• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

What should the missions for the new BR be?

Status
Not open for further replies.

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
19,881
Location
East Anglia
Just get the trains to run on time.
Just follow the GA lead for that 8-)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Merger of traincrew depots where multi-TOC depot's currently exist.
Ive said this for years. As an example, here at Norwich EMR have their own rented accommodation seperate to the station overlooking the main GA depot for drivers and guards. Its even more surprising as we have the same parent company. Obviously T&Cs cannot be changed on any merger.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I think it is, but can’t see it being at all straightforward with nearly 30 years of divergence…
Exactly this. I can see no T&C mergers anywhere on the horizon. Its simply gone to far for that.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
3,346
Location
Nottingham
Assuming this will be an arms-length body, that will be given a budget and a general mission, what should that general mission be?
To provide a transport service that is Safe, Easy, Reliable and Cheap.

Currently I reckon there's a way to go on all four counts.
 

signed

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2024
Messages
2,388
Location
ROI
Have a strong intramodal relationship with buses, and allow through ticketing

Surely you could add £1/2 for the ease of it and make a profit.

Like SNCF is doing with some of their former bus routes that are now regionalised. If you want to get such a ticket as a through ticket, it will cost you €1.50 on top of the price you would pay in the bus directly
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
3,186
Location
Way on down South London town
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.


A punctuality target of some sort would make sense as well

My Mum, upon hearing about GBR, instantly saw it as “British Rail coming back”
 

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,527
Location
Plymouth
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
Yes but where its an easy win, say Plymouth drivers (be they XC or GWR) all signing both Voyagers and IETs, then this needs to happen. Of course different locations have different challenges and circumstances, but we need to be working toward traincrew consolidation and better route and traction knowledge.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,362
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
One of the problems the industry faces is that Innovations that will overall save the industry money do not necessarily save every part of the industry money

If it costs the FOCs £1 but saves the railway overall £5 it is worth doing. Unfortunately, independent FOCs or OAOs can't simply be ordered to take the hit for the greater good. Whilst they can probably be persuaded with money, this is not conducive to things moving quickly.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,414
Location
Yorks
One of the problems the industry faces is that Innovations that will overall save the industry money do not necessarily save every part of the industry money

If it costs the FOCs £1 but saves the railway overall £5 it is worth doing. Unfortunately, independent FOCs or OAOs can't simply be ordered to take the hit for the greater good. Whilst they can probably be persuaded with money, this is not conducive to things moving quickly.

Surely give them one pound out of the five saved ?
 

WAB

Established Member
Joined
27 Jun 2015
Messages
1,303
Location
Anglia
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.
Good point. We should be restarting BR-style graduate and internal-entrant management training schemes to start building up a talent base for the future before the last of the BR workforce ages out.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,362
Surely give them one pound out of the five saved ?
They will want substantially more than that to justify the effort required. In any case it will still take years to get them to do things, assuming they engage at all.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,878
They will want substantially more than that to justify the effort required. In any case it will still take years to get them to do things, assuming they engage at all.
Make the savings 50:50 then... And FOCs will get things done a damn sight faster than the passenger operators do.
 

Davester50

Member
Joined
22 Feb 2021
Messages
1,067
Location
UK
Running a right time railway would be the best way to ensure connections are made.
Absolutely.
Burying your head in the sand when it doesn't for a multitude of reasons while leaving passengers stranded isn't the way forward.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,362
Absolutely.
Burying your head in the sand when it doesn't for a multitude of reasons while leaving passengers stranded isn't the way forward.
It's not really practical to "hold connections" on a railway as intensively operated as the modern British one.

Every connection you hold can easily require several more connections to be held in turn.
It's likely the whole thing would start to spiral out of control in short order.
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
3,926
Location
Newport
Yes but where its an easy win, say Plymouth drivers (be they XC or GWR) all signing both Voyagers and IETs, then this needs to happen. Of course different locations have different challenges and circumstances, but we need to be working toward traincrew consolidation and better route and traction knowledge.
Plymouth is an unfortunate example and not such an easy win. In the recent past GWR took Taunton to Bristol off Plymouth to save money.

