Great British Railways: Thoughts, predictions, speculation

[Bletchleyite]

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

They weren't great InterCity trains, so I wouldn't have left them on the MML, but rather made them the standard regional express train, which would have meant not building classes 175 and 185, which I think would have been a sensible choice. You could always have specced a more powerful engine for the TPE ones.

The main problem with 170s as regional express units is that not enough of them were built.

 

[Luke McDonnell]

Will HS2 come under the ownership of GBR when operational I am not sure if it would be handed over to NR after completed but will HS2 also be operated as a GBR contract too?

 

[Purple Orange]

Will HS2 come under the ownership of GBR when operational I am not sure if it would be handed over to NR after completed but will HS2 also be operated as a GBR contract too?

Avanti was/is due to operate HS2 services, so I’d say yes it does come under NR/GBR.

 

[zwk500]

Avanti was/is due to operate HS2 services, so I’d say yes it does come under NR/GBR.

Big difference between operating/maintaining it and owning it. SouthEastern operate on HS1 and NR maintain it, but it's owned by London and Continental Railways.

I don't know what will happen with HS2 and EWR, but isn't Crossrail being handed over to Rail for London infrastructure?

 

[Purple Orange]

Big difference between operating/maintaining it and owning it. SouthEastern operate on HS1 and NR maintain it, but it's owned by London and Continental Railways.

I don't know what will happen with HS2 and EWR, but isn't Crossrail being handed over to Rail for London infrastructure?

True, but if it doesn’t sit with GBR, it means there is another body in control of a significant the flagship railway line in the UK, which is the opposite of what the government is intending to see happen.

 

[zwk500]

True, but if it doesn’t sit with GBR, it means there is another body in control of a significant the flagship railway line in the UK, which is the opposite of what the government is intending to see happen.

Depends if GBR have the contract to maintain it and plan it. The actual ownership of a line isn't that important. It's the decisions about access for trains and maintenance that matter. If GBR has a contract with HS2 ltd saying it'll manage the capacity, it's functionally no different.

At the moment, HS1 and the ELL (I think) are not NR-owned infrastructure, and XR definitely will not be while HS2 and EWR may not be. None of them have presented any major obstacle to operating with and as part of the national rail network.

 

[DJ_K666]

So in a nutshell, it's British Rail but various companies operating on behalf of it? Like in Germany where Regio services have both DB Regio and private companies such as Abellio bidding for contracts to run regional services?

Maybe it's how privatisation should have happened rather than the fragmentation that happened.

lets hope it includes getting rid of those horrible seats

 

[yorksrob]

Hopefully this dreadful reservation only fad will be knocked on the head. Management still clinging to the idea can be given their cards.

 

[DJ_K666]

will there be Great British Railways sandwiches? Will they be made with special pre-staled bread and wilted lettuce?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2021 ==

Hopefully this dreadful reservation only fad will be knocked on the head. Management still clinging to the idea can be given their cards.

I'd rather knock management on the head. With an axe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2021 ==

Can you smell nationalisation too ?

As long as it involves the repeal of the Railways Act 1993 and whollesale reopenings, monastral blue/Pearl grey trains with yellow ends then yes please. If not then they should come up with a different idea.

 

[camflyer]

It will be interesting to see how central ticket price setting affects routes where there is a choice of operator between a fast/expensive or slow/cheap train. If both are the same price then that is just going to make the fast services busier.

 

[SteveT]

From today's Daily Telegraph:


SIR – Does British Rail coming back under a new name (report, May 20) signal a return to those long-gone days when trains were prompt and efficient, and our services were the envy of so many countries?

If so, where does this leave the great vanity project that is HS2? Are we still expecting hundreds of people to be prepared to pay what will no doubt be an exorbitant price to travel from not-quite London to not-quite Birmingham to save 20 minutes?

Olly Plater
Holmer Green, Buckinghamshire

So much wrong and so much right in one short letter!

 

[HSTEd]

It will be interesting to see how central ticket price setting affects routes where there is a choice of operator between a fast/expensive or slow/cheap train. If both are the same price then that is just going to make the fast services busier.

Is that a problem?

