zwk500
Veteran Member
We're getting OT as there is a Branding-specific thread but Network Rail was a sensible choice as they were not running trains, only the physical network itself.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Great British Railways: Thoughts, predictions, speculation
- Thread starter JaJaWa
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
How does the Driver account for the trip back ? The timings are stupidly tight and you can't magic up time from nowhere. There was a good reason for the train previously hanging about. The change has been driven by a few factors (probably for another thread though)
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It would strike me that being able to run a quick impact analysis on holding a train connection is a perfect job for an IT system, with a human putting a sanity check on it before taking the action so you don't get silly "computer says no" situations. It could use not only journey planners and WTT data to see what might be messed up (both in terms of other connections and in terms of pathing) but also data based on passenger surveys and actual passenger itineraries (given how most tickets are probably now purchased against an itinerary) to determine the best thing to do - and also to use those itineraries where associated with an email address or mobile number to inform the passengers of what is happening and the impact on their own individual itinerary.
So yes, this absolutely should be worked on.
ABB125
Established Member
Hmmmmm... The railways are (effectively) being nationalised, so let's go on strike because we want them nationalised.
zwk500
Veteran Member
For small self-contained branches like the Thames Valleys and Bromley North this assessment could be carried out in advance, and the maximum tolerable delay known so that control can implement 'plan B' straight away.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,685
Sounds like traffic management systems and also what control do. At what point do you stop the snowball from rolling though.
I agree completely.
Individual passenger accounts, which allow this kind of communication would be one of my first priorities if I were the fat controller (other sizes of controller are available) of the new BR. This would allow these kinds of communications to go out to passengers who do not hold an itinerary, for example based on their last contactless touch in, and journey history (e.g. I use the same journey for work most days, if it sees that I have tapped in at my usual station at my usual time, it sends me disruption data based on my usual journey).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Can you not work out the snowball in advance? Computer model the maximum amount of time you could hold any connection without causing a snowball effect, and have that figure put in the working timetable somewhere, so the driver and/or signaller / control knows that s/he should hold the departure of train B if train A is less than X minutes late, if it is more than X minutes late, then send train B on time.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes, true, it's really easy to do where you have simple, single-ended branch lines that run into their own platform and don't conflict with it in pathing terms. GWR has rather a disproportionately large number of these, and do hold trains at times as a result, last time I saw it was the Newquay branch.
If you have something like Ormskirk-Preston, you'd never hold Merseyrail southbound as that is 4tph, however you might want to hold northbound for a Merseyrail a couple of minutes late - but that runs onto the WCML, so you'd want to know if you're going to knacker a Scottish express before deciding it wouldn't be better just to have a couple of taxis waiting. Or with the Marston Vale you'd probably be more likely to hold westbound than eastbound, as there is a long layover at Bletchley but a very short one at Bedford - but then by doing so you might knacker someone's long distance connection so you have to consider that, too.
zwk500
Veteran Member
This is already done, it just takes (at the moment) a very long time to set up the simulation, run the simulation and process the results. But there's so many variables you can't possibly model for every scenario. This is something the newer traffic management systems (and digital signalling data) are hoping to improve upon.
My point being, it used to happen trains being held for a mainline connection. However somewhere along the way, we seem to have lost the "discretion" part. Yes it might foul up the return path, but why did it used to happen historically then ? - it must have fouled the return path always? To the layman it seems very much a case of the railways being run for the railways benefit... and "sc..w you, we have your money and you can wait, we are not going to inconvenience ourselves for you"
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,685
Lots more trains about now and the impact is greater.
Highlandspring
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,777
It still happens at some locations. Connections are routinely held at Inverness to/from the Far North or Aberdeen, at Aberdeen to/from Inverness, at Perth to/from Inverness/Edinburgh/Glasgow/Aberdeen. The station staff have a small degree of autonomy to do this and seek permission from Control for longer holds, which will almost always be given if it is in line with the connections policy.
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 5,596
There's a lot of worry at the moment that places that have seen substantial cuts to services during COVID are going to be stuck with the same reduced level of service for the foreseeable future. And given that adding new services always seems more difficult than taking them away, I am not surprised people are worried about that.
