DfT has spent a total of £52.3M on transitioning Network Rail to Great British Railways so far

[DerekC]

Article dated 10th May 2023 from New Civil Engineer website - it's behind a paywall so no point in linking it. I will quote in full:

The Department for Transport (DfT) has spent a total of £52.3M setting up Great British Railways (GBR) to absorb power from Network Rail so far, a Freedom of Information request by NCE has revealed.
GBR will be a new government body that will also undertake an organisational role with the operation of train services too. It emerged from the William-Shapps Plan for Rail, published in May 2021, with the purpose of ending fragmentation and integrating the country’s railways.

NCE's Freedom of Information request revealed that from November 2021 to December 2022, The Great British Railways Transition Team (GBRTT) spend was £41.4M. On top of this, from September 2018 to May 2021, a further £10.9M was spend on the commissioning and publication of the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail.

A DfT spokesperson said: “We remain committed to reforming the rail industry through Great British Railways, which will modernise our network and better deliver for passengers and freight customers, whilst ensuring we deliver value for taxpayers.”

GBRTT was established in November 2021 to develop and embed a GBR culture and target design, as well as to deliver a range of initiatives for the government. These included developing a long-term strategy for rail, network revenue initiatives and a whole industry view of finances, including leading national revenue recovery efforts, according to the DfT.

The department’s response to the Freedom of Information request stated: “The budget for rail transformation is set and spending is monitored at the programme level
“The programme does not monitor on an aggregated basis time spent solely on establishing Great British Railways. Civil servants working on that also work on other areas.”

While transport secretary Mark Harper committed to GBR in this year's George Bradshaw address, delivered at the ICE, ministers are still working to get the legislation needed to switch powers over from Network Rail through parliament.

Rail minister Huw Merriman said delays with the passage of the bill to form GBR have not slowed the project down and more has been able to be achieved than if the legislation was passed at the start of the year. He said the legislation is currently in the pipeline as an application has been made and is being assessed, with the hope of being mentioned in the next King’s Speech.

Current plans will see GBR own the railway infrastructure, collect fare revenue, run trains and plan the network and set most fares and timetables. The package of reforms aims to ensure that Britain’s railways become more customer focused and financially sustainable.

In March, it was revealed Derby would be the location for the GBR headquarters.


A review of the potential locations for the headquarters by NCE last year revealed that Derby is the only city to have manufactured rolling stock continuously since 1840, a tradition that continues today with Alstom supplying the new HS2 trains.

Is this money well spent?

 

[zwk500]

Is this money well spent?

We don't know yet. If GBR does everything it's claimed to, then probably yes.

 

[Railsigns]

If GBR does everything it's claimed to

It's already clear that it won't. It won't end fragmentation or "bring together track and train" as claimed. GBR is just a small step in the right direction, falling well short of what it claims to be and what the railway needs.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Why won’t it bring together track and train?

Actually, I don’t think the money is being well spent at the moment. All the consultants who lost out as a result of the ending of franchise competitions as well as other consultants are piling into GBRTT and making a fortune out of it all.

Amazingly, the GBR operating model has not yet been determined and the DfT seem to be stringing this out as well. It is about time that key decisions were made so the industry can move forward but the DfT seem to be hedging their bets ahead of a General Election and slow playing their deliberations.

I would say the chances of any legislation next year are very slim.

 

[Railsigns]

Why won’t it bring together track and train?

Because traincrew and signallers will still be working for different companies.

 

[zwk500]

Why won’t it bring together track and train?

Actually, I don’t think the money is being well spent at the moment. All the consultants who lost out as a result of the ending of franchise competitions as well as other consultants are piling into GBRTT and making a fortune out of it all.

Actually, consultants are making far more money out of the desperate attempts to reopen old lines and by NR scaling back it's own operations in the future growth department. GBRTT will be making a killing for a few consultants, but certainly not all of them.

Amazingly, the GBR operating model has not yet been determined and the DfT seem to be stringing this out as well. It is about time that key decisions were made so the industry can move forward but the DfT seem to be hedging their bets ahead of a
General Election and slow playing their deliberations.

This is hardly amazing, politicians want to leave making an actual decision until the very last moment.

I would say the chances of any legislation next year are very slim.

Agree.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Because traincrew and signallers will still be working for different companies.

Under one model for GBR they will, for the DfT TOCs at least. In that model GBR will be running its own services with its own staff, TUPE’d from the TOCs into GBR.

