviously I would like to get trains in which are comfier and had more seats (rather than the current approach of more capacity by removing seats and making people stand) but this would be a really long term thing.

 

[The Ham]

I would be transferring some routes to other operators which make more sense. For example Milton Keynes to South Croydon move that to LNWR with Southern not having a great reputation and as soon as something happens on the Southern network, the trains to Milton Keynes are dropped. Whereas, LNWR can run them from the other side of the route and therefore when an incident happens, they can terminate at Clapham Junction without messing with staff rosters.
Also moving the Windermere and Barrow services back to TPE.
Possibly move the North East Northern operations over to a brand new franchise with it being so separated from the rest of the Northern franchise, it makes little sense keeping it in Northern.

Something else I would be doing is trying to get a UK wide smartcard for the season tickets which can include PlusBus (and therefore read by bus operator ticket machines). Saves all of the paper tickets but a UK wide version means that when an franchise finishes and the operator changes, the card will still be valid.

Nothing of particular note so far.

I would remove Gatwick Express as this would free up 4 paths per hour from Victoria. Normal Southern and Thameslink trains are fast enough. Gatwick Express saves you all of about 2 minutes.

What would you replace them with? Would they be able to serve more stations if they weren't running fast?

A huge thing I would do is get more parking introduced at stations. While I know this doesn't promote full sustainable travel, but you need to improve station parking at an affordable price would encourage people to use the train and not drive.

Firstly it's not always that easy to create more parking spaces, probably an easier (and therefore likely to be much cheaper) thing to do is to provide more cycle parking to encourage more people to cycle. This on turn could increase the availablity of parking spaces.

If possible, I would close underused stations and the parliamentary trains. While there are costs involved, it might be cheaper in the long run than specifying trains run daft routes a few times per week just because people won't shut a station or a disused line. Then you can recycle these materials to create new stations.

I think you are over estimating the number of services which run like this, especially the number of stations which could be closed as a result of this. Anyway many TOC's find them useful for staff training for division routes.

Where possible, to reduce the cost of creating stations, I would introduce more barrow crossings. I know this isn't as safe but only a few people would be using it as a normal bridge would be in place but you don't need all the lifts. Barrow crossings could work off a gate which is automatic but Radar keys unlock the gate when it is safe to cross for the next 2 minutes (as less able people will take longer to get around. Maybe also enable the gate to be unlocked remotely so a person can press the help point to get in touch with someone who has CCTV over the station and can open the gates. Building new stations costs so much mainly due to the lifts costing so much. In most cases, those who use the lifts do so because they can. Those who really need the lift can be few and far between and therefore the cost is really high when there is another option out there. The lock on the gate would deter youths from.... being youths and messing on the track or people crossing when it isn't safe.

An interesting idea, however much of the cost of new stations appears to be to do with the platforms. A similar solution, which is likely to work in a lot of locations is likely to be to locate stations where there's already existing bridges and use those.

Finally, I would be trying to reduce First Class on local trains and on trains where it is underused. This frees up more space then for standard class passengers and the masses.

Obviously I would like to get trains in which are comfier and had more seats (rather than the current approach of more capacity by removing seats and making people stand) but this would be a really long term thing.

Although first class may be underused for much of the day/on certain routes the same trains will be used across all services/routes meaning this would be hard to achieve or provide limited capacity increases.

Removing seats from trains would mean you'd need to provide more trains, how are you going to go about doing that?

 

[Harpers Tate]

The biggest single change I'd make is to the franchising structure/model.
I hesitate to do this but to draw a comparison:

Let's use the "Rohan" clothing brand as an example. You see Rohan stores in various towns (usually, but not exclusively in "country" areas). They all carry the same product range (give or take, as permitted by the store size) at the same prices. Suppose you buy an item and later find it faulty or unsuitable or whatever and want to return it. You go to a different Rohan store and they handle the return, giving you a swap or refund as required; no quibble.

You are completely and totally unaware that the two stores are owned and operated by entirely different people under a Rohan franchise (or possibly by Rohan themselves). The experience across the stores is seamless and their separate ownership is wholly transparent to the customer. They form a part of a whole.

I'd do exactly the same to the railways. Make them like TFL buses - they are tendered out and may be independently run, but they conform to a single corporate standard and specification, and are fully integrated with each other.

No more "you bought that ticket from x so we can't help you; you have to go back to x".
No more TOC-specific anytime, off-peak, etc., fares (i.e. except advances which are TOC specific by definition). Competition would be entirely restricted to train-specific fares (i.e. advances).

etc.

