What efficiencies could GBR bring?

[3RDGEN]

The scale didn't change between Railtrack and Network Rail, there was still only one national organisation in both cases, so I'm not sure why you would think economies of scale would be relevant to that?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2026 ==



This isn't quite true. If you have private operation there's a profit layer. It isn't huge but it is there.

To use a non rail example, Decathlon is a profit making business but designs and manufactures/contracts the manufacture of all its products directly rather than buying from established vendors. This allows them to keep costs lower as there are fewer profit levels.

The work was contracted out to various companies like franchising the train operations and that came back in house so NR should of reduced it's overheads, duplicate staffing etc, just as expected of GBR.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There are 14 DfT TOCs (ignoring concessions and TfL/Scotrail/TfL), and 5 Network Rail Regions (which include 14 Routes).
Apart from the alignment of c2c and Greater Anglia, DfT has yet to announce how it will merge the TOCs and NR into permanent businesses - the notion so far has been that the 5 NR Regions are to be the basis for this.
Then the English Mayors have to be given some powers over the railway in their their local areas.

GBR efficiencies won't be realised until the new structure is set up, and the Regional relationship with the GBR centre is defined (ie which functions are centralised and which devolved).
Then the money has to be carved up, with the NR control periods being the key driver (ie starting in 2029 when the current CP7 ends).
I don't much relish the move to re-establish the 1970s BR Regions, but that seems to be the way we are heading, rather than the business sectors as in the pre-privatisation period.

I passed through York by car this week, and was intrigued to see an "LNER" totem added to the bottom of the "Welcome to York" roadside signs on the outskirts.
Can we expect the sign to be changed to "GBR - East Coast", or just removed?
Why aren't the other TOCs serving York represented?
Are there any other places where a TOC is promoted on the town/city's road furniture?
Presumably Derby will be promoting the "home of GBR" vibe.

 

[JonathanH]

Indeed. Though, I thought it was a missed opportunity with GBR to not nationalise or possibly start competing with the ROSCOs, as the operators' profits are only a few %, whereas the ROSCO profits keep increasing and the money is just going out in dividends, often offshore. The lease costs are around 15% of all franchise operator expenditure. Obviously you don't get to keep all of that revenue, but it's significant. Realistically I think GBR has come about from populism, rather than an actual desire to save passengers money.

Today's conference speech by the Transport Secretary seems to be a start on the government formally indicating it could take train ownership back into public hands, at least for new fleets being introduced.

The soundbite appears to be that the train companies are paying £4bn a year to the ROSCOs and that that is money which is being wasted supporting private profit.

This sounds like a populist move, but there does seem to be a sense that private profit has no place in terms of a railway that serves the public.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/heidi-alexander-british-rail-nationalisation-37711442.amp

“For nearly three decades, most passenger trains haven’t been owned by the train operators themselves but by rolling stock companies,” she said. “They bought the trains, then leased them back to the operators. The train operators saved money upfront but it also brought long term significant cost.”

She added that operators handed over £4billion to RoSCos in 2024 alone, about a third of the cost running rail services. “As we set up Great British Railways, we will explore whether the state can directly own the new trains on order,” she added.

Dave Calfe, general secretary of Aslef, the train drivers’ union, said: "She was crystal clear that public ownership is now a real option for new rolling stock. This is a big step forward for our railway. Because, at the moment, the train operators lease their trains at huge expense from foreign-owned rolling stock companies.

 

[Sorcerer]

Today's conference speech by the Transport Secretary seems to be a start on the government formally indicating it could take train ownership back into public hands, at least for new fleets being introduced.

I think "it could" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here given that the new TPE fleet order will be financed and procured by Rock Rail despite there already being a precedent to just buy trains outright like Liverpool City Region did with the 777s. To me it feels like the same kind of gimmicking as the whole "enough is enough" rhetoric behind Avanti's nationalisation; it was going to happen anyway, but Labour wanted to make it look like they were taking action against a poorly performing operator. Near-empty words fuelled by mere surface level-action.

 

[JonathanH]

I think "it could" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here given that the new TPE fleet order will be financed and procured by Rock Rail despite there already being a precedent to just buy trains outright like Liverpool City Region did with the 777s. To me it feels like the same kind of gimmicking as the whole "enough is enough" rhetoric behind Avanti's nationalisation; it was going to happen anyway, but Labour wanted to make it look like they were taking action against a poorly performing operator. Near-empty words fuelled by mere surface level-action.