So maybe what should happen is services should for now go back to pre COVID levels, and then over time we can then monitor travel patterns and work out what is needed going forward?
If nothing else that will firstly put a lot of minds at rest (I know some people in South Wales who are now convinced for example that the 4 trains per hour metro service will never happen because they currently have an hourly service when they used to have a half hourly service) and at the same time will give a nice level playing field to benchmark future uses from (you can't really measure usage that well on artificially reduced frequencies because lots of people who may want to use the train have been put off by the cuts in the frequencies to what they are normally used to).
Generally speaking, the routes that haven’t gone back to a full service haven’t done so because of one of two reasons:
1) there are not sufficient traincrew to work them
2) there are not sufficient passngers to use them
And most often both.
But it is inconceivable that those who fund services wouldn’t be looking at where service provision could be amended to better fit future demand.
zwk500
Veteran Member
We should run a train every 30 minutes just to put a lot of minds at rest?
Annetts key
Established Member
No, we should run a train every two minutes to put my mind at rest. Then when I fall asleep on a train and miss my station, I don’t have to wait very long before I can catch a return train...
There is no point in calling it anything other than BR, any attemt to call it anything else will surely just be laughed at, and hence a PR disaster. Get the double arrows back on every train ( although an additional logo for any private involvement as well) and settle down to being a public service. I think the public yearn for a simple railway structure.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
But they also voted for devolution.
In the last 20 years there's been a distinct move away from "British" anything, because it doesn't work where Westminster's writ doesn't apply.
Rail is a peculiar case of being partially devolved, neither one thing nor the other.
Edinburgh and Cardiff are desperate to get their hands on the whole railway on their patch.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
This would seem a great time to consider giving it to them. Is there a real benefit to holding onto it? Surely it just costs English subsidy money?
Scotland pay for theirs already. Indeed, with the sleeper, they already pay for some of England’s!
NR Scotland is effectively run on behalf of the Scottish Government. I think they are about as devolved as you want to get before it starts costing more in inefficiencies through duplication of functions.
Wales is different question; due to the geography of the rail network there are few routes that it would make sense to fully devolve. The Core Valley Lines have already been handed over to TfW, albeit they are maintained and run by NR for now (as with HS1).
I suspect the only truly profitable railway in the devolved nations is likely to be the WCML/ECML up to Glasgow/Edinburgh, and perhaps the E-G Falkirk High route. The overall picture is very much one of subsidy - the ORR statistics show that ScotRail and TfW are two of the most heavily subsidised operators, when attributing NR subsidies proportionally.
Cardiff123
Established Member
NR no longer have any involvement in the CVL. The CVL are now owned by Welsh Govt and TfW, and are manged on TfW's behalf by Amey Keolis Infrastructure Ltd.
Last edited:
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Also don't forget HS2, which is outside Network Rail's remit (except at the interfaces) but will dominate the scene within a decade.
HS1 is already in an odd position, maintained by NR under contract but owned elsewhere.
Avanti as West Coast TOC has some rights in the planning for HS2 services, but the real control lies directly with HS2 Ltd for DfT.
It's getting time that DfT announced something about how it is going to be managed when operational, as part of the main railway network.
I think we are unlikely to sell it to the Chinese, which was the big idea at one point.
I dread to think what the branding debate on here will be like when we throw HS2 services into the mix...
HS1 is already in an odd position, maintained by NR under contract but owned elsewhere.
Avanti as West Coast TOC has some rights in the planning for HS2 services, but the real control lies directly with HS2 Ltd for DfT.
It's getting time that DfT announced something about how it is going to be managed when operational, as part of the main railway network.
I think we are unlikely to sell it to the Chinese, which was the big idea at one point.
I dread to think what the branding debate on here will be like when we throw HS2 services into the mix...
For the avoidance of doubt - ScotRail is a brand introduced by British Rail, and it survived the Regional Railways rebranding because it was recognised as being a very strong brand in-and-of itself. TfW is obviously newer, but the same concept applies.
My personal opinion - as a strong supporter of devolution - is that it is perfectly reasonable to call this new venture "British Rail", on the basis that it is the one co-ordinating the main intercity franchises that connect England with Scotland and Wales (and, to be honest, because I think that the BR identity is one that still holds considerable value).
