What could a regionalised rail nationalisation look like?

[Sun Chariot]

I'm old enough to remember the BR-era PTEs and their semi-autonomous ownership for their passenger transit area.
I don't, however, know the reali pros / cons of that operating model.

Do any of you have first hand experience of the PTEs? What made them beneficial and what was less effective?

 

[Magdalia]

The problems will be inter-regional services (XC, TPE, freight) and the non-Mayoral counties with no shout (Cheshire, Herefordshire, Devon etc).

You win today's prize, because you are the only contributor to mention mayors.

Here is what Lord Hendy and Laura Shoaf say at Q49:

Alex Mayer: In light of this Government’s key interest in regional devolution, are there plans to regionalise the structure of GBR. If so, how will that work?

Lord Hendy: I would say that it must be regionalised and it must be run at a level where you can have people in charge who are responsive to local and regional needs. When I was here before, Alex Hynes, who ran both elements of Scotland’s railways, was sitting next to me. Scotland is of course a devolved Administration. We also now have the increasingly powerful position of the combined authority Mayors across England. My colleague here works for one of them. They will have a statutory role in the development and operation of train services in their areas, and quite right too. That will be the means by which we produce the integrated transport that they need to produce economic growth, jobs and houses in their own areas. Laura, I am sure that you want to say more.

Laura Shoaf: Absolutely. This Government’s devolution White Paper is quite specific about the roles of regions in rail. There will obviously be more information and specifics to come through the railway Bill. It suggests that there will be a more powerful role regionally for thinking about how we govern regional railways, how we manage, plan and develop them, and the role in and around stations, which I think I mentioned are important assets to place.

And Laura Shoaf wins change management jargon bingo here in her answer to Q10:

What has been fascinating is that no one I have spoken is not supportive of rail reform. Every group I have spoken to would recognise that if you were going to design a rail system, you would not design it from here. This is where we are, but it is definitely not where anybody wants to be.

It is quite clear that Great British Railways will be organised regionally, and that those regions will be aligned with the mayoral strategic authorities that come out of the devolution agenda. That will include Cheshire, Herefordshire and Devon which will be part of mayoral strategic authorities in due course.

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, it is not clear at all.

Service specification is clearly going to have a democratic regional element but Hendy, in his previous statements, was talking about geographical GBR production delivery of track and train, even if the stations were managed by others.

He envisages the GBR regions delivering those services on behalf the political region specifications. Those regions will probably not be of the same size, the GBR regions being the bigger and probably identical to the current NR regions and/or routes, if they want to sub divide some.

The whole idea of GBR is to squeeze serious money out of the cost base. Having multiple regions or TOCs negates the kind of savings that the Treasury wants to see.

 

[Meerkat]

Because literally the whole point of this exercise is a unified railway system for maximum passenger benefit, not to persist in having multiple brandings and service propositions to make things interesting for enthusiasts.

Multiple brands and service propositions are there to attract passengers. It sounds like you want it to be a distress purchase.

Time to get back to a unified railway with customers at the forefront.

But I thought sectorisation was to align decision makers with their customers, and undo the regions, which were engineer lead and delivering what was convenient.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The regions were operator and engineering led because, quite frankly, there weren’t many commercial decisions to take at regional level, such were the constraints.

The real problem with the sectors was the beggar-thy-neighbour approach. “You aren’t using MY depot, MY fitter isn’t going to repair your loco, MY drivers are for MY trains only” were only some of the attitudes of the time. It balkanised the railway way before privatisation.

It would have been an utter failure if the Government hadn’t turned the investment taps on and then most of us got some shiny new kit to play with and we could junk the expensive older stuff, usually more vehicles out than new in because that is the way it was sold to the Treasury.

Those who were in commercial at the time are usually big sector fans. Those in Ops and Maintenance less so, unless they are the macho “Wall Street” types, who generally were a bit of a nuisance and could cost more money than they would ever save!

