That's a lot of pronouncements, it would be interesting to see your reasoning behind them.
The railways have never been a monolithic organisation. Although there are some economies of scale, there are also diseconomies where things get just too big to manage as one. Whether it's regions or sectors or some other division, things will end up being split.
The monolithic railway would of course be able to have some sort of internal management structure, I don’t expect it to all be run by one person, but the point is this structure would exist internally within the railway, not outside.
The government is never going to allow autonomy where they're paying the bills. If the railway is a public service, then it should be responding to the requirements of the public's elected representatives.
If the railway is a public service, which it is (and a public service is all it is, it certainly isn’t a business) then shouldn’t it actually be responding to the requirements of the public, ~65 million people, not just their 650 elected representatives? In short is this called the depoliticisation of the railway I wonder?
It should be able to respond dynamically without requiring any outside approval. If increasing usage demands additional rolling stock or infrastructure improvements to create capacity, the railway should simply be able to bill the government for them, without any argument that “there’s no money” when it is simply impossible for this to be the case.
Ending the TOC contracts is relatively easy, you simply allow them to expire and have your new organisation take them over. But how would you do the OAOs? Or the freight? What do you do with Eurostar?
Open access and freight operators would either have to be compulsory purchased, or be stripped of their operating licenses with their services absorbed by the single operator. With the Eurostar being an international train, this is the only instance in which open access would be permissible, albeit only on HS1, but should be a joint service of what I will refer to as BR and the SNCF for Paris services, as well as the SNCB and NS for Amsterdam services. If a direct service to Germany was introduced, DB would also be able to participate etc. Incidentally, HS1 should eventually be brought into public ownership, but I believe this the plan anyway.
Why must infrastructure be part of the same organisation?
It is generally accepted that the separation of infrastructure as imposed under the European First Railway Package has been detrimental to the operation of the railway and Mick Lynch for example has stated that this was one of the main reasons he supported Brexit.
The correct structure is vertically integrated and this is non-negotiable as this is a far superior arrangement.
The infrastructure separation exists primarily to facilitate open access, which itself serves no purpose other than as a hinderance to the railway.
Why shouldn't intercity be operationally separate? It's almost certainly going to make most sense to dedicate staff to the differing requirements of long-distance trains that stop occasionally versus high-density commuter operations.
Several posts in this thread state that InterCity should not be operationally separate.
It is an inefficiency to have multiple separate pools of staff for different service groups. I would prefer all drivers and guards to be equally proficient in the operation of both long-distance and high-density commuter operations as this allows for maximum operational flexibility in the events of staff absence or disruption. It may make sense to have a small pool of freight only drivers, but it would also make sense to have a number of mixed traffic drivers.
Under sectorisation at BR, Regional Railway and NSE staff were banned from using the InterCity mess facilities, which is frankly ridiculous. In no way were they second best. Also, route learning for the Selby Diversion was done on a humble DMU, as opposed to deploying a full length HST set. A similar deviation to the ECML today would require the use of a full length Azuma since LNER do not sign the Northern DMUs or EMUs, which is surely a waste.
Northern and LNER should be merged immediately to free up resources at the OLR, since they interface at several locations in Yorkshire and the North East anyway.
You don't want government control, but you're happy for organisations under the auspices of local politicians to have control, how does that work?
It may be appropriate for the government to have an understanding of the railway’s actions, but never to interfere. Local politicians may be able to represent railway users’ interests on a local level, e.g. which lines people want reopening, requadrupling or an otherwise increased service, but they aren’t going to be running the thing.
How much extra is it going to cost to produce everything in house from scratch, rather than tendering in a competitive marketplace? We may only require a few dozen of a particular type of train. But for the manufacturer it's probably a variant of a train that they've made hundreds or thousands of. Components will be coming from specialist manufacturers, are we recreating that from scratch? If you're trying to avoid 'premature' obsolescence (when has that happened?), is this manufacturer going to have to support their kit forever?
It is going to cost less to produce everything in house. Obviously the intention isn’t for any kit to be used forever, since this specialist manufacturer will be part of the domestic railway, yes it is going to support it’s own equipment for however long it is in use. This would provide total security to railway assets.
There is actually an exact science to how often everything on the railway needs renewing, which is typically 30-40 years and therefore the amount of work which needs doing continuously under a rolling programme. Improvements creating additional infrastructure or rolling stock increase this workload, as does production for export (which is free money!) so it may be desirable to aim for total renewal within 20-25 years to allow for any delays which may arise. This would also offer an improved passenger experience.
Incidentally, the introduction of “competitive tendering” broke this exact science and led to the closure of Washwood Heath as well as all other historic railway workshops except Derby. The current railway doesn’t have access to a competitive marketplace either. I believe Siemens holds an effective monopoly on new signalling installations for example. See also the use of proprietary “Translohr” single rail-guided trolleybus systems in continental Europe and the threat of obsolescence this creates.
I would also like to see the whole heritage/preservation sector to become part of the main rail industry structure, with money provided to maintain examples of the railway’s past, you guessed it, forever, without relying on volunteers or donations.
Leasing is a perfectly sensible way of acquiring kit. If you're banning it then you're going to have to pay some fairly hefty upfront bills to buy stuff.
No it isn’t. Outlawing leasing drastically reduces whole life cost and also haemorrhaging of ROSCO “profits” never to be seen again by the industry. These upfront costs are effectively negligible since the railway retains the use of a revenue generating asset for several decades and has no liability to make any further payments, particularly in interest.
See leasing vs outright purchase of aircraft by airlines. Thomas Cook leased all its aircraft, had no assets and… collapsed!