Better route and traction knowledge comes at huge cost. It adds operational resilience but nobody wants to pay for that.

The training programme in the west is going to be big enough just getting 175s (allegedly) into traffic.
 

class ep-09

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2013
Messages
641
Just follow the GA lead for that 8-)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


Ive said this for years. As an example, here at Norwich EMR have their own rented accommodation seperate to the station overlooking the main GA depot for drivers and guards. Its even more surprising as we have the same parent company. Obviously T&Cs cannot be changed on any merger.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


Exactly this. I can see no T&C mergers anywhere on the horizon. Its simply gone to far for that.
It will take time, but if GBR introduces new “nationwide GBR grades “ for for drivers , guards etc, all newcomers (and ones who may want to transfer from existing grades go to GBR grade) will make nationwide “ harmonisation “ possible .
Employees, who want to stay at current contracts can do so , but no crew will be able to sign those contracts anymore .

Very similar to HSS & GWR ( ex LTV + Wessex) drivers grade working for GWR.
HSS is dead man’s shoes , GWR grade is where all new drivers go ( and some HSS drivers too ).
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,603
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
In this era of financial austerity, the number one priority has to be the "bottom line", in order to reduce the subsidy required. For passenger servicesir fares reform and "simplification" is critical, with the aim of increasing revenue. For overloaded inter-city services where increased capacity cannot be provided easily, that may mean increasing prices to drive away unremunerative customers. Freight flows need to be re-examined too. Getting rid of restrictive practices and outdated working arrangements also needs to be addressed, e.g. increased DOO, to reduce the wage bill.

The focus needs to be on increasing regular local passenger rail use in urban conurbations, rather than in rural areas where road traffic congestion and pollution is much less of any issue. In urban areas, each service ideally should be 2 tph Mon-Sat daytimes. However, some unremunerative poorly used services (passenger and freight) may need to be chopped, especially in rural areas, such as the ex-GC Brigg line, with lines no longer needed preferably mothballed rather than disposed of. Limited rail re-openings directly into major cities, such as the Portishead-Bristol line, should be progressed, as should some conversions to light rail, e.g. Blackpool Pleasure Beach-Kirkham.
 
Last edited:

A0

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,751
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.


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
.


Also a KPI for increasing climate resilience ?

Well, if you're going to play the environmental / climate change card, the greenest mile, is the mile not travelled. So actually encouraging people to travel "just because they can" is totally the wrong approach.

And yes, I do realise that means for certain posters of this parish, their obsession with travelling the mist obscure highways and byways of the rail network should be curtailed but if you expect that of motorists, you also need to make some sacrifices - that also, to my mind, includes paying the full price for your travel, not having it subsidised by the taxpayer if you expect motorists to habe their costs increased.
 

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,527
Location
Plymouth
Plymouth is an unfortunate example and not such an easy win. In the recent past GWR took Taunton to Bristol off Plymouth to save money.

Better route and traction knowledge comes at huge cost. It adds operational resilience but nobody wants to pay for that.

The training programme in the west is going to be big enough just getting 175s (allegedly) into traffic.
Taking route knowledge (Taunton to Bristol) away from Plymouth was never about saving money, it was an ideological decision to remove work from HSS and give it to GWR west . So Gloucester drivers signed the route at the expense of Plymouth. The fact that now B and H trains driven by Plymouth drivers (the majority) get delayed/cancelled or need piloting when being diverted was completely overlooked, all in the name of taking work from HSS and giving it to GWR. Precisely zero benefit in having Gloucester drivers signing that route as they would never be diverted that way. And this is precisely what the new setup needs to eliminate. The work needs to be placed where it is most suitable, so depots like Plymouth would re sign Taunton to Bristol. No it won't happen overnight, but in a year or so 175 training will be complete and then we will go back to route learning again, and perhaps in time traction training. And there is nothing stopping the XC drivers learning IETs ASAP.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,414
Location
Yorks
Well, if you're going to play the environmental / climate change card, the greenest mile, is the mile not travelled. So actually encouraging people to travel "just because they can" is totally the wrong approach.