 

[irish_rail]

For me, unless staff are merged (ie drivers at say Plymouth able to drive a XC or A GWR train), plus rolling stock etc is allocated more where needed , when needed as opposed to different TOCs jealously squabbling over what they have , then GBR is a total waste of time. Money could be saved in so many ways , yet because they presumably don't fit a certain ideology are ignored. Similarly whilst we have a mish mash of colour schemes there will be no real identity for the UK railway.

 

[Railsigns]

Under one model for GBR they will, for the DfT TOCs at least.

But not for the others (the majority).

 

[Watershed]

For me, unless staff are merged (ie drivers at say Plymouth able to drive a XC or A GWR train), plus rolling stock etc is allocated more where needed , when needed as opposed to different TOCs jealously squabbling over what they have , then GBR is a total waste of time. Money could be saved in so many ways , yet because they presumably don't fit a certain ideology are ignored. Similarly whilst we have a mish mash of colour schemes there will be no real identity for the UK railway.

Hear, hear. Witness the absolute nonsense of TPE Glasgow East link drivers, for instance - every single one of their jobs involves passing/taxiing to and from Edinburgh. Some only involve working a service in one direction between Edinburgh and Newcastle! You could cover their entire work with far fewer diagrams, and with much greater flexibility, by simply employing a few extra drivers at LNER's Edinburgh depot. There are many more examples.

Of course, it's usually impossible for one link to have knowledge of all routes at the large depots. But having some commonality of basic route and traction knowledge, and being able to work other TOCs' services, would already be a huge benefit..

On branding, I think it's one thing to have brands and identities for individual routes/subsectors (indeed, that's nothing new - BR did it) but it really is ridiculous to have 20-odd different colour schemes and sets of policies, T&Cs etc.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

On branding, I think it's one thing to have brands and identities for individual routes/subsectors (indeed, that's nothing new - BR did it) but it really is ridiculous to have 20-odd different colour schemes and sets of policies, T&Cs etc.

Grouping colour schemes with policies and T&Cs seems a bit odd to me. I definitely agree you don’t want 20 different colour schemes/policies, but surely colour schemes are part of brands and identities which you’ve said you’re fine with.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Because traincrew and signallers will still be working for different companies.

Under one model for GBR they will, for the DfT TOCs at least. In that model GBR will be running its own services with its own staff, TUPE’d from the TOCs into GBR.

Even if they don't have all the same employers, it is possible (not saying "easy", but "possible") to set up alliance structures that can create more of a single team. Even when people work for the same organisation, that doesn't mean they're all one happy family with perfectly aligned objectives - the only organisations where this might be true are sole traders.

Actually, consultants are making far more money out of the desperate attempts to reopen old lines

I suspect a lot more is being spent on consultancy for actual new lines (HS2, EWR) than the many low value feasibility studies that get all the coverage in the local press and promise that Northampton will become a railway hub to rival Birmingham New Street. Off-topic but we should be preparing ourselves for a further round of these shortly as it might be about the right time to get the results in early 2024, so that political parties can outdo each other to promise-but-not-promise that this time, it'll get rebuilt.

It's not what's been spent that worries me so much as whether there's enough urgency around tackling critical issues like fares reform.

 

[Watershed]

Grouping colour schemes with policies and T&Cs seems a bit odd to me. I definitely agree you don’t want 20 different colour schemes/policies, but surely colour schemes are part of brands and identities which you’ve said you’re fine with.

Perhaps I was a little unclear. I think there's a difference between brands/identities and colour schemes. For instance, immediately before privatisation, BR had three basic colour schemes for each of its three passenger sectors - IC, NSE and RR. Within each of these, there were then slight variations, like NSE's route logos. But these were relatively minor details on a livery that was otherwise broadly identical regardless of the bit of NSE you were on.

I'm not saying BR got it perfect, but it was a darn-sight better than today's mess.

 

[irish_rail]

Perhaps I was a little unclear. I think there's a difference between brands/identities and colour schemes. For instance, immediately before privatisation, BR had three basic colour schemes for each of its three passenger sectors - IC, NSE and RR. Within each of these, there were then slight variations, like NSE's route logos. But these were relatively minor details on a livery that was otherwise broadly identical regardless of the bit of NSE you were on.

I'm not saying BR got it perfect, but it was a darn-sight better than today's mess.

