Greater Anglia nationalisation updates

[WAB]

Seems that GA, C2C and NR Anglia's management is to be consolidated by mid 2026 according to a letter I received from the DFTO. So this can probably be expected by 2030

I know you jest, but to be fair, this'll probably be the easiest network to unify, given c2c has the lowest headcount of the TOCs joining GBR.

Simplistically, most roles fall into one of the following:

1. Employees who are responsible for a specific role in a specific area

e.g., Customer Experience Manager Cambridge. These won't change straight away as the day job will remain the same. Longer term, duties may change to take advantage of being one organisation but this isn't necessary for Anglia Railways to act as a cohesive unit.​

2. Employees who have counterparts at the other companies, but they handle a specific part of the role

Generally HQ staff - you might not need three Heads of Security, but each would have managed a separate aspect of security (e.g., trains and stations (GA & c2c) vs trackside (NR-A) so you'll need a Head of + one or two deputies). This is where it gets messy as people jostle for jobs and the redundancy process goes on, but where the benefits of an integrated railway can be achieved most by reducing silo working and ironing out any duplication.​

3. Employees who are duplicated at the other companies, but are not needed in the same numbers

e.g., Head of HR - you'll only need one to manage the HR department responsible for 6000 staff. Making this change can be done relatively quickly, as there are relatively few of these positions. Allowing all of these posts to remain discourages working as one organisation as they exist purely as an arbitrary boundary which reinforces the existing seperation between track and train.​

​

2 + 3 is not a massive headcount so mid-2026 is very reasonable for the director and department head levels to be in the IRB state.

 

[stadler]

Greater Anglia unit diagrams have now been published on their FOI page of their website:

Freedom Of Information

As a public authority, Greater Anglia is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).

www.greateranglia.co.uk

May 2025 to December 2025 unit diagrams:

https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/media/15362/download

December 2025 to May 2026 unit diagrams:

https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/media/15368/download

I see that just like C2C they have been very quick to upload and publish these frequently requested unit diagrams.

 

[XCTurbostar]

Greater Anglia unit diagrams have now been published on their FOI page of their website:

Freedom Of Information

As a public authority, Greater Anglia is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).

www.greateranglia.co.uk

May 2025 to December 2025 unit diagrams:

https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/media/15362/download

December 2025 to May 2026 unit diagrams:

https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/media/15368/download

I see that just like C2C they have been very quick to upload and publish these frequently requested unit diagrams.

Diagrams are always requested.
I can also see that sound files seems to be another common one.. three requests for this already!

 

[RailWonderer]

Many problems with the franchise system were down to the lack of stability in my opinion, Greater Anglia had that after the National Express problems. How was any private company going to make any real investments on 7 to 10 year franchises with the likelihood of the next operator getting the benefit.

NX was given four years with a four year extension, then GA was given four years. Once they were granted ten years in 2016, they replaced the entire fleet, restructured internally and overhauled the entire operation. We're now the closest thing the UK rail network has to Swiss modernity and punctuality. When privatisation worked, it worked great. There was accountability, but with government oversight, they can blame the economy and having no money to make a service worse, rather than a new operator coming and being able to negotiate a better subsidy to provide service improvements.

Privatisation had its faults but it worked in some cases. More often than not though I do recognise some operators tried to skim costs where possible but the government will do exactly the same, except wholesale across the board, which means dirty platforms and trains, more graffiti, TSRs and more toilets out of service and it will slowly decline in quality and resemble the Romanian rail network in twenty years time. But, they can throw their hands up and say we have no money while they rollout single leg pricing on more routes and services and state customers want simple fares so they can claim to improve the railway.

 

[ollyexe2808]

the government will do exactly the same, except wholesale across the board, which means dirty platforms and trains, more graffiti, TSRs and more toilets out of service and it will slowly decline in quality and resemble the Romanian rail network in twenty years time.

Why will it decline? I don't see such decline in other nationalised networks in Europe. Why don't Norway or Sweden or Netherlands have this issue?

 

[Russel]

Why will it decline? I don't see such decline in other nationalised networks in Europe. Why don't Norway or Sweden or Netherlands have this issue?

Because they don't have the UK Government, DFT and HM Treasury at the helm...

Wouldn't surprise me if there isn't a room full of civil servants in Whitehall spending millions on a study into which shortbread to hand out in First Class to save a couple of quid over 5 years...