Given the chance, the regions could have achieved about as much as the sectors did but Bob Reid wanted them gone.

My own preference is for sectorised commercial with the production and maintenance side in geographical regions. You can then get the economies of scale required both to reduce costs and to achieve better delivery.

 

[Magdalia]

No, it is not clear at all.

Service specification is clearly going to have a democratic regional element but Hendy, in his previous statements, was talking about geographical GBR production delivery of track and train, even if the stations were managed by others.

He envisages the GBR regions delivering those services on behalf the political region specifications. Those regions will probably not be of the same size, the GBR regions being the bigger and probably identical to the current NR regions and/or routes, if they want to sub divide some.

The whole idea of GBR is to squeeze serious money out of the cost base. Having multiple regions or TOCs negates the kind of savings that the Treasury wants to see.

I don't think that anyone is expecting each mayor to have their own GBR region, but the devolution agenda will work best if each mayor has a single point of contact with GBR. Obviously that isn't going to be possible in every case, as Lord Hendy says it is always going to be a bit messy at the edges.

There is more nuance in the answers given to Q50 here, but what is quite clear is that the devolution agenda is playing a big part in what will emerge:

Alex Mayer: Following on from that, in terms of the structure of GBR, are you suggesting, therefore, that it would be structured around MCAs that exist at the moment and further bits of devolution? At the moment, if you look at a Network Rail region, it is very different. There are triangles that go into London, whereas Mayors have an area that they surround. How would the structure of GBR work with the regionally elected Mayors that you are talking about? In your own region, you have Transport for West Midlands. How do you think regions that don’t have the equivalent of passenger transport executives would be able to feed in the same way that the regions do?

Lord Hendy: In terms of railway geography, it is self-evident; local authority and combined authority boundaries seldom replicate railway geography, which by and large emanates from London. Let’s use a practical example of which I have personal knowledge. Transport for London took over parts of the national railway network 15 years ago, and those parts were distributed through various train operators and Network Rail regions. We found a way of working together by having an informed client at our end and working with willing railway people at the other end. There will be some combined authority areas that happily sit within a natural railway geographical boundary, of which the west midlands is one, and there will be some that do not. In the cases where they do not, in particular in the north of England where there are several combined authorities on each side of the Pennines, one of the responsibilities of GBR is to find a way of running the railway that both respects its operational boundaries such that they make sense for the train service and is able to address the absolutely legitimate needs of the Mayors in the furtherance of their local economies. It is not impossible. It is always going to be a bit messy at the edges. There is nothing new in history. The important thing is that, when GBR is sitting down with each Mayor, the Mayor is facing somebody who is actually capable of being responsible for what the Mayor wants to execute in their own area. There is a great geographical history of different route boundaries and so forth, but at working level you just have to find an arrangement that works, of which London is the most complex example, but it works quite well, because there is an informed client on one side and a willing supplier on the other.

Laura Shoaf: The devolution White Paper is trying to grapple with some of those questions around geography, the emerging mayoral combined authorities and the differences between some of them in terms of maturity. On having a passenger transport authority, Transport for West Midlands is part of the West Midlands Combined Authority. A number of the other major metropolitan areas have the same. However, I recently met with the new chief executive of the East Midlands Combined Authority, which of course does not have a passenger transport authority from which to build. Obviously, they have ambitions in the east midlands about what they want to achieve, but in the meantime the bodies, whether they are counties or mets, that have the transport authority roles, whether or not they are themselves the transport authority, should, and probably do, have a vision of what they want to achieve, so we will continue to work with them as they evolve. It is interesting where the devolution White Paper seems to be taking some of this. It has been my experience that most Mayors find a very firm voice in and around transport, as we said earlier, because of how absolutely critical it is to them, to economic success and the other things that they want to achieve in enabling infrastructure. Alongside energy, digital and transportation, those are the things that help build up those areas, so I know that they will be of primary importance to Mayors of all types of combined authorities. It is about meeting with them early and understanding how to work with them and how to get their ambitions together. As Lord Hendy said, the nature of the railway means it will be messy at the edges. There are always going to be decisions that have to be made about trade-offs. That goes back to the ways of working. Collaboration and early conversations to make sure that everybody’s ambitions are heard and understood and then the rationale for why decisions are taken is how you get to the best decision making. It is really important. I look forward to seeing what happens with the next stage of the White Paper because it has a major influence in terms of where SGBR, and eventually GBR, goes.

