What should the missions for the new BR be?

[Trainbike46]

The government is supposedly still commited to reintroducing a new British Rail, sometimes referred to as GBR.

Assuming this will be an arms-length body, that will be given a budget and a general mission, what should that general mission be?

My thoughts:
- Increase rail modal share, with specific targets (maybe +50% by ~2033, double by 2040, against a 2019 baseline)
- Reduce railway carbon emissions in line with a linear path to zero by 2040, recognising that rail should be ahead of the wider economy
- Something about accessibility improving, ie more step-free stations, more level-boarding trains (this will need specific targets)
- something about connecting communities and supporting the economy - which will probably be very wishy-washy

 

[The Planner]

Its not BR reborn though is it, freight is outside, so is open access. To increase modal share to that extent would need massive capacity uplifts.

 

[Gloster]

Just get the trains to run on time.

 

[Trainbike46]

Its not BR reborn though is it, freight is outside, so is open access. To increase modal share to that extent would need massive capacity uplifts.

it's not BR reborn, obviously. I just don't like the name GBR, so I dropped the G and added the "new" to clarify that I'm talking about the future nationalised railway, not the nationalised railway from the second half of the 20th century.

However, an overarching new railway body in charge of the vast majority of passenger operations would need a mission, the idea is to talk about what those goals should be. I proposed some goals that I think would be good, but you're welcome to propose different goals/aims/missions that you think would be more suitable

And yes, I am aware that a massive increase in modal share would require a massive capacity uplift.

Just get the trains to run on time.

A punctuality target of some sort would make sense as well

 

[yorksrob]

If were looking at Key Performance Indicators, the main one should be increasing passenger usage.

The lack of this one from central government hindered old BR a lot of the time.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Merger of traincrew depots where multi-TOC depot's currently exist.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If were looking at Key Performance Indicators, the main one should be increasing passenger usage.

The lack of this one from central government hindered old BR a lot of the time.

I'd change this slightly - reducing car use. Particularly single occupancy car use (hence there need to be good deals for middle aged people travelling alone who are most likely to drive but get few discounts at present).

 

[Trainbike46]

Merger of traincrew depots where multi-TOC depot's currently exist.

that seems too low-level, how to arrange traincrew depots to me seems like an operational decision that should be left to the new organisation to decide for itself.

I'd change this slightly - reducing car use. Particularly single occupancy car use (hence there need to be good deals for middle aged people travelling alone who are most likely to drive but get few discounts at present).

I do like the idea of making it a mission to reduce car usage, especially single-occupancy car use, however I would add a mission to reduce aviation, especially aviation within the UK and nearby mainland EU countries

 

[MPW]

I agree with a focus on fare reduction but wonder if that needs an increase in capacity as pre-requisite on many routes if also seeking to simplify fares.

Ie, if cheaper tickets drives rail patronage, is there capacity to accomodate that at peak teams? Or would the spare capacity be specific to certain less busy routes and off-peak times?

To bring it back to the overarching strategy: modal shift seems like a good barometer. Lower fares could be a tool or means towards that goal, rather than the final end goal.

 

[JLH4AC]

GBR general mission should be to increase rail modal share, the railways' sustainability (Both in terms of protecting the environment and increasing long-term financial stability.) and the reliability of the railways.

 

[Trackman]

Just get the trains to run on time.

or even run at all

 

[Dr Day]

Something around maximising economic growth and minimising CO2 per £subsidy? Heresy on here but I still foresee something around better value (including social value) for the tax payer with some serious consideration of closures or permanents bustitution, conversion to light rail etc.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd change this slightly - reducing car use. Particularly single occupancy car use (hence there need to be good deals for middle aged people travelling alone who are most likely to drive but get few discounts at present).

I agree with the good deals for middle aged people travelling alone (for very personal reasons) however I would not tie the railway down to simply being an agent for modal shift.

There are many social and economic goods that the railway can provide via people who wouldn't have travelled otherwise, as well as those who don't, or aren't in a position to drive.

Perhaps modal shift could be a secondary KPI ?


