What should the missions for the new BR be?

[GRALISTAIR]

---------what should that general mission be?

Be boringly reliable would be my fondest hope.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Be boringly reliable would be my fondest hope.

Indeed. The thing I'd most like it to look like is SBB. Boring but watch-settingly punctual.

They can paint all the trains plain white for all I care if they're on time and the price is reasonable.

 

[JLH4AC]

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.

If GBR waits for enough of TOCs into public ownership so that they can restructure the TOCs in big regional TOCs to come nothing will get done in-till 2030 as EMR splits the Eastern region into two and its rail contract does not end in-till 13 October 2030. GBR could merge Northern and TPE in the near future and then split them into how many TOCS will fit their needs be it spitting them into two/three ready to be merged with other TOCs into Eastern and North West & Central, and whatever an InterRegional subsidiary would be called, or into smaller regional divisions that aligns with the boundaries of official/Cultural Regions of England (These could still be operated as part of the larger operating.).

The region structure is likely to change as the Welsh government has set a ‘locally driven and empowered’ business unit for Great British Railways in Wales as a priority for rail reform and if Labour is serious about rail devolution region/route boundaries would being redrawn to more closely align with the combined authority and/or regional boundaries. If the GBR region structure remains close to the NR's region structure the regional subsidiaries/divisions will have to operate east-west interregional services or another subsidiary will need to be set up to operate interregional services as east-west services make up a large portion of regional services in the UK.

 

[Clarence Yard]

EMR has a CTED (Core Term Expiry Date) of 18/10/26 so will presumably go to DOHL/GBR then. It also lies almost within the NR Eastern Region boundary so won’t be too hard to assimilate into any proposed GBR ER structure, if that is the way GBR is going to go.

The last CTED is XC on 17/10/27 and most could expire next year so we await with interest the proposed timetable to bring all those remaining 10 DfT “privately run” TOCs into DOHL. If they go fast, only three (EMR, Avanti and XC) will last into 2026 and Louise Haigh already has her eyes on getting hold of Avanti earlier than it’s CTED, also 18/10/26.

 

[deltic]

Missions are likely to be

Reduce level of funding from taxpayer
Improve reliability
Improve punctuality
Simplify ticketing
Improve multi modal integration

Increasing mode share and reducing car use are not in GBR's control.

 

[JLH4AC]

EMR has a CTED (Core Term Expiry Date) of 18/10/26 so will presumably go to DOHL/GBR then. It also lies almost within the NR Eastern Region boundary so won’t be too hard to assimilate into any proposed GBR ER structure, if that is the way GBR is going to go.

Even if the government ends the rail contract at the earliest point where there is no direct risk of incurring notable costs, that is still two years (Amusing that the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill remains on track to pass into law this year.) of doing nothing regarding restructuring the TOCs. That is my point it won’t be too hard to assimilate the TOCs into the GBR structure so there is no point in waiting around just (It should be for legitimate reasons such as prep work needing to be done or GBR still going through the process of taking over DOHL and NR.) for it to come into public ownership to start the process of restructuring.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Increasing mode share and reducing car use are not in GBR's control.

Indeed. Only government can do that and I do believe there is an existing thread in speculative on just that subject.

 

[Trainbike46]

Indeed. Only government can do that and I do believe there is an existing thread in speculative on just that subject.

I'd disagree with that; the railways do have a major impact on the passenger numbers they have, and therefore on the modal share that is railway

 

[JLH4AC]

Indeed. Only government can do that and I do believe there is an existing thread in speculative on just that subject.

Increasing mode share and reducing car use are not in GBR's control.

While increasing rail modal share is not fully in GBR's control, there is a lot they can do such as general improvements to service, targeting major rail projects where the greatest modal shifts will happen, and cutting excess pricing (Such as cutting track access charges for freight to make rail freight more price competitive to road and air freight.). Modal share is also a better metric for railway usage in several contexts (Though not all so passenger numbers metric should still be used.) as it shows rail usage as a percentage of all transport modes so you how well rail is doing comparatively and overall increases in journeys across all modes are harder to misinterpret as a boon for railways, also it is a good indirect metric for various benefits that come from journeys shifting from road and air to rail that GBR should be aiming to push for especially given the ongoing climate crisis.

