McNulty Report

[313103]

I have not actually read the full report but this is the view of the RMT.
http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=144705

Are the RMT right in saying that it is wrong for First Group bailing out First Great Western three years early depriving £826million while soaking up £140million in subsidy?

This is just one item that the union mentions, i would like to know should the union even be discussing this issue in the first place or should the failings of companies be known?

Is even Mr Mcnulty doing another Beeching or is he going in the right direction?

If you fail in one company should it be a binding agreement with government that you lose all what you have i.e National Express.

Is this the way forward or will it be like the Serpell report and consigned mostly to the dustbin.

 

[YorkshireBear]

no line closures are recommended. infact the opposite. But i think this report will be listened to wutie closely. and deinitely not consigned to the rubbish bin.

 

[DarloRich]

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/stra...il/pdf/realising-the-potential-of-gb-rail.pdf

full report here ^^^^^^^^

 

[ainsworth74]

I think it's worth noting that First aren't abandoning the FGW franchise they are using a prearranged break point that was written into their franchise agreement. They aren't doing a runner in the way that NX did from the ECML for example, they are just executing an option that was agreed to in their contract.

 

[Zoe]

I think it's worth noting that First aren't abandoning the FGW franchise they are using a prearranged break point that was written into their franchise agreement. They aren't doing a runner in the way that NX did from the ECML for example, they are just executing an option that was agreed to in their contract.

Yes, in the same way the dft could have decided not to grant the extension if First were not meeting targets. This would not have been a franchise termination.

 

[WatcherZero]

It reccomends a 'Northern Region' franchise area along with consideration of other franchise map redrawing to increase economies of scale and reduce the number of franchises.

* Combining Northern/TPE
* Combining FCC/Southern
* Combining Greater Anglia/C2C (note case not very strong in itself but benefits NR management)

Reccomends moving away from RUS 'predict and provide' saying it only considers capital expenditure solutions not soft measures.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I think it's worth noting that First aren't abandoning the FGW franchise they are using a prearranged break point that was written into their franchise agreement. They aren't doing a runner in the way that NX did from the ECML for example, they are just executing an option that was agreed to in their contract.

this is why i dont understand why some people are kicking off about it. the government gave them the option

 

[Metroland]

Key points and recommendations of the McNulty report:

GB Rail 30-40% more expensive than comparable European countries:

Recommendations:

1. Government should determine what the rail industry should deliver and industry should determine how it is delivered. ORR should periodically examine effeciency.

2. Retain the HLOS/SOFA process for the objective of cost reduction

3. Longer franchises, closer alignment between NR and TOC. Stronger incentives for cost reduction.

4. Industry to establish a Rail Delivery Group, to focus on decision making and 'making things happen'. To be formed within weeks.

5. Streamline planning, abandon predict and provide (EG RUS), devolve decision making, greater localism, decentralisation of NR

6. Diverse ownership of route infrastructure, including TOCs and local authorities

7. Liberalise fares structure, with full review of fares policy. Fares should be tied to demand.

8. Accelerate introduction of smart cards

9. Improve focus and incentives for property sales and management

10. Centralised analysis of information, good practice and excellence.

12. 30 year planning horizons

13. Improved staff competency and behaviours.

14. Reform working practices, staff cost £4bn out of £11bn costs.: DOO on all trains where possible, TOC free to make commercial decisions around the need for station dispatch staff, end above salary increases - this includes leaders.

16. Better use of IT planning, accelerate investment in new signalling to reduce staff costs.

17. Training of rail staff at colleges and awarding of licences.

18. Increased standardisation of rolling stock, better supply management.

19. Financial transparency, removal of Network Grant, all subsidy to TOCs, Profit and loss accounts across industry to be published annually, splitting NR into route level units with benchmarking. IE costs per mile

20. Lower cost regional railways: Different service levels, different kit, lower cost infrastructure, different working methods and standards.

21. Increase local involvement (PTEs, local authorities)

22. Move towards single regulator

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rail-vfm-summary-report-may11.pdf

 

[ainsworth74]

14. Reform working practices, staff cost £4bn out of £11bn costs.: DOO on all trains where possible, TOC free to make commercial decisions around the need for station dispatch staff, end above salary increases - this includes leaders.

The unions are going to love this one...

It all sounds quite good. I especially like the sounds of that first point, but it will also be quite hard to deliver I'm sure seeing as civil servants and government tend to like to have as much hands on control as possible.

