What efficiencies could GBR bring?

[G_for_Gnome]

As we look ahead to all passenger TOCs (except Open Access operators) coming under public ownership, under the Great British Railways system...I was having a think about the things that look like "easy wins" for reducing cost and increasing efficiency, but on closer look could actually present lots of challenges.

A couple of starters for ten....

Traincrew Depot Duplication.
There will be many locations across the network where there are two or more traincrew depots, across different TOCs. There might be scenarios where traincrew sit spare at a traincrew depot literally across the corridor from another TOC that is cancelling trains due to lack of traincrew, across a common piece of route between the two.

Is merging traincrew depots a possibility to avoid this kind of scenario? Will GBR being based on Business Units keep this largely as it is now? Where would challenges come from for this.....differing terms and conditions across current employers? Traction training? Union pushback? EG I understand there are some cross-cover agreements that prevent TOCs using traincrew from one depot to cover open work at another depot, so cross covering for other business units seems like it could be difficult to agree. Harmonising terms and conditions within large companies has always been difficult - is it desirable (or even possible) for new starters, from a certain point, to be given a a new "standard" GBR contract which removes cross cover restrictions?

Non standard train design. There are many different types of train in service now that can't work in multiple with each other, despite being very similar. I think in some cases that even subclasses of the same train can't couple to each other. EG can a 196 and 197 work in multiple? Can a 730/0 and a 730/2 work in multiple? Compare this to how many classes the 153 would work in multiple with, for instance. Would having a single specification allowing multiple working across different classes be desirable? Would it save any design / operations costs? I wonder what the compatibility is of the new TPE stock that's been announced today.

Rolling Stock/Infrastructure Strategy. There have been fleets of usable trains parked up for a long time, before being recommissioned for another TOC....but the time standing around has caused problems with bringing them back into service. The Class 175 introduction into GWR has been made harder by the time they spent parked up. Perfectly serviceable Class 68 and Mark 5 carriages were left idle for a time after Transpennine withdrew them, before they came into service with Chiltern. Will having a joined up rolling stock and infrastructure strategy reduce instances like this, of fairly new rolling stock not being used for long periods? Will we get back to trains being used from they're commissioned through to when they're finally scrapped.

Are there any other areas of efficiency that seem like easy wins, but actually there's much more to think about?

I'm not arguing the case for any of these changes, by the way...they just seem (to me) to be the areas where there is duplication and differing standards.

I sometimes wonder if politicians (mainly) sell the concept of GBR on the basis that it will change lots of things very quickly, and therefore will reduce the railway's net subsidy quickly. I think that many of these things might be much more complex and take much longer than some people think.

Mods: I have put this in speculative discussion but please move if another section is more appropriate.

 

[Harpo]

Merging traincrew depots would come with a horrendous increase in training programmes and cost. I’d be amazed if it happened on any significant scale.

 

[G_for_Gnome]

Merging traincrew depots would come with a horrendous increase in training programmes and cost. I’d be amazed if it happened on any significant scale.

I don’t doubt it, and I think it many cases it woulnt be sensible anyway. But I can imagine it being an area, like many others, that could be viewed as an “easy win” when it’s more complicated than that.

 

[Krokodil]

Merging traincrew depots would come with a horrendous increase in training programmes and cost. I’d be amazed if it happened on any significant scale.

Merging depots in Plymouth would be useful. At the moment, GWR (HSS) drivers sign Voyagers for ECS moves on/off of Laira

 

[Harpo]

Merging depots in Plymouth would be useful. At the moment, GWR (HSS) drivers sign Voyagers for ECS moves on/off of Laira

Did that come with full main line speed handling? If not, that’s an immediate cost.

 

[Helvellyn]

Medium term efficiencies might come from co-location of depots and offices in the same buildings. This would depend on space and when lease terms expire, but I expect will be looked at.

I expect over time certain routes/traction to move between Business Units as well. It would be on a case by case basis but you could see TPE's West Coast operations (crews and 397s) move to the West Coast Business Unit, whilst the Newcastle/Edinburgh operations (crews and 802s) could move to the East Coast Business Unit. The routes getting the new Alstom trains could then move into Northern, and TPE South plus the EMR Liverpool-Sheffield could end up in one Business Unit with all the 185s.

Other efficiencies will be things like better buying power - uniform, catering, spares, etc. It'll take time but efficiency of scale will start to kick in.

 

[Krokodil]

Did that come with full main line speed handling? If not, that’s an immediate cost.

It would be nice if long term savings were considered as well as short term costs.

 

[irish_rail]

Did that come with full main line speed handling? If not, that’s an immediate cost.

Indeed, a day or two mainline handling practice. And then you have another driver who already does XCs routes in the south west from Penzance to Taunton, and you can probably then save one or two drivers spare coverage wise. It'd pay for itself within a year, probably less.
It would work incredibly well somewhere like Plymouth, less well somewhere else like Manchester perhaps.

