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

[Andrew1395]

It’s a drop in the ocean to what will be spent once the primary legislation becomes law.

Will be feeding frenzy for the commercial lawyers as they disentangle and rebuild the outcomes of the 1993 Privatisation Act. Plus restructuring costs as staff are moved on.

Just consider one aspect. How are they going to restructure the Railway Pension scheme, with its hundreds of sections and 100,000s of pensioners, deferred pensioners and active members (all with votes at the General Election). And that has nothing directly to do with running trains!

 

[Watershed]

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.

It's not very widespread though, and generally only happens where TOC 'A' has historically worked those services - for example, SE Tonbridge drivers working Southern Tonbridge-Redhill services, which used to be operated by SE.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2023 ==

It’s a drop in the ocean to what will be spent once the primary legislation becomes law.

Will be feeding frenzy for the commercial lawyers as they disentangle and rebuild the outcomes of the 1993 Privatisation Act. Plus restructuring costs as staff are moved on.

Just consider one aspect. How are they going to restructure the Railway Pension scheme, with its hundreds of sections and 100,000s of pensioners, deferred pensioners and active members (all with votes at the General Election). And that has nothing directly to do with running trains!

I don't see that there's any need to restructure the RPS. There's certainly the potential for future liabilities on the part of the government, but that's already the position and GBR wouldn't really change anything about that.

Going forward I certainly can't see new starters having the ability to join a Defined Benefit scheme such as that, and it's possible that those who are neither Protected Persons nor beneficiaries of the "indefeasible right" under the 1993 Act will no longer be able to make new contributions to a DB section.

 

[zwk500]

I don't see that there's any need to restructure the RPS. There's certainly the potential for future liabilities on the part of the government, but that's already the position and GBR wouldn't really change anything about that.

The pensions liability is a major thing the government is targeting and trying to get reduced. (Not just railway, all public sector pensions are a problem).

 

[Snex]

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.)

Picked a bad example there mind.

Tesco Value would be a better example. They used to be all one bland brand but now are split into numerous different ones like Ms. Molly, Willow Farm, Creamfields and so on.

Most people know they're still the budget brand, similar most people will know they're a train. Agreed though that going to one uniform bland design is a bad idea, mind I wouldn't be against it for areas which don't really fit ie. Northern which is really three distinctive areas merged together (North East / Yorkshire / North West) with very little links between them all and is bland anyway but the intercity network should keep separate brands.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A few contrariwise points:

- Network Rail is busy devolving power to its Regions, which is the opposite of integrated/standardised operation
- GBR is supposed to be building on that devolved regional structure (plus a degree of separation for Scotland/Wales/PTEs)
- TOCs have individual safety cases often preventing flexible operation
- rolling stock contracts often tie in trains to particular routes and maintenance regimes (eg the IEP contracts)

The Big 4 had some joint and cooperative operation, but mostly they were in direct competition with each other on their separate routes.
BR had its Regions/Sectors with different standards and policies, but I think it had a single till commercially until the breakup before privatisation (starting with the TOC/Railtrack split, then the multiple TOCs/FOCs/Roscos).
It's not obvious to me which model of Humpty is best for the 21st century.

 

[J-2739]

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!

That probably depends on whether you consider the railways in Britain to be a single brand, or a confederation of brands.

For me, an intercity train from London to Edinburgh is providing a different sort of service to a suburban metro train in southeast London, or a rural line in Cornwall. Why should they not have different branding to reflect this?

 

[zwk500]

That probably depends on whether you consider the railways in Britain to be a single brand, or a confederation of brands.

For me, an intercity train from London to Edinburgh is providing a different sort of service to a suburban metro train in southeast London, or a rural line in Cornwall. Why should they not have different branding to reflect this?

There are layers to branding and corporate identity though. Look at Tesco - they have the big hypermarkets and supermarkets, and then they have Tesco Locals and Tesco Metros. You know all 3 are part of the same family, but you also know you're unlikely to find clothing in a Metro but that you'll be able to pick up anything for dinner in a Local.
Or, for a different example: TfL. Every different 'mode' has a different roundel, but it's still recognisably the TfL corporate identity.

 

[Krokodil]

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.

This is what mystifies me about the current dispute. The government is insisting that drastic changes to movement of spares is made in order to reduce the amount of spare cover required. Yet they don't appear to have done anything to target the inefficiencies of having multiple small depots at the same location.

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.

To an extent. You could still keep the service going in a way that isn't possible today:

"I've got a spare driver but he doesn't sign class 40s"
"There's a 31 in the yard, use that"

And smaller locations were generally only one link whereas now you could have multiple different small links.

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.

Virgin used to hire Holyhead drivers from FNW which was a more efficient method than running taxis to Liverpool/Manchester or maintaining separate depots (with plenty of passing on the other operator's services). What killed it off was FNW profiteering, really overcharging Virgin.

Broadly agree - although I think there's merit to being less strict on letting local branch lines (especially those heavily used by tourists) have a more independent streak as to use advertising.

Yes, a unifying intercity brand is a good thing, but even BR had Scotrail and the local manager at Cardiff had painters apply V symbols and "Trên y cwm" onto the 116s.

 

[Yew]

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.

A la Piccdilly line?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A la Piccdilly line?

To be honest, although I live in London, I don't use the Piccadilly line enough to be aware of the appearances of station platforms on it. Is each station generally distinctive and immediately recognisable?

To me, an ideal would be something like, Embankment on the Northern line, where if you're a regular passenger you can immediately see from the train that it's Embankment station because the platform decoration with the different coloured lines is unique to Embankment (Unfortunately though it's not consistent - I don't believe the District/Circle line platforms use the same theme).

