Is NR being privatised by stealth by Grayling?

[Dave1987]

Honest question as I really don’t understand. Is Graylings plan for “closer integration of track and train” actually an attempt to privatise NR by stealth or is there genuine merits to it? If so what are they? Does anyone want to go back to the days of RailTrack if he is attempting to privatise NR and the consequences of what RailTrack did.

 

[pt_mad]

Honest question as I really don’t understand. Is Graylings plan for “closer integration of track and train” actually an attempt to privatise NR by stealth or is there genuine merits to it? If so what are they? Does anyone want to go back to the days of RailTrack if he is attempting to privatise NR and the consequences of what RailTrack did.

Will signalling go over to these partnership Tocs? And if so can they be unbiased if there's a choice as to which train to let out first during delays?

 

[DarloRich]

Honest question as I really don’t understand. Is Graylings plan for “closer integration of track and train” actually an attempt to privatise NR by stealth or is there genuine merits to it? If so what are they? Does anyone want to go back to the days of RailTrack if he is attempting to privatise NR and the consequences of what RailTrack did.

it isnt clear what these new partnerships will look like. Is the Scotrail alliance prvitisation by stealth or nationalisation by stealth?

 

[swt_passenger]

Will signalling go over to these partnership Tocs? And if so can they be unbiased if there's a choice as to which train to let out first during delays?

During the period SWR and NR had what was called an alliance, I don’t recall hearing any complaints about the the other TOCs and FOCs being treated any differently by the signallers, during delays or otherwise. Surely all access contracts and rules would remain in place, as would the disputes committee?

 

[HH]

During the period SWR and NR had what was called an alliance, I don’t recall hearing any complaints about the the other TOCs and FOCs being treated any differently by the signallers, during delays or otherwise. Surely all access contracts and rules would remain in place, as would the disputes committee?

Maybe, but the so-called Alliance left an abundance of bad feeling on both sides. Not surprising when the two had different targets and incentives.

 

[underbank]

Will signalling go over to these partnership Tocs? And if so can they be unbiased if there's a choice as to which train to let out first during delays?

Isn't air traffic control privatised? Presumably that must have some rules about priority/order of take offs?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Isn't air traffic control privatised? Presumably that must have some rules about priority/order of take offs?

Largely irrelevant. Such decisions are much more heavily influenced by Eurocontrol planning at Maastricht who effectively determine "slots" in the airways system.

 

[SamYeager]

Isn't air traffic control privatised? Presumably that must have some rules about priority/order of take offs?

It's not quite so cut and dried as local ATC will also order takeoffs and landings depending on the wake turbulence generated by an aircraft. Eurocontrol as mentioned above is yet another important factor and of course things like rejected takeoffs and aircraft declaring emergency will also influence the order of takeoff.

 

[elstreepilot]

Largely irrelevant. Such decisions are much more heavily influenced by Eurocontrol planning at Maastricht who effectively determine "slots" in the airways system.

Yes, to a large degree on departures, but a little less so on arrivals. I once had the good fortune to be inbound on Concorde and I enjoyed the unique experience of a straight in approach to LHR. At around 19:00, so stilll a busy time for arrivals. Never happened before or since at that time of day. NATS were still nationalised then too, but I think BA did own an interest.

 

[tbtc]

Is the Scotrail alliance prvitisation by stealth or nationalisation by stealth?

Good question.

The general consensus on the Forum is that we should have better integration (between track and train), but when Mr Grayling proposes it people are against it.

 

[DarloRich]

Good question.

The general consensus on the Forum is that we should have better integration (between track and train), but when Mr Grayling proposes it people are against it.

Surely not

 

[DarloRich]

Maybe, but the so-called Alliance left an abundance of bad feeling on both sides. Not surprising when the two had different targets and incentives.

Which is why the scotrail alliance is set up differently

 

[Highlandspring]

NATS Holdings is a public private partnership between the UK Government (49% and a ‘golden share’), The Airline Group (42%), NATS staff (5%) and LHR Airports Ltd (4%). The Airline Group is made up of Thomson Airways, USS Sherwood Ltd (an American universities pension fund), Pension Protection Fund, British Airways, Easyjet, Virgin Atlantic, Lufthansa AG and Thomas Cook Airlines. The actual day to day operational bit of NATS (called NERL or National En Route PLC) is regulated by the CAA in the same way that Network Rail is regulated by the ORR.

 

[mcmad]

Which is why the scotrail alliance is set up differently

Maybe but the end result is the same bad feeling on both sides

 

[Carlisle]

Maybe, but the so-called Alliance left an abundance of bad feeling on both sides. Not surprising when the two had different targets and incentives.

Then again complex and longstanding operational problems and difficulties were never likley to be solved overnight by redesigning a few office layouts and job roles and responsibilities and renaming it an alliance..

 

[FenMan]

Good question.

The general consensus on the Forum is that we should have better integration (between track and train), but when Mr Grayling proposes it people are against it.

