Great British Railways: Thoughts, predictions, speculation

[Clarence Yard]

So the effort involved in delay attribution now is not actually much different to in BR days? That's certainly not the impression I generally get.

(edited because my other question was already answered)

And edited again because having looked at the report now, it certainly doesn't give the impression that arguing over blame is only a very small part of the process - it says that around 40% of delays are disputed through an extensive escalation process.

That’s rubbish. 40% of delays get disputed but not very far through the process. That’s not much different from what happened under BR when individual departments used to fight over delays.

The big change from BR, apart from the financial aspect, is the number of staff at the NR end. It’s not small!

 

[AdamWW]

Talking of "rubbish" in the report, I find the argument that there are too many types of passenger train in use because no airline or coach company would have that many a bit odd.

 

[TRAX]

Talking of "rubbish" in the report, I find the argument that there are too many types of passenger train in use because no airline or coach company would have that many a bit odd.

It’s not wrong, though. The UK has a lot of micro-fleets of 15-30 units in a class, sometimes with no commonality with other train types on the network.
Having a more unified fleet brings purchasing, leasing, maintenance and operation costs down, and this is what all other countries do, privatised or not, sectorised or not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s not wrong, though. The UK has a lot of micro-fleets of 15-30 units in a class, sometimes with no commonality with other train types on the network.
Having a more unified fleet brings purchasing, leasing, maintenance and operation costs down, and this is what all other countries do, privatised or not, sectorised or not.

It's notable that the freight sector has heavily reduced the number of locomotive classes it used.

Of course we recently saw a downside, with all the 80x out of service knackering several TOCs.

 

[camflyer]

Of course this is only the initial plan. Legislation will be required to make much of it happen so a lot of the details could change.

 

[AdamWW]

It’s not wrong, though. The UK has a lot of micro-fleets of 15-30 units in a class, sometimes with no commonality with other train types on the network.
Having a more unified fleet brings purchasing, leasing, maintenance and operation costs down, and this is what all other countries do, privatised or not, sectorised or not.

Perhaps not, but i'd prefer points to be made with valid arguments - comparing with rail companies in other countries would certainly be more appropriate.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Surely Network Rail should remain as an agency focusing on maintenance and operations operating under GBR as well as being owned by them? They can be accountable to GBR and surely that would prevent everything coming under one roof and certain things being missed out? I don’t like feel like GBR can do everything on the railway and be on top of it, it is inevitable that something will be ‘forgotten’ or could go wrong....

Well it's vital that timetabling, at least at the strategic level, lies within GBR.
So that section of NR (System Operator?) is going to migrate (not physically, hopefully).
The NR Regions/Routes may well stay intact.
It's NR HQ that is more central to GBR, and probably major programmes.

"Under one roof" is an interesting concept for GBR.
I wouldn't hazard a guess as to where that might be!
Probably distributed quite widely (and nothing wrong with that).
I should think ticketing will be in London (ex-DfT).

 

[zwk500]

Well it's vital that timetabling, at least at the strategic level, lies within GBR.
So that section of NR (System Operator?) is going to migrate (not physically, hopefully).

Yes System Operator deals with timetabling (and other things besides). It will transfer across, but likely stay in MK.

The NR Regions/Routes may well stay intact.

The report clearly intends for the Regions (the routes are part of each region) to be the dominant structure.

"Under one roof" is an interesting concept for GBR.

I think this will be more under one banner than one roof

I wouldn't hazard a guess as to where that might be!
Probably distributed quite widely (and nothing wrong with that).

ROCs or nearby I'd guess.

I should think ticketing will be in London (ex-DfT).

As few people as possible will be based in London for cost. Any central functions are likely to use Q:MK or Manchester.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Talking of "rubbish" in the report, I find the argument that there are too many types of passenger train in use because no airline or coach company would have that many a bit odd.

It's how easyJet and Ryanair control their costs (crewing, maintenance), and standardises their product.
At the same time they buy new planes and retire 5-10 year old near identical planes to get the most efficient fleets.
Keeping multiple different rolling stock fleets going until they fall apart is a big cost factor for the rail system.
Also these days the manufacturers are usually contracted to maintain their trains, not the operator.

 

[AdamWW]

It's how easyJet and Ryanair control their costs (crewing, maintenance), and standardises their product.
At the same time they buy new planes and retire 5-10 year old near identical planes to get the most efficient fleets.
Keeping multiple different rolling stock fleets going until they fall apart is a big cost factor for the rail system.
Also these days the manufacturers are usually contracted to maintain their trains, not the operator.