 

[eldomtom2]

The Japanese take a different approach to the problem, giving each station its own jingle.

 

[zwk500]

To be honest, although I live in London, I don't use the Piccadilly line enough to be aware of the appearances of station platforms on it. Is each station generally distinctive and immediately recognisable?

To me, an ideal would be something like, Embankment on the Northern line, where if you're a regular passenger you can immediately see from the train that it's Embankment station because the platform decoration with the different coloured lines is unique to Embankment (Unfortunately though it's not consistent - I don't believe the District/Circle line platforms use the same theme).

The Victoria line also has different motifs on the platforms at each station.

 

[jayah]

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.

Exactly - the BR operating model. One set of drivers based at xxx covering all of the routes, in those days they did passenger and freight. Infinitely more flexible, more diversionary knowledge, fewer replacement buses.

No need for a spare driver for 170s and another for 150s and third for 800s.

One day there might be a standard TVM instead of us poor folk having to navigate 10 different designs that were dreamed up on different planets or even trains that connected with each other?

 

[Mawkie]

The Times is reporting that GBR is now off the legislative agenda. Which seems a shame - it was the single thing this government suggested that had some merit.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-boris-johnson-great-british-railways-rmnm23grx - it's pay walled, but copied below.

"*Ministers have quietly scrapped plans for the biggest shake-up of the railways since privatisation, The Times has learnt.

Plans for the creation of Great British Railways (GBR), put forward by Boris Johnson as a way to fix Britain’s rail network, have been watered down by No 10. Officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) working on the new body, which was due to take over the running of the entire network, have been told it is not a priority for the government and will not be brought forward in the King’s Speech.

“Those working on it have been told it’s now unlikely to get a legislative slot,” a source said. “Without it they won’t be able to fully create the body, as it requires primary legislation.” It is understood there is a battle between the DfT and Downing Street over its creation.

Transport ministers are pushing for it to be given parliamentary time but there is pushback from Rishi Sunak, the prime minister, who does not consider the railways a priority for the final session of parliament before the general election. A source said: “The simple fact is Sunak doesn’t see the railways as a priority. He was in the Treasury during Covid when all he saw was the railways costing eye-watering amounts of money. He’d ask why so much was being spent to ‘ship fresh air’ around the country.”

The creation of GBR was announced in May 2021 by Johnson and Grant Shapps, then the transport secretary, branded as the biggest shake-up of the railways since privatisation in the mid-1990s. GBR, they said, would be introduced to run the tracks and trains, including setting timetables and collecting fares through a simplified ticketing system. Franchising would be scrapped in favour of passenger service contracts, with operators paid a flat rate to run a line and the revenue risk lying with the chancellor. Its creation was included in the Transport Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech last spring but was then scrapped in October by Anne-Marie Trevelyan, transport secretary at the time, who said it would not go ahead in this session.

Insiders now believe a shadow GBR will be created — albeit without overall control of the railways, significantly watering down Johnson’s plans for modernisation. Last month ministers suggested that if a bill on future transportation is included in the King’s Speech, which has been delayed until the autumn, it would be slimmed down to focus on self-driving vehicles. Speaking at the launch of a new all-party parliamentary group on self-driving vehicles, Richard Holden, a transport minister, said: “This is the one thing which the department is putting ahead of anything else at the moment. If we do get a slot, it will be in this space because we know how critical this area is for UK industry.”

Rail industry sources said there had been “deafening silence” over the new body, despite Mark Harper, the transport secretary, pleading in February for its formation and an announcement in March that it would be headquartered in Derby. Officials are said to now be looking at a handful of rail reforms that could be achieved without a bill. “There is still a decent amount of work that can be done without legislation,” a source said. “It will be more limited but GBR can effectively become a shadow organisation responsible for pushing through reforms [that don’t need legislation]. You remove some areas from DfT control, such as passenger service contracts, into GBR for closer management by a guiding mind in waiting. But without legislation you’d still have to have new contracts signed off by the secretary of state.”

Rail bosses insisted that the work of the Great British Railways Transition Team, created to work on behalf of the government to set up the new organisation, was ongoing and would continue “until told otherwise”. MPs urged ministers to press ahead with legislation.

The Tory MP Pauline Latham, whose Mid Derbyshire constituency was chosen as the new body’s home, said: “I would be incredibly disappointed if it [was] ditched, having not only gone through the competition but won it hands down. I will fight with ministers and the secretary of state to have the legislation passed, even if that requires a delegation of us to go and see Sunak. “We promised it, and delivering it won’t be complicated. I think the naysayers are the people who don’t want to relinquish power but we need it. The current system, not least franchising and ticketing, is in dire need of reform.”

Louise Haigh, the shadow transport secretary, said: “The Conservatives are out of ideas and out of time. Under this zombie government, the message is clear: our failing rail services are here to stay. The next Labour government will reform our railways, bring operators back into public ownership as contracts expire and build the infrastructure fit for the century ahead, unlocking jobs and growth.”

*The DfT said it was committed to GBR and insisted legislation would be brought forward “when parliamentary time allows”.

 

[geoffk]

Only a year before the next GE, but I can't really see railways being a high priority for Labour, with the NHS, social care and other parts of the public sector being in crisis.

 

[zwk500]

Labour have their own plans for the railways, and there's now not enough time for the Tories to lock in their vision before the GE will let Labour take control. So no surprise it's been pushed. You feel a bit for the GBRTT though.

 

[Purple Train]

To be honest, although I live in London, I don't use the Piccadilly line enough to be aware of the appearances of station platforms on it. Is each station generally distinctive and immediately recognisable?

I believe that all the Leslie Green stations were given their own pattern so that illiterate workers would know where to get off.