 

[StephenHunter]

Why will it decline? I don't see such decline in other nationalised networks in Europe. Why don't Norway or Sweden or Netherlands have this issue?

Germany has real problems, as does France. SNCF are pulling the Berlin and Vienna sleeper in the next timetable change due to lack of subsidy.

Also, SNCB/NMBS trains in Belgium are often covered in graffiti.

 

[ollyexe2808]

So what's the answer then? It is interesting to me how many people are so negative about GBR yet appear to not be offering an alternative. What are we thinking? Wholesale, integrated privatisation like JR in Japan? Or do we pretend it's the mid 90s again and go full franchise?

 

[RailWonderer]

Why will it decline? I don't see such decline in other nationalised networks in Europe. Why don't Norway or Sweden or Netherlands have this issue?

Norway: Oil and gas and the world's largest sovreign wealth fund.
Sweden: Government philosophy is about providing high standards of social services, and even SJ has had issues with delays and stock shortages.
Netherlands: Is one big suburban rail network so there aren't long lightly used rural routes that need large subsidy. This, and high taxes and higher GDP pre capita is why they run a decent network. High wealth in a small population in a small space is why Luxembourg was able to make public transport free.

 

[ollyexe2808]

Because they don't have the UK Government, DFT and HM Treasury at the helm...

Wouldn't surprise me if there isn't a room full of civil servants in Whitehall spending millions on a study into which shortbread to hand out in First Class to save a couple of quid over 5 years...

Also this is absurd and quite an insult to many civil servants who do amazing work behind the scenes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Oct 2025 ==

Norway: Oil and gas and the world's largest sovreign wealth fund.
Sweden: Government philosophy is about providing high standards of social services, and even SJ has had issues with delays and stock shortages.
Netherlands: Is one big suburban rail network so there aren't long lightly used rural routes that need large subsidy. This, and high taxes and higher GDP pre capita is why they run a decent network. High wealth in a small population in a small space is why Luxembourg was able to make public transport free.

Ok, then what is the answer? Do we follow the Scandinavian countries in terms of social welfare and public good by increasing taxes on wealth? Or do we do something else? If GBR is doomed to fail because of all the stereotyped reasons ("unelected bureaucrats, civil servants etc etc"), then what does work? What is the blueprint for a high quality public service?

 

[RailWonderer]

Ok, then what is the answer? Do we follow the Scandinavian countries in terms of social welfare and public good by increasing taxes on wealth? Or do we do something else? If GBR is doomed to fail because of all the stereotyped reasons ("unelected bureaucrats, civil servants etc etc"), then what does work? What is the blueprint for a high quality public service?

Given the state of public finances no solution will be ideal, but a good start would be a change in political culture. Let railway specialists make decisions and place the railway above politics and give it more autonomy to handle its budget as it sees fit.

 

[ollyexe2808]

Given the state of public finances no solution will be ideal, but a good start would be a change in political culture. Let railway specialists make decisions and place the railway above politics and give it more autonomy to handle its budget as it sees fit.

Isn't this what GBR will be? Call me naive but both the Williams Shapps plan and the recent Labour document "A Railway Fit for Britain's Future" - quote from the latter "GBR will be operationally independent, staffed by experts and professionals from the rail sector and beyond, who will be empowered to deliver for passengers and freight customers without government interference in day-to-day decision-making"

Indeed the budget may still be fixed to the Government but surely this is a step in the right direction?

 

[F Great Eastern]

NX was given four years with a four year extension, then GA was given four years. Once they were granted ten years in 2016, they replaced the entire fleet, restructured internally and overhauled the entire operation. We're now the closest thing the UK rail network to Swiss modernity and punctuality. When privitisation worked, it worked great. There was accountability, but with government oversight, they can blame the economy and having no money to make a service worse, rather than a new operator coming and being able to negotiate a better subsidy to provide service improvements.

That is incorrect, National Express had a solid initial 7 year contract from April 2004 to March 2011. The option that was not took up was until March 2014.

It was determined in 2009 that they wouldn't get the three year extension to 2014 because of the shambles that was National Express East Coast, but because of the 2010 general election, the end date of the franchise got extended from March 2011 to November 2011 and then to February 2012 when Abellio took over.

