Government Changes Affecting Rail

[LNW-GW Joint]

The BBC is reporting that HS2 minister Andrew Stephenson has moved from the Dept of Transport to be Minister Without Portfolio, a cabinet post.
I thought he was doing a pretty good job, despite the axing of the Eastern leg and the Golborne link.

 

[zwk500]

It will be all change again when the new PM is known, basically anything done by Whitehall is paused until then. Most of the rest of the work already underway will continue as is, there may be a few new things started but don't expect too much movement until September.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Won't materially make any difference but Andrew Stephenson moved to Minister without portfolio with position at cabinet so im guessing he will relinquish his DfT duties (HS2; Northern Powerhouse Rail; Transpennine route upgrade ) although DfT site has no updates but guess with the level of vacancies across govt it will take a while to backfill and probably won't bother given summer recess and a new PM due.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ministerial-appointments-july-2022

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps is to bid for the PM role.

Boris Johnson resignation: Zahawi and Shapps enter Tory leadership race

The chancellor and transport secretary both launch bids to replace Boris Johnson as prime minister.

www.bbc.co.uk

Mr Shapps told the Sunday Times he was ruling out a general election if he was successful in his bid to become prime minister.

Mr Shapps said he would produce an emergency budget, instruct his chancellor to cut personal tax for the poorest people and give state support to businesses with high levels of energy consumption.

He was one of the senior cabinet ministers who did not resign amid a chaotic week in Westminster which led to Mr Johnson's resignation.
Appearing to criticise colleagues who did, he told the paper he had "not spent the last few turbulent years plotting or briefing against the prime minister" or organisation a leadership campaign in the background.
He told the paper: I tell you this: for all his flaws - and who is not flawed? - I like Boris Johnson. I have never, for a moment, doubted his love of this country."

I think it's unlikely he will win, despite being good, maybe too good, at PR (and he was once a Chair of the Tory party).
Undoubtedly he is popular with the Tory faithful.
But if he does win, it will change the setup at DfT.
I've no idea what he really wants from rail, despite his 3 years as Secretary of State.

 

[Ken H]

Will the new chancellor cut public spending. How could that affect public transport spending?
but the real question is if the new cabinet after new leader is elected will do spending cuts.
I think we are learning now that too much public borrowing is inflationary.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps is to bid for the PM role.

Boris Johnson resignation: Zahawi and Shapps enter Tory leadership race

The chancellor and transport secretary both launch bids to replace Boris Johnson as prime minister.

www.bbc.co.uk

I think it's unlikely he will win, despite being good, maybe too good, at PR (and he was once a Chair of the Tory party).
Undoubtedly he is popular with the Tory faithful.
But if he does win, it will change the setup at DfT.
I've no idea what he really wants from rail, despite his 3 years as Secretary of State.

To be fair, we have had The Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail, with eight 'promises' around things like fare simplification, performance, safety & security, growing the network, electrification, recovery of volumes after covid, and integration both within the industry and with other modes.

Now, one could quibble about whether it ought to have more promises and headlines around modal shift, freight, de-carbonisation and so on. And also a clearer funding pathway to actually deliver the promises. But as a list of what he really wants I think that it's a bit better than most previous SoSs have managed. It is arguably the clearest since Barbara Castle's 'Network for Development' document of 1967, envisaging 2,400 miles of further closures (1,300 of passenger withdrawals) leading to a passenger network further shrunk beyond the Beeching Reshaping Report proposals to around 8,000+ miles.

 

[TrainGeekUK]

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps is to bid for the PM role.

Boris Johnson resignation: Zahawi and Shapps enter Tory leadership race

The chancellor and transport secretary both launch bids to replace Boris Johnson as prime minister.

www.bbc.co.uk

I think it's unlikely he will win, despite being good, maybe too good, at PR (and he was once a Chair of the Tory party).
Undoubtedly he is popular with the Tory faithful.
But if he does win, it will change the setup at DfT.
I've no idea what he really wants from rail, despite his 3 years as Secretary of State.

After Failing Grayling wrecked the transport department, anyone is an improvement!