I would argue we should be encouraging passengers to change between fast and slow services wherever possible

 

[Bletchleyite]

It will be interesting to see how central ticket price setting affects routes where there is a choice of operator between a fast/expensive or slow/cheap train. If both are the same price then that is just going to make the fast services busier.

That of course makes more efficient use of stock. Encouraging people to use slower services is less efficient, not more.

If you have the hypothetical situation of your stopper taking 50 minutes and your fast taking 25 (not all that far off Euston-MKC), and each being hourly (to keep the model simple), you need two diagrams to run your stopper and one to run the fast. Doubling the length of the fast requires one more unit, doubling the length of the slow requires two.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2021 ==

Is that a problem?

I would argue we should be encouraging passengers to change between fast and slow services wherever possible

Agreed. And where the system is designed for connections, people use them. I've mentioned this before, but it fits here - while commuting was still a thing, about 30 or so Bletchley passengers would change daily from the 1816 semifast Birmingham (Leighton Buzzard, MKC and onwards) at Leighton Buzzard to the following 1805 off Euston, with the Southern behind it as a backup. Because not holding the stopper at Ledburn would knacker timekeeping, it waits. And it's same platform.

Make connections good and people will use them. That means cross-platform, and it means holding trains where necessary (or if you're not going to because of already existing delay, e.g. to the inbound forming the 1816, informing people that you aren't, so they can make other choices, such as in this case waiting at Euston for the following train and not in the freezing cold at Leighton for 20 minutes).

 

[DJ_K666]

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.

Really the only way to do that is to renationalise the buses and re-establish the National Bus Company as a feeder (locally) to the railway network and maybe allow the reformations of the municipal Corporations in cities and boroughs, allowing them to run buses for the benefit of their residents (or burghers, as they were known) If you look at Switzerland all the trains run like clockwork and the buses feed into the stations which are a main interchange between the two. (Aren't they called Hauptbahnhofs?) It might be a bit strange to us but it works. Really all I want from this plan is for it to work properly rather than haphazardly and in the current fragmented fashion that is not possible. When something goes wrong everyone points fingers at everyone else. I'd be quite happy to wear a proper PSV driver'sbadge, old school.

Next it'd have to be bring back proper canteens in the depots.

 

[HSTEd]

Honestly the stories I hear of the quality of rest and training facilities on this forum for railway staff are rather shocking.

One of the reasons I like extreme rationalisation of signaller etc facilities is so proper canteens, relief facilities, training facilities and such can be integrated.

Railway workers are extraordinarily expensive to employ, I want them at their best.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really the only way to do that is to renationalise the buses and re-establish the National Bus Company as a feeder (locally) to the railway network and maybe allow the reformations of the municipal Corporations in cities and boroughs, allowing them to run buses for the benefit of their residents (or burghers, as they were known) If you look at Switzerland all the trains run like clockwork and the buses feed into the stations which are a main interchange between the two. (Aren't they called Hauptbahnhofs?) It might be a bit strange to us but it works. Really all I want from this plan is for it to work properly rather than haphazardly and in the current fragmented fashion that is not possible. When something goes wrong everyone points fingers at everyone else. I'd be quite happy to wear a proper PSV driver'sbadge, old school.

That could well be a good second step, but a good start is just getting the railway working as one rather than pettily spatting with itself about who can be 50p cheaper while half-empty trains go past a packed M1.

Next it'd have to be bring back proper canteens in the depots.

 

[ABB125]

From today's Daily Telegraph:


SIR – Does British Rail coming back under a new name (report, May 20) signal a return to those long-gone days when trains were prompt and efficient, and our services were the envy of so many countries?

If so, where does this leave the great vanity project that is HS2? Are we still expecting hundreds of people to be prepared to pay what will no doubt be an exorbitant price to travel from not-quite London to not-quite Birmingham to save 20 minutes?

Olly Plater
Holmer Green, Buckinghamshire

So much wrong and so much right in one short letter!

Rose tinted glasses?
Someone from Buckinghamshire moaning about HS2 - what a surprise! Can't they at least get their facts right? Do they think that HS2 is the Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange Railway (OOC&BIR)?

 

[BrianW]

Not sure best place to put this- happy for Mods to relocate ...