 

[Meerkat]

My own preference is for sectorised commercial with the production and maintenance side in geographical regions. You can then get the economies of scale required both to reduce costs and to achieve better delivery.

That’s not the wanted (not by me!) vertical integration though, it’s almost the worst of both - the sectors have no control of their assets and the engineering aren’t responsible for revenue.

I don’t trust them with the economies of scale - your hope is for more resilience but they will cut assets/staff and sharing resilience falls down when more than one bunch need it.
There is also no customers representative either - the TOCs might not have the passenger’s best interests at heart but they do want their passengers to get their share of resource.

 

[Magdalia]

There is also no customers representative either

Mayors will be able to represent the customers.

 

[Meerkat]

Mayors will be able to represent the customers.

Not within the structure when the engineers just say ’too hard and give the capacity to someone else’

 

[Magdalia]

Not within the structure when the engineers just say ’too hard and give the capacity to someone else’

I refer you back to what Lord Hendy said at the Select Committee:

Lord Hendy: I would say that it must be regionalised and it must be run at a level where you can have people in charge who are responsive to local and regional needs. When I was here before, Alex Hynes, who ran both elements of Scotland’s railways, was sitting next to me. Scotland is of course a devolved Administration. We also now have the increasingly powerful position of the combined authority Mayors across England. My colleague here works for one of them. They will have a statutory role in the development and operation of train services in their areas, and quite right too. That will be the means by which we produce the integrated transport that they need to produce economic growth, jobs and houses in their own areas.

The new structure will be such that the engineers will be required to be responsive to local and regional needs, as set out by the mayors. The engineers won't be able to just say ’too hard' and give the capacity to someone else.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I refer you back to what Lord Hendy said at the Select Committee:


The new structure will be such that the engineers will be required to be responsive to local and regional needs, as set out by the mayors. The engineers won't be able to just say ’too hard' and give the capacity to someone else.

Engineers don't give capacity thats down to the operators. Engineers enable the capacity that operators want.

 

[Dr Day]

But who pays for that capacity? Local mayors may well want a 4 tph commute stopping service on the same tracks as an intercity or freight service that they don’t particularly care about, but the country as a whole still needs.

 

[Harpo]

But who pays for that capacity? Local mayors may well want a 4 tph commute stopping service on the same tracks as an intercity or freight service that they don’t particularly care about, but the country as a whole still needs.

Kings Norton to New Street via University has highlighted that scenario for decades.

 

[dk1]

But who pays for that capacity? Local mayors may well want a 4 tph commute stopping service on the same tracks as an intercity or freight service that they don’t particularly care about, but the country as a whole still needs.

What the mayors want and what the mayors get will no doubt be two very different things.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Kings Norton to New Street via University has highlighted that scenario for decades.

Not with long and heavy freight trains having to start from rest.

 

[Senex]

The engineers won't be able to just say ’too hard' and give the capacity to someone else.

What if the capacity just isn't there to give? There's only so much you can fit onto a mixed-traffic two-track railway with intermediate stations.

 

[Magdalia]

What if the capacity just isn't there to give? There's only so much you can fit onto a mixed-traffic two-track railway with intermediate stations.

Then that could mean others having to relinquish capacity in order to give the mayors (some of) what they are asking for.

Great British Railways and devolution is a whole new ball game, there is no point in having a reorganisation if it doesn't deliver things differently and better.

 

[Harpo]

Not with long and heavy freight trains having to start from rest.