I presume this works for Easyjet and Ryanair because they can sell their aircraft on to other airlines at a fair fraction of what they paid for them.
I can't see how that works for rail in the UK.
And while it's clear that there could be more standardisation in the UK than there is, the nature of the network is that it's going to need more variety in rolling stock than an airline (or coach company) can get away with.

 

[Horizon22]

As has been said repeatedly on these pages, delay attribution isn’t going anywhere. It was done in BR days - indeed I did it. It is essential to do to work out why trains have been delayed so that you can then work out how to stop it happening again.

What might stop is the arguing about the money that results from the delay attribution. This involves perhaps 5% of the people involved in delay attribution.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 May 2021 ==



Yes. All existing contracts will be honoured.

Yes but some DA jobs are all about the arguing about it and the endless back and forth

Proper root-cause analysis is excellent and should stay but I still feel it could have some streamlining.

Other areas that have artificial NR/TOC splits are more likely to be affected are things like station management duplication and other areas whereby the lines are almost artificially blurred (sometimes aspects of control)

 

[Horizon22]

Apparently the name and (some?) of the thinking came from this Labour document "GB Rail: Labour’s Plan for a Nationally Integrated Publicly Owned Railway"

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/GB_Rail_Labour_Opposition_White_Paper.pdf

I know other parties including the Lib Dems have also had official policy supporting an “SRA type” arrangement. I mean, most senior experienced people in the railway would have argue for such a thing so they’d have just needed to talk to them...

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes but some DA jobs are all about the arguing about it and the endless back and forth

Not many though, and certainly not at L1 (which is where the majority of the people are).

 

[brad465]

Question Time are talking about this, with the question "Is Great British Rail just another headline-grabbing gimmick, or will it actually make travel cheaper and more efficient?"

 

[Dr Hoo]

Not many though, and certainly not at L1 (which is where the majority of the people are).

Keep saying it, BR, it will sink in eventually!

(Posted as someone who was a regular at Delay Attribution Board meetings before I retired and also old enough to remember how awfully labour-intensive and abysmally ineffective performance management was under BR before Delay Attribution and TRUST were invented by the unified, nationalised system.)

 

[destere]

It's how easyJet and Ryanair control their costs (crewing, maintenance), and standardises their product.
At the same time they buy new planes and retire 5-10 year old near identical planes to get the most efficient fleets.
Keeping multiple different rolling stock fleets going until they fall apart is a big cost factor for the rail system.
Also these days the manufacturers are usually contracted to maintain their trains, not the operator.

Whilst the principle is true, you'll find they keep their aircraft for longer than 5-10 years, that's for sure. A quick fleet search will tell you that.

Secondly, they can (under usual circumstances) sell those aircraft on the second-hand market, as AdamWW says. 737s and a320s are used virtually everywhere. Where is the UK going to offload all of these non-standard trains to?

The aircraft are usually sold before big and expensive services/checks are required, less so upgrading to a more efficient fleet - new generations of aircraft aren't that quick to come around. There are sometimes incremental upgrades, some of which and be retrofitted. In essence, it's not nearly as clear-cut as you make out.

Furthermore, I don't think the economic case of new fleets is directly comparable to trains. It's apples and oranges.

 

[JamesT]

Apparently the name and (some?) of the thinking came from this Labour document "GB Rail: Labour’s Plan for a Nationally Integrated Publicly Owned Railway"

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/GB_Rail_Labour_Opposition_White_Paper.pdf

Not really. I think there’s only so many options for what to call an organisation responsible for railways in Great Britain. Although some of the messaging about a central controller are similar with the Labour plan, there is one massive difference: Labour are calling for full nationalisation. Labour’s GB Rail would manage all train operations, rather than offering concessions for private companies to bid on.
Also, the Williams Review has been going since 2018. Although the paper came out later, it’s unlikely they’ve been copying the homework.

 

[usualmidlander]

Well it's vital that timetabling, at least at the strategic level, lies within GBR.
So that section of NR (System Operator?) is going to migrate (not physically, hopefully).
The NR Regions/Routes may well stay intact.
It's NR HQ that is more central to GBR, and probably major programmes.

"Under one roof" is an interesting concept for GBR.
I wouldn't hazard a guess as to where that might be!
Probably distributed quite widely (and nothing wrong with that).
I should think ticketing will be in London (ex-DfT).

However where will departments such as S&T maintenance or faulting teams or signallers for example fall under? There are so many roles within that area and I can’t see them all falling under GBR on top of what GBR want to control. Surely it’s not cost-efficient to change all of NR buildings and uniforms and fleets of vehicles to GBR, just doesn’t make sense

 

[the sniper]

Surely it’s not cost-efficient to change all of NR buildings and uniforms and fleets of vehicles to GBR, just doesn’t make sense

Many TOCs have changed their uniforms twice during a single franchise term. Uniforms aren't great quality and there's competition amongst providers, so changing is no big deal in the grand scheme of things.

