Which Franchises Would You Rearrange?

[LE Greys]

In the 'If Enthusiasts Ran the Railways' thread, I noticed a lot of people wanted to rearrange all the franchises. That got me thinking, and I came up with my own version, which basically ammounts to recreating the pre-grouping map of 1921, although there would be a few changes until parallel routes get rebuilt (see below). Once it's done, sell off the franchises as independent companies, then break up Network Rail and the ROSCOs, allowing the companies to buy their own track and rolling stock. Then just let them get on with it with virtually no regulation (as before 1921). It would probably fall foul of some competition law or other, but I think it would bring stability to the network and encourage genuine inter-route competition where lines cross and interweave.

I'm interested in other people's opinions on this and what they would do instead.

The changes:
Merge the Great Northern, North Eastern, North British and Great North of Scotland routes into one company. They get firm control of Aberdeen and Oban (at least until the Callander & Oban gets rebuilt in full)
Merge the London & North Western and Caledonian routes into one company. They have temporary control of the Cambrian until the Snow Hill-Wolverhampton line is rebuilt and regain Oban once the Dunblane-Crianlarich section gets rebuilt
Merge the Midland and Glasgow & South Western into one company. The Midland would also take over most former Great Central routes, but lose Birmingham-Bristol.
Keep Chiltern as it is. When Snow Hill-Wolverhampton gets rebuilt, the Chiltern would take over the Shrewsbury and Cambrian routes.
The Great Western would take over Bristol-Birmingham and the former LSWR routes west of Exeter (including Exmouth)
The LSWR would lose these routes
Cross-country would still exist, although it would be a joint venture between all the companies involved (own management, but the companies own equal shares). It would merge with Trans-Pennine and take over Norwich-Liverpool
DBS and Freightliner would be bought back, merged, and also run as a joint venture
Open access would still exist

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'd have franchised them on a regional basis but with InterCity as a franchise in it's own right - but I'd make very sure that it would have to co-operate with the local services for connections, pathing and through ticketing etc.

One other thing I'd do would be like in Scotland; specify a base livery ( eg by services; like InterCity = one livery; regionasl services = another livery ) with more discrete individual TOC logos - and have set standards for customer choice and products etc; in other words pretty similar to the sort of franchises that fill up our high streets these days.

On top of that, there would be the expectation of innovative product development with ongoing growth as a target.

 

[LE Greys]

One thing I should have added is that my system would mean that companies could set their own timetables. If they wanted to cut or add few minutes, change stopping patterns and so on, they could just do it. The same for fares. Joint lines might be a bit awkward, because you're expecting rivals to cooperate, but they would be a temporary measure until missing links get put back. You would have to reopen the Railway Clearing House to deal with tickets crossing company boundaries, but that should not be too difficult.

 

[atomicdanny]

If I had my way I would have at least four main ones as below with a Southern based one, an "Intercity" type one, a regional railways type one, and one each for Scotland and Wales

I would put Southern, SWT, South Eastern, FCC, London Overground, NXEA (the stoppers), FGW (London Local routes), Chiltern and C2C as a Southern based Franchise (with London Midland - Stoppers and Semi Fast). In Other words Similar to Network South East...

An Intercity one with Virgin Trains, East Coast (including First Hull Trains and , NXEA (the Main Lines), EMT (Main Lines), London Midland (Faster Routes), First Great Western (HST Routes) and First Transpennie Express?

Scotland and wales with their own seperate franchises (except for those services that cross into england the intercity ones), basically the Current Arriva Trains Wales and First Scotrail ones!

The rest would be a regional railways type franchise (Northern, and the FGW Local Routes), EMT (Local and Stoppers) and First Transpennie Express?

 

[Ivo]

I would create 30 all-new franchises, as shown below...