And yes, I do realise that means for certain posters of this parish, their obsession with travelling the mist obscure highways and byways of the rail network should be curtailed but if you expect that of motorists, you also need to make some sacrifices - that also, to my mind, includes paying the full price for your travel, not having it subsidised by the taxpayer if you expect motorists to habe their costs increased.

Well, by your argument, the best thing for humanity would be to go back to a pre-industrial state where no one travels beyond the next village.

I don't think that that's a palatable solution for modern man really do you.

I've never said that motorists should be curtailed from travelling obscure highways. I haven't proposed any closures of the vastly more unwieldy road network, so why should I have to sacrifice any travel along our vital and well used secondary rail network ?
 

A0

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,751
Integration.
End the finger pointing blame game, hold a connection that makes sense.
Run as a public service.

We had "integration" under BR, and BR was a byword for crap service and a refusal to accept responsibility.

In terms of holding connections who determines "if it makes sense"? This one crops up so often e.g. arguing an XC service should be held at somewhere like Leicester due to a late running EMR, now set aside the different operators for a sec, that XC will either be heading towards Birmingham, where small delays into New Street quickly cascade and have knock on effects to eitheror towards Peterborough, Ely and Cambridge, where again, small delays then have far reaching impacts.

Sure if the connection is onto a self contained branch line - something like Lymimgton, Sudbury or Stourbridge , but those are exceptions on the network.
 

A0

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,751
Well, by your argument, the best thing for humanity would be to go back to a pre-industrial state where no one travels beyond the next village.

I don't think that that's a palatable solution for modern man really do you.

I've never said that motorists should be curtailed from travelling obscure highways. I haven't proposed any closures of the vastly more unwieldy road network, so why should I have to sacrifice any travel along our vital and well used secondary rail network ?

Bit in bold - no motorists set out to "red pen" every mile of the road network, unlike some rail enthusiasts. And are such services really well used? Your experience says it is, the official figures and other posters on here, some of whom drive or guard on such services don't support you.

In terms of "pre industrial" times - that's a silly argument. The point was about enabling people to travel just so they can travel - and people who can't afford to travel tend to be economically inactive, so encouraging them to travel "just because" simply costs the economy, rather than promoting economic activity. Perhaps all journeys by any mode should be subject to an economic test and if it costs the economy it isn't permitted.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,939
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Merger of traincrew depots where multi-TOC depot's currently exist.
DfT isn't going to be so prescriptive as that, it's for "professional railway people" to decide such things.
I don't doubt GBR will have tight targets on revenue, cost, capital spend and increasing efficiency.
You can see that today with the ORR 5-year settlements with Network Rail, based on the government's HLOS and SoFA process, which will be one part of the mix.
But how to deliver it will be a GBR management function.

Remember BR's timeless one-line instruction from the government in the 1950s (before Beeching):
"Break even, taking one year with another".
They failed.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,414
Location
Yorks
Bit in bold - no motorists set out to "red pen" every mile of the road network, unlike some rail enthusiasts. And are such services really well used? Your experience says it is, the official figures and other posters on here, some of whom drive or guard on such services don't support you.

In terms of "pre industrial" times - that's a silly argument. The point was about enabling people to travel just so they can travel - and people who can't afford to travel tend to be economically inactive, so encouraging them to travel "just because" simply costs the economy, rather than promoting economic activity. Perhaps all journeys by any mode should be subject to an economic test and if it costs the economy it isn't permitted.

Leisure travel is, to an extent precisely travelling because you can. Go on Youtube and see all of those videos about people travelling, or all of those adverts on TV for cruises and holidays etc. Do those people really need to travel to Thailand for example, or do they do so because they can and they enjoy it ? Is this really any different from daytrippers visiting Whitby or the Cumbrian coast ?

Track bashers are a distraction as they will be a tiny proportion of leisure travellers overall, who in turn will be only a proportion of those travelling at all. I use those trains, and with the exception perhaps of late at night, they are well used - some of them crush loaded. I can only go by my experience.

Your economic argument also makes no sense. As Keynes pointed out, it's better to pay someone to dig holes and fill them in again, than to have them unemployed because that enables them to contribute to the economy as consumers. Someone who can't afford motor transport, might still be able to avail themselves of local businesses as a result of affordable rail travel.

