Ideas for restructuring the railway post-Williams Review

[Bletchleyite]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...he-williams-review.205838/page-3#post-4642958

It would be nice if we had the 6 regions of British rail and turned them into sectors. InterCity would also have Its own sector (yes, they could revive it). I don't know what will happen with concession TOC's and Open Acces TOC's.

Open Access... well, it's well known I'm no fan of it, but there's no reason it can't still exist in a more regulated setting, it does after all exist across Europe where in most cases the traditional nationalised operator is the incumbent. In most cases it's outside the normal fares system, which is probably a good thing as it means they have to stand or fall entirely on their own merit, and ORCATS raiding doesn't get a look-in.

Concessions... they'll all be that, won't they? But if you mean locally-awarded, I can't see any case to integrate TfW or ScotRail back in, it's basically a devolved matter now - arguably you should probably just devolve Network Rail and their funding too and let them get on with it as they wish. Merseyrail and LO are really only National Rail in name, and in some ways might as well similarly be wholly devolved. Through ticketing could be retained in the manner of PlusBus and outboundary Travelcards/zonal fares and similar. Merseyrail doesn't appear to want to be part of the national system anyway, and given that it basically does the same thing as Metrolink and the T&W Metro I'm not sure of any reason other than historical accident[1] why it is.

[1] By which I mean BR was in favour at the time it was conceived, but less so when T&W Metro and Metrolink were conceived a bit later on.

 

[tetudo boy]

Merseyrail doesn't appear to want to be part of the national system anyway, and given that it basically does the same thing as Metrolink and the T&W Metro

Japan has done a similar thing. There are railways known as "Private Railways" and they are completely separate from the main company, JR (in this case, the railway we want to make some sort of private railway is Merseyrail, and the main company is whatever the company BR will be after nationalization.). I always thought that was a good idea, keeping Merseyrail/Merseytravel a private railway company, owning all the track, station trains, (well, technically they do own and have the rights to the new Class 777 units, but not the older units) and other things. Nationalized BR will technically be the same as what I explained with Merseyrail except it's the main company instead of the private railway.

 

[Energy]

Japan has done a similar thing. There are railways known as "Private Railways" and they are completely separate from the main company, JR (in this case, the railway we want to make some sort of private railway is Merseyrail, and the main company is whatever the company BR will be after nationalization.). I always thought that was a good idea, keeping Merseyrail a private railway company, owning all the track, station trains, (well, technically they do own and have the rights to the new Class 777 units, but not the older units) and other things. Nationalized BR will technically be the same as what I explained with Merseyrail except it's the main company instead of the private railway.

Merseytravel (part of the local government) own the class 777s. Merseyrail could work like the London Overground rather well with a concession system.

 

[mmh]

Merseytravel (part of the local government) own the class 777s. Merseyrail could work like the London Overground rather well with a concession system.

Merseyrail already is a concession.

 

[tetudo boy]

Merseytravel (part of the local government) own the class 777s.

...which own Merseyrail. So technically, Merseyrail does own them as well. The ownership of Merseyrail is a confusing one.

 

[Energy]

...which own Merseyrail. So technically, Merseyrail does own them as well. The ownership of Merseyrail is a confusing one.

Not really, if two companies are owned by the same parent company then the 2 companies are sister companies, one does not own the other. Although the class 777s are assets not a company it is similar in that Merseyrail do not own them.

 

[tetudo boy]

Not really, if two companies are owned by the same parent company then the 2 companies are sister companies, one does not own the other. Although the class 777s are assets not a company it is similar in that Merseyrail do not own them.

Sorry, I will correct my post! But it is nice that Merseytravel owns them instead of a leasing company.

 

[mmh]

Just think of it as a PTE which is just more involved than some. The structure's effectively the same as TFL and Croydon Tramlink. The trams are owned by operating them is contracted out to a private company. (Although Tramlink doesn't have the track and building infrastructure run by another party - Network Rail.)

 

[Energy]

Sorry, I will correct my post! But it is nice that Merseyrail owns them instead of a leasing company.

Merseytravel not Merseyrail!

 

[tetudo boy]

Merseytravel not Merseyrail!

Too late, already edited

 

[Gareth]

It should also be pointed out that the JR companies are also privatised; although I think some of them are wholly owned by the Japanese government. I do like the common house brand the JR companies use though. It'd be nice to have a similar BR one for our National Rail TOCs. I'm also a "one TOC per London terminal" kinda guy.

 

[si404]

I'm also a "one TOC per London terminal" kinda guy.

Victoria, Blackfriars and London Bridge wave.

 

[Domh245]

Victoria, Blackfriars and London Bridge wave.

I'm personally looking forward to the new mega TOC that operates services from London to Sheffield, Cambridge, Ramsgate, Brighton, and Paris!

 

[Gareth]

I see what you both did there. Hilarious.

 

[tetudo boy]

It should also be pointed out that the JR companies are also privatised; although I think some of them are wholly owned by the Japanese government. I do like the common house brand the JR companies use though. It'd be nice to have a similar BR one for our National Rail TOCs. I'm also a "one TOC per London terminal" kinda guy.

The fact that there are multiple sectors in JR (eg. JR East, JR Hokkaido ect.) is what I was thinking with the nationalised British rail, just with the former 6 BR regions as sectors. Who knows? Could we see sectors like JR?