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2024 ==

Something around maximising economic growth and minimising CO2 per £subsidy? Heresy on here but I still foresee something around better value (including social value) for the tax payer with some serious consideration of closures or permanents bustitution, conversion to light rail etc.

There should be a KPI for value for passengers.

The KPI for value for taxpayers should be around getting the most economic, social and environmental benefit out of the existing system with the funding provided.

Incentivising the railway industry to dismember itself leads to perverse outcomes (e.g. singling main lines).

Also a KPI for increasing climate resilience ?

 

[DJ_K666]

Its not BR reborn though is it, freight is outside, so is open access. To increase modal share to that extent would need massive capacity uplifts.

Ought to be, though. In my view it doesn't go far enough. If I had my way it'd be back to Blue BR and it's Regions, broadly as it was

My 5 points would be as follows:

1. Increase reliability
2. Reduce fares
3. Reduce car use
4. Better connections across the country. London is well served enough already.
5. Better inter-regional connections.

 

[High Dyke]

Perhaps they could start with a management structure that understands how railways operate.

 

[swt_passenger]

Merger of traincrew depots where multi-TOC depot's currently exist.

Merger of train crew T&C? If they don’t, how could it work?

 

[HSTEd]

Fundamentally, I think the mission of the railway either needs to be drive use up within the current subsidy envelope, or maintain use whilst driving down subsidies.

With 25% of car sales in July 2024 being plug-in (either battery or plug in hybrid), the electric car revolution is progressing. It might not be going as fast as some optimistic backers claim, but the threat is certainly developing.
The window for the railway to make the case to be a major part of the post-carbon transport system is closing.

The railway must deliver major improvements without major uplifts in costs, or it will be in serious trouble in a decade or so.
Whether the railway is truly capable of delivering, especially with the remaining balkanisation (independent freight operators and open access could be serious issues in infrastructure terms) is something that worries me a great deal.

 

[Harpo]

Lovely wish list folks, but I bet that reducing costs is somewhere in the top one.

 

[43096]

Lovely wish list folks, but I bet that reducing costs is somewhere in the top one.

I'd be more nuanced than that and say reduce the reliance on taxpayer support. That might well be a combination of increasing revenue - which the privatised railway was good at - and cutting costs - which BR was good at.

The railway costs far too much for what we get out of it. It needs sorting.

 

[DJ_K666]

Perhaps they could start with a management structure that understands how railways operate.

Yep.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Merger of train crew T&C? If they don’t, how could it work?

If the staff are to be kept on separate T&Cs what’s the point of trying to renationalise? It would be like sectorisation all over again,I can’t work your train because I’m wearing a different colour jacket so it’s cancelled. Surely it’s something to work towards?

 

[swt_passenger]

If the staff are to be kept on separate T&Cs what’s the point of trying to renationalise? It would be like sectorisation all over again,I can’t work your train because I’m wearing a different colour jacket so it’s cancelled. Surely it’s something to work towards?

I think it is, but can’t see it being at all straightforward with nearly 30 years of divergence…

 

[High Dyke]

If the staff are to be kept on separate T&Cs what’s the point of trying to renationalise? It would be like sectorisation all over again,I can’t work your train because I’m wearing a different colour jacket so it’s cancelled. Surely it’s something to work towards?

I think it is, but can’t see it being at all straightforward with nearly 30 years of divergence…

In some respects Network Rail inherited a similar thing with the maintenance companies. I'm not sure whether it's still the case, but they had about 20-odd different T&C's. Even today some TOC's have different T&C's.

 

[Harpo]

Merger of train crew T&C? If they don’t, how could it work?

Same as now. There are already individual TOCs with split T&Cs where folks on the old set don’t want to move to the new set for good reasons. If it’s been TFD* so far, a new shop sign won’t help much.

Depot consolidation/mergers is another one I can’t see happening soon. The training backlog is already huge.