Having made such a big deal out of the 'Great British Railways' brand/unification, I doubt the only place that brand is going to be seen is on a ticket website and thousands of (yellow?!) Pway vans up and down the country...

 

[TUC]

You mean that "small corner of the UK" that contains approximately a third of the total population of the country and whose taxes subsidise the rest?

The London commuter market is a very different market to much of the rest of the UK where there is far less a dependancy upon rail and more capacity for competition. I do get the feeling that this policy is one that sees rail primarily through a London lens.

 

[Seehof]

Here at York there are three groups of uniformed staff managing the train services: TPE and LNER who have high profile platform roles. LNER look after Cross Country but Grand Central has to self despatch! Northern, who have a more station office role at the Northern booking on point, but who are often on the platforms at times of service alterations or in the evening organising trains that need to go to the TPE depot for fuelling.
What will happen to them? Will they continue as they are? Or will GBR take over the task for all operators. This situation, of course, applies at many other larger stations as well.

 

[Masbroughlad]

Will a concession be the same routes, stock etc as a franchise is now. ie Will the front line service look the same, with massive changes financially and structurally one step above the operator?

Will we stop the ridiculous fines per minute for delays? Maybe connections may start to hold again?!

 

[physics34]

One question i haven't seen answered (may have just missed it), is who is responsible for the staff... ie the drivers..... are they to be employed by Great British Railways or the individual private companies,?

 

[dk1]

One question i haven't seen answered (may have just missed it), is who is responsible for the staff... ie the drivers..... are they to be employed by Great British Railways or the individual private companies,?

Individual companies I’d say. Just a concession like TfL who operate Overground. Can’t see much changing on that front.

 

[camflyer]

Not really. I think there’s only so many options for what to call an organisation responsible for railways in Great Britain. Although some of the messaging about a central controller are similar with the Labour plan, there is one massive difference: Labour are calling for full nationalisation. Labour’s GB Rail would manage all train operations, rather than offering concessions for private companies to bid on.
Also, the Williams Review has been going since 2018. Although the paper came out later, it’s unlikely they’ve been copying the homework.

At least with concessions an operator which doesn't perform sufficiently well can be replaced. Not much you can do about a poorly run state run service. Poor management isn't the sole preserve of the private sector.

 

[Wolfie]

The London commuter market is a very different market to much of the rest of the UK where there is far less a dependancy upon rail and more capacity for competition. I do get the feeling that this policy is one that sees rail primarily through a London lens.

There may be some truth in that l agree.

 

[coppercapped]

Whilst the principle is true, you'll find they keep their aircraft for longer than 5-10 years, that's for sure. A quick fleet search will tell you that.

Secondly, they can (under usual circumstances) sell those aircraft on the second-hand market, as AdamWW says. 737s and a320s are used virtually everywhere. Where is the UK going to offload all of these non-standard trains to?

The aircraft are usually sold before big and expensive services/checks are required, less so upgrading to a more efficient fleet - new generations of aircraft aren't that quick to come around. There are sometimes incremental upgrades, some of which and be retrofitted. In essence, it's not nearly as clear-cut as you make out.

Furthermore, I don't think the economic case of new fleets is directly comparable to trains. It's apples and oranges.

One of the big advantages of a standardised fleet is that aircrew can fly all of them... You don't get into a position that a 737-800 is stuck in, say, Ibiza because the only available crew is only passed to fly the A320.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The London commuter market is a very different market to much of the rest of the UK where there is far less a dependancy upon rail and more capacity for competition. I do get the feeling that this policy is one that sees rail primarily through a London lens.

I don't agree at all. It seems to be accepting that every single railway line in the country has a vicious competitor - the car (and air for very long trips) - and it needs to work together as one against that foe rather than pettily spatting within itself.

The network is stronger as one.

 

[matt_world2004]

Heathrow Express is already an open access operator it’s just GWR run a lot of the operation on their behalf.

Yes however its operation is written into future franchise specifications for the gwml

 

[Mikey C]

I presume this works for Easyjet and Ryanair because they can sell their aircraft on to other airlines at a fair fraction of what they paid for them.
I can't see how that works for rail in the UK.
And while it's clear that there could be more standardisation in the UK than there is, the nature of the network is that it's going to need more variety in rolling stock than an airline (or coach company) can get away with.

In the initial post privatisation period there was a reasonable amount of standardisation with the Turbostar being bought to operate all sorts of routes, for which it wasn't entirely suitable. If you wanted standardisation you would have left them on the MML and bought them instead of the 185s, but it hardly would have been an improvement