 

[RT4038]

While increasing rail modal share is not fully in GBR's control, there is a lot they can do such as general improvements to service, targeting major rail projects where the greatest modal shifts will happen, and cutting excess pricing (Such as cutting track access charges for freight to make rail freight more price competitive to road and air freight.). Modal share is also a better metric for railway usage in several contexts (Though not all so passenger numbers metric should still be used.) as it shows rail usage as a percentage of all transport modes so you how well rail is doing comparatively and overall increases in journeys across all modes are harder to misinterpret as a boon for railways, also it is a good indirect metric for various benefits that come from journeys shifting from road and air to rail that GBR should be aiming to push for especially given the ongoing climate crisis.

The railways consume subsidy. Unless your suggestions are sure fire schemes that are subsidy neutral or reduce that subsidy, then whether any of them are allowed to happen will be up the Government if they wish to increase such subsidy. Even if the management of GBR think they are such sure fire schemes, it will be up to the Government as to whether they are prepared to take such risks. @GRALISTAIR is correct in this regard in post #67

 

[Trainbike46]

The railways consume subsidy. Unless your suggestions are sure fire schemes that are subsidy neutral or reduce that subsidy, then whether any of them are allowed to happen will be up the Government if they wish to increase such subsidy. Even if the management of GBR think they are such sure fire schemes, it will be up to the Government as to whether they are prepared to take such risks. @GRALISTAIR is correct in this regard in post #67

If GBR becomes an arms-length body, as has been suggested from political quarters so far, despite the vagueness from the successive governments, politicians will not be signing off on individual projects.

The new BR will be given an amount of subsidy set by government, and a list of general things the government wants to get out of the railways, the general mission/goals. Different people will have different views on what the mission should be, and how much subsidy the railways should get, as is evident from responses in this thread, with some people suggesting the railway mission should increase passenger numbers/modal share, while others want the mission to be to minimise subsidy. What mission actually gets given, and what subsidy/budget they get given, remains to be confirmed.

 

[RT4038]

If GBR becomes an arms-length body, as has been suggested from political quarters so far, despite the vagueness from the successive governments, politicians will not be signing off on individual projects.

The new BR will be given an amount of subsidy set by government, and a list of general things the government wants to get out of the railways, the general mission/goals. Different people will have different views on what the mission should be, and how much subsidy the railways should get, as is evident from responses in this thread, with some people suggesting the railway mission should increase passenger numbers/modal share, while others want the mission to be to minimise subsidy. What mission actually gets given, and what subsidy/budget they get given, remains to be confirmed.

Sorry, I didn't want to imply that politicians or civil servants will necessarily be signing off on individual projects. However, if the mission is double modal share with half the current subsidy (for instance), the Government will be tying the management's hands quite tightly compared to doubling the modal share with double the subsidy. Hence why any increase in modal share will be controlled by Government foremost (in the shape of what the size of subsidy will be).

I think it quite unlikely that capital investment decisions will be left entirely to railway management either.

 

[Trainbike46]

Sorry, I didn't want to imply that politicians or civil servants will necessarily be signing off on individual projects. However, if the mission is double modal share with half the current subsidy (for instance), the Government will be tying the management's hands quite tightly compared to doubling the modal share with double the subsidy. Hence why any increase in modal share will be controlled by Government foremost (in the shape of what the size of subsidy will be).

The mission and subsidy available should kind of track with each other, unless the goal is to set the industry up for failure.

I think it quite unlikely that capital investment decisions will be left entirely to railway management either.

Clearly anything that requires an act of parliament or similar, such as a new railway, would require political sign-off. But other major capital expenditure, such as a major station redevelopment, or the decision to buy (not lease, as that's not capital expenditure) new rolling stock, should in my view be left within the railway structure, other than the planning permissions it would need.

