Great British Railways - Binned

[Jammy Dodger]

Whilst this is frustrating, infuriating, other more expletive words, etc, I'm not at all surprised Keep in mind though that this government has a reputation to uphold - irrational and illogical planning, and a complete lack of commitment to any form of decent improvement! Post-pandemic, GBR was never going to deliver any form of significant improvement, as the concept of a private company operating and maintaining services in return for a flat rate pay-out, with GBR looking after infrastructure (in the same way as NR do now) and uniform branding is exactly what we have now, minus the branding part!

In my own honest opinion, neither full or partial - in the form of franchising - privatisation or full public ownership will fix the mess our railways have been in for effectively 80 years. Look at many prosperous industries - automotive, airlines, technology or pharmaceutical to name 4 - what do they have in common? I'll do the hard thinking for you - COMPETITION! A competitive market allows for innovation and greater choice for the customer, amongst other things. A system in the UK where a public organisation (such as British Rail) runs the standard service needed in an area, whilst allowing private companies to run competing services and potentially running all the services in an area. This would be paid for by track access charges, set by the track owner (which could be a private company in some future scenario), and if a company drops out of a region, BR could fill in the gaps where necessary. All regulated fairly in the name of safety, of course! A similar system already occurs on the continent (examples include FlixTrain and Italo), so it can most certainly work!

Our railways have so much great potential, they just have to be used right. We can be world leaders again...

 

[Energy]

As franchises get taken over by the DfT and not returned to full private operation, we've ended up a very very slow integration programme anyway

We are slowly ending up with a mega-OLR. Not that its a problem, Northern and LNER are doing better than they were under privatisation.

Ultimately its political, GBR was presented as a future combined NR awarding concessions to private operators London Overground style. Now the DfT has got some operations under the OLR it understandably wants the option of having some operations inhouse, which has spooked the conservatives. I'd expect it to go through under a future non-conservative government.

A similar system already occurs on the continent (examples include FlixTrain and Italo), so it can most certainly work!

Lumo shows promise of that happening over here. Post HS2 there should be more paths on the classic high speed lines for open access operators.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

Lumo shows promise of that happening over here. Post HS2 there should be more paths on the classic high speed lines for open access operators.

Whilst I haven't managed to experience it yet, it certainly does!

Would there be the option of an OAC running on HS2, or is there not enough capacity/not allowed by DfT?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Northern... are doing better than they were under privatisation.

They're not. At best they've stagnated.

 

[D365]

Reminder please of the source of that figure? Where did it come from; and where has the money gone?
What might this mean for the people/ voters of Derby and its part of the former Red Wall?

A very good question, as the headquarters headlines are still receiving a lot of attention here.

 

[Energy]

Whilst I haven't managed to experience it yet, it certainly does!

Would there be the option of an OAC running on HS2, or is there not enough capacity/not allowed by DfT?

They could operate on there. I don't think there is much spare capacity with all phases open though with some of them cancelled (labour have committed to bringing them back) there should be some space free. I'd expect 110mph WCML budget services to pop up before a second HS2 operator.

225mph uses a lot more energy and requires much more expensive rolling stock. It also has to be maintained somewhere.

They're not. At best they've stagnated.

Fair enough. I don't use Northern regularly enough to comment. The lack of may 2018 style meltdowns and greater interest in new stock is promising.

 

[DanNCL]

This has been an open secret in political circles for many months. I’m amazed it’s taken this long for it to reach the media or become common knowledge within railway circles. The parliamentary time is instead going to other planned legislation such as the Illegal Migration Bill.

It’s probably worth noting GBR hasn’t officially been scrapped, rather it’s been what would probably be described by the Tories as ‘rescoped’. But I think we all know that the chances of GBR ever happening are virtually nil, the Tories only have 1 year left in power and when Labour get into Downing Street after the next general election we’ll be seeing some form of BR 2.0.

 

[yorksrob]

I can see that it would probably be worth getting the railway in its existing form running properly instead (although we all know there's zero chance of that happenning at the moment).

 

[Dan G]

Personally I didn't like the idea of GBR. I'd rather see franchising continue with companies retaining more freedom than this "DfT sets the timetable" stuff – as if they have any idea of what is needed where!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 May 2023 ==

And I rather suspect this "decision" is only symptomatic of Sunak's policy of doing nothing. Can't make a bad headline if you don't make a decision!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 May 2023 ==

Hardly any bills in parliament at the moment and anything substantial in an autumnal King's speech, which I suspect will quietly disappear akin to GBR, would never make it through to royal assent before the next general election.

https://bills.parliament.uk/?BillSortOrder=0&BillStage=-1&BillType=1&CurrentHouse=&Expanded=True&OriginatingHouse=&SearchTerm=&Session=37&page=1

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So the current Railways Act continues for another parliamentary session, which means another 5-ish years before any new legislation.
Railways won't be a much higher priority for Labour than they are for the Tories, given all the other issues they will face.
In the meantime a shadow GBR with reduced scope might well do some good work (HQ still in Derby), as long as the DfT is prepared to spend money on it.
More National Rail Contracts will need to be negotiated with incumbent TOCs, possibly for 5 years or so (it was already looking that way).
I should think fares restructuring and centralised timetabling could well go ahead, plus other industry coordination initiatives.
But DfT will remain in total control, in England at least

.