Well yes, but when they don't deliver on these seemingly populist policies, they are creating a source of criticism. It sounds good to the Unions who lap up the possibility, but what does the Transport Secretary do when the next deals are done the ROSCO way? Either it is acceptable to lease trains or it isn't.

 

[Sorcerer]

Well yes, but when they don't deliver on these seemingly populist policies, they are creating a source of criticism. It sounds good to the Unions who lap up the possibility, but what does the Transport Secretary do when the next deals are done the ROSCO way? Either it is acceptable to lease trains or it isn't.

Most of the passengers using the railway probably couldn't tell you who owns what trains and probably haven't heard of the ROSCOs despite being a major part of the ticket pricing. Unless people are generally made aware of just how much the ROSCOs affect them it probably won't come back to bite Labour hard enough to push them into actually doing anything about it, especially given that ticket prices won't be immediately going down afterwards. It will be a source of criticism to those of us who are rail-savvy on the forums, but to the average public not so much. Many are still convinced high prices are because of dividends to private shareholders despite most passenger services now being state-owned.

 

[Class 317]

Merging the physical buildings used for train crew depots and other staff. Multiple in certain locations with associated costs.

Taking on all new staff on GBR contracts to harmonise T&C's. More of a mid term savings.

Sharing control centres to reduce duplication of facilities and associated costs. Also the ability to cover work from other control centres for extra resilience should be possible.

Maintenance access being arranged on a more collaborative basis allowing reduced costs through extra daytime or longer access periods.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 20:14 ==

Rolling stock savings could be possible by using rolling stock in marginal time to avoid having to deploy extra stock. Examples from the BR past include the Kings X Inverness service which was also a peak time crowd buster in the HML saving a loco hauled rake.

 

[eldomtom2]

Most of the passengers using the railway probably couldn't tell you who owns what trains and probably haven't heard of the ROSCOs despite being a major part of the ticket pricing. Unless people are generally made aware of just how much the ROSCOs affect them it probably won't come back to bite Labour hard enough to push them into actually doing anything about it, especially given that ticket prices won't be immediately going down afterwards. It will be a source of criticism to those of us who are rail-savvy on the forums, but to the average public not so much. Many are still convinced high prices are because of dividends to private shareholders despite most passenger services now being state-owned.

I invariably see complaints about the continued existence of the ROSCOs on any social media post about GBR...

 

[Snow1964]

Here is the link to GBR rolling stock strategy published 28 September

Just quoting index as long document

Executive summary: GBR’s opportunity for positive change

1. The need for an integrated strategy
1.1 The railway GBR inherits
1.2 The forces shaping the next forty years
1.3 What GBR makes possible

2. GBR’s train fleet
2.1 GBR’s train design approach
2.2 Innovation in train procurement through ‘fleet families’
2.3 Standardisation of GBR train fleets
2.4 Managing GBR’s train fleet assets for the long term

3. Integrating GBR’s train fleet and infrastructure
3.1 GBR’s traction choices
3.2 Expanding GBR’s electrified railway network
3.3 Securing GBR’s electrical power supplies
3.4 GBR’s digital signalling transformation
3.5 Integrating train and infrastructure asset management

4. GBR’s depot and maintenance plans
4.1 The need for an integrated GBR maintenance approach
4.2 The need for a new approach to train fleet maintenance
4.3 The need for a coordinated approach to parts, materials and logistics

5. Funding GBR’s trains and infrastructure
5.1 GBR making better decisions through integration
5.2 Funding and prioritising GBR’s investments
5.3 Ownership and leasing of train fleets
5.4 Procuring new trains for GBR

6. Building GBR’s pipeline
6.1 The Fleet & Infrastructure Plan (FIP)
6.2 How GBR’s FIP will be produced

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6aba4b47997a4b2950ccefc0/gbr-rolling-stock-infrastructure-strategy.pdf

 

[Bletchleyite]

Here is the link to GBR rolling stock strategy published 28 September

Just quoting index as long document

It's fairly woolly but I can't really see anything ground breaking or unduly controversial in there.

 

[JonathanH]

It's fairly woolly but I can't really see anything ground breaking or unduly controversial in there.

Certainly nothing substantial about timing of new fleets that I noticed other than to say a lot of rolling stock is nearing end of life and diesel stock will be primarily replaced by battery units. Any implementation of battery units will need to be backed up with associated infrastructure. Cascades may concentrate older stock of the same type in one place.

It is all going to take a long time to work its way through the system.

 

[Harpo]

I can't really see anything ground breaking or unduly controversial in there.