However I would also consider it to be entirely reasonable to give it a name like "Rail England" or the like because, to a not-insignificant extent, it will be doing in England what ScotRail and TfW do in their respective patches.
Regardless of the direction chosen though I do want to be absolutely clear that I feel that "Great British Railways" is a loathsome and contemptible name.
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,891
No-one is going to clubs at the moment, so I think we should close them all. We don't know what post covid entertainment patterns will be like, but if you want to listen to music you have Spotify and local supermarkets sell alcohol anyway.
Also noticed no-one is using Manchester Arena at the moment, maybe we should turn it into flats.
No-one is using trains right now, probably coz everyone loves zoom so much.
There are no possible external factors to why people aren't going to these places, especially not ones enshrined in law itself.
Sarcasm aside, this is FAR too early to consider the long term passenger impacts due to covid. From what I've seen, things have already passed the threshold of being able to socially distance.
Now, maybe London will see a reduction in passengers. A lot of office roles based there can be done from home, or more locally. Housing/commuting prices are insane so many people will want to avoid doing so.
However, we know the brunt of the cuts will probably hit places like the Midlands, West and North, where passenger growth has been very high in recent years, despite our rail provision being poor in relation to the South East.
COVID will almost certainly change travel patterns, but making cuts at this time is silly. Instead, we should be making targeted investment to help the network respond to changing travel patterns, such as more circumferential routes, regional services to leasure destinations and the like.
Unfortunately, rail cuts will hit the most vulnerable the hardest. Young, elderly and disabled, who do not possess a license, are unable, or cannot afford to drive. People in service jobs who commute outside the typical 9-5 (almost certain evening/weekend service will be the first to get cut, despite being the area of least ridership decline). People in rural communities with otherwise poor transport acess (this was me just a few years ago! Without rail, I wouldn't have had the opportunities I had.)
Also noticed no-one is using Manchester Arena at the moment, maybe we should turn it into flats.
No-one is using trains right now, probably coz everyone loves zoom so much.
There are no possible external factors to why people aren't going to these places, especially not ones enshrined in law itself.
Sarcasm aside, this is FAR too early to consider the long term passenger impacts due to covid. From what I've seen, things have already passed the threshold of being able to socially distance.
Now, maybe London will see a reduction in passengers. A lot of office roles based there can be done from home, or more locally. Housing/commuting prices are insane so many people will want to avoid doing so.
However, we know the brunt of the cuts will probably hit places like the Midlands, West and North, where passenger growth has been very high in recent years, despite our rail provision being poor in relation to the South East.
COVID will almost certainly change travel patterns, but making cuts at this time is silly. Instead, we should be making targeted investment to help the network respond to changing travel patterns, such as more circumferential routes, regional services to leasure destinations and the like.
Unfortunately, rail cuts will hit the most vulnerable the hardest. Young, elderly and disabled, who do not possess a license, are unable, or cannot afford to drive. People in service jobs who commute outside the typical 9-5 (almost certain evening/weekend service will be the first to get cut, despite being the area of least ridership decline). People in rural communities with otherwise poor transport acess (this was me just a few years ago! Without rail, I wouldn't have had the opportunities I had.)
Given the fact that the white paper has yet to be published and the comments here are more or less 100% speculative we have decided that this thread should be located in Speculative Ideas section of the forum.
When the anticipated white paper is actually published a new thread will be opened in the UK Railway Discussion section of the forum.
When the anticipated white paper is actually published a new thread will be opened in the UK Railway Discussion section of the forum.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
It’s not just Edinburgh & Cardiff. Manchester wants to control commuter rail services in to central Manchester under GM Rail, with a Merseyrail type operation. Perhaps that is what what we will really see, with many different brand names.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I know you're being flippant, but I think you missed the better analogy - we should turn it into a better Manchester Victoria!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Echoes back to the Regional Railways PTE branding there, perhaps? A clear branding family but each in the colour of their city?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That depends what you cut. Cutting the TPE core from 6 to 4tph is likely to have overall benefits because the operation would become more punctual and is only going to impact peoples' journeys by about 5-10 minutes. I think we need to be sure not to make first trains later nor last trains earlier (in some cases that needs improving to improve access to work) but thinning out frequencies is not likely to be all that much of an issue, though again I'd oppose dropping hourly or better services to less than hourly.
