Could GBR have a flagship train/project/gimmick?

[Brubulus]

GBR flagship projects besides the obvious ones that come GBR being set up (I would include HS2 in this as GBR will just be taking over operating after HS2 LTD finishes the project.) should be the replacement of DMUs with BMUs, refurbishment of the modern electric/bi-mode rolling stock (IETs, Aventras, and FLIRTs) to an improved and more uniform standard, and in conjunction with the Combined authorities and devolved national governments roll out contactless capabilities to more stations across GB. Another flagship project for GBR could be to rebrand DRS (Likely some like Rail Express Services) and transfer ownership to GBR, and expand its operations focusing on operations where direct competition from major freight operators is limited, such as in high-speed freight and parcel services.

The 755s seem to have genuinely driven modal shift in East Anglia - Northern fleet replacement could do the same in the north. I can see DRS rebranded to GBR freight, but its sole purposes would likely be nuclear work and reducing overall subsidy, so I wouldn't expect any flagship projects from them. Replacing the seat bases on the IETs with slightly deeper and more comfortable ones would be amazing, but unlikely to realistically happen. Would like to see a proper and standardised offer on intercity and regional express services long term in terms of seating, catering etc to ensure that rail properly completes on service quality but I recognise capacity and subsidy minimisation will come first.

 

[43096]

I can see DRS rebranded to GBR freight

You don't think that would be met by a legal challenge from the existing and completely separate GBRf?

 

[eldomtom2]

Where does the profit currently earned by DRS go? Would moving it to GBR just be a shuffling around of who gets subsidy?

 

[JLH4AC]

The 755s seem to have genuinely driven modal shift in East Anglia - Northern fleet replacement could do the same in the north.

Yeah, brand new good quality BMUs would be a major improvement for rail passengers in the North and East Midlands and will drive modal shift especially if coupled with improved service frequencies.

I can see DRS rebranded to GBR freight, but its sole purposes would likely be nuclear work and reducing overall subsidy, so I wouldn't expect any flagship projects from them.

DRS being rebranded to GBR Freight would be a logical and simple rebrand, but it may cause legal issues as GB Railways Freight (GBRF) is a very similar name to GB Railfreight (GBRf). I am aware of the real probability that GBR will effectively maintain the status quo in regard to DRS, but I my view it would be a wasted opportunity not to take steps to attempt to improve its competitiveness and profitability.

Replacing the seat bases on the IETs with slightly deeper and more comfortable ones would be amazing, but unlikely to realistically happen. Would like to see a proper and standardised offer on intercity and regional express services long term in terms of seating, catering etc to ensure that rail properly completes on service quality but I recognise capacity and subsidy minimisation will come first.

Yeah, I'm well aware that GBR will likely put "cost savings" over such improvements, but I do believe the evidence supports that such refurbishment/refits would greatly improve passenger satisfaction and make the fleet more hard wearing. You say that has reminded me of something I needed to add to as I forgot to add when I first posted it "cost saving modernisations".

 

[brad465]

Something that occurred to me recently, next month being the official 200th anniversary, I would expect this is a good opportunity to announce future railway projects/plans that can be sold as "railway presents". However, I would be willing to bet stuff that is announced here, if anything, is stuff that is either already happening, was recently paused/canned and is being restarted, and/or exaggerated, similar to how on the NHS's 70th birthday they were "gifted a funding boost" that was only slightly more than recent years, and well below what it was receiving in the 00s.

 

[The Ham]

Something which GBR could do, yes it's copying, but I don't think that's an issue, learn from those who do things well to create something great:

How the HS2 shambles could have been avoided – if we’d copied the Swiss

Train Talk: After all the squandered billions, some lessons for the future of railway expansion

www.independent.co.uk

Rather than a big bang, a rolling programme of cumulative upgrades would deliver key benefits early along the way to that timetable tuned for the needs of the nation.

Mr Ableman contemplates how the Swiss approach would have worked in the UK. Planners would have identified that key regional hubs – Birmingham New Street, Leeds, Manchester Piccadilly – are desperately short of decent rail connections from the suburbs because they don’t have enough platform space. They would understand that the line between Coventry and Birmingham has a hopelessly inadequate timetable for the many prospective passengers who live along the route, because suburban trains must share the pair of tracks with intercity expresses.

Across the whole country, to improve the service for millions: “The fast tracks need to be used by slower trains, so the fastest trains need to run somewhere else.”

The Swiss would take those problems and create a timetable that solves them. “And then they’d ask: what infrastructure do we need to make this timetable possible?”

Guess what: the solution to Britain’s rail needs looks rather like HS2.

“However, because they know exactly what they can afford, every year, forever, they could immediately identify that it’s too expensive.

“Because they know what they can afford, they can now value-engineer a version that fits. In the UK, no one really knows how much money the Treasury will be willing to release, or when. In Switzerland, there’s a budget envelope. It’s predictable.

“So having come up with an unaffordable infrastructure plan to deliver a perfect timetable, they’d go back, iterate the timetable, tweak the infrastructure plan and adjust things until it all fits. And then they’d start building.”

“I can’t promise every part will be delivered on-time and on-budget but it’s much more likely,” he writes. “And if something isn’t late, it doesn’t mean that the whole shebang is late – just that one project.”

Mr Ableman’s conclusion is chilling: that the Treasury’s refusal to commit to long-term funding “creates exactly the conditions that make infrastructure expensive”.

Unintentionally, he says, the Treasury is “the biggest driver of waste and inefficiency in UK infrastructure”.