If Sectorisation ever returned, how would you organise the sectors?

[LOL The Irony]

'Control' by whom? You would still have five 'operators' between Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport for example (IC West Coast, IC Cross Country [including TransPennine], RR East Midlands, RR Wales and RR North West).

They would have greater control over their services, allowing them to decide what's best for each one, whilst still working with each other. And if I had to go over exactly which services would go where (as there would be crossover points), I'd be at it forever. Also you've read the TPE expresses as just TPE. It should be Scotland(Inter7City), TransPennine (Scotland & Scarborough) & Chiltern (Mainline)

 

[Irascible]

Folding ROSCOs ( including procurement ), crew & staff into NR & letting NR train crew so they could work regionally instead of just a TOC's services might be a start. DFT already decides the service & effectively the money, so what's left is branding & bookkeeping & at that point it hardly matters if you brand every individual service or large areas, from an operational point of view. And, well, there's some wiggle room for private management & even stock hire there.

A better question might be "should the DFT take a step back from operating the railways", then you might have to decide about a structure resembling the old sectors. Are we talking branding or complete management?

 

[Energy]

A better question might be "should the DFT take a step back from operating the railways", then you might have to decide about a structure resembling the old sectors. Are we talking branding or complete management?

The DfT should take a step back with control being given to NR. Currently the DfT acts like a middle man, and not a particularly good one, projects which involve NR and the TOC seem to have go through the DfT and its micromanagement. The DfT doesn't do a particularly great job anyway, look at the complaints about seats on the IETs and 700s, the IETs were also expensive and took a long time.

 

[Irascible]

The DfT should take a step back with control being given to NR. Currently the DfT acts like a middle man, and not a particularly good one, projects which involve NR and the TOC seem to have go through the DfT and its micromanagement. The DfT doesn't do a particularly great job anyway, look at the complaints about seats on the IETs and 700s, the IETs were also expensive and took a long time.

Agreed. The DfT should say "we would like XYZ services, please invoice me", NR should work out how, bill it, negotiate, bill it again and then implement it, and a commissioned independent watchdog should close the loop & report to the DfT ( which, being cynical, provides an outlet for civil service / NR appointment battles ). NR can provide a basic backgorund "brand" of sorts along with whatever operational structure they think would work best ( perhaps... regional and a long distance layer who can contract from regions ), the DfT can pay a bit more for seperate *image* branding & middle-management for services they consider special, if they want. They could keep the structure of the TOCs & ROSCOs only basically in public ownership & as customers of NR's operations if they want hrug:

In all the times I've lived through a TOC change in my local area, I've noticed the change of colour of the train & just got on with my journey. I really don't think branding is particularily important when ( covid aside ) we're struggling for capacity anyway, it's not the 80s.

 

[Energy]

Agreed. The DfT should say "we would like XYZ services, please invoice me", NR should work out how & bill it, and a commissioned independent watchdog should close the loop & report to the DfT ( which, being cynical, provides an outlet for civil service / NR appointment battles ).

The DfT should work with the local MP and council on a business case for a request which gets submitted to NR, NR can then give advice and say yes or no on the request. The case should be for things like opening a line, electrification could also be a thing if the local council are willing to pay for it instead of waiting for NR to do it (say they are quite far down the list), increase in services could also be a request. New trains are a harder thing to request, if the council is willing to pay for it then maybe but NR should be able to decide for itself where rolling stock is best allocated.

NR can provide a basic backgorund "brand" of sorts along with whatever operational structure they think would work best

I agree, with NR awarding concessions to a private operator so there is some competition (like London Overground).

the DfT can pay a bit more for seperate *image* branding & middle-management for services they consider special, if they want.

I don't think so, maybe local councils could pay for a special co-branded livery to promote the local area but it shouldn't be a different brand.

 

[Whistler40145]

No, the island is called Great Britain. That's its name. Some people are increasingly using just Britain to mean Great Britain but it's incorrect.

Britain is more commonly used interchangeably with the UK. You're not UKish, you're British. "Britain is a member of the G7" is a statement nobody serious would query. The statement is talking about the UK, not the island of Great Britain, nor England, Scotland & Wales sans Northern Ireland.

It's The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is what appears on the front of your passport

 

[Gareth]

Yes, I know. Thanks though.