 

[JonathanH]

They're not. At best they've stagnated.

Stagnation is better than decline.

 

[yorksrob]

Personally I didn't like the idea of GBR. I'd rather see franchising continue with companies retaining more freedom than this "DfT sets the timetable" stuff – as if they have any idea of what is needed where!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 May 2023 ==

And I rather suspect this "decision" is only symptomatic of Sunak's policy of doing nothing. Can't make a bad headline if you don't make a decision!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 May 2023 ==

Hardly any bills in parliament at the moment and anything substantial in an autumnal King's speech, which I suspect will quietly disappear akin to GBR, would never make it through to royal assent before the next general election.

https://bills.parliament.uk/?BillSortOrder=0&BillStage=-1&BillType=1&CurrentHouse=&Expanded=True&OriginatingHouse=&SearchTerm=&Session=37&page=1

I would regard "doing nothing" as keeping the railways in a steady state. What Sunak appears to be doing is running them down.

 

[Yew]

Look at many prosperous industries - automotive, airlines, technology or pharmaceutical to name 4 - what do they have in common?

They are not natural monopolies?

A system in the UK where a public organisation (such as British Rail) runs the standard service needed in an area, whilst allowing private companies to run competing services and potentially running all the services in an area.

That sounds like a lot of inefficient duplication of administration facilities, before we even consider the money that will go to their shareholders.

This would be paid for by track access charges, set by the track owner (which could be a private company in some future scenario), and if a company drops out of a region, BR could fill in the gaps where necessary. All regulated fairly in the name of safety, of course!

Who will pay for BR to maintain the staff, waiting to "fill in the gaps"?

A similar system already occurs on the continent (examples include FlixTrain and Italo), so it can most certainly work!

Perhaps of the profitable routes, but on lightly used branch lines? Even then, does all of this inefficient duplication deliver any net benefit that would not be there if the State Operator ran the same service?

Our railways have so much great potential, they just have to be used right. We can be world leaders again...

Perhaps we could take the private profit out of this public service?

 

[Bald Rick]

This isn’t news. And it doesn’t stop most of the changes from happening.

Indeed. Helicopter, private jet, anything to avoid those 'empty' trains...

I’m no fan of the guy, but I have been on a (rather busy) train with him!

 

[Trainbike46]

And all those daft adverts as well. Money well spent....NOT.

Well, if the adverts get more passengers onto rail they would still be a good thing, GBR or not?

 

[RailWonderer]

If the current single leg fare pricing on LNER is successful (and by that I mean bringing more revenue) other TOCs will trial it as well. If you want to simplify fares you have to get rid of unregulated fares entirely because each TOC will have different prices and validity, the solution is not in turning all TOCs OLR.

They could operate on there. I don't think there is much spare capacity with all phases open though with some of them cancelled (labour have committed to bringing them back) there should be some space free. I'd expect 110mph WCML budget services to pop up before a second HS2 operator.

If an OA operator ordered tilting trains 125mph paths and more competitive journey times could certainly happen.

 

[yorksrob]

The reality is that the public don't wan't "simpler" fares per se. After years of over inflation fares increases, they want cheaper fares that don't catch them out.

 

[Krokodil]

where does this leave "fare simplification"

Probably in the same place that it was left after the (seemingly) annual pronouncements that ministers wanted to see simpler fares - they'll get more and more complex.

 

[jfollows]

Probably in the same place that it was left after the (seemingly) annual pronouncements that ministers wanted to see simpler fares - they'll get more and more complex.

If it gets dropped, junked or "quietly forgotten" then I'll be happy, because all it means is higher fares (for me at least).

 

[Krokodil]

If it gets dropped, junked or "quietly forgotten" then I'll be happy, because all it means is higher fares (for me at least).

For quite a lot of people the current complex fares mean that they pay twice.

"Is this not a Northern train then?"
"No, if it was it would have the word 'Northern' on the side"

"What does 'Avanti' mean?"
"It means that there isn't a train that your ticket will be valid on for the next six hours"

 

[trainbow]

An industry leader has today put out an internal statement that this article isn't entirely accurate at best.