 

[Horizon22]

Will Beaulieu Park be the first GBR / DFTO station to open in history when it does so on the 26th October?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Oct 2025 ==

Ok, then what is the answer? Do we follow the Scandinavian countries in terms of social welfare and public good by increasing taxes on wealth? Or do we do something else? If GBR is doomed to fail because of all the stereotyped reasons ("unelected bureaucrats, civil servants etc etc"), then what does work? What is the blueprint for a high quality public service?

There isn’t one. Like it or not, in the grand scheme of things, the railways are very low in priority order and suffer from the classic UK infrastructure political problem (expensive with only long-term benefits).

The blueprint is pretty simple - more money to invest, develop and renew with some efficiencies as well. I do not unfortunately see this happening, even if it will have short-term costs to ensure long-term benefits.

 

[RailWonderer]

That is incorrect, National Express had a solid initial 7 year contract from April 2004 to March 2011. The option that was not took up was until March 2014.

It was determined in 2009 that they wouldn't get the three year extension to 2014 because of the shambles that was National Express East Coast, but because of the 2010 general election, the end date of the franchise got extended from March 2011 to November 2011 and then to February 2012 when Abellio took over.

Ah yes, I was getting it mixed up with the 2008 rebrand they did. It was seven years extended for one year.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Isn't this what GBR will be? Call me naive but both the Williams Shapps plan and the recent Labour document "A Railway Fit for Britain's Future" - quote from the latter "GBR will be operationally independent, staffed by experts and professionals from the rail sector and beyond, who will be empowered to deliver for passengers and freight customers without government interference in day-to-day decision-making"

Indeed the budget may still be fixed to the Government but surely this is a step in the right direction?

Which part of the goings on with fares at LNER do you think is a step in the right direction? They are literally pricing people off trains and even now we are at a point where they're arguing that a private operator (Lumo) is too cheap and they are depriving LNER of revenue? Fancy that, a public operator trying to keep fares up whilst a private one is trying to bring them down. It's ALMOST like this policy is about primarily saving the government money than the travelling public.

Look at all of the other operators under DfT control. Have you seen any real benefits yet? For all the political talk that they are going to save £150m a year in franchise fees, have you seen any impact of the money they have saved so far? I'm fully expecting that the £150m saved won't go anywhere near being reinvested in the railways and simply is going to be used to reduce treasury outgoings. The comments by the Transport secretary last week about getting a better balance of fare payers vs taxpayer are almost naked in their admission to this.

If you are familiar with the history of 'giving better value for the taxpayer' phrase in UK Railways (and especially East Anglia) then this should be no news to you. That was the whole SRAs argument for National Express for seven years when they cut everything to the bone, stopped cleaning stations, cheap as chips refurbishments, broken things were routinely not fixed (or if they were, it was done on the cheap) and it drove many people away from trains and back into the car? Even the coach companies of the day saw increased patronage around this time in what was thought to previously been a dying market. One things for sure, in railways in this country, when the taxpayers win in terms of funding, me and you always lose.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Norway: Oil and gas and the world's largest sovreign wealth fund.
Sweden: Government philosophy is about providing high standards of social services, and even SJ has had issues with delays and stock shortages.
Netherlands: Is one big suburban rail network so there aren't long lightly used rural routes that need large subsidy. This, and high taxes and higher GDP pre capita is why they run a decent network. High wealth in a small population in a small space is why Luxembourg was able to make public transport free.

Norway adopted the same structure as GB, letting out contracts on a line by line basis - some were won by the state operator Vy but others by Go Ahead or SJ. It has been a complete fiasco and a nonsense in a country like Norway with a limited network - the Labour Coalition (just re-elected) is committed to a unified railway and will bring the contracts back to state control as they expire, just like here.

 

[F Great Eastern]

There isn’t one. Like it or not, in the grand scheme of things, the railways are very low in priority order and suffer from the classic UK infrastructure political problem (expensive with only long-term benefits).

The blueprint is pretty simple - more money to invest, develop and renew with some efficiencies as well. I do not unfortunately see this happening, even if it will have short-term costs to ensure long-term benefits.

Bang on the money here.

Sadly more than ever with the political landscape being what it is, parties are not looking at long term visions for the benefit of the country, they're looking at short term gains and their own benefit.