* Too difficult

 

[JLH4AC]

If the staff are to be kept on separate T&Cs what’s the point of trying to renationalise? It would be like sectorisation all over again,I can’t work your train because I’m wearing a different colour jacket so it’s cancelled. Surely it’s something to work towards?

Even if all train crews work for the same TOC drivers will still be limited to only working a select number of routes and classes of trains.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Well unless GBR is going to be a here today gone tomorrow company such things as harmonisation has to be considered for the long term. I’m aware even at my own TOC this has been difficult and hasn’t really fully happened and won’t happen without upsetting the apple cart.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well unless GBR is going to be a here today gone tomorrow company such things as harmonisation has to be considered for the long term. I’m aware even at my own TOC this has been difficult and hasn’t really fully happened and won’t happen without upsetting the apple cart.

I've worked for a company that has been taken over and spun out several times in the nearly 20 years I've worked for them and am still on my original contract. It's just not really an issue.

 

[ac6000cw]

Fundamentally, I think the mission of the railway either needs to be drive use up within the current subsidy envelope, or maintain use whilst driving down subsidies.

With 25% of car sales in July 2024 being plug-in (either battery or plug in hybrid), the electric car revolution is progressing. It might not be going as fast as some optimistic backers claim, but the threat is certainly developing.
The window for the railway to make the case to be a major part of the post-carbon transport system is closing.

The railway must deliver major improvements without major uplifts in costs, or it will be in serious trouble in a decade or so.

Lovely wish list folks, but I bet that reducing costs is somewhere in the top one.

I'd be more nuanced than that and say reduce the reliance on taxpayer support. That might well be a combination of increasing revenue - which the privatised railway was good at - and cutting costs - which BR was good at.

The railway costs far too much for what we get out of it. It needs sorting.

Those posts pretty much sum up what I think the internal GBR 'mission' will be (and already has been during the post-Covid years). Given the 'there's no money' noises coming from the Treasury, it's pretty unlikely to be anything else. But there'll doubtless be some external political/PR 'mission statements' along the lines of some of the other suggestions on this thread as well.

The old BR was cash-strapped for a large part of its existence, and the post-Covid railway is also in that situation. The post-privatisation inflow of money and 'it's a new world' glow generated considerable traffic growth - we just have to hope that isn't frittered away in the next few decades.

 

[Trainbike46]

The way I see it, the new BR will get a budget from the government, and one or more "missions" to achieve.

Fundamentally, I think the mission of the railway either needs to be drive use up within the current subsidy envelope, or maintain use whilst driving down subsidies.

Personally I'd hope it would be more use (passengers/freight) within current cash from government envelope. But you are right, the government may choose differently

With 25% of car sales in July 2024 being plug-in (either battery or plug in hybrid), the electric car revolution is progressing. It might not be going as fast as some optimistic backers claim, but the threat is certainly developing.
The window for the railway to make the case to be a major part of the post-carbon transport system is closing.

Agreed. Progress on this is needed yesterday

The railway must deliver major improvements without major uplifts in costs, or it will be in serious trouble in a decade or so.
Whether the railway is truly capable of delivering, especially with the remaining balkanisation (independent freight operators and open access could be serious issues in infrastructure terms) is something that worries me a great deal.

Why would the independent FOCs be an issue?

Regarding the OAOs, presumably you could opt to simply not renew their contracts when they end, and allocate any new ones? That does mean some of the current OAOs will be around quite a while, but the problems they pose should reduce over time.


I think the exact T&Cs/depots/other arrangements of railway staff shouldn't be in the high-level mission - those should be for the new organisation to figure out internally, in negotiation with the unions. At the end of the day, the purpose of the railway isn't the exact arrangements for staffing, the purpose is to provide mobility for passengers and freight.

 

[Harpo]

It won’t be on the ‘to-do’ list but I really hope that the government fully empowers GBR and frees it from DfT micromanagement.

The railway may have almost burnt through its BR traffic apprentice legacy amongst its senior ranks, but has bucket-loads of commercial acumen which vastly outstrips DfT’s capabilities (IEP contract anyone?) and needs to be allowed to go for growth where it can enhance the bottom line.