As I've noted above/elsewhere, sometimes with infrequent services like the S&C, Conwy Valley and Bentham lines it can actually help to reduce frequency but target the timing of trains at specific use-cases (school runs, commuters, daytrippers etc) rather than just running a single unit back and forth as many times as you can fit in that day, though I accept that won't save you much money. I'm generally a big proponent of Takt, but I think its value reduces sharply once you go below hourly, because a nice two-hourly pattern is all very well, but if you're a schoolkid and that means arriving at school at 0705 for an 0900 start (as 0905 would result in a lot of detentions) then it's just useless.
Or as another example you might find Sandgrounders would accept their service being cut back to hourly with peak extras if in compensation it went to Castlefield instead of Vic and was formed of long trains of nice stock, say 5-car 195 formations. That was the pattern for years.
Last edited:
UK railways braced for biggest shake-up in decades
Changes include scrapping of controversial franchise model and tickets for part-time commuters
14 hours ago
Train operators have largely welcomed the shift away from franchising, as the new contracts will provide stable revenue and less risk © Niklas Halle'n/AFP/Getty Images
Britain’s railways are braced for their biggest shake-up in a generation, with train franchises scrapped and the creation of a new supervisory body called Great British Railways to oversee the system.
A white paper, to be published on Thursday, will bring an end to the controversial franchise model under which train operating companies take most of the revenue risk from rising or falling passenger numbers.
It will be replaced by a “concession” system whereby the risk and reward for train companies is more limited, with a fee paid as long as punctuality and cleanliness targets are achieved.
The new system is based on that used by the London Overground, where the operator Arriva is paid to run trains but does not take on the risk of rising and falling revenue.
Train operators have largely welcomed the shift away from franchising, as the new contracts will provide stable revenue and less risk for those badly hit during the coronavirus pandemic. But they have pushed to keep more control over the timetabling, pricing and customer service than on the London Overground.
The new agreements, dubbed “national rail contracts”, are thought likely to last four to six years, a shorter period than the old franchises which varied in length but could run for close to 20 years.
A new ticket system for part-time commuters will be introduced but this will stop short of the flexible season tickets demanded by passenger groups.
The new Great British Railways will incorporate Network Rail, and is expected to be run by NR’s current chair Sir Peter Hendy. It will provide strategic direction for both infrastructure and how the railway operates. Train companies are also expecting it to play a role in awarding new management contracts.
The changes come exactly three years after the botched implementation of a new timetable led the government to commission former British Airways boss Keith Williams to prepare a sweeping overhaul of Britain’s railways. It also follows acute uncertainty for the industry after the British public was ordered to work from home where possible at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.
In March 2020, ministers effectively nationalised the railways, bringing in emergency contracts which meant all operators’ losses were subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of about £800m a month.
Ministers are set to describe the shake-up of the system as the biggest overhaul of the railways since the privatisation of British Rail in the 1990s.
Since then, passenger numbers have roughly doubled but the operation of the railways has endured a more difficult journey.
Railtrack, a private company that owned the network’s infrastructure, collapsed in 2001 and was replaced by Network Rail, while the centralised Strategic Rail Authority was abolished in 2006.
Recommended
The franchise system has also frayed in recent years, as some operators failed to hit revenue targets and infrastructure upgrades were delayed. The franchise on the East Coast main line collapsed no fewer than three times in 12 years.
Passenger groups have complained that they were expecting part-time season tickets — enabling people working from home more often to save money. They had hoped for monthly travel cards for passengers only travelling two or three days a week at the equivalent per-day cost.
Instead, transport secretary Grant Shapps is set to offer “carnets” — packets of tickets — with eight return journeys per month and the option to buy more.
The transport department will publish various case studies on Thursday showing the impact of the new carnet system on different types of commute.
Meanwhile, the Treasury is insisting the Department for Transport bears down on costs in the railway. Treasury officials are also keen for the private sector to start taking more of a share of the risk on rail contracts.
Source: https://www.ft.com/content/c9d5290a-9cd7-4e2b-8df7-7be0d07b02f0
- Status