 

[deltic]

If GBR becomes an arms-length body, as has been suggested from political quarters so far, despite the vagueness from the successive governments, politicians will not be signing off on individual projects.

The new BR will be given an amount of subsidy set by government, and a list of general things the government wants to get out of the railways, the general mission/goals. Different people will have different views on what the mission should be, and how much subsidy the railways should get, as is evident from responses in this thread, with some people suggesting the railway mission should increase passenger numbers/modal share, while others want the mission to be to minimise subsidy. What mission actually gets given, and what subsidy/budget they get given, remains to be confirmed.

That's not how National Highways operates which is also effectively an arms length body with an agreed amount of subsidy. Major projects still go to DfT Ministers and Treasury for approval.

Given the DfT's five objectives are

• Grow and level up the economy: Improve connectivity and enhance the transport network to support economic growth
  
  
• Improve transport for the user: Build confidence in the transport network and improve the experience for users
  
  
• Reduce environmental impacts: Tackle climate change, improve air quality, and ensure the transport system is resilient to climate change
  
  
• Improve performance on the railways: Drive forward rail reform
  
  
• Improve bus services: Grow usage across the country

Then improving the basics of reliability and punctuality and driving down net costs will be the main objectives as they were with British Rail.

 

[yorksrob]

That's not how National Highways operates which is also effectively an arms length body with an agreed amount of subsidy. Major projects still go to DfT Ministers and Treasury for approval.

Given the DfT's five objectives are

• Grow and level up the economy: Improve connectivity and enhance the transport network to support economic growth
  
  
• Improve transport for the user: Build confidence in the transport network and improve the experience for users
  
  
• Reduce environmental impacts: Tackle climate change, improve air quality, and ensure the transport system is resilient to climate change
  
  
• Improve performance on the railways: Drive forward rail reform
  
  
• Improve bus services: Grow usage across the country

Then improving the basics of reliability and punctuality and driving down net costs will be the main objectives as they were with British Rail.

Out of interest, have those objectives been refreshed in light of the change in Government ?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

That's not how National Highways operates which is also effectively an arms length body with an agreed amount of subsidy. Major projects still go to DfT Ministers and Treasury for approval.

And despite what politicians say about GBR being arm's length, he who pays the piper calls the tune. Government (especially the dead hand of the treasury) WILL BE involved in someway.

 

[deltic]

Out of interest, have those objectives been refreshed in light of the change in Government ?

They are the new government's objectives

 

[JonathanH]

With closer integration of the infrastructure and passenger operations is there a place for GBR to effectively cross subsidise rail freight by eliminating access charges, so that freight can use the network 'for free' and only pay the operational costs? While freight operations remain in the private sector, this would even out some of the imbalance between rail and road freight.

The access charges seem somewhat artificial in any case. I guess care would need to be taken to ensure that all operators get the same treatment and that it doesn't break competition rules, but removing more road freight would seem to be a worthwhile aspiration.

 

[HSTEd]

With closer integration of the infrastructure and passenger operations is there a place for GBR to effectively cross subsidise rail freight by eliminating access charges, so that freight can use the network 'for free' and only pay the operational costs?

Rail freight already effectively uses the network for free.
Total freight access charges are in the tens of millions of pounds per year.

 

[yorksrob]

They are the new government's objectives

Thanks for the confirmation.

It's disappointing that the buses get "grow usage" whereas the railways don't.

 

[JLH4AC]

The railways consume subsidy. Unless your suggestions are sure fire schemes that are subsidy neutral or reduce that subsidy, then whether any of them are allowed to happen will be up the Government if they wish to increase such subsidy. Even if the management of GBR think they are such sure fire schemes, it will be up to the Government as to whether they are prepared to take such risks. @GRALISTAIR is correct in this regard in post #67

I am well aware that the subsidy may be an issue which is why I said increasing long-term financial stability should be part of GBR's general mission. While major projects will need more government funding/third party investment beyond the subsidy, there will be a number of minor projects that GBR can fund from the existing subsidy/profits and contraction funding commitments. Honestly I do think that most of the projects GBR will undertake in the next 10 years should have lowering operating costs and/or increasing revenue as their main goal alongside improving the railway.