Except the suggestion of possible rolling stock ownership. I’ll be the Treasury hasn’t been involved in that ‘strategy’.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 22:35 ==

Cascades may concentrate older stock of the same type in one place.

Especially if ETCS without a lights-on-sticks overlay progressed beyond a few small pockets of territory. But back to reality……

 

[Bletchleyite]

Back to efficiencies, one thing I think will be abolished is the Chiltern East West Rail depot at Bletchley, without a member of staff there ever having operated an East West Rail train in service. There is no point having two different GBR staff depots at the same location. It might as well be folded into the existing Bletchley crew depot (and avoid putting a building on the short stay car park as was I think the intention).

 

[Farnborough]

Today's conference speech by the Transport Secretary seems to be a start on the government formally indicating it could take train ownership back into public hands, at least for new fleets being introduced.

Let's see where the Capital budget comes from...

Many years ago, it was announced that the RAF would procure 148 F35s... so far 48 have been ordered (and delivered, showing how long since the last orders were placed)

How long would it have taken GBR to order 90 Class 701s, or the 710s etc - they may not use the three ROSCOs, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will be financed.

 

[Sorcerer]

Back to efficiencies, one thing I think will be abolished is the Chiltern East West Rail depot at Bletchley, without a member of staff there ever having operated an East West Rail train in service. There is no point having two different GBR staff depots at the same location. It might as well be folded into the existing Bletchley crew depot (and avoid putting a building on the short stay car park as was I think the intention).

On the subject of merging depots, I am lead to wonder how they will approach areas with multiple. For example, Liverpool has both Allerton and Edge Hill. Personally I'm thinking because of the variety of routes coming out of Liverpool these two can be split with their own distinctive diagrams and link structures.

Allerton drivers can take on current Northern routes with top link drivers also signing the TransPennine diagrams covering the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds/Hull axis; meanwhile Edge Hill drivers can sign the Avanti and London Northwestern routes down the WCML. Internal transfers can be permitted before new recruitment.

Manchester Piccadilly could similarly merge diagrams for one InterCity depot link since there is a lot of route knowledge overlapping - CrossCountry drivers at Manchester sign to Reading via Birmingham while Avanti sign to London via Trent Valley and West Midlands.

 

[Krokodil]

Manchester Piccadilly could similarly merge diagrams for one InterCity depot link since there is a lot of route knowledge overlapping - CrossCountry drivers at Manchester sign to Reading via Birmingham while Avanti sign to London via Trent Valley and West Midlands.

It's worth merging the 397-worked services in too, there's little overlap with other TPE work, but lots of overlap with Avanti.

 

[Sorcerer]

I invariably see complaints about the continued existence of the ROSCOs on any social media post about GBR...

As have I but only really from a few select comments and on pages dedicated to railways which means people will be more privy to the knowledge than most passengers. It's one of those policies that has to be done but isn't a vote winner because the passenger's rightful priority is whether they just get a service.

It's worth merging the 397-worked services in too, there's little overlap with other TPE work, but lots of overlap with Avanti.

I did think about that as well but I thought it might've made the depot too large and figured a separate depot at somewhere like Manchester Airport could've taken that. In retrospect though it probably wouldn't be that much bigger than Avanti's Preston depot, and route knowledge could always be split even if it does. TPE is just one of those operators that complicates the idea really. Interestingly though I did also consider the Liverpool Edge Hill depot taking on some North Wales work to Llandudno but that would fall under Transport for Wales so doesn't apply here.

 

[eldomtom2]

As have I but only really from a few select comments and on pages dedicated to railways which means people will be more privy to the knowledge than most passengers.

I see them on regular UK-focussed pages, not railway-focussed at all!

 

[Harpo]

Manchester Piccadilly could similarly merge diagrams for one InterCity depot link since there is a lot of route knowledge overlapping - CrossCountry drivers at Manchester sign to Reading via Birmingham while Avanti sign to London via Trent Valley and West Midlands.

Which means an absolutely massive training programme:

All ex-Avanti x weeks learning 220/221
All ex-Avanti x weeks learning Bhm to Reading & Cov to Leamington
All ex-XC x weeks learning 390
All ex-XC x weeks learning Cov to Euston (& Soho-Stechford plus??)
All ex-XC x weeks learning Stoke/Staff - TV - Rugby

And then find ways of everybody doing each others work with their own T&Cs and retaining all that route knowledge.

And all to what end and at how much cost to the treasury?