Understandably the Williams/Shapps Review has attracted a lot of comment.
My tuppence-worth ...
It's a good report, or maybe 'not too bad' to use more Great British understatement, or levelled up northern hard-working-class Sir Humphreyish 'ok'.
After taking an understandable swipe at the cost of Great Western Electrification 'gold-plating' as to blame for letting down Oxford, Sheffield and Swansea (actually due to a rushed start without adequate investigation of ground conditions and enabling works) it actually hits quite a lot of the right buttons.
Greenness, electrification, more transfer to rail travel, easier ticketing, bash Beeching, more rail freight to and from Felixstowe etc, ...
But it is also true to cost-cutting/ taxpayer related traditions. Jobs (ie 'jobsworths') will go; unions will be bashed (I mean 'restrictive practices' of course- not references to resistance to change.
With the loss of business and input of 'taxpayers money' that's inevitable.
Also note the swipe at unused platform lengthenings in Essex and overcommitment of capacity York- Newcastle.
It feels like a good time for 'the rail industry' to make progress on well-thought-through value-for-money schemes.
Flatter 'peaks'. More seats. Fewer train stocks. More reliable timetables. Jobs will go. 'Subsidies' will reduce. Fares will rise. Just don't call it 'nationalisation'.
Great British Reality?

 

[camflyer]

Is that a problem?

I would argue we should be encouraging passengers to change between fast and slow services wherever possible

I was thinking of a case like Cambridge to London. I have the choice of a non-stop Great Northern in Kings Cross or a slower stopping service from Greater Anglia into Liverpool St. Sometimes I will choose the former (especially if it's for work) but often on a weekend I will get a cheaper ticker on GA as I'm not in such a rush and the services into Liverpool St aren't as busy so I am guaranteed a seat.

 

[JaJaWa]

...Also note the swipe at unused platform lengthenings in Essex...

What exactly is this referring to? (Saw it in the report and a quick Google didn't answer)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Will HS2 come under the ownership of GBR when operational I am not sure if it would be handed over to NR after completed but will HS2 also be operated as a GBR contract too?

Avanti was/is due to operate HS2 services, so I’d say yes it does come under NR/GBR.

It's complex.
HS2 Ltd is not currently part of NR (it's a separate arm of DfT), and no policy has been stated as to what will happen when it opens.
Avanti as ICWC operator is part of the planning team for HS2 services, and is supposed to run trains on the line when it opens, many of which will run onto NR metals at the northern end of their journey.
The line will be ETCS-signalled, but where from has not been stated - it could be anywhere, and might be co-located at an NR ROC somewhere.

The precedent of HS1 is relevant.
HS1 is owned by L&CR for DfT (or possibly the Treasury), but operated and maintained by NR under contract (signalled from Ashford SCC).
But traffic rights were sold to the private sector (Canadian pension funds), and they lease the capacity to operators (Eurostar and Southeastern, and freight TOCs).
SE services are I think regulated by DfT/ORR as part of its franchise.
Eurostar is not regulated, or at least not in the same way, as it is an international service.

So I would guess HS2 will follow the same pattern.
HMG has been reluctant to put NR in charge of new lines - EWR is also under a different regime, at least for now.
HMG were also touting the sale/funding of HS2 by external capital, possibly from China - but that's gone very quiet.
Maybe all this will change now we have GBR.
Logically, you'd think HS2 Ltd would complete construction and move on to the next phase, while the operational side merges with GBR.
But I don't know where this leaves rolling stock, electrification and signalling procurement, as they are vital to the future operation of the line.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'd rather knock management on the head. With an axe.

All railway managers? A bit, umm, genocidal don’t you think?

What exactly is this referring to? (Saw it in the report and a quick Google didn't answer)

In around 2009/10 NR was remitted and funded to deliver platform extensions to 12 car on the Tilbury Loop, which it duly did (on time and on budget, as it happens).

However the body responsible for specifying the train service on the line chose not to require the train operator to run 12 car services on that line.

You may wish to speculate which organisation remitted NR to do the work but then chose not to specify the longer trains.

 

[The Planner]

Avanti as ICWC operator is part of the planning team for HS2 services, and is supposed to run trains on the line when it opens, many of which will run onto NR metals at the northern end of their journey.
The line will be ETCS-signalled, but where from has not been stated - it could be anywhere, and might be co-located at an NR ROC somewhere.