 

[bramling]

I've got about as much appetite for this as I had for NatEx taking over the franchise in 2004 and some of the messaging that is being given right now is eerily similar in terms of no changes to ticket prices, no real change to services delivering better value for the taxpayers. For the second time in it's history, just when the GEML is doing really well, we're fixing something that isn't broken and ripping it up.

Already with other operators under government control, we're seeing the realities that nationalisation is not the silver bullet for resolving all the problems of the railway in this country that it's biggest supporters have been banging on about on this forum over the past decade. We were told the fat cats getting cut out of the loop would lower prices and vastly improve services this hasn't materialised and instead we're getting served up hare brained new fares ideas across the government owned operators (especially LNER) which are being disguised as simplification when they are in reality stealth fare rises in disguise and the removal of many discounts and a loss of flexibility.

I just don't see what this change will bring us in a positive light here. There are other operators who are totally hapless that have needed a shake up, but breaking something that works just is just blind ideology. I've always mandated that a lot of the railways issues are caused by the DfT and handing them complete control is a recipe for disaster. I doubt any of those people who have been cheerleading this for the last decade or more will apologise when their ideological dream turns out to be complete unrealistic fantasy.

The big question is though, if the high fares in this country were due to private operators greed, when are the big fare reductions coming to GA and the operators that have already been in public ownership for years? And if they're not coming, why do we have stealth rises by the backdoor? Have we replaced private operators greed with greed of a different kind? Maybe, just maybe, you were wrong and rather than the private 'fat cats' being the source of all the problems perhaps your beloved DfT was somewhat to blame after all and they will stuff the regions passengers and drive people off trains just like the SRA did in 2003 when they got into bed with NatEx.

I largely agree with the above. Nationalisation is not a magic bullet, especially when the railway has been so tightly controlled by the state for some years now, and all the more so since Covid.

I’m not necessarily saying there’s much point in having the private operators on management contracts, but if people are expecting things to get better with nationalisation then they’re probably going to be disappointed.

 

[ollyexe2808]

Which part of the goings on with fares at LNER do you think is a step in the right direction? They are literally pricing people off trains and even now we are at a point where they're arguing that a private operator (Lumo) is too cheap and they are depriving LNER of revenue? Fancy that, a public operator trying to keep fares up whilst a private one is trying to bring them down. This is not what we were promised by Labour and the cheerleaders for GBR.

Look at all of the other operators under DfT control. Have you seen any real benefits yet? For all the political talk that they are going to save £150m a year in franchise fees, have you seen any impact of the money they have saved so far? I'm fully expecting that the £150m saved won't go anywhere near being reinvested in the railways and simply is going to be used to reduce treasury outgoings. The comments by the Transport secretary last week about getting a better balance of fare payers vs taxpayer are almost naked in their admission to this.

If you are familiar with the history of 'giving better value for the taxpayer' phrase in UK Railways (and especially East Anglia) then this should be no news to you. That was the whole SRAs argument for National Express for seven years when they cut everything to the bone, stopped cleaning stations, cheap as chips refurbishments, broken things were routinely not fixed (or if they were, it was done on the cheap) and it drove many people away from trains and back into the car? Even the coach companies of the day saw increased patronage around this time in what was thought to previously been a dying market. One things for sure, in railways in this country, when the taxpayers win in terms of funding, me and you always lose.

Hmmm, you do have a good point in some respects but, considering the little time Labour have had in power (and considering we don't even have GBR legislation yet), much of the current impacts are from micromanaging from DfT for sure....but then surely, as a body that is separate from the Government, GBR will have more autonomy? There are also changes to the fiscal rules which took place in the last budget - for years infrastructure and government assets have always been viewed through the lens of their cost, not their value. The last budget effectively gave creedence to the idea that infrastructure isn't just a money pit, but instead has intrinsic value.

I am not a "cheerleader" for GBR and this government has got plenty wrong so far....but I also think we are judging a plan too early because the organisation hasn't even been created yet!

An honest question for those of you who have seen nationalised rail here before under BR - do you feel the franchise model worked? Holistically, from the perspective of the public? If so, how?

 

[Horizon22]

I am not a "cheerleader" for GBR and this government has got plenty wrong so far....but I also think we are judging a plan too early because the organisation hasn't even been created yet!

An honest question for those of you who have seen nationalised rail here before under BR - do you feel the franchise model worked? Holistically, from the perspective of the public? If so, how?