 

[JonathanH]

The fact that there are multiple sectors in JR (eg. JR East, JR Hokkaido ect.) is what I was thinking with the nationalised British rail, just with the former 6 BR regions as sectors. Who knows? Could we see sectors like JR?

Is your plan for six regions going to conflict with your desire for trains to run from Liverpool well into the territory of every single one of them?

On a realistic note, the problem with regions is that people's lives often don't sit nicely in one of them so you still have to have services which cross the regional boundaries.

 

[tetudo boy]

Is your plan for six regions going to conflict with your desire for trains to run from Liverpool well into the territory of every single one of them?

Well... Intercity did have more direct services back in the BR days so... maybe. Of course, not all of them would be in service.

 

[tetudo boy]

On a realistic note, the problem with regions is that people's lives often don't sit nicely in one of them so you still have to have services which cross the regional boundaries.

Maybe if InterCity services had a sector they could serve services which cross-sector boundaries.
as for regional services which do this... I don't know.

I've made a list of what I would like the sector names to be (albeit with a little of nostalgia!):

1. The Western region/sector would be named: "Great Western Railway" (Not to be confused with the current name)
2. The Southern region/sector would be named: "Network SouthEast" (I thought it would be nice to bring it back)
3. The Scottish region/sector would be named: "ScotRail"
4. The North Eastern region/sector would be named: "North Eastern Railway"
5. The London Midland region/sector would be named: "London West Coast Railway"
6. The Eastern region/sector would be named: "Great Eastern"

InterCity services would stay mostly the same as the former BR except for a new sector of InterCity called "InterCity TransPennine" to operate today's TransPennine express routes (except the West Coast TransPennine which would transfer to InterCity West Coast)

I might also post these in the Post-nationalisation branding thread.

 

[Energy]

The Western region/sector would be named: "Great Western Railway" (Not to be confused with the current name)

Good name, already familiar with passengers, the current brand feels modern.

The Southern region/sector would be named: "Network SouthEast" (I thought it would be nice to bring it back)

Not so sure, could be ok but NSE does look old now and BR never had a great reputation with a lot of people.

The Scottish region/sector would be named: "ScotRail"

Already familiar with passengers, sounds good and describes the location, good name

The North Eastern region/sector would be named: "North Eastern Railway"

To be honest I'm not a great fan of the name, I would rather have north east and north west together and simply as Northern as it is now, not much point splitting the regions in my opinion.

The London Midland region/sector would be named: "London West Coast Railway"

Well the west midlands part of the area is already called West Midlands Railway and will remain named that, lots of the midlands isn't really London West Coast.

The Eastern region/sector would be named: "Great Eastern"

I'm not really a fan of putting 'great' in names, it works for GWR as they run on a mainline which is called Great Western although their is the Great Eastern mainline it doesn't seem to quite fit in my opinion.

 

[DJ_K666]

Here is a tongue in cheek version how I might go about it if I could. These are just ideas that would be batted around. Meant to trigger discussions not become a Marples/Beeching bashing thing

1. Overhaul of the CPO regulations to allow easier reopenings - BIG sweeteners for homeowners, like the option of hotel and dismantling/re-erection of their property. And informing them they'd be mortgage free afterwards (Expensive but you might see a lot of the resistance melt away) The remaining protions of the Transport Act 1962 and the Railways Act 1993 would be repealed. Jargon like "Passenger Hubs" and suchlike would be formally abandoned for plain English in all literature. Not just because I find them annoying, much like management-speak generally.

2. The BRB would be reconstituted and absorb both Network Rail and the Operator of Last Resort/DOR. The combined company that resulted would be BR. It would take over franchises as they expired

3. A suspicious shade of blue would appear as the national livery. Yellow ends would be reinstated (When someone's colour vision starts to go yellow is the final colour to disappear, so it's safer even with modern lighting)

4. Freight traffic would be identified and brought back to the railways ie parcels offices at stations. Proper buildings and staffing would be brought in where possible.

Here's where we differ.

5. Small branches like the Sudbury Town line would be able to be operated by a private contractor with their own fares and choice of rolling stock. They would have running rights to and from depots and as sensibly required on BR lines where needed

6. All ex Beeching line/station closures, as well as subsequent ones would be reviewed as to whether they can be profitably returned or rebuilt. This would be an annual desktop exercise using computer modelling techniques taking into account population growth, housing etc. The acts that allowed them to be built would be examined as part of these reviews and used as a basis for reopening legislation. It would be made more or less impossible to close, dismantle or build on former railways in light of Peak Oil and increasing motor traffic pollution. Batteries just haven't become efficient enough yet and are still the one major limitation of electric vehicles. Ditto for charging points. City councils would be required to restore alignments when requested to their pre-demolition condition subject to point 1 on this list. Girder bridges and all in the case of Leicester and Nottingham

7. I would then run and hide from the pitchfork wielding mobs that would probably be camped outside my office the day after publishing this list

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be made more or less impossible to close, dismantle or build on former railways in light of Peak Oil and increasing motor traffic pollution.

The easiest way to do that might well be to chuck Sustrans a load of money and get all remaining unconverted ones converted to cycle paths. That would at least protect the alignment while having them do something useful in the meantime.

 

[DJ_K666]

The easiest way to do that might well be to chuck Sustrans a load of money and get all remaining unconverted ones converted to cycle paths. That would at least protect the alignment while having them do something useful in the meantime.

You could do that, it's dislodging them for the railway when the time came that'd be the problem. If you gave them a legally binding contract and told them to keep as many railway features and platforms etc as possible it could work.