London Thameside
- c2c, plus former FGE services south of Marks Tey and also the Sunshine Coast Line to Clacton and Walton, but minus Shenfield Metro
Anglia Railways
- Sudbury and Harwich routes in Essex, which wuld be merged; otherwise, as pre-2004
WAGN
- As before, but minus Metro services as far as Hertford, plus Stevenage to Moorgate
North-Eastern
- All local Northern services in the North-East, including Tyne & Wear and Teesside, no further south than Lincoln
Scotland Central
- Local services in and around Scotland's major two cities
ScotRail
- Other services in Scotland - major subsidies required here
North-Western
- Local services in the North-West, but not including local Liverpool, Manchester or Leeds services
Northern Midlands
- Services in the north of the Midlands, which includes EMT routes 3 and 4and some LM and NT services
Chiltern Railways
- As current
Thames Valley
- As before, but minus the North Downs Line, the Greenford branch and services west of Oxford
South & South-East
- An amalgamation of the South Central and Integrated Kent Franchises, but minus local London services; franchise would include all services running beyond Dorking, Redhill, Tonbridge, Maidstone and Gravesend, and other points on other routes as appropriate - would also include the North Downs Line
South Western
- Largely as present, but again minus local London routes; London services must continue beyond the Camberley line, which would still be a part of the franchise
Wessex Railways
- Essentially as before, but minus all routes north of Gloucester/Cheltenham and Cardiff-Portsmouth
Wales & West
- All Welsh services besides the Valley Lines; will also include local services in and around Worcester, such as Cheltenham/Hereford/Oxford, but not Birmingham
Thameslink
- Stuff the Thameslink Programme, it was better before!

CrossCountry
- Not a franchise, but rather a joint responsiblity between all operators under the ATOC brand. If they want franchises, they have to learn to work together. Includes all current XC routes, plus much of TPE and EMT route 2
GEML
- GEML 125+ services
WCML
- WCML 125+ services
GWML
- GWML 125+ services
MML
- An expanded MML service, including routes to Carlisle and Manchester

London Orbital
- Most of LO, but not Willesden Junction to Euston
Crossrail
- Crossrail services
North-Eastern
- Great Eastern and West Anglia local services
Southern Surbuban
- SE, SN and SW local services as detailed above

Local services in Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham and Cardiff to be administered by the local authorities. Remaining London routes to follow suit.

 

[generalvegitable]

In the 'If Enthusiasts Ran the Railways' thread, I noticed a lot of people wanted to rearrange all the franchises. That got me thinking, and I came up with my own version, which basically ammounts to recreating the pre-grouping map of 1921, although there would be a few changes until parallel routes get rebuilt (see below). Once it's done, sell off the franchises as independent companies, then break up Network Rail and the ROSCOs, allowing the companies to buy their own track and rolling stock. Then just let them get on with it with virtually no regulation (as before 1921). It would probably fall foul of some competition law or other, but I think it would bring stability to the network and encourage genuine inter-route competition where lines cross and interweave.

that is pretty much what I would do, reset the railways back to pre grouping, have a "big four" based on a current geographical map of the railways split it up completely so that most of the networks are isolated from each other apart from a few links for cross country trains. the basic operators would be based on the older big four, so a GWR, a southern railway an LMS and an LNER. all operators would own the track, the stock, do the maintenance and so on. this would encourage competition because the operators would be completely seperate and allowed to do what they want with no station platforms shared between operators, they would also be free to set their own speed limits so for example operator 1 has a route from town A to town B with a speed limit of 100mph but operator 2 opens a route between those towns at 125mph, operator 1 doesn't like this so increases their speed to 140mph to keep their customers. this would also decease journey times as the operators would be in direct competition. this would mean that the railways would be brilliant because the operators will want to be better than the rest ...

 

[Failed Unit]

It is always a difficult one. Br created many interesting routes. Would Norwich to Liverpool and cleethorpes - Manchester exist if privatisation happened in 1986. Lincoln would have been on the xc network if central had been reorganised in 1999 before it was rerouted via liecester and split. As such I would just have intercity regional and south east. If regional railways wanted to run a daily skegness to Manchester service via Lincoln or a newcastle to Cardiff via Manchester by linking up various service to provide a useful flow boundries should not stop it.

 

[MCR247]

I would merge all LM and EMT routes and Nottingham - Cardiff and Birmingham - Stansted and possibly Northern into one franchise

 

[Ivo]

Cardiff/London to Newcastle/Carlisle in one franchise...! No ofence intended, but if one franchise has that kind of size - and only one intercity route in there! - then you may as well nationalise the system again.

 

[Oswyntail]

• First, re-establish Inter-City as one franchise covering long distance "trunk" routes (ECML, WCML, GWML, NESW, MML). Give them the basic routes, but allow them to extend, eg to south coast destinations, or Sunderland). Two standard types of stock, D&E.
• Then each major conurbation has a franchise to run its commuter services, linked to a PTE-type organisation. London I would split North and South. Again, standard commuter stock.
• Then an overall franchise for "bits in between" railways, or possibly a Scot/North/South split. Again, standard stock. Charged with identifying the medium/short distance traffic flows, and providing them in liaison with the PTEs and the trunk suppliers

This would mean more franchises, but each one concentrating on a specific business type.
IMHO, with a franchise system and freight you have to keep a NR-style organisation

 

[mikeg]

Integrated franchises within self contained networks of varying sizes.