GBRTT isn't being stood down, and much of the work is ongoing to carry out the reform desired, mainly in the Fares, Ticketing and Retail space. The only thing that's under question is whether the legislation is going to be brought in this slot - no decision has been made yet, though as people have said, it might not be Sunak's priority, so is may not happen yet. But legislation is still being prepared for whenever there is a slot.

Harper is very much in favour of reform, as the Times article stated, and lots can be achieved outside of legislation using the NRCs.


FYI, the article behind the paywall:

Rishi Sunak drops Boris Johnson’s Great British Railways project

Ministers have quietly scrapped plans for the biggest shake-up of the railways since privatisation, The Times has learnt.

Plans for the creation of Great British Railways (GBR), put forward by Boris Johnson as a way to fix Britain’s rail network, have been watered down by No 10.

Officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) working on the new body, which was due to take over the running of the entire network, have been told it is not a priority for the government and will not be brought forward in the King’s Speech.

“Those working on it have been told it’s now unlikely to get a legislative slot,” a source said. “Without it they won’t be able to fully create the body, as it requires primary legislation.”

It is understood there is a battle between the DfT and Downing Street over its creation. Transport ministers are pushing for it to be given parliamentary time but there is pushback from Rishi Sunak, the prime minister, who does not consider the railways a priority for the final session of parliament before the general election.

A source said: “The simple fact is Sunak doesn’t see the railways as a priority. He was in the Treasury during Covid when all he saw was the railways costing eye-watering amounts of money. He’d ask why so much was being spent to ‘ship fresh air’ around the country.”

The creation of GBR was announced in May 2021 by Johnson and Grant Shapps, then the transport secretary, branded as the biggest shake-up of the railways since privatisation in the mid-1990s.

GBR, they said, would be introduced to run the tracks and trains, including setting timetables and collecting fares through a simplified ticketing system. Franchising would be scrapped in favour of passenger service contracts, with operators paid a flat rate to run a line and the revenue risk lying with the chancellor.

Its creation was included in the Transport Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech last spring but was then scrapped in October by Anne-Marie Trevelyan, transport secretary at the time, who said it would not go ahead in this session.

Insiders now believe a shadow GBR will be created — albeit without overall control of the railways, significantly watering down Johnson’s plans for modernisation.

Last month ministers suggested that if a bill on future transportation is included in the King’s Speech, which has been delayed until the autumn, it would be slimmed down to focus on self-driving vehicles.

Speaking at the launch of a new all-party parliamentary group on self-driving vehicles, Richard Holden, a transport minister, said: “This is the one thing which the department is putting ahead of anything else at the moment. If we do get a slot, it will be in this space because we know how critical this area is for UK industry.”

Rail industry sources said there had been “deafening silence” over the new body, despite Mark Harper, the transport secretary, pleading in February for its formation and an announcement in March that it would be headquartered in Derby. Officials are said to now be looking at a handful of rail reforms that could be achieved without a bill.

“There is still a decent amount of work that can be done without legislation,” a source said. “It will be more limited but GBR can effectively become a shadow organisation responsible for pushing through reforms [that don’t need legislation]. You remove some areas from DfT control, such as passenger service contracts, into GBR for closer management by a guiding mind in waiting. But without legislation you’d still have to have new contracts signed off by the secretary of state.”

Rail bosses insisted that the work of the Great British Railways Transition Team, created to work on behalf of the government to set up the new organisation, was ongoing and would continue “until told otherwise”.

MPs urged ministers to press ahead with legislation. The Tory MP Pauline Latham, whose Mid Derbyshire constituency was chosen as the new body’s home, said: “I would be incredibly disappointed if it [was] ditched, having not only gone through the competition but won it hands down. I will fight with ministers and the secretary of state to have the legislation passed, even if that requires a delegation of us to go and see Sunak.

“We promised it, and delivering it won’t be complicated. I think the naysayers are the people who don’t want to relinquish power but we need it. The current system, not least franchising and ticketing, is in dire need of reform.”

Louise Haigh, the shadow transport secretary, said: “The Conservatives are out of ideas and out of time. Under this zombie government, the message is clear: our failing rail services are here to stay. The next Labour government will reform our railways, bring operators back into public ownership as contracts expire and build the infrastructure fit for the century ahead, unlocking jobs and growth.”

The DfT said it was committed to GBR and insisted legislation would be brought forward “when parliamentary time allows”.

 

[Deepgreen]

What a waste of taxpayers' money.

Indeed, as was the whole vast, ludicrous privatisation process started in 1994. The real cost will never be known but I imagine the waste from dividends payments and huge extra layers of lawyers, contractual managers etc., runs into billions overall, not to mention the lost opportunites costs of the exercise when the rapidly-improving BR of the 1990s could have advanced so much further and faster than the network did under fragmentation.