 

[dk1]

Merging traincrew depots would come with a horrendous increase in training programmes and cost. I’d be amazed if it happened on any significant scale.

And if on differing conditions staff will be in no mood to agree any resemblance of harmonisation unless it comes with a whole big bag of carrots.

 

[Djgr]

Eliminating duplication of back office departments e.g. HR, Finance, Marketing

 

[Harpo]

It would be nice if long term savings were considered as well as short term costs.

Quite. It would be nice if professional railway managers were trusted to practice their trade but I can’t see DfT ceasing their micromanagement. As Hendy stated recently, the Government is drafting the future infrastructure and rolling stock strategies. Nanny knows best eh?

 

[High Dyke]

Eliminating duplication of back office departments e.g. HR, Finance, Marketing

That may bring some benefits. However, no doubt they'll have to introduce another level of management to introduce possible efficiencies.

 

[Krokodil]

It would work incredibly well somewhere like Plymouth, less well somewhere else like Manchester perhaps.

For Manchester/Liverpool/Preston and north from there, Avanti might absorb all XC staff, plus enough TPE staff to cover the rest of the WCML work. The remainder of TPE (the actual "Transpennine" bit) would become a premium brand of Northern, worked by a common pool of crews. Probably worth including the Liverpool-Norwich trains in this, swapping crews to EMR staff at a suitable location.

This all makes it easier to retain diversionary route knowledge and reduces ECS moves.

And if on differing conditions staff will be in no mood to agree any resemblance of harmonisation unless it comes with a whole big bag of carrots.

In the case of the Plymouth example, you'd probably just do what GWR did to HSS - close the former XC link to new entrants and recruit all new staff as "GWR driver".

But then how long has Northern gone with three sets of T&Cs?

Quite. It would be nice if professional railway managers were trusted to practice their trade but I can’t see DfT ceasing their micromanagement. As Hendy stated recently, the Government is drafting the future infrastructure and rolling stock strategies. Nanny knows best eh?

DfT micromanagement will simply become GBR micromanagement.

 

[dk1]

But then how long has Northern gone with three sets of T&Cs?

Same here at Greater Anglia. There have been three seperate drivers T&Cs for 22 years now. Two large scale attempts to harmonise have been overwhelmingly rejected.

 

[SynthD]

What does merging depots mean? Can it be two independent units, on their own union-set deals, not covering each other any more than they were before? The advantage is simply the backend, the one building and set of non-driving staff.

Trains are sometimes incompatible because there’s no known need for compatibility. What about GBR changes that, especially if each depot-unit is still only trained on its route and traction?

As I understand it from implications, the mk5 delay was in the DfT, which is the unchanging head in the sky of all this.

Quite. It would be nice if professional railway managers were trusted to practice their trade but I can’t see DfT ceasing their micromanagement. As Hendy stated recently, the Government is drafting the future infrastructure and rolling stock strategies. Nanny knows best eh?

If the brands are run by concessions, they don’t have the railway managers you’re talking about, many will have long moved to NR and DfT? They can do a better, coordinated job there, without losing their railway experience upon becoming civil servants.

 

[Magdalia]

Quite. It would be nice if professional railway managers were trusted to practice their trade but I can’t see DfT ceasing their micromanagement. As Hendy stated recently, the Government is drafting the future infrastructure and rolling stock strategies. Nanny knows best eh?

He who pays the piper calls the tune. The government is not Nanny, the government is the customer.

Given the state of the UK government finances, and the railway still costing significantly more for the taxpayer than before Covid, it is inevitable that the government will want to keep a tight control on railway finances. That includes ensuring that major investments, like infrastructure and rolling stock, align with government objectives. One of those will be to reduce the railway's cost to the taxpayer, because the government needs that money to spend on other things, like defence and debt interest.

The rolling stock strategy is going to be very important. I hope that it will lead to efficiencies, and that comes in two parts.

The first is the procurement, having economies of scale with large fleet orders. There is a hint of this in the new electric/battery bimode trains ordered this week, which looks to me like a pilot scheme for something that could have widespread use around the network. Having a production line, churning out lots of near identical electric/battery bimode trains, will hopefully lead to efficiencies. And the government is going to want that production line to be in a place that meets its wider objectives for economic growth too.

The second part comes when the use of lots of near identical electric/battery bimode trains becomes widespread. It then becomes much easier to be more responsive to changes in demand by reallocating existing resources, both trains and train crew, because nearly everyone will be using the same trains. A 21st century version of the days when nearly everything could be hauled by a class 47, and nearly everyone knew how to drive it.

 

[JonathanH]

Eliminating duplication of back office departments e.g. HR, Finance, Marketing

I always find is a bit ironic that people in those roles are seen as expendable, and perhaps even 'leeching' off the railway, whereas the mere hint of redundancies for frontline staff brings a threat of industrial action.