Unless its changed recently, it is being controlled from Washwood Heath where the depot will be.

 

[ainsworth74]

You may wish to speculate which organisation remitted NR to do the work but then chose not to specify the longer trains.

Just on that whilst I think that one the whole the document is actually very positive and (baring devil in the detail issues) quite possibly going to lead to actual significant improvements.

But I did think it was amusing how it almost felt like there was something of an elephant in the room at times discussing the various problems and issues that have arisen over time and failing to note that it was often the, er, DfT that were at the root of them. Another one I spotted was the snipe at the situation north of York at the moment where it is increasingly congested between LNER, XC and TPE (even before we add in East Coast Trains). And who was it that either specified or at least agreed to the plans that the TOCs put forward? Well, as you say, people may wish to speculate as to who that was...

 

[TRAX]

will there be Great British Railways sandwiches? Will they be made with special pre-staled bread and wilted lettuce?

Yum, government-issue white bread !

 

[Watershed]

Just on that whilst I think that one the whole the document is actually very positive and (baring devil in the detail issues) quite possibly going to lead to actual significant improvements.

But I did think it was amusing how it almost felt like there was something of an elephant in the room at times discussing the various problems and issues that have arisen over time and failing to note that it was often the, er, DfT that were at the root of them. Another one I spotted was the snipe at the situation north of York at the moment where it is increasingly congested between LNER, XC and TPE (even before we add in East Coast Trains). And who was it that either specified or at least agreed to the plans that the TOCs put forward? Well, as you say, people may wish to speculate as to who that was...

Yes, it's clear that the DfT is spared a lot of criticism, and that a lot of the problems they caused are somehow blamed at the feet of the TOCs for following orders. Hmm, twas ever thus...

It's disappointing that we couldn't have a truly independent report which calls a spade a spade, but then again, I suppose such a report probably wouldn't be implemented!

 

[yorksrob]

Yum, government-issue white bread !

Mothers Pride. According to surveys, the most popular make in the country during that period.

(Must confess - I still prefer white bread).

 

[alf]

I have read the report from front to back, thanks to Jimm, post 234.

It reads just like all the rail reports that have been churned out over the years by government, their appointees or the mighty Network Rail creative literature department.

They are always great on words - since you can generate them at the press of a button- but always fall short, & usually desperately short, on subsequent action.

Meanwhile the subsidies rise, the fares rise faster & real indicators of efficiency like TSRs grow rather then reduce.
Basingstoke & Weybridge up fast TSRs have been in place for at least three years & that is just one main line & one indicator.

Timetabled journey time is another indicator that gradually increases across the board to immunise NR & the operators from delay minutes.

I hope this latest report is different. It has never has been before.

 

[the sniper]

Yum, government-issue white bread !

Be sure that there'll be a Union Jack on the packaging too!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2021 ==

I’m interested in the potential implications for Rail Staff Travel / PRIV. With RDG subsumed by GBR, will NR employees get priv, or could the scheme change significantly?

Putting this reply in the Speculation thread instead. If RDG is to be rolled into GBR, surely it'd be inconceivable for GBR to arrange staff travel for its operators staff but not its own directly employed staff? Surely (non BR) NR staff will finally get Priv/FIP?

Alternatively, GBR might leave Staff Travel to a new Trade Association of the operators, but given that they'll surely have to honour the terms of the ex-BR staff Priv as per Railways Act 1993, GBR will have to have a department dealing with Staff Travel regardless or at least ensure that the provision is correctly carried out by some organisation.

Given that the Privatisation of NSB (Norway) maintained FIP, the semi-Nationalisation of our railway will surely not lead to a reduction in concessionary travel?!

Funny that ATOC used GBPR for years as our FIP ID and even now it's GB National Rail. Won't take much of a rebrand!

 

[RT4038]

Really the only way to do that is to renationalise the buses and re-establish the National Bus Company as a feeder (locally) to the railway network

I don't recall the former National Bus Company doing very much of that at all. The former National Bus Company was operated as a government owned private company, and required to be financially self-sufficient. Buses feeding the rail network doesn't make any money to bus undertakings at all.
To make any difference buses and trains must be financed out of the same 'public transport' pot, with no artificial financial barriers or ring fencing between them.