 

[yorksrob]

To be fair, we have had The Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail, with eight 'promises' around things like fare simplification, performance, safety & security, growing the network, electrification, recovery of volumes after covid, and integration both within the industry and with other modes.

Now, one could quibble about whether it ought to have more promises and headlines around modal shift, freight, de-carbonisation and so on. And also a clearer funding pathway to actually deliver the promises. But as a list of what he really wants I think that it's a bit better than most previous SoSs have managed. It is arguably the clearest since Barbara Castle's 'Network for Development' document of 1967, envisaging 2,400 miles of further closures (1,300 of passenger withdrawals) leading to a passenger network further shrunk beyond the Beeching Reshaping Report proposals to around 8,000+ miles.

Or Earnest Marples, while we're at it.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

After Failing Grayling wrecked the transport department, anyone is an improvement!

He was an improvement over Grayling but he clearly wants to trash the historic workforce terms of employment that have served the industry well over the last century. He won't win nor even get past first round nor will he be SoS for Transport by Autumn. Unfortunately his name will stick on the plan but I believe we will even find that will be reworked and renamed by his successor.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Or Earnest Marples, while we're at it.

Seeing as we are talking about government/politicians (rather than 'internal' BR plans or anything from ATOC or the SRA since privatisation) can you point me to any Ernest Marples' published/authored plans, please?

 

[yorksrob]

Seeing as we are talking about government/politicians (rather than 'internal' BR plans or anything from ATOC or the SRA since privatisation) can you point me to any Ernest Marples' published/authored plans, please?

He didn't have to. He commissioned Beeching to produce them.

 

[Dr Hoo]

He didn't have to. He commissioned Beeching to produce them.

So, taking that premise, the Secretary of State doesn't need to have a plan. (S)he can appoint a strong Chair to Great British Railways (or whatever emerges) and leave them to produce the plan.

Nobody should underestimate the similarities with 1962/3, in parliamentary mid-term, with total re-construction of the British Transport Commission into various parts - BR, London Transport, Docks, Canals - unexpected change of PM from Macmillan to Douglas-Home, Britain in a poor economic position compared to other parts of the world, declining influence, etc.

Interesting times.

 

[Wolfie]

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps is to bid for the PM role.

Boris Johnson resignation: Zahawi and Shapps enter Tory leadership race

The chancellor and transport secretary both launch bids to replace Boris Johnson as prime minister.

www.bbc.co.uk

I think it's unlikely he will win, despite being good, maybe too good, at PR (and he was once a Chair of the Tory party).
Undoubtedly he is popular with the Tory faithful.
But if he does win, it will change the setup at DfT.
I've no idea what he really wants from rail, despite his 3 years as Secretary of State.

You rather assume that if he doesn't win he will stay in post. Far from a given.

 

[yorksrob]

So, taking that premise, the Secretary of State doesn't need to have a plan. (S)he can appoint a strong Chair to Great British Railways (or whatever emerges) and leave them to produce the plan.

Nobody should underestimate the similarities with 1962/3, in parliamentary mid-term, with total re-construction of the British Transport Commission into various parts - BR, London Transport, Docks, Canals - unexpected change of PM from Macmillan to Douglas-Home, Britain in a poor economic position compared to other parts of the world, declining influence, etc.

Interesting times.

Yes, for GBR, Read the Stedeford committee.

This is railway management 101 (as the saying goes).

 

[Wolfie]

He was an improvement over Grayling but he clearly wants to trash the historic workforce terms of employment that have served the industry well over the last century. He won't win nor even get past first round nor will he be SoS for Transport by Autumn. Unfortunately his name will stick on the plan but I believe we will even find that will be reworked and renamed by his successor.

If you really believe that any new SofS will allow railway T&Cs to remain untouched while the taxpayer massively subsidises the system you will likely be sadly disappointed. In the last century there were still steam engines lol....

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

If you really believe that any new SofS will allow railway T&Cs to remain untouched while the taxpayer massively subsidises the system you will likely be sadly disappointed.