 

[markymark2000]

What would you replace them with? Would they be able to serve more stations if they weren't running fast?

I wouldn't do anything in particular but by scrapping the GatEx brand, it saves people from being ripped off. You could keep the requirement in for 4 fast trains and let the TOC decide where to run onto from there depending on where demand is for faster trains into London. Alternatively, you scrap the fast to Gatwick requirement (given Clapham Jct and East Croydon don't slow down the end to end journey that much) and let the TOC decide where is in most need of extra trips and they can put in for another train on the paths which GatEx previously took up.

Firstly it's not always that easy to create more parking spaces, probably an easier (and therefore likely to be much cheaper) thing to do is to provide more cycle parking to encourage more people to cycle. This on turn could increase the availablity of parking spaces.

Build up is the way to go for it. (or down if it's possible). Cycle parking is cheaper but I don't think the UK will ever get to a stage where cycling is massive. Especially not in the short term. You could pay people billions of pound and they wouldn't get out of their car. Therefore, you have to try and accommodate them. The price of car parks is all supply and demand. If demand outweighs supply, you increase the price to lower the demand. This can then discourage people from using the train for those shorter journeys.

I think you are over estimating the number of services which run like this, especially the number of stations which could be closed as a result of this. Anyway many TOC's find them useful for staff training for division routes.

It's probably worth noting, some Parliamentary trains would be replaced with more frequent services while some withdrawn and any under utilised track ripped up and recycled. Stations I don't think it would be many stations but certainly a good 30 or so could probably go. Some of the Parliamentary trains are just pure daft and could be rid of quite easily. More and more have started going recently but I would just rid them completely. High Wycombe to West Ealing. If Chiltern want a regular train to Paddington, go for it. Otherwise, scrap the service. Yes it might be good for driver training but it can just be a strain on the limited budget. Just on this trip, you have driver, guard and train maintenance costs just before you start. Then you have fuel which is being wasted and therefore emissions being put into the atmosphere for no reason. Its a train which could be being used elsewhere to boost capacity rather than being kept aside for a service which no one uses and is unlikely to boost anytime soon.

An interesting idea, however much of the cost of new stations appears to be to do with the platforms. A similar solution, which is likely to work in a lot of locations is likely to be to locate stations where there's already existing bridges and use those.

That also works. It's just inconvenient for some passengers to do this sometimes. Shotton for example, you had to go onto the Bidston platform to buy a ticket from the office and then you used to go over the barrow crossing and board a Wrexham bound train. Instead now, you have to go up the steep hill to the ticket office to then go back down it, under the bridge and then back up the other side. In most cases where there is a bridge next to the station, the bridge is very steep. It would have to be looked at on a case by case basis.
New stations cost a lot in general. I don't think it helps when you have to put in 2 lifts. The platforms have the built to accommodate these lifts as well with the shafts so it could reduce platform costs as well with them not having to be built around and support a lift.

Although first class may be underused for much of the day/on certain routes the same trains will be used across all services/routes meaning this would be hard to achieve or provide limited capacity increases.

Removing seats from trains would mean you'd need to provide more trains, how are you going to go about doing that?

Some trains, I understand First Class and it works. If it is consistently underused though and provides no additional benefit to passengers except 3mm extra leg room, a cup of coffee and a guaranteed seat, it needs to be scrapped on these trains or reduced. I use Southern as a good example. A large proportion of the time, First Class is empty. When it is used, it provides little benefits to the passenger. Therefore scrap First Class and make it Standard.
I do not propose removing seats, I am saying the current approach is remove seats to free up more space for standing and then 'increased capacity'. London Overground is a good example.

 

[cosmo]

Given this is a review, not an overhaul:

• The Department for Transport should have less power over specifics of contracts, ie. what type of seats must be used, what rolling stock must be used, company name, etc. Obviously, they ought to make sure legislation such as PRM and fire safety rules are being followed, but the prospective TOC should include their plans for stock/seating in their bid. Think of them as an overseeing body rather than the pseudo-operators of the railway.
• If a TOC picks up three improvement notices in the space of one year, it is automatically placed under review by the DfT for possible franchise removal and temporary public ownership via an operator of last resort (as per LNER) or, if the contract length iess than 6 months and a process of re-tendering is underway, being barred from re-bidding.
• If a TOC cannot fulfill its franchise, it may ask the DfT to end it early, but it will not be allowed to re-bid for that franchise in the upcoming re-tendering and must pay costs of 2x what it would have cost to continue running the franchise.
• All franchise operators must offer a Delay Repay scheme for delays of anything more than 15 minutes.