Northern/TPE: Merge, Scottish services go to WCML franchise, MAN-CRE/SOT go to WCML
WCML: Merge Virgin and LM's WCML operations, add TPE's Scottish services, Northern's WCML services.
ECML: As is, possibly add some of Scotrail's ECML only operations, but politics may get in the way of things here.
MML: As is.
Merseyrail: As is.
Chiltern: As is but add LM's Snow Hill lines service.
NXEA: As is, possibly add C2C services but it ain't broke so probably best not to fix it.
Southern and Southeastern: Merge
FGW: As is.
FCC: As is? Possibly some Kings Cross services go to ECML.
South Western: As is.
Scotrail: As is.
Wales: As is, devolve to Welsh assembly.
Crosscountry: As is, maybe add MAN-NOR?

The advantages of this is it would increase network integration, give each operator a greater share of the stake in their 'patch' and thus encourage investment in the network. Also, fewer communications problems with different train companies, different ticket types etc. Only disadvantage of this is less chance of price competition.

 

[Geezertronic]

When Snow Hill-Wolverhampton gets rebuilt...

Can/is this happening? I thought the Midland Metro utilised some of the trackbed for this?

 

[LE Greys]

Can/is this happening? I thought the Midland Metro utilised some of the trackbed for this?

I'm not entirely sure, but some of the overhead imagery suggests that there is enough room to build a double-track line alongside the Midland Metro. The idea is to reduce pressure on the Sandwell & Dudley line and open up the possibility of a Marylebone-Aberystwyth service. Missing links would be important as part of the vertical integration policy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It's interesting how there seem to be two camps, the "vertical integrators" (of which I am one) and the "full sectorisers". In both cases, the arguments seem to be flexibility and stability. Integrators say that a route controlled entirely by one company means that this company can make changes without having to get approval (without consulting anyone else) and if they actually own it, they will guarantee that they get the benefits. Sectorisers allow the flexibility to move stock between routes easily, and allow each company to concentrate on one type of traffic.

Not quite sure if I'm right about this.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

They are certainly going to remove the Metro from Snow Hill station itself, so that will revert back to 4 main line platforms when the Metro extension is built.

 

[Geezertronic]

They are certainly going to remove the Metro from Snow Hill station itself, so that will revert back to 4 main line platforms when the Metro extension is built.

Not strictly, the Metro will get its own dedicated area at Snow Hill which means Platform 4 can be returned to normal service. The Metro will still run from Snow Hill as normal but from the new dedicated area.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I had the impression that this would be elevated and off to the east side as the Metro would be street running from Snow Hill to New Street?

 

[Mojo]

I had the impression that this would be elevated and off to the east side as the Metro would be street running from Snow Hill to New Street?

Yes that is right. You can see the ramp next to the station which will bring the line up to street level. It will then allow platform 4 to be used by BR trains.

 

[LE Greys]

Well, it's a start.

There are quite a few other missing links out there (mostly a result of rationalisation). The line through the Gorbals probably won't happen now, but it's worth considering, as it links up large areas of the former Caledonian. Then we have Crianlarich-Dunblane (linking Oban to the Caledonian and cutting two hours off the massive Inverness-Fort William loop). There are the former Midland lines in the West Riding (including the old Leeds-Sheffield main line). The Woodhead is the big one, which would provide an extra Trans-Pennine route. If the GCR ever gets rebuilt, the Grantham-Nottingham route should connect to it rather than the Midland. Essentially, we would be disentangling two, three or even four separate systems that have been squashed into one. Not sure if it's possible, but it should provide competition over a large area.

 

[Kneedown]

I'd amalgamate all the different franchises into one big franchise under government control and call it something catchy like...British Rail.

 

[Zoe]

I'd amalgamate all the different franchises into one big franchise under government control and call it something catchy like...British Rail.

Great idea but then it wouldn't actually be a franchise.

 

[37401]

I'd amalgamate all the different franchises into one big franchise under government control and call it something catchy like...British Rail.