 

[313103]

With regard the issue of getting rid of Conductors on all commuter trains, wouldnt that cost more to the government then keeping them employed. What would you do with someone like me who struggles on a salary of £26,000, has spent all his working life on the railway, has no academic exams from school and has only another 15 years of available work life left (based on current retirement age of 65). There would be and many thousands who would lose there jobs, what Mr Mcnulty hasnt done is to find out what the government will do with the likes of me.

 

[WatcherZero]

Also reccomends some changes to the franchise map:

* Combining Northern/TPE (main franchise change reccomendation)
* Combining FCC/Southern
* Combining Greater Anglia/C2C (note case not very strong in itself but benefits NR management)

 

[DarloRich]

Pages 192 - 215 deal with staff costs. There are some "interesting" conclusions. For instance they have compared drivers salaries with drivers of other vehicles, making no differential between safety critical and non safety critical roles. For instance I would contend that a van driver has less safety responsibility than a train driver.

The time taken to train drivers is also criticised. For instance the 8 months to train a driver is compared, unfavourably with the 6 weeks to train a tram driver or HGV driver. Once again this is not, I would contend a like for like comparison! I would be interested in a comparison between UK driver training and French, German and Swiss driver training

Drivers rosters come in for criticism because, according to the report, they often drive for less than 50% of their rostered shift because of agreements relating to rest breaks, train preparation and work schedules. An expectation of overtime is stated as a normal practice for , especially drivers and must stop


There are also points made about staff increases since the mid 1990's without any emphasis on the fragmented nature of railway industry following the conservatives botched privatisation scheme. This is increased by the comparison with European "competitors". There is no reference to the differing ownership and operation systems imposed on the various railway systems.

there is a discussion of franchising and a brief acceptance of the fact that franchising doesn’t not lend itself to efficient working, however the report then goes on to concentrate on longer franchises rather than investigating HOW the franchising system causes many ( but not all ) of the UK rail problems.

Reference is made to the fact that there is duplication of many roles within the industry; however, again, the main, but not only, reason is the fragmented system we now have. Instead of, say, Intercity Passenger head and regional passenger head we now have one head for each toc, and that is BEFORE NR get involved. The lack of trust and corporation between companies is noted and criticised. However, with so many private companies in competition surely this is understandable and a natural consequence of the "system". It needs to change but

The unionised nature of the railways is also targeted. Reading between the lines it is clear the unions will be a target. Removal or reduction of union representation would make it much easier for "efficiency savings" to be pushed through.

There is a large section dealing with TOC staff, particularly on train staff, or guards’ etc. it is noted that 30% of trains are DDO. The primary duties of the guard, according to the study, are opening and closing the trains doors, train dispatch, some safety duties (which the driver can do according to the study) and some revenue protection. Stand by for more DDO and less guards!

Ticket office opening times are also a target. I agree, to a point, that the opening times of ticket offices need to reflect usage. There is no point paying someone to sit in an empty office, BUT people need to see a person when things are going wrong or to provide a safety reassurance. Stand by for less station staff and more TVM/ oyster style tickets. Directors pay is criticised, but no where near as much as the pay of lower grade staff.


NR are to continue with their "headcount number reduction" of 6300 during this control period AND find further "headcount reductions" by working more efficiently and using IT more than present. Reductions in "overheads" are required and the number of duplicate positions reduced. Well, perhaps if we didn’t have 30+ companies all involved we might need fewer people!

However the bad news is that railway salaries ahead of inflation have to end. Well I got 2.5% this year! Salaries also have to be more closely linked to national average. Because other people do not have union support to negotiate them a better deal we should do the same! Terms and conditions generally have to be changed with less breaks, rest period, preparation time, a reduction in overtime and an increase in working hours, regardless of the safety risks.

The number of signallers also seems to be a target for the report. NR is to continue the reduction of signaller numbers, once again regardless of both the financial costs in installing new state of the art systems or safety implications.

NR is also to increase mechanisation and reduce the number of Pway staff. This has started and must continue, according to the report. Also NR back room boys are to take a hit with a reduction in "overheads" it is also suggested that the railway is a good target for more part time working! The report notes that one of the key elements in reducing railway industry costs is reducing employment costs. Clearly this means rail staff will get the sack. It does not that those of us who remain will " have a more satisfying and rewarding" time!!

However the ORR and the DFT are also to improve their efficiency and set the example for the rest of the industry. It is proposed that the ORR become the sole body for regulating the railway industry while all of the various standard producing bodies be combined into the Rail Systems Agency. These seem sensible steps to reduce regulatory burden on the industry but they must remain independent of both the TOCS and NR.