Indeed. Look at any business and the branding and logos, image etc is absolutely vital. Consistency of branding is something the likes of BA, Tesco, McDonald's etc etc take very seriously. Yet our railway appears differently from station to station and from train to train. No wonder none enthusiasts / regular users get confused!

 

[Dr Hoo]

Indeed. Look at any business and the branding and logos, image etc is absolutely vital. Consistency of branding is something the likes of BA, Tesco, McDonald's etc etc take very seriously. Yet our railway appears differently from station to station and from train to train. No wonder none enthusiasts / regular users get confused!

Can you detect any difference in brand and logos between, say, Screwfix and B&Q, which can be found on opposite sides of the road in Sheffield?

(They are both part of Kingfisher by the way.)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Indeed. Look at any business and the branding and logos, image etc is absolutely vital. Consistency of branding is something the likes of BA, Tesco, McDonald's etc etc take very seriously. Yet our railway appears differently from station to station and from train to train. No wonder none enthusiasts / regular users get confused!

I'd be a bit careful about that particular complaint. Look at the Elizabeth line... Every station platform in the core (with the exception of Paddington, and Canary Wharf if that counts as 'core') looks identical. Yeah, they definitely have a consistent branding there... with the result that it's very easy to look out the window as your train arrives at a station and have no idea which station you're arriving at! What you really want is for signs and logos etc. to be consistent, and for station layouts to follow consistent patterns as much as possible (that one often isn't possible), but for the visual appearance of each station outside of that to be very distinctive.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Can you detect any difference in brand and logos between, say, Screwfix and B&Q, which can be found on opposite sides of the road in Sheffield?

(They are both part of Kingfisher by the way.)

They may be part of the same parent group, but they are very different brands. B&Q aimed primarily at consumers, Screwfix aimed more at trade. Head over the hills to Stoke, for example, and both brands will have the same appearance as in Sheffield.

Railway wise, that's like having InterCity and Regional Railways. You know that IC will be an express type journey between larger towns and cities, whereas RR will get you to your local station. Go anywhere in the country and the same would apply.

Currently, you can go to somewhere like Kidsgrove and catch services from 3 different regional TOCs. Or you can catch an East Midlands service from South Yorkshire to the North West. And a Transpennine service from the North West to Scotland without crossing the Pennines.

You can purchase one ticket that would allow you to use either of three TOC brands to get from Stoke to Manchester. Or purchase a ticket that only allows you to use one of those brands, despite them all taking the same route. And then when your train doesn't run, or is delayed, you can be told it's not the fault of the brand that you bought the ticket from, or the brand who's train didn't operate, but actually the fault of somebody called Network Rail, or Freightliner.

I wouldn't expect to walk into a Ford dealership and buy a brand new Vauxhall. But I can walk up to an Avanti ticket office and purchase a ticket for a CrossCountry service. But then I can't do the reverse, because CrossCountry don't have any stations or booking offices of their own.

It's actually all quite a bit of a muddle. And that's before we get on to consistency of branding and appearance of stations and trains within the same TOC brand

 

[zwk500]

Can you detect any difference in brand and logos between, say, Screwfix and B&Q, which can be found on opposite sides of the road in Sheffield?

(They are both part of Kingfisher by the way.)

B&Q and Screwfix target different markets though - Screwfix is for people who know what they want and want to get it with the minimum of fuss, B&Q is for people who want to spend a bit more time looking and choosing their selection, and may need to have it in front of them to compare. It's not quite as simple as B&Q for amateurs and Screwfix for trades, but it's not far off.
And - crucially - I can't (easily) send an order in to Kingfisher and have them direct me to Screwfix for most of it and B&Q for the big sheets of plywood. They may have the same corporate owner but they function primarily as independent shops (at least I'm not aware of any commonality at the customer facing level). In contrast to a train, where you must use several different brands of train as part of one overall network, akin to a pub crawl (perhaps appropriate for some members to conflate pubs and trains).
It's fine to segment the train offering while retaining a unifying brand for the network - BR did it well in the sectors era. But it would help passengers if there was a consistent pattern to it, with a clear service and fare structure linked into the branding. At the moment some routes have segmentation by TOCs, some have segmentation within the same TOC with demarcated branding, and some have segmentation within the same TOC but the only way you'd know is if you are paying reasonably close attention.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Thanks for the comments.