I like it, I think its got legs and can work and for that reason....im in

 

[Drsatan]

Although I'm opposed to the franchising system and would prefer to see BR recreated, I accept that a state monopoly would result in a lack of competition. So, I'd propose a similar franchising system to Germany, where each of the states offers concessions to either DB or any of the private companies (Connex, Arriva) etc. to operate local services in that state.

Therefore, I'd divide the UK into eight different franchises, with the ORR given responsibility for handing out franchises. BR would be allowed to bid for franchises, as would private companies. The main differences between the current system and the one I'm proposing is that franchisees would own the trains and the track. Franchises would be for a length of 25 years and during the tenure of the franchise, the franchisee would be expected to keep the trains and infrastructure in working order and invest for growth in their respective franchising area. Passenger and freight services operating across franchise boundaries, such as GWML and WCML passenger trains, and intermodal services from Southampton to Hams Hall, would be operated by BR for the time being. So, Paddington-Exeter St Davids services would be operated by BR, while local trains in Devon would be operated by whoever owned the franchise for the South West (which could even be BR). Unprofitable but socially important services would be subsidised by the DfT and county councils.

 

[Zoe]

You say you wouldn't want BR recreated due to lack of competition but where is the competition in your model? If I want to go from Reading to Exeter I'd likely have a choice of one company, this isn't much different from the route monopolies we have now.

 

[devon_metro]

Its interesting to see that people wish to split Intercity from Regional, where they are often currently combined.

That would probably result in cuts as Regional lines simply aren't profitable enough, in effect the Intercity lines subsidise them.

 

[Zoe]

That would probably result in cuts as Regional lines simply aren't profitable enough, in effect the Intercity lines subsidise them.

The point is that the regional lines could be subsidized by local authorities in the same way unprofitible bus routes are. If there was no subsidy then the TOCs would still want to as much profit as possible and so there would be cuts to regional services rather than subsidy from intercity.

 

[LE Greys]

You say you wouldn't want BR recreated due to lack of competition but where is the competition in your model? If I want to go from Reading to Exeter I'd likely have a choice of one company, this isn't much different from the route monopolies we have now.

Reading-Exeter isn't exactly a route monopoly (Reading-Bristol would be) since you can go via Basingstoke and Salisbury. If SWT could spend their own money on dualling the route, and perhaps 125 mph stock, they could offer genuine competition at least as far as Exeter. They can already compete on price.

One of the things about having more than one operator on the same route is path blocking. I still can't work out who sets the timetables, but if one operator wants to modify it's timetable, it has to rely on a rival to cooperate. The 313-worked services through Welwyn a few years ago were a prime example, WAGN preventing GNER from running an additional peak service merely to increase their revenue share. That's why you should always have one operator per route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
BTW, is the current operator's map copyrighted? I've been thinking of making a few revisions to illustrate how it would work.

 

[Zoe]

One of the things about having more than one operator on the same route is path blocking.

It could by retaining Network Rail as infrastructure owner and companies would then bid for paths. Of course if this was done then there wouldn't be any need for franchsing the intercity routes and unprofitable routes could be contracted by local authorities.

 

[LE Greys]

There's also the question of reacting to traffic. A vertically-integrated company would not need to bid for an extra path to run a relief train for an exceptionally busy service. With enough spare stock, an unadvertised relief would not be too difficult to organise overnight (literally in BR days).

 

[Zoe]

With enough spare stock, an unadvertised relief would not be too difficult to organise overnight (literally in BR days).

You may as well go back to BR then, a private company is just not going to have spare stock sitting around doing nothing most of the time.

 

[Geezertronic]

You may as well go back to BR then, a private company is just not going to have spare stock sitting around doing nothing most of the time.

VirginTrains, East Coast and others did well enough rejuggling their stock to acommodate extra trains during the UK Airspace shutdown so it proves it can be done at short notice, but my asumption is the TOCs would not want to do that all of the time due to them probably utilising their staff and stock fully during the period leaving little time for rest and stock maintenance

That's why you should always have one operator per route.

Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying, I cannot ever see how that would work in the current system. Take the Coventry-Birmingham-Wolverhampton corridor - if memory serves there are 4 TOCs that call at stations through the route (5 if you include W&S) plus freight passing through. Yes VirginTrains have the current monopoly (which will disappear during renewal time). I too don't know how they work out the timetabling but they must do somehow to accomodate everyone?