It really depends on how GBR is set up, managed and structured. And the “Day 1” culture will be really important, as it will set the tone for years to come.

There is the potential for it to be an “arms-length” body with some oversight - as you’d expect from a body with billions of public money - but broadly left to manage the budget it has been given by the professionals.

However if there is more political interference it will be at the whims of the political view of the time which leads to short-termism, backtracking, lack of clarity which concerns contractors, investors and operators, particularly when the railway works on longer timeframes. There’s also some concern that the local government review hinted that local mayors would also have some input which seems counterproductive for GBR’s aims by having more “special interests” acting from a local perspective rather than a broader regional viewpoint.

 

[warwickshire]

I know you jest, but to be fair, this'll probably be the easiest network to unify, given c2c has the lowest headcount of the TOCs joining GBR.

Simplistically, most roles fall into one of the following:

1. Employees who are responsible for a specific role in a specific area

e.g., Customer Experience Manager Cambridge. These won't change straight away as the day job will remain the same. Longer term, duties may change to take advantage of being one organisation but this isn't necessary for Anglia Railways to act as a cohesive unit.​

2. Employees who have counterparts at the other companies, but they handle a specific part of the role

Generally HQ staff - you might not need three Heads of Security, but each would have managed a separate aspect of security (e.g., trains and stations (GA & c2c) vs trackside (NR-A) so you'll need a Head of + one or two deputies). This is where it gets messy as people jostle for jobs and the redundancy process goes on, but where the benefits of an integrated railway can be achieved most by reducing silo working and ironing out any duplication.​

3. Employees who are duplicated at the other companies, but are not needed in the same numbers

e.g., Head of HR - you'll only need one to manage the HR department responsible for 6000 staff. Making this change can be done relatively quickly, as there are relatively few of these positions. Allowing all of these posts to remain discourages working as one organisation as they exist purely as an arbitrary boundary which reinforces the existing seperation between track and train.​

​

2 + 3 is not a massive headcount so mid-2026 is very reasonable for the director and department head levels to be in the IRB state.

Fully agree this has merger has been on the agenda previously, way back in British Rail days, there was a plan to merge, the Southend Victoria services to London Liverpool street, and the London Fenchurch Street services to Shoeburyness services into one unity, with a newer type of networker commuter unit, which would have meant the 321s would have replaced the 312 quicker but the 360s wouldn't have happened, this information is still somewhere on YouTube and was a part of a networker project for another new build for the South east side also , but, that never happened because privatisation stepped in and stopped it around 1996 to 1997.

However this merger would certainly make sense, as it can certainly mean more trains can from London Liverpool Steet to Shoeburyness and Hopefully from Southend Victoria to London Fenchurch street in the future should the need arise especially has high demand in the next few years quickly grows again.

Yes I do suspect office jobs will sadly go,
And yes its the Customer service on the stations and train crew jobs will have a more long term future to meet up with the rising numbers of passengers, as this merger, new merger takes place, in Modern times, from its original plan,
30 to 32 years ago,

 

[F Great Eastern]

Hmmm, you do have a good point in some respects but, considering the little time Labour have had in power (and considering we don't even have GBR legislation yet), much of the current impacts are from micromanaging from DfT for sure....but then surely, as a body that is separate from the Government, GBR will have more autonomy? There are also changes to the fiscal rules which took place in the last budget - for years infrastructure and government assets have always been viewed through the lens of their cost, not their value. The last budget effectively gave creedence to the idea that infrastructure isn't just a money pit, but instead has intrinsic value.

I am not a "cheerleader" for GBR and this government has got plenty wrong so far....but I also think we are judging a plan too early because the organisation hasn't even been created yet!

An honest question for those of you who have seen nationalised rail here before under BR - do you feel the franchise model worked? Holistically, from the perspective of the public? If so, how?

I doubt they are going to allow GBR to run at arms length by proper 'railway people' without any political influence. Over the years politicians have been only too happy to play the 'privatise the blame and nationalise the praise' game, turning up at good news and hiding away and pointing figures at others when there is bad news despite the fact the bad news may have been caused by them tying the hands of operators in the background out of sight.