 

[Master29]

Whilst this is frustrating, infuriating, other more expletive words, etc, I'm not at all surprised Keep in mind though that this government has a reputation to uphold - irrational and illogical planning, and a complete lack of commitment to any form of decent improvement! Post-pandemic, GBR was never going to deliver any form of significant improvement, as the concept of a private company operating and maintaining services in return for a flat rate pay-out, with GBR looking after infrastructure (in the same way as NR do now) and uniform branding is exactly what we have now, minus the branding part!

In my own honest opinion, neither full or partial - in the form of franchising - privatisation or full public ownership will fix the mess our railways have been in for effectively 80 years. Look at many prosperous industries - automotive, airlines, technology or pharmaceutical to name 4 - what do they have in common? I'll do the hard thinking for you - COMPETITION! A competitive market allows for innovation and greater choice for the customer, amongst other things. A system in the UK where a public organisation (such as British Rail) runs the standard service needed in an area, whilst allowing private companies to run competing services and potentially running all the services in an area. This would be paid for by track access charges, set by the track owner (which could be a private company in some future scenario), and if a company drops out of a region, BR could fill in the gaps where necessary. All regulated fairly in the name of safety, of course! A similar system already occurs on the continent (examples include FlixTrain and Italo), so it can most certainly work!

Our railways have so much great potential, they just have to be used right. We can be world leaders again...

All this of course depends on who`s in power and has a vision for the railways so not holding my breath here.

 

[tbtc]

Disappointing and frustrating, yet more action delayed because of Government ineptitude

BUT, struggling to find positives as I am (and trying not to be overly Party political), I suppose it’s better that we get something carefully drafted in the early years of a new government than something rushed together in the dog days of this government (given that one of the frequent criticisms of the 1990s privatisation was that it was pushed through at speed to make it as hard as possible for the new government to undo, once they took power in 1997)?

The next step is going to be huge so we need to ensure that it’s taken carefully and not bodged.

 

[Deepgreen]

Whilst this is frustrating, infuriating, other more expletive words, etc, I'm not at all surprised Keep in mind though that this government has a reputation to uphold - irrational and illogical planning, and a complete lack of commitment to any form of decent improvement! Post-pandemic, GBR was never going to deliver any form of significant improvement, as the concept of a private company operating and maintaining services in return for a flat rate pay-out, with GBR looking after infrastructure (in the same way as NR do now) and uniform branding is exactly what we have now, minus the branding part!

In my own honest opinion, neither full or partial - in the form of franchising - privatisation or full public ownership will fix the mess our railways have been in for effectively 80 years. Look at many prosperous industries - automotive, airlines, technology or pharmaceutical to name 4 - what do they have in common? I'll do the hard thinking for you - COMPETITION! A competitive market allows for innovation and greater choice for the customer, amongst other things. A system in the UK where a public organisation (such as British Rail) runs the standard service needed in an area, whilst allowing private companies to run competing services and potentially running all the services in an area. This would be paid for by track access charges, set by the track owner (which could be a private company in some future scenario), and if a company drops out of a region, BR could fill in the gaps where necessary. All regulated fairly in the name of safety, of course! A similar system already occurs on the continent (examples include FlixTrain and Italo), so it can most certainly work!

Our railways have so much great potential, they just have to be used right. We can be world leaders again...

This is the point - there is, and can be, NO COMPETITION at point of use for almost every rail passenger in the UK, and franchisees are dropping away to the point where there is no valid competition in the race to the bottom there either! Nor is there any REAL PROFIT in the industry, unlike, say, supermarkets, etc., so the whole thing has to be propped up with hugely greater subsidy to support the artificial construct. It was obviously never going to work when it was mooted in the 1990s, out of political dogma, and it has been proven time and again to be a failure.

 

[Surreytraveller]

As the article says, Sunak is the problem and Sunak needs to go.

To be replaced with another problem!

 

[yorksrob]

To be replaced with another problem!

We might at least get a "problem" with some interest in getting things running again.

 

[Trainfan2019]

Ah and I was looking forward to gbr and all the station signs being in rail alphabet 2.

 

[swt_passenger]

A system in the UK where a public organisation (such as British Rail) runs the standard service needed in an area, whilst allowing private companies to run competing services and potentially running all the services in an area. This would be paid for by track access charges, set by the track owner (which could be a private company in some future scenario), and if a company drops out of a region, BR could fill in the gaps where necessary.

How do you define the “standard service needed in an area”, and what if it needs all the existing infrastructure capacity?

 

[KJCross1983]

GBR was going to be the same as it is now anyway, just reworded. TOCs was still going to franchised out to private companies, with the DfT dictating what they can and can not do. The whole GBR thing was just to win the public back, thinking that the railway was now Government owned and fully run.