Given Grayling's less than glorious ministerial career thus far, I am not in the least bit surprised that interested parties do not trust Grayling to do the washing up, let alone integrate track and train for a key part of the network.

 

[tomuk]

integrate track and train
What does this actually mean and why is it needed?

 

[MCSHF007]

Although I can obviously understand why often people new to the forum might not be "up to speed" with issues/concepts that many of us take for granted I do have to admit to being surprised when long standing members appear confused by same.

 

[tomuk]

Although I can obviously understand why often people new to the forum might not be "up to speed" with issues/concepts that many of us take for granted I do have to admit to being surprised when long standing members appear confused by same.

It is a genuine question. What do people mean when they say integrate track and train and what examples are there where having it not integrated have caused problems?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Rail infrastructure (Railtrack/Network Rail) and operations (the TOCs) were separated in 1994 in the run up to privatisation.
Network Rail is run and funded on 5-year control periods regulated by ORR, with high level objectives set by government (HLOS/SoFA).
The TOCs are run and funded by franchise agreements of varying durations up to 15 years (25 years for locally-managed Merseyrail), set by government.
The objectives and incentives of each "side" can vary considerably, and can get completely out of sync.
Notable structural failures were West Coast Route Modernisation, the electrification cutbacks, and now the timetable meltdown.

On top of that, the business models on both sides are creaking - Network Rail is seriously underperforming and has a funding crisis, while the TOCs are in a situation where growth is slowing, performance is deteriorating, and the customers are impatient for improvements which seem very difficult to deliver.

While the DfT notionally owns all the issues, and the means to solve them, the legal setup means it cannot simply tell Network Rail and the TOCs what to do.
NR is protected by ORR and its periodic funding settlements, and the TOCs are protected by their franchise agreements.
The challenge is to find a business model that supplies the funding and has fully aligned (if not merged) operational objectives for both infrastructure providers and operators to deliver an improved service (for less than the current £4 billion a year or whatever).
I think the NATS public-private model outlined in #13 is something that might be considered.
It includes external financing, private operator involvement, and national infrastructure operation, within a structure that retains government overall control (just!).

 

[HH]

Then again complex and longstanding operational problems and difficulties were never likley to be solved overnight by redesigning a few office layouts and job roles and responsibilities and renaming it an alliance..

I think they had a bit longer than one night. But, given the problems inherent in the way it was set up, I think it could have had a thousand years and the result would have been no different.

Given Grayling's less than glorious ministerial career thus far, I am not in the least bit surprised that interested parties do not trust Grayling to do the washing up, let alone integrate track and train for a key part of the network.

Although "Failing Grayling" doesn't add any patina to the proposals, they will have originated within the Department. Whether that makes things any better, I could not say.

 

[tomuk]

Notable structural failures were West Coast Route Modernisation, the electrification cutbacks, and now the timetable meltdown.

I'm not sure the first two are structural failures. With regards WCRM Railtrack promised Virgin they could provide a 140mph moving block upgraded WCML for £2bn and completely failed. The second NR promised to do lots of electrifcation for a few billion £ and failed to do so. On the timetabing front the mess at Northern is mainly due to NR failing to electrify Bolton on time and not communicating the failure early enough. Thameslink issues appear to be down to Dft delaying the decision to reduce the timetable to 18tph.

NR is protected by ORR and its periodic funding settlements, and the TOCs are protected by their franchise agreements.

Dft as owner and funder can tell NR to do whatever it likes. There is an argument that ORR was too weak when NR was private and is irrelevant now NR is nationalised. Dft has removed enhancements from ORR purview during CP6. TOCs should be protected under the franchise agreements if they are doing what is asked of them. The franchise is let by DFT in the first place its not the TOCs fault i the contract is rubbish.

 

[Joe Paxton]

Yes, to a large degree on departures, but a little less so on arrivals. I once had the good fortune to be inbound on Concorde and I enjoyed the unique experience of a straight in approach to LHR. At around 19:00, so stilll a busy time for arrivals. Never happened before or since at that time of day. NATS were still nationalised then too, but I think BA did own an interest.

Concorde always got special treatment. Nowt to do with BA having a stake in NATS.

 

[Busaholic]

Good question.

The general consensus on the Forum is that we should have better integration (between track and train), but when Mr Grayling proposes it people are against it.

On principle.

 

[DarloRich]

It is a genuine question. What do people mean when they say integrate track and train and what examples are there where having it not integrated have caused problems?

no one knows. It means nothing other than a sound bite at this stage

 

[pt_mad]

Will integrating track and train ever happen now, given that even the timetable change at Northern was utter chaos nevermind giving signalling over to a TOC...?

Surely the relet of the ECP will have to be put on hold just as XC is being?

 

[DarloRich]

Good question.

The general consensus on the Forum is that we should have better integration (between track and train), but when Mr Grayling proposes it people are against it.

Mainly because of the infamous Grayling reverse midas touch!

 

[HH]

Mainly because of the infamous Grayling reverse midas touch!

A Hollies fan?