Great British Railways: How do you think GBR will be run?

[43066]

That's a heck of a long shift! Presumably you meant 'per week' rather than 'per day'!

I read that as seven per day across the depot, each presumably there and back!

 

[D6130]

I read that as seven per day across the depot, each presumably there and back!

Yes....that's more plausible!

 

[irish_rail]

I read that as seven per day across the depot, each presumably there and back!

Yes sorry that's what I meant, we have 7 turns to London, generally go once or twice a week in the main links.

 

[Class 170101]

I'm not convinced this is a good idea. If I understood what was meant by concession correctly the revenue makes no difference to the TOC, and the DfT shouldn't be trying to maximise revenue (as taken to a logical conclusion that means implement Serpell). Maximising innovation through a 'free for all' in open access could be very interesting indeed.

Surely maxmising revenue means 'bums on seats' or square foot of space on every train operated to the realistic possible extent?

 

[matt_world2004]

Correct. The incentive with concessions is to have no imagination, to only do what the contract says. As the Overground proves, that can include checking for fare evasion, extending trains, staffing stations.

London Overground and tfl rail have targets for preventing ticketless travel.

But they also have specificity in their contracts about things like gateline staffing and amount of revenue checks.

London Overground have percentage targets with bonuses for going over the target

Whereas tfl rail contracts assume everything is 100% and fines for performance below that .

Eg on tfl rail the target for ticketless travel is 100% of passengers have a valid ticket. 100% of gateline uptime and 100% of revenue checks took place.

The targets are designed to encourage the operator to do things not in their contracts to achieve their targets.

One example is the MTR contracts did not specify the electronic service information screens. But did specify they needed to update their noticeboard as soon as they were aware of service disruption. So to do this easily. They got display monitors with service disruption updated by a central source.

Other things they may do is pay operators who run stations they call at to extend their gateline hours to hit the ticketless travel targets

 

[Wyrleybart]

i think some folk need to consider that a line manager can only really deal with so many crew. At the moment XC have two driver managers and two on board managers and a team organiser to manage their Plymouth crew competencies. Not sure how many GWR have as a comparison but if yuo wanted to merge them together it would involve the XC managers having to learn all the GWR tractions then maintain all their staff on the extra competencies, whilst GWR managers would do the same, but there really wouldn't any significant economies of scale, but much more complication.

What is actually needed is some long term stable diagrams where crew work productively. The DfT undee the guise of the TOC selectively axing trains from the timetable whilst still leaving crew links untouched leaves lots and lots of STP diagramming every week which is nowhere near as productive. Some of the recent Covid timetables have seen several crew travel on each service, because their LTP diagrammed trains are cancelled. This is false economy lef by the DfT who do not seem to recognise how to save money logically.

 

[irish_rail]

i think some folk need to consider that a line manager can only really deal with so many crew. At the moment XC have two driver managers and two on board managers and a team organiser to manage their Plymouth crew competencies. Not sure how many GWR have as a comparison but if yuo wanted to merge them together it would involve the XC managers having to learn all the GWR tractions then maintain all their staff on the extra competencies, whilst GWR managers would do the same, but there really wouldn't any significant economies of scale, but much more complication.

What is actually needed is some long term stable diagrams where crew work productively. The DfT undee the guise of the TOC selectively axing trains from the timetable whilst still leaving crew links untouched leaves lots and lots of STP diagramming every week which is nowhere near as productive. Some of the recent Covid timetables have seen several crew travel on each service, because their LTP diagrammed trains are cancelled. This is false economy lef by the DfT who do not seem to recognise how to save money logically.

Not accurate im afraid, at GWR many of the managers at Plymouth either have no route and traction knowledge or they have just one route (Gunnislake for example). Each manager does not need to know all routes and traction, not by a long shot!

 

[robbeech]

If so unless I am missing something there is no incentive for the operator to collect fares or promote rail travel. Rather they want the minimum number of passengers to run the shortest train thus minimising costs.

With a move to e-tickets there could easily be checks done to ensure that revenue is being dealt with by checking the logs of scans. Whilst this is not as straightforward on services without a revenue focussed member of staff, this won’t change from the current circumstances for those anyway.

 

[londontransit]

How will GBR trains be branded? Will they be branded primarily under GBR colours / logo with a small logo indicating the operator, like how London Buses are branded today, or will it be the other way round?

Many moons ago I created the first official GBR logo! (At least I personally deem it official lol!)

The first official Great British Railways Logo!

 

[Watershed]

I'm not convinced this is a good idea. If I understood what was meant by concession correctly the revenue makes no difference to the TOC, and the DfT shouldn't be trying to maximise revenue (as taken to a logical conclusion that means implement Serpell). Maximising innovation through a 'free for all' in open access could be very interesting indeed.

But the DfT is always going to want to maximise revenue. The change from franchise to concession has only changed who carries the revenue risk - before, it was the TOCs, now it's the DfT.