No. Via University only affects fast passenger services routed that way and freight goes via Camp Hill. But Camp Hill has a locally sponsored passenger service starting sometime soon.

 

[Essex Express]

So the are 5 network rail regions
Eastern region
North West and Central
Scotland railways
Southern region
Wales and Western region

Each has sub regions
Eastern region
1 Anglia
2 East Coast
3 East Midlands
4 North and East

North West and Central
5 Central
6 North West
7 West Coast

Scotland Railway
8 Scotland

Southern
9 Kent
10 Network Rail high speed
11 Sussex
12 Wessex

Wales and Western
13 Wales and Border
14 Western

This then would mean you could have the following operation areas covering all passenger services

1 Anglia - Greater Anglia and C2C
2 East Coast - LNER and Great Nothern
3 East Midland - EMR
4 North and East - Eastern parts of TPE and Northern
5 Central - Chilterns and the diesel part of West Midlands
6 North West Route - West side of TPE and Northern
7 West Coast south route - LNWR and AWC
8 Scotland Railways - scotrail
9 and 10 Kent plus Network Rail High Speed - South Eastern
11 Sussex - Southern
12 Wessex - South Western Railways
13 Wales and Border - Transport for Wales
14 Western Route - Great Western

This leaves the following with no main region

Thameslink
Crosscountry
EMR Norwich to Liverpool

Thameslink could just run trains as a open access operator.
Crosscountry just needs to be split up between the regions
Cardiff to Birmingham with either Central Route or Transport for Wales
Stansted to Birmingham with either Anglia or East Midland Route
Birmingham to Nottingham with Central Route or East Midlands the routes between the North and the south will have to be split between Western, Wessex, North West and North and East. Or you make a new operating company running Cross county and Norwich - Liverpool buying in resources from the other areas.

 

[AndrewE]

So the are 5 network rail regions
Eastern region
North West and Central
Scotland railways
Southern region
Wales and Western region

Each has sub regions
Eastern region
1 Anglia
2 East Coast
3 East Midlands
4 North and East

North West and Central
5 Central
6 North West
7 West Coast

Scotland Railway
8 Scotland

Southern
9 Kent
10 Network Rail high speed
11 Sussex
12 Wessex

Wales and Western
13 Wales and Border
14 Western

This then would mean you could have the following operation areas covering all passenger services

1 Anglia - Greater Anglia and C2C
2 East Coast - LNER and Great Nothern
3 East Midland - EMR
4 North and East - Eastern parts of TPE and Northern
5 Central - Chilterns and the diesel part of West Midlands
6 North West Route - West side of TPE and Northern
7 West Coast south route - LNWR and AWC
8 Scotland Railways - scotrail
9 and 10 Kent plus Network Rail High Speed - South Eastern
11 Sussex - Southern
12 Wessex - South Western Railways
13 Wales and Border - Transport for Wales
14 Western Route - Great Western

This leaves the following with no main region

Thameslink
Crosscountry
EMR Norwich to Liverpool

Thameslink could just run trains as a open access operator.
Crosscountry just needs to be split up between the regions
Cardiff to Birmingham with either Central Route or Transport for Wales
Stansted to Birmingham with either Anglia or East Midland Route
Birmingham to Nottingham with Central Route or East Midlands the routes between the North and the south will have to be split between Western, Wessex, North West and North and East. Or you make a new operating company running Cross county and Norwich - Liverpool buying in resources from the other areas.

You don't think we/Avanti need to bother serving anywhere N of Crewe then?

 

[The Planner]

So the are 5 network rail regions
Eastern region
North West and Central
Scotland railways
Southern region
Wales and Western region

Each has sub regions
Eastern region
1 Anglia
2 East Coast
3 East Midlands
4 North and East

North West and Central
5 Central
6 North West
7 West Coast

Scotland Railway
8 Scotland

Southern
9 Kent
10 Network Rail high speed
11 Sussex
12 Wessex

Wales and Western
13 Wales and Border
14 Western

To invoke the Railforums pedantry card, they aren't sub regions. There are regions and routes within them.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

But who pays for that capacity? Local mayors may well want a 4 tph commute stopping service on the same tracks as an intercity or freight service that they don’t particularly care about, but the country as a whole still needs.