No but theres a way of approaching change and when they left BR to manage it they halved the workforce from the 1960's through negotiation with union reps without government interference.

 

[Wolfie]

No but theres a way of approaching change and when they left BR to manage it they halved the workforce from the 1960's through negotiation with union reps without government interference.

The days when the railway ran itself and just put a hand out to HMG for more money are gone and will never be back. I want to see the money given to the railway seriously cut not increased further.

 

[class ep-09]

The days when the railway ran itself and just put a hand out to HMG for more money are gone and will never be back. I want to see the money given to the railway seriously cut not increased further.

Dream on .

That would mean line closures , less rolling stock , less trains .

And the railways will need subsidies even then .

If anything , more passengers will bring more money so subsidies are lower.

 

[ComUtoR]

I want to see the money given to the railway seriously cut not increased further.

Why ? Cutting is bad. Always has been, always will be. It's a stupid way to run anything. It's shortsighted to the point of being blinded.

Looking at ways to reduce waste, increase effiency, streamline workflows, future proofing, etc., are all far more sensible.

My TOCs establishment levels rise and fall year on year and have achieved absolutely nothing. We cut one year then spend another. It's a vicious cycle of pointless bureaucracy.

I have no real wish to simply release the budget flood gates and would much prefer to see more intelligent spending and forward planning.

Cutting is just stupid. What the railway has always needed is investment. We can't get more advanced rolling stock for the modern era without spending the money. We can't have increased capacity from new signalling upgrades without spending the money. Invest in the future of the railway or sit back and bathe in the antiquated, luddite, glacial, not fit for purpose, Victorian, railway.

 

[Mikw]

Why ? Cutting is bad. Always has been, always will be. It's a stupid way to run anything. It's shortsighted to the point of being blinded.

Looking at ways to reduce waste, increase effiency, streamline workflows, future proofing, etc., are all far more sensible.

My TOCs establishment levels rise and fall year on year and have achieved absolutely nothing. We cut one year then spend another. It's a vicious cycle of pointless bureaucracy.

I have no real wish to simply release the budget flood gates and would much prefer to see more intelligent spending and forward planning.

Cutting is just stupid. What the railway has always needed is investment. We can't get more advanced rolling stock for the modern era without spending the money. We can't have increased capacity from new signalling upgrades without spending the money. Invest in the future of the railway or sit back and bathe in the antiquated, luddite, glacial, not fit for purpose, Victorian, railway.

Totally agree. History shows us that cuts today equals a costly mess later on. So you're quite right.

 

[yorksrob]

I would like to see the railway become more efficient with the money it gets.

Cuts are an admission that the railway isn't spending enough of the money it does receive on moving passengers and goods around.

 

[billio]

I would like to see the railway become more efficient with the money it gets.

Cuts are an admission that the railway isn't spending enough of the money it does receive on moving passengers and goods around.

Is there an audit of the railway's finances? If so, how detailed is it? Does this identify where revenue and grants could be used more efficiently? Or, are opinions on efficient railway practices formed on a piecemeal and allegorical selection of targets which match either political and commercial prejudices. I realise many useful figures might be hidden away by commercial confidentiality but the government ran a profitable franchise for several years. As a result, government should know the financial ins and outs of running a railway company.

 

[Dr Day]

Efficiencies may unfortunately still mean some cuts in some areas - there are no doubt exceptions but most low hanging fruit has already been picked.

Focus the finite subsidy and capital investment where it generates the best value for money (in overall socio-economic terms, which includes environmental impacts)

 

[yorksrob]

I've banged on about this before, but the difference between the cost of leasing and alternatively, buying trains, should be calculated and removed from the railway finance figures. Instead, it should be allocated within the government accounts as "subsidy to the finance industry", which is what it is.

 

[Ken H]

I've banged on about this before, but the difference between the cost of leasing and alternatively, buying trains, should be calculated and removed from the railway finance figures. Instead, it should be allocated within the government accounts as "subsidy to the finance industry", which is what it is.

You would have to calculate the cost of managing the trains, financing modifications etc.