I am pleased that the concept of distinct brands within common ownership is recognised by some at least.

I would hate to go back to the days when everything was painted blue and grey, and don't believe that revenue would be maximised that way either.

 

[zwk500]

I would hate to go back to the days when everything was painted blue and grey, and don't believe that revenue would be maximised that way either.

I agree that having everything in a uniform colour would not be good - most continental nationalised operators have some form of distinction. BR's sectors is a decent model to follow.

 

[FR510]

There is so much wastage of money and resources on today's fragmented railway. Multiple TOCs having separate crew depots and accommodation in one location and not being able to crew each others services.

So you can have company X cancel services due to lack of traincrew , when company Y has traincrew sitting spare in an adjacent building.

Not to mention the different companies paying different salaries and having different Ts and Cs for doing the same job.

Oh for the simpler days of BR!

 

[JamesT]

There is so much wastage of money and resources on today's fragmented railway. Multiple TOCs having separate crew depots and accommodation in one location and not being able to crew each others services.

So you can have company X cancel services due to lack of traincrew , when company Y has traincrew sitting spare in an adjacent building.

Not to mention the different companies paying different salaries and having different Ts and Cs for doing the same job.

Oh for the simpler days of BR!

Was BR actually simpler? Or did they operate something like a link system where particular groups of drivers did particular services and a spare driver still might not be able to drive?

 

[FR510]

Was BR actually simpler? Or did they operate something like a link system where particular groups of drivers did particular services and a spare driver still might not be able to drive?

Yes there was a link system at some depots. And that can still exist today at some locations within a TOC.

But I don't believe it's comparable to today's over complicated set up in many locations throughout the country.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I feel that having a few different colours/brandings on trains works best when the branding tells the passenger something useful. BR had it right when they often had blue for local trains and blue-grey for inter-city ones (although they weren't always consistent about it) - since that meant the colour of the train gave you some idea what kind of train it was, and a clue about whether it was likely to be your train. The Network-SE colour scheme was almost useless from that point of view: The fact that a train at Brighton is one colour, while another train at Preston running a similar kind of service is another colour gives no value to anyone. If GBR returns to a nationally consistent coloured-by-type-of-service, that'd be a big plus.

Even bigger plus would be, consistent colours to indicate 1st class, cycle spaces, etc. But I guess this is getting very speculative.

 

[36270k]

Was BR actually simpler? Or did they operate something like a link system where particular groups of drivers did particular services and a spare driver still might not be able to drive?

I was there on BR in the 70's/80's
The scenario was just the same with restrictions on who does what and where.
Co-operation between regions for Crews/Locos/stock etc could take several days if it happened at all.
I am afraid BR is not a good example to plan for the future.

 

[Thirteen]

I think sub brands will still exist within GBR and keep in mind that the devolved nations as well as local authorities run railways will retain their branding so London Overground and The Elizabeth Line for example won't be rebranded.

 

[heathrowrail]

Article dated 10th May 2023 from New Civil Engineer website - it's behind a paywall so no point in linking it. I will quote in full:


Is this money well spent?

Nope! All just a load of Conservative waffle but the Boris and current Sunak administration to claim "levelling down" or whatever nonsense they call it. Meanwhile here in West Berkshire we have no direct Bedwyn to Paddington service anymore because of DFT cuts.

 

[pdeaves]

not being able to crew each others services

Unless I am much mistaken, crew from TOC ‘A’ do work TOC ‘B’s services already. The concept currently exists and does not need to be re-invented.

 

[irish_rail]

I was there on BR in the 70's/80's
The scenario was just the same with restrictions on who does what and where.
Co-operation between regions for Crews/Locos/stock etc could take several days if it happened at all.
I am afraid BR is not a good example to plan for the future.

But if doing it again we would not have to rigidly enforce the way BR did it. Of course not everyone at say Manchester is going to sign every single route from there, but at somewhere like Plymouth, absolutely no reason whatsoever why everyone cannot sign IET as well as Voyagers. You would still have a separate link for London and one for Birmingham, but with traction commonality, any driver could be utilised to take a traction as far as say Taunton or Penzance. This would mean less spare coverage and so overall a reduction in headcount, leading to cost savings.

 

[dk1]

I can’t see much in the way of merging traincrews in the short to medium term especially where traction or route knowledge is also required. Id say we are many years & lots of negotiations away before anything like that occurs.