The argument saying the DfT are micromanaging and Labour have only been in power a year doesn't wash with me. Labour run the DfT now. If the Government really wanted to stop the LNER stealth fare rises they could have done at any point, but rather than stop those things, under their watch they have expanded the trial. By being run directly by the government under DFTO Ltd, the government absolutely have to be held accountable for what is going on in those companies as it's something they directly control, unlike in the past, there is no middleman to blame now.

There is nothing the government cannot do today if it really wanted to in DfT operated services that it needs to wait for GBR to be created for in terms of fares etc. Indeed, it should be easier today than it is when GBR is created since at that point if GBR really is at arms length (which I doubt very much it will be properly) then the government could use the argument they cannot interfere as it's an arms length company, something they cannot do now.

I am not cheerleading the franchise model at all because I think that whilst it worked in some areas for a period of time, it has not worked in all areas for other periods of time. But what I do get fed up is reading about how fat cat greedy operators are the cause of astronomical fares in this country, where we have already seen that even if you remove those operators from the mix, the fares haven't gone down and the Transport Secretary has even confirmed that would be the case. So if it is not down to the fat cat operators, who is it down to?

Maybe one day people will wake up and smell the coffee, that maybe, just maybe there is more to it than for profit companies = high ticket prices. But that would involve a load of people admitting they were wrong and that their wild fantasies based on nothing more than blind ideology were wrong. And they're never going to do that. And I say that as someone who has never voted for any conservative or right wing party in my life, as there is nothing more I'd like than to see all our utilities state owned and run well. But sadly it's something we don't do in this country because of the short term political landscape and all the evidence of the past.

It really depends on how GBR is set up, managed and structured. And the “Day 1” culture will be really important, as it will set the tone for years to come.

There is the potential for it to be an “arms-length” body with some oversight - as you’d expect from a body with billions of public money - but broadly left to manage the budget it has been given by the professionals.

However if there is more political interference it will be at the whims of the political view of the time which leads to short-termism, backtracking, lack of clarity which concerns contractors, investors and operators, particularly when the railway works on longer timeframes. There’s also some concern that the local government review hinted that local mayors would also have some input which seems counterproductive for GBR’s aims by having more “special interests” acting from a local perspective rather than a broader regional viewpoint.

And these are my fears entirely also and when you hear the transport minister coming out with some of the phrases she has this week, it doesn't fill me with optimism.

 

[StephenHunter]

If a company wants to make a profit, high ticket prices aren't necessarily the way to do it. Rail companies are not a monopoly.

 

[ollyexe2808]

I doubt they are going to allow GBR to run at arms length by proper 'railway people' without any political influence. Over the years politicians have been only too happy to play the 'privatise the blame and nationalise the praise' game, turning up at good news and hiding away and pointing figures at others when there is bad news despite the fact the bad news may have been caused by them tying the hands of operators in the background out of sight.

The argument saying the DfT are micromanaging and Labour have only been in power a year doesn't wash with me. Labour run the DfT now. If the Government really wanted to stop the LNER stealth fare rises they could have done at any point, but rather than stop those things, under their watch they have expanded the trial. By being run directly by the government under DFTO Ltd, the government absolutely have to be held accountable for what is going on in those companies as it's something they directly control, unlike in the past, there is no middleman to blame now.

There is nothing the government cannot do today if it really wanted to in DfT operated services that it needs to wait for GBR to be created for in terms of fares etc. Indeed, it should be easier today than it is when GBR is created since at that point if GBR really is at arms length (which I doubt very much it will be properly) then the government could use the argument they cannot interfere as it's an arms length company, something they cannot do now.

I am not cheerleading the franchise model at all because I think that whilst it worked in some areas for a period of time, it has not worked in all areas for other periods of time. But what I do get fed up is reading about how fat cat greedy operators are the cause of astronomical fares in this country, where we have already seen that even if you remove those operators from the mix, the fares haven't gone down and the Transport Secretary has even confirmed that would be the case. So if it is not down to the fat cat operators, who is it down to?

Maybe one day people will wake up and smell the coffee, that maybe, just maybe there is more to it than for profit companies = high ticket prices. But that would involve a load of people admitting they were wrong and that their wild fantasies based on nothing more than blind ideology were wrong. And they're never going to do that. And I say that as someone who has never voted for any conservative or right wing party in my life, as there is nothing more I'd like than to see all our utilities state owned and run well. But sadly it's something we don't do in this country because of the short term political landscape and all the evidence of the past.