 

[endicomark69@g]

The days when the railway ran itself and just put a hand out to HMG for more money are gone and will never be back. I want to see the money given to the railway seriously cut not increased.

Because of course, taking money out of a largely publicly beneficial service that acts as a multiplier for any investment made, and giving it back to Central Govt - especially THIS Government - is a guarantee it will be well used to much greater National benefit elsewhere.

Oh, wait a minute............

 

[yorksrob]

Efficiencies may unfortunately still mean some cuts in some areas - there are no doubt exceptions but most low hanging fruit has already been picked.

Focus the finite subsidy and capital investment where it generates the best value for money (in overall socio-economic terms, which includes environmental impacts)

The most noticeable inefficiency at the moment seems to be the plethora of different companies running the railway in the first place, all with their overheads and administration and 3%. Does this add value to the passenger over having either one or at least fewer companies ?

Does whatever benefit this supposedly brings, outweigh the loss of services in cuts ? It's notable that GBR will leave all of this in place, so the government clearly isn't that concerned about waste.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jul 2022 ==

You would have to calculate the cost of managing the trains, financing modifications etc.

You would do, but it would still likely come out as choosing more to lease.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The most noticeable inefficiency at the moment seems to be the plethora of different companies running the railway in the first place, all with their overheads and administration and 3%. Does this add value to the passenger over having either one or at least fewer companies ?

Does whatever benefit this supposedly brings, outweigh the loss of services in cuts ? It's notable that GBR will leave all of this in place, so the government clearly isn't that concerned about waste.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jul 2022 ==



You would do, but it would still likely come out as choosing more to lease.

That’s a big assumption about the ROSCO’s. The financing of both the stock, the overhauls (if done by the ROSCO), any modifications and how you hold the asset value in your books come into play here and people sometimes think the Treasury rate is less than the rate the private sector can get. It isn’t always and it was a major bugbear of the nationalised industries that it was at times cheaper to borrow “outside” but they weren’t allowed to and had to pay the Treasury rate. Just because you are a nationalised industry your financing doesn’t come free, unfortunately!

There are 5 NR regions that effectively cover the 14 DfT TOCs and combining TOCs into a GBR regional structure wouldn’t give you proportionate savings as some of those regions would be too big to manage the TOCs as one so you would need some kind of divisional structure to cope with it. HQ activities in TOCs vary between 5% and 7.5% in most TOCs that I am familiar with but can include such things as building maintenance so it isn’t all paperwork. You don’t save all those percentages by combining TOCs - one person can’t always do the work of two.

Irrespective of whether TOCs get absorbed into GBR or not, the potential for industry savings lies in cutting out activities that need transactions between two parties. These are primarily the growth areas in non operational staffing since 1994 since the TOCs have been fairly ruthless in cutting out or merging internal HQ activities. The best example I know of such growth is train planning - do all the LTP and STP work at a GBR regional level, the TOC potentially retaining just diagramming and that is dozens of TOC staff you can save. Retail is another TOC growth area I would happily cull, if GBR are setting the offer and taking over station retail activities.

 

[HSTEd]

Whilst it is true that a comprehensive modernisation would require dramatic increases in capital investment in the short and medium term, it is also likely to lead to massive reductions in staff throughout

I am skeptical the unions would tolerate that. So it unlikely such modernisation could be driven through in the short and medium term, and the railway is on borrowed time if EVs really do appear, and especially if automation of cars actually becomes widespread.

 

[Gostav]

Whilst it is true that a comprehensive modernisation would require dramatic increases in capital investment in the short and medium term, it is also likely to lead to massive reductions in staff throughout

I am skeptical the unions would tolerate that. So it unlikely such modernisation could be driven through in the short and medium term, and the railway is on borrowed time if EVs really do appear, and especially if automation of cars actually becomes widespread.

If the economy deteriorates further or if a new cold war starts in full swing, l doubt that everyone will be able to afford an EV and people use of public transport will greatly save social resources.

I think the biggest problem is that the frequent changes of governments and leaders make it difficult to implement any project that requires long-term investment. In this country where votes and politics overpower the non-political sphere.