 

[geoffk]

A possible area for improvement must be in timetable planning. As I understand it, both Network Rail and the TOCs have teams of timetable planners and the interface between them must be inefficient and can be adversarial rather than co-operative. Is this function likely to be centralised under GBR?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A possible area for improvement must be in timetable planning. As I understand it, both Network Rail and the TOCs have teams of timetable planners and the interface between them must be inefficient and can be adversarial rather than co-operative. Is this function likely to be centralised under GBR?

Well, GBR will own the timetable, so presumably NR and TOC planners will cooperate in producing it.
But there will always be somebody, in GBR or DfT, insisting on particular outcomes (frequency, journey time, operating cost, rolling stock, performance etc).
Not to mention non-GBR freight and OA requirements.
There will have to be a link with investment too (ie electrification, line speed upgrades, IRP etc).

 

[Watershed]

A possible area for improvement must be in timetable planning. As I understand it, both Network Rail and the TOCs have teams of timetable planners and the interface between them must be inefficient and can be adversarial rather than co-operative. Is this function likely to be centralised under GBR?

I think it would be very difficult to fully centralise planning in a world where you have both GBR concessions (i.e. government controlled) and open access operators (i.e. privately controlled). Far too high a risk of perceived conflicts of interests, with decisions frequently challenged.

There would undoubtedly be some economy if you did nevertheless integrate things, but I don't think it would be as large as you might think. Most of the same work would still need to be done - essentially the only bit that could be eliminated would be the back-and-forth between NR and the operators.

 

[The Planner]

I think it would be very difficult to fully centralise planning in a world where you have both GBR concessions (i.e. government controlled) and open access operators (i.e. privately controlled). Far too high a risk of perceived conflicts of interests, with decisions frequently challenged.

There would undoubtedly be some economy if you did nevertheless integrate things, but I don't think it would be as large as you might think. Most of the same work would still need to be done - essentially the only bit that could be eliminated would be the back-and-forth between NR and the operators.

If there is anyone looking at headcount and looking at some sort of integration then NR planners would be on the losing side.

 

[Horizon22]

A possible area for improvement must be in timetable planning. As I understand it, both Network Rail and the TOCs have teams of timetable planners and the interface between them must be inefficient and can be adversarial rather than co-operative. Is this function likely to be centralised under GBR?

Well yes and no - some of the adversary will just be internal instead! For all people that say there are inefficiencies between TOCs and NR, there are certainly occasions where that is the case, but that is not to say that these won't just become internal divisions between teams that don't get along so well. In that regard, it may be more hidden.

 

[Masbroughlad]

If GBR will be divided regionally, who will decide on inter-region services? CrossCountry or TPE for example? Or will they just stop running?

 

[Watershed]

If GBR will be divided regionally, who will decide on inter-region services? CrossCountry or TPE for example? Or will they just stop running?

They will continue to run, just as they did in the days of the BR regions, and the Big Four before that. There is little indication that train services will be controlled differently to today - i.e. by civil servants. Though maybe from Darlington rather than Whitehall.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

More significant is how they will treat Northern.
The declared aim is to align the TOCs with the Regions, but NR is very different east and west of the Pennines, focussed on the WCML/ECML.
Splitting Northern would undo a lot of the integration they have achieved since the days of RRNW/FNW and RRNE/Northern Spirit.
NPR will also be a cross-Regional project, even if its construction is mainly on the west side - so was HS2 until the eastern leg was dropped.
I would expect XC and TPE to be cross-Regional like the freight TOCs, but there's possibly a case for merging them.
All still to be revealed, of course.

 

[geoffk]

I assume that trains operators would continue to bid for contracts just as they have been doing for franchises. This of course was a time-consuming process, taking senior management away from the day job for long periods. Is it likely that the contract bidding process will be simpler, as the bidders will not be taking the revenue risk?

 

[Class 170101]

If there is anyone looking at headcount and looking at some sort of integration then NR planners would be on the losing side.

Why do you say that? NR Planners tend to be cheaper than TOCs / FOCs but by consequence less experienced

 

[The Planner]

Why do you say that? NR Planners tend to be cheaper than TOCs / FOCs but by consequence less experienced

You have answered it yourself. NR fall behind in terms of understanding TOC/FOC business/priorities, diagramming etc as well. Some go as far as saying that we are just marking peoples homework, and I wouldn't disagree there is an element of that too.

 

[Class 170101]

You have answered it yourself. NR fall behind in terms of understanding TOC/FOC business/priorities, diagramming etc as well. Some go as far as saying that we are just marking peoples homework, and I wouldn't disagree there is an element of that too.

Based on cost Operator planners would be on the losing side though. DfT won't understand the valid issues you raise, only the costs on the balance sheet

 

[The Planner]

Based on cost Operator planners would be on the losing side though. DfT won't understand the valid issues you raise, only the costs on the balance sheet

Depends what they are looking at, headcount or cost. If you dont fill a vacancy and cut out the post are you actually saving anything?

 

[Wyrleybart]

Not accurate im afraid, at GWR many of the managers at Plymouth either have no route and traction knowledge or they have just one route (Gunnislake for example). Each manager does not need to know all routes and traction, not by a long shot!