Your argument sounds like a Victorianesque attempt to distinguish between the "deserving" (i.e wealthy) traveller who's wealth will automatically trickle down to businesses and "undeserving" (i.e.not wealthy) traveller who will end up begging on the town hall steps. In reality it could be the wealthy traveller who drives somewhere, goes for a walk and drives back without contributing anything to the economy and the less wealthy traveller who would wish to visit somewhere, buy fish and chips and an ice cream and go on the dodgems. There's no way to know.

As for an economic test to establish whether each journey is beneficial, this sounds like a plan that even communist China would baulk at.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,749
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It's not really practical to "hold connections" on a railway as intensively operated as the modern British one.

Every connection you hold can easily require several more connections to be held in turn.
It's likely the whole thing would start to spiral out of control in short order.

The effect of this can be seen by looking at Deutsche Bahn - the whole system ends up an hour or so late by the end of the day due to the cascade effect of that.

However there are some connections it does make sense to hold where there is enough timetable slack to do so - for instance, sending the Windermere branch train off just before the connecting Avanti is basically worthless, you may as well cancel that round trip if you're not going to hold it. And this one normally is held within reason. The Cornish branches are similar - sending the Newquay off without waiting for the Paddington arrival at Par just creates a totally empty train and a severely overcrowded one (and a load of very annoyed people).

It would be much more difficult to do it the other way round, i.e. hold the Avanti at Oxenholme, as that would knock on half way round the country.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
8,333
Location
Herts

Remember BR's timeless one-line instruction from the government in the 1950s (before Beeching):
"Break even, taking one year with another".
They failed.


As related to "the class of 79" on induction week at the Grove , Watford - then a management training center for both "general" and engineers.

Been mulling this over - I think the statement said something like "provide the best possible freight and passenger services", ......thence as quoted above.

Certainly - not economy , but prudence seemed to be common - no free wine in the non existant mess there - reasonable but simple food , - sausage , beans and mash was fairly common. Be linen and towels etc were identical to those in sleeper cars (and came from the same BR owned and operated laundry at Willesden.

No visiting "influencers" to adresss the trainees , or expensive consultants - all home talent, I recall being impressed by a young C.E.W Green who could summarise the constraints and opportuntities of the SW Division in a freely given talk with no notes. ...........
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,389
It would be much more difficult to do it the other way round, i.e. hold the Avanti at Oxenholme, as that would knock on half way round the country.
Part of the problem of holding the train to Windermere at Oxenholme is ensuring that doing so doesn't mean the connection coming back is missed.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,939
Location
Mold, Clwyd
GBR can only start with what it's got, which is Network Rail and the four DOHL TOCs (LNER, Northern, TPE and Southeastern).
The only initial merger of TOCs I can see being feasible is Northern and TPE.
But that goes against a wider IC/Regional split, and also goes against NR's Region structure which separates east and west at the Pennines.
Meaningful mergers might have to wait until some of the 10 remaining TOCs come into GBR.
Sometimes it seems the headlong change needed on the railway is actually proceeding at a snail's pace, despite the "move fast and fix things" tag.
Legalities (contracts, T&C etc) are in the way, of course.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,749
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
GBR can only start with what it's got, which is Network Rail and the four DOHL TOCs (LNER, Northern, TPE and Southeastern).
The only initial merger of TOCs I can see being feasible is Northern and TPE.
But that goes against a wider IC/Regional split, and also goes against NR's Region structure which separates east and west at the Pennines.

The thing with TPE is that aside from the Scottish services and Liverpool-Newcastle it isn't really IC. There's very little practical difference between the Barrow/Windermere and South TPE, for example.

I could see sense in splitting off a fast Liverpool-Newcastle twice an hour using long trains (9 car 80x, say) and sticking it in the IC business unit (LNER, basically*) and the rest going into a split North West and North East structure (Northern has never been a comfortable combination of the old BR regions - it's too big to manage and it has too many cultural differences between the two bits).

Having said that, with the Cornish branches it's never worked as well as it all being in one TOC, given that more so there than elsewhere those branches are extensions of the mainline with significant connecting usage.

* I might hate their fares policy, but LNER is probably a sensible place to start with reforming InterCity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top