With closer integration of the infrastructure and passenger operations is there a place for GBR to effectively cross subsidise rail freight by eliminating access charges, so that freight can use the network 'for free' and only pay the operational costs? While freight operations remain in the private sector, this would even out some of the imbalance between rail and road freight.

The access charges seem somewhat artificial in any case. I guess care would need to be taken to ensure that all operators get the same treatment and that it doesn't break competition rules, but removing more road freight would seem to be a worthwhile aspiration.

While cutting track access charges for freight may be a good idea I am not sure that eliminating access charges will be financially prudent, and it is likely to be very unpopular politically. Things such as reforming vehicle tax, increasing the HGV road user charge, and/or converting more roads, bridges and tunnels to tolls would be a better way to address the imbalance though apart from HGV road user charge these are likely to be politically unpopular with the public if not handled with great care by the government.

 

[Nottingham59]

s there a place for GBR to effectively cross subsidise rail freight by eliminating access charges, so that freight can use the network 'for free' and only pay the operational costs?

My understanding is that access charges for freight are already equal to the operational costs, including track wear.

There is a case for reducing access charges for freight which use the network at quiet times and do not conflict with passenger capacity; and increasing access charges for freight paths (whether used or not) that add constraints to the passenger timetable.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

With closer integration of the infrastructure and passenger operations is there a place for GBR to effectively cross subsidise rail freight by eliminating access charges, so that freight can use the network 'for free' and only pay the operational costs? While freight operations remain in the private sector, this would even out some of the imbalance between rail and road freight.
The access charges seem somewhat artificial in any case. I guess care would need to be taken to ensure that all operators get the same treatment and that it doesn't break competition rules, but removing more road freight would seem to be a worthwhile aspiration.

The government doesn't set access charges, the independent regulator ORR does (ORR also authorise new TOCs such as OA and freight).
If you retain multiple TOCs, some of which are privately owned, you have to maintain a level playing field between them for ORR to enforce.
We haven't heard how ORR's functions will go once GBR is formed, but it's very likely there will be no change to the access regime.

The current funding process is the 5-year Control Period for NR (CP7 started in April), with enhancement projects funded separately by DfT, one by one.
The TOCs had 7-ish year franchise contracts with agreed developments built in, now severely constrained as National Rail Contracts.
It is still very unclear how these processes will change with GBR.
Old BR never had a free hand on enhancements or capital spend, and was essentially dependent on annual funding decisions from government.

 

[Meerkat]

GBRs objectives will be
Cost the Treasury less
Stay out of the papers

 

[Nottingham59]

Are there any parts of the rail network that are profitable, and would reduce overall subsidies if they were able to grow?

 

[HSTEd]

Are there any parts of the rail network that are profitable, and would reduce overall subsidies if they were able to grow?

Before coronavirus there were a handful, but I'm not sure there are many (or any) left now.
It would also depend on arguments on how costs should be assigned.

 

[dk1]

Are there any parts of the rail network that are profitable, and would reduce overall subsidies if they were able to grow?

Probably not to any great extent. I have always been under the impression that railways are not supposed to make money.

 

[irish_rail]

Are there any parts of the rail network that are profitable, and would reduce overall subsidies if they were able to grow?

At the end of BR "Intercity" was in profit. I've no doubt that if Intercity services where hived off again that it would generate a profit, one that could hopefully subsidise the loss making regional stuff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are there any parts of the rail network that are profitable, and would reduce overall subsidies if they were able to grow?

XC has to have the potential to be. The high fares and short trains must significantly suppress demand.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

At the end of BR "Intercity" was in profit. I've no doubt that if Intercity services where hived off again that it would generate a profit, one that could hopefully subsidise the loss making regional stuff.

Network South East - up to about 1988 was almost profitable at a macro level , but a further economic recession kyboshed that. Bulk freight very much so in the days of the coal burning power stations , what became RFD not so !