Interesting. so how do the crew get signed off on routes ? Is it tickboxing ?

 

[irish_rail]

Interesting. so how do the crew get signed off on routes ? Is it tickboxing ?

Route assessors (who are essentially drivers with additional competency) do much of the signing off. There are also one or two managers who are ex drivers at Plymouth and thus have substantial route knowledge, but the majority don't.

 

[Masbroughlad]

Will we get rolling stock to match time/capacity/standard of journey?

I was on a course in Liverpool a few years ago. The tutor had changed onto a train at Birmingham to get there. He was bemused why he was on a cramped, commuter train with no facilities. Why not Intercity quality and standard? Good point!

I've sat on a 150 from Cornwall to Wales I the not too distant past. Unsuitable for a pleasant journey experience.

Northern - a bus seat with no leg room or a reasonable seat with table and legroom, could turn up on my routes.

Would be good to see Intercity comfort and standards, wherever the journey is. First class, meals, buffet and comfortable standard class. Inter-regional comfort and catering. Commuter and suburban comfort and high capacity.

Sounds a bit like INTERCITY, Regional Railways and a Metro Rail? (Like Germany?)

Loads of opportunities. Hopefully lots of new ideas

 

[irish_rail]

Will we get rolling stock to match time/capacity/standard of journey?

I was on a course in Liverpool a few years ago. The tutor had changed onto a train at Birmingham to get there. He was bemused why he was on a cramped, commuter train with no facilities. Why not Intercity quality and standard? Good point!

I've sat on a 150 from Cornwall to Wales I the not too distant past. Unsuitable for a pleasant journey experience.

Northern - a bus seat with no leg room or a reasonable seat with table and legroom, could turn up on my routes.

Would be good to see Intercity comfort and standards, wherever the journey is. First class, meals, buffet and comfortable standard class. Inter-regional comfort and catering. Commuter and suburban comfort and high capacity.

Sounds a bit like INTERCITY, Regional Railways and a Metro Rail? (Like Germany?)

Loads of opportunities. Hopefully lots of new ideas

A resurrection of the INTERCITY brand would be fantastic, although sadly not going to happen. Instead we will make do with these daft old fashioned names that drum up images of the war and Churchill and the wonderful bygone days of yore.
Intercity as a brand is timeless. Never sounds dated. And would be useful to join up all IC TOCs so that crew and rolling stock could be allocated more effectively.

 

[david1212]

Will we get rolling stock to match time/capacity/standard of journey?

I was on a course in Liverpool a few years ago. The tutor had changed onto a train at Birmingham to get there. He was bemused why he was on a cramped, commuter train with no facilities. Why not Intercity quality and standard? Good point!

I've sat on a 150 from Cornwall to Wales I the not too distant past. Unsuitable for a pleasant journey experience.

Northern - a bus seat with no leg room or a reasonable seat with table and legroom, could turn up on my routes.

Would be good to see Intercity comfort and standards, wherever the journey is. First class, meals, buffet and comfortable standard class. Inter-regional comfort and catering. Commuter and suburban comfort and high capacity.

Sounds a bit like INTERCITY, Regional Railways and a Metro Rail? (Like Germany?)

Loads of opportunities. Hopefully lots of new ideas

Going forward a greater proportion of ( potential ) passengers and hence fare box income will be discretionary. However so much in the current system does nothing to attract and retain these passengers.

Trains indeed are one factor but they have gone backwards since the HST and MK4 stock. Pendalinos are perhaps the best we have. Voyagers are cramped both the internal space envelope and seating layout with few groups of seats around tables and a lack of luggage & bike space. Plenty of posts on this forum cover the 80x IET and remember they are DfT specified .........
Chiltern 168's are not bad for a 2 hour journey and others could do worse than copy their internal layout for all except suburban / metro routes then add luggage and bike space.

 

[73128]

The contract for a franchise gives a general idea of the service required and in return pays well when the service is popular. The contract for a concession gives an exact service that the government expect, in return for an exact set pay.

I hope the roscos go, as they are one major profit for the private sector.

No change for 4, 6 and 7. 5 will probably be as defined as the timetable.

The ROSCOs, as in shipping, buses and aircraft, will probably continue to lease out vessels; many operators prefer to let someone else raise the capital to purchase the flexible new items which they then hope to lease out for the lifetime of the assets.

As the government is notoriously bad at capital spending (because they financially think short term, not 25-40 years for trains, 20+ for planes, 10 or so for buses, quite long for shipping too), this makes good sense.

ROSCOs take significant risks in having stock that no-one wants to lease (think 707s at one point, 379s perhaps??).

As others have said, BR would have cascaded those to lesser routes - take the 303s or 309s for example that got moved in and around.

 

[gc4946]

I hope GBR develops a passenger rolling stock strategy incorporating the following:
- new trains are designed and procured centrally for network use, supplied to GBR's concession holders, maybe using a framework contractual agreement, orders called off when required;
- new trains allocated where they're most suitable for the job and traffic in hand,
as opposed to stock replacement driven by individual franchise requirements.