 

[physics34]

Certainly nothing substantial about timing of new fleets that I noticed other than to say a lot of rolling stock is nearing end of life and diesel stock will be primarily replaced by battery units. Any implementation of battery units will need to be backed up with associated infrastructure. Cascades may concentrate older stock of the same type in one place.

It is all going to take a long time to work its way through the system.

Yes, slightly disappointed its not more in depth about specific train types with estimated withdrawl or refurbishment dates etc. Also nothing clear about branding/interior schemes.
Intetesting was the mention of 4 train families "Intercity, Regional Express, Commuter and Metro".. an acknowledgement of sub-sectors maybe??
Battery seems to be what they are pushing for. It still feels like techology in its infancy really, maybe we should wait a generation until it is fully efficient, or build a load of diesels that can be retrofitted.
Put the wires up for gods sake.. at least on all mainlines.

Standardisation also a plus, the ability to move trains around the country at a whim that would need minimal training for stuff and maintainence requirements.

 

[Snow1964]

Yes, slightly disappointed its not more in depth about specific train types with estimated withdrawl or refurbishment dates etc. Also nothing clear about branding/interior schemes.
Intetesting was the mention of 4 train families "Intercity, Regional Express, Commuter and Metro".. an acknowledgement of sub-sectors maybe??
Battery seems to be what they are pushing for. It still feels like techology in its infancy really, maybe we should wait a generation until it is fully efficient, or build a load of diesels that can be retrofitted.
Put the wires up for gods sake.. at least on all mainlines.

Yes 4 types of standardised trains, (note the comment on metro that some also being used for seasonal holiday lines), and one in intercity about competing with domestic aviation, just what we need in South West to get to north and Scotland

Fleet families will be configured through variations in interior layout, capacity, performance and onboard facilities and need not require a wholly distinct train type where a platform can meet multiple requirements. By establishing a clearer and more consistent basis for train specification, they will support a better and more predictable passenger experience while enabling greater standardisation, stronger competition, economies of scale and lower whole-life costs. Such profiles will also make it easier for GBR to align demand, procurement strategy, the passenger proposition, and future asset management.

Intercity
GBR’s intercity fleets will operate high-speed, long-distance services between major cities. They will prioritise comfort, high-quality seating, tables, luggage space, cycle storage, family spaces and appropriate catering, creating an attractive alternative to the private car and domestic aviation. The overall proposition will be one of reliable, comfortable and productive long-distance travel.

Regional Express
GBR’s regional express fleets will operate medium to long-distance services on routes with a range of line speeds, connecting cities, towns and rural communities. They will prioritise seating capacity and passenger comfort while providing appropriate luggage and cycle space. Some standing capacity may be appropriate on specific routes, but the overall design emphasis will remain on seated travel.

Commuter
GBR’s commuter fleets will serve suburban and outer-suburban passenger flows into and around major cities. They will balance seating and standing accommodation, with layouts designed to support high passenger volumes, efficient boarding and alighting and changing demand through the day, including appropriate cycle provision.

Metro
GBR’s metro trains will operate high-frequency, high-density urban services where rapid boarding, alighting and passenger circulation are the primary requirements. They will place greater emphasis on standing space and passenger flow, with facilities proportionate to shorter journeys. A subset of the Metro family could address the particular needs of more remote rural
and coastal services, including seasonal tourism demand and greater provision for luggage and cycles.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6aba4b47997a4b2950ccefc0/gbr-rolling-stock-infrastructure-strategy.pdf

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes 4 types of standardised trains, (note the comment on metro that some also being used for seasonal holiday lines)

While it's out of scope of GBR it certainly makes sense to have standee type layouts on trains on routes like the Cambrian Coast to be able to cram the extra people on in summer. I guess GBR's big one is Skegness?

 

[SynthD]

Sharing control centres to reduce duplication of facilities and associated costs. Also the ability to cover work from other control centres for extra resilience should be possible.

How many control centre staff do TOCs have?

Maintenance access being arranged on a more collaborative basis allowing reduced costs through extra daytime or longer access periods.

I don't understand. What’s not collaborative about the current process?

Rolling stock savings could be possible by using rolling stock in marginal time to avoid having to deploy extra stock

Is that like Wolverhampton to Birmingham as a metro service, then the train goes fast to Coventry and Euston?

Back to efficiencies, one thing I think will be abolished is the Chiltern East West Rail depot at Bletchley, without a member of staff there ever having operated an East West Rail train in service. There is no point having two different GBR staff depots at the same location. It might as well be folded into the existing Bletchley crew depot (and avoid putting a building on the short stay car park as was I think the intention).