And these are my fears entirely also and when you hear the transport minister coming out with some of the phrases she has this week, it doesn't fill me with optimism.

I see your point and I would be lying if I said I don't have worries about the future of the rail network. I suppose it's like with anything in politics, there is no such thing as a silver bullet, and populism has made that idea of an easy fix more tempting.

I would like to see an honest conversation by politicians about how we encourage public transport use. I want it to be clear it is messy and often not easy....but that actually if we had the political will to do it, as you say, there are things that could be done now. Indeed, if it wasn't so politically unpalatable to unfreeze fuel duty, then such an initiative could help to freeze rail and bus fares.

Perhaps I am naive but I really want GBR to work...and I feel that there is a level of pragmatism in it's reported structure (pending legislation obviously). Perhaps this has struck such a chord because Greater Anglia were one of the strong TOCs who had foresight to invest and develop. For me in the South West, I can't fault many of GWR's practices, and on reflection my main gripe is with fares and lack of affordable options. If we do want GBR to be a success, then I do agree it needs to be autonomous and also able to offer incentives such as fate reductions etc.

I have my worries.... but I also have some optimism at the moment (which may be dashed depending on what the GBR white paper says!)

 

[Adrian1980uk]

I see your point and I would be lying if I said I don't have worries about the future of the rail network. I suppose it's like with anything in politics, there is no such thing as a silver bullet, and populism has made that idea of an easy fix more tempting.

I would like to see an honest conversation by politicians about how we encourage public transport use. I want it to be clear it is messy and often not easy....but that actually if we had the political will to do it, as you say, there are things that could be done now. Indeed, if it wasn't so politically unpalatable to unfreeze fuel duty, then such an initiative could help to freeze rail and bus fares.

Perhaps I am naive but I really want GBR to work...and I feel that there is a level of pragmatism in it's reported structure (pending legislation obviously). Perhaps this has struck such a chord because Greater Anglia were one of the strong TOCs who had foresight to invest and develop. For me in the South West, I can't fault many of GWR's practices, and on reflection my main gripe is with fares and lack of affordable options. If we do want GBR to be a success, then I do agree it needs to be autonomous and also able to offer incentives such as fate reductions etc.

I have my worries.... but I also have some optimism at the moment (which may be dashed depending on what the GBR white paper says!)

I actually think the franchise system could have worked but for the interference of the DFT, there was no stability to invest and more smoke and mirrors.

GBR will be hamstrung by the budget its allowed and I'll bet any investment will still have to go through DFT.

I'm still not really sure what Greater Anglia invested in, stations yes they are but I just think it's well run by some really talented people.

If anyone says Greater Anglia invested in new trains (yes it's my hobby horse) no they have not, Rock Rail have invested in new trains so they can charge GA higher leasing prices.

 

[StephenHunter]

New trains were mandated in the GA franchise agreement. It also meant that we scrapped a bunch of perfectly good 321s.

 

[RailWonderer]

New trains were mandated in the GA franchise agreement. It also meant that we scrapped a bunch of perfectly good 321s.

They were prematurely old, loud, rattly, jolty, had terrible low seating with poor legroom, poor seat pitch, poor window alignment and had poor reliability towards the end.

They needed to go and as flawed as the 720s are, they still are a significant upgrade. The 321s were not built to the standards of 158s and Turbos of the same era.

 

[F Great Eastern]

New trains were mandated in the GA franchise agreement. It also meant that we scrapped a bunch of perfectly good 321s.

The 90s, 153s, 156s, 317s and 321s were all in serious need of replacement when they got replaced as they were tired. Even the refurbishment of the 321s that were done for me were done really poorly. My First Class experience on a Renatus 321 was so bad that I actually sat in standard class as it was a better environment even though I paid for a first class ticket!

The 170s were not in that bracket, but the 755s are a much better train and longer ones that have produced much higher capacity which s what the local lines really needed.

Now there may be an argument to have about the 360s and 379 fleets, because the 720s are clearly not well suited for airport work and the 379s were better and I hate the narrowness of the aisles, but for me a 720 is still clearly better than the 317s and 321s they replaced.

 

[jon0844]

720s can easily be fixed by changing the internal layout. Having trains people can move through really helps spread people out, as well as coping better with crowds even if more people have to stand.

I'm sure more will get converted over time.