Exactly. The crux of the matter which politicians don't seem to recognise.

 

[generalnerd]

This works for local services, but intercity services should be a different entity, as they very frequently go all over the place. Crosscountry routes could be merged into an intercity part who covers those services and other ‘main’ intercity routes

 

[317 forever]

You don't think we/Avanti need to bother serving anywhere N of Crewe then?

They don't often run north of Crewe, well north of Preston anyway

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

GBR is surely not going to be 14 autonomous "regions".
Hendy seems to want to replicate the TfL model with dominant city regions/mayors.
But that is difficult everywhere except possibly the West Midlands, because many rail services cross and recross different city regions.
Splitting Northern/TPE along Network Rail boundaries seems a bad plan to me, especially with TRU/NPR in construction as a key integrator.
"Wales & Western" won't work either with Wales wanting greater control of its network (like Scotland).
I suspect the WCML and ECML will become/stay as line of route operations as the network backbones.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Splitting Northern/TPE along Network Rail boundaries seems a bad plan to me, especially with TRU/NPR in construction as a key integrator.

To be fair, separate Regional Railways North East (which managed TPE) and North West did work quite well. There isn't that much overlap.

Yorkshire Railways, anyone? Where are Hale and Pace when you need them?

 

[generalnerd]

To be fair, separate Regional Railways North East (which managed TPE) and North West did work quite well. There isn't that much overlap.

Yorkshire Railways, anyone? Where are Hale and Pace when you need them?

With North Yorkshire and East Yorkshire going through with devolutions soon I wouldn’t be surprised if we see them (all the Yorkshire counties) merge to create a joint transport initiative considering how spread out places are

 

[Bletchleyite]

With North Yorkshire and East Yorkshire going through with devolutions soon I wouldn’t be surprised if we see them (all the Yorkshire counties) merge to create a joint transport initiative considering how spread out places are

And it is also true that the proper North East bit of Northern is fairly separate from the Yorkshire bit. Thus some sense could be seen in Lancashire Railways*, Yorkshire Railways and North East Railways as separate but connected entities.

TPE I think I'd look to recast with true fast services becoming part of InterCity (or West/East Coast if done that way) - i.e. the WCML services and 2tph actual fast Liverpool-Newcastle operated using long 80x formations and calling at fewer stations than today's TPE - and the rest going to Lancs/Yorks as appropriate.

* Traditional Lancashire of course - so basically just the former Regional Railways North West.

 

[generalnerd]

TPE I think I'd look to recast with true fast services becoming part of InterCity (or West/East Coast if done that way) - i.e. the WCML services and 2tph actual fast Liverpool-Newcastle operated using long 80x formations and calling at fewer stations than today's TPE - and the rest going to Lancs/Yorks as appropriate.

TPE is a semi fast express operator and the services (even in the old form) have always been an express route (at least from what I can find) so I wouldn’t be surprised if we see another entity (maybe a sub brand/subsidiary of the national intercity ‘region’) to operate semi-fast cross region services, maybe called ‘Express’ or ‘regional Express’

 

[Manutd1999]

GBR is surely not going to be 14 autonomous "regions".

Indeed, it's highly unlikely we will see such a level fragmentation. Surely ~6 regions would be sufficient:
- Northern
- Central
- South-Western
- South East
- Wales
- Scotland

Intercity would be separate (including relevant CrossCountry routes), making 7 operators in total.

Metro mayors would then have a lobbying/advisory role within their areas, as well as options to takeover control of stations, introduce their own branding and add new (integrated) fare options if desired. However, they wouldn't actually run the services and the final authority would remain with the relevant region.