Assuming the numbers of drivers stays the same, what change do you expect to see in abolishing a depot? It'll be one two-room depot, each with their own manager, kitchen, cleaner.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Surely you would need less managers and directors?

 

[Harpo]

slightly disappointed its not more in depth about specific train types with estimated withdrawl or refurbishment datess

The Roscos would love DfT to set out class by class plans! But it would be dumb negotiating, even by DfT standards, to lay it all out.

 

[JonathanH]

While it's out of scope of GBR it certainly makes sense to have standee type layouts on trains on routes like the Cambrian Coast to be able to cram the extra people on in summer. I guess GBR's big one is Skegness?

I've often thought it a shame that we don't see class 700s (or similar) being dragged by locomotives to Skegness and other seaside resorts to incresse capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've often thought it a shame that we don't see class 700s (or similar) being dragged by locomotives to Skegness and other seaside resorts to incresse capacity.

I don't so much mean that (which is made harder by compatibility issues) but more that you can design layouts to work well for both seated travel when quieter and standees when heaving. Northern's 195s are surprisingly good at that despite having a narrow body and wide 2+2 seating with armrests - the main feature that helps is door standbacks, which are also useful for luggage. You could also look at layouts more like the London Underground S8 with some comfortable, well spaced transverse seating, some sideways and enhanced standing space.

What should absolutely go away is 3+2 seating though. It doesn't do any of the briefs very well.

 

[quantinghome]

Battery seems to be what they are pushing for. It still feels like techology in its infancy really, maybe we should wait a generation until it is fully efficient, or build a load of diesels that can be retrofitted.
Put the wires up for gods sake.. at least on all mainlines.

I disagree. BEMUs have been in regular service in Japan since 2014 and the UK has a significant numbers of BEMU trains in service or on order. Clearly the industry is confident that they work. And why wouldn't they? They are much simpler than a diesel/electric hybrid. The latest order (Transpennine) has trains with a 90 mile battery range. That's a game-changer for the economics of electrification.

Obviously there are still some places which will need full electrification. As the report states:

Full overhead electrification will nevertheless remain the preferred solution where route-level analysis demonstrates that freight train operators’ needs, sustained high speed operation or wide network integration make this necessary.

Beyond that, intermittent electrification will be needed over about a quarter of the network to recharge batteries on-the-fly.

I don't see the problem with this to be quite honest. Take the Settle-Carlisle: full electrification would be a significant challenge for all sorts of reasons. But electrifying (say) the 20 miles north from Kirkby Stephen to allow BEMU operation over the whole route? That would be quite simple. Why make life difficult for ourselves? The UK rail network with its tight structural loading gauge poses a number of significant engineering challenges for electrification and as an engineer I would argue we should avoid that if there is a viable low-carbon alternative.

For many years we have quite rightly criticised the government for its stop-start approach to electrification and I completely buy in to the argument for a rolling programme to bring overall cost of electrification down. And the implications of the rolling stock and infrastructure report would still mean lots more electrification. But continuing to insist on fully electrifying of most of the network when battery technology has tipped the economics towards intermittent wiring feels like more like a reflex desire to stick to our guns than a properly considered response.

 

[YamYamDave]

Back to efficiencies, one thing I think will be abolished is the Chiltern East West Rail depot at Bletchley, without a member of staff there ever having operated an East West Rail train in service. There is no point having two different GBR staff depots at the same location. It might as well be folded into the existing Bletchley crew depot (and avoid putting a building on the short stay car park as was I think the intention).

New EWR depot planned to be built north of Newton Longville.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think they will go slowly on purchasing trains, and it is to be an option rather than the default method.
TfW decided to lease their new fleets, despite having powers to purchase them. TPE's new BEMUs are being leased.
Liverpool City Region claims it owns the 777 fleet, but Stadler does the maintenance and LCR must have deals with banks to finance them up front.

The leasing market is now much broader than it was when the 3 initial ROSCOs carved up the BR fleet (and the Treasury pocketed £4 billion from the sale).
There are more players in the market (Wiki counts 11), plus manufacturers getting involved in leasing and maintenance.
GBR has to be careful not to exclude itself from the global market for new technology and risk ownership.
ROSCOs are not necessarily a money-printing operation, and any fleet sitting idle is money down the drain.

All these announcements are shaping GBR's mode of operation, but there is as yet no "guiding mind" (unless you count Peter Hendy) representing the organisation which will deliver the strategy.