The BTP are also to reduce their overheads and look at merging with regional forces or working more closely with TOC as to change the service offered. Both of these actions will reduce the service offered by the police. Regional forces wont treat rail crime as a priority while closer working with toc will lead to the BTP guarding train services not guarding the rail infrastructure. The BTP must reduce costs by 15%

Pensions are also are target because they have not followed the trend and reverted to a "sod all " approach of many companies. The report focuses on options such as amending the retirement age upwards, reducing pension accrual rates, extending new pension schemes (ie changing final salary pension to a lifetime average) and reducing retirement benefits.

Railway training facilities must be "leveraged" to the outside world. This seems to be especially the case for Westwood. This could be a sensible way to earn extra income for the rail industry. I also agree that an industry wide graduate induction and training scheme is a sensible way to give an new entrant to the railway industry a grounding of "railway culture"

The report also, kindly, sets out a timetable as to how we can effect "headcount reduction"! It seems to suggest that all these changes are completed by the end of quarter 4 2013.

That the railways need to change is not an issue, there are, in some places to many employees. Modern techniques can improve efficiency and output. Timescales have to be reduced in the delivery of projects and systems. New trains have to come on line quicker. However, there seems to be a blank at the heart of this report and that is the nature of the system. THAT is responsible for many of the problems. THAT also needs to be tackled. The report doesn’t deal with that.

 

[Yew]

Of course, standardised train fleets. That doesnt mean buying Lots of new identical stock does it.... It means moving all the pacers to northern doesnt it?

 

[OxtedL]

I really hope that "standardised train fleets" means electrifying the Uckfield line...

Of course it won't, as that report was not about how to spend money.

 

[Yew]

It reccomends a 'Northern Region' franchise area along with consideration of other franchise map redrawing to increase economies of scale and reduce the number of franchises.



Reccomends moving away from RUS 'predict and provide' saying it only considers capital expenditure solutions not soft measures.

Northern transpennine does sound good

 

[WatcherZero]

Though it does seem to favour the PTE's becoming commisioners of services (in a similar way to buses) there would be a base specification and money devolved down to PTE's would then buy additonal services such as increased frequency, new routes, etc..

 

[yorksrob]

Having been at work, I haven't been able to look through it properly yet, however, I did get a glimpse of the section on the Regional Railway, and there were a couple of things that stood out:

1) McNulty touches on the flexibility of having standard stock types but then suggests that trading this off towards "bespoke solutions" would reduce costs. Amongst other things, these solutions include re-using existing stock for ever and a day, as well as buying in older rolling stock from abroad. Perhaps he smight have asked South West trains about the cost of keeping a couple of CIG's going which seems to have been prohibitively high (much to my dissappointment at the time) let alone the costs of having vast numbers of different trains in varying stages of decay, all incompatible with eachother. Except perhaps where there is already a handy tramway nearby, this sounds like a disastrously expensive balls-up in the making.

What he hasn't mentioned is the correct solution, which is to develop standard typs of lighter weight trains for use all over the network.

2) He mentions simplifying track layouts to reduce redundant infrastructure. Nice try - BR did it 30 years ago.

3) Focusing timetables on local rather than the core GB network - Frankly I'm not convinced. The regional railway is there to feed into the national network, it's the local networks that should be feeding into it. If rail has a value to the regions (which it does) it's in connecting them into the wider world. This is where the benefits lay. The same goes for through ticketing.

4) An assumption that current fares are too low and "contribute to the poor economics of regional franchises" This is plainly nonsense. Firstly, costs outside PTE areas aren't low in the first place, and to raise the prices any more would drive everyone off (quite comparable to non London fares in the South East). In PTE areas where these are lower, they need to be low to attract people off the roads and reduce congestion whilst keeping the economy going. Having a railway that no one can afford to use will be of no use to anyone.

All in all, whilst I agree with the points about the cost of building stations and re-using second-hand mainline infrastructure components, I would have to grade this section of the report with an F. I look forward to reading the rest.

 

[Mojo]

I see Christian Woe-mar has been wheeled out again by the Beeb repeating his usual ill-informed rants. Just heard him on Radio 2 business news and heard from someone else he's been on the telly too.

Have had a good read of this today and was disappointed not to read very much into how Network Rail spends so much money on not very much. However as infrastructure is so boring I skim-read those sections. Can anyone provide a pointer?

Read into detail with some interest (unsurprisingly) into revenue and staffing. Good to see staffing is to be tackled, I hope it becomes wide reaching into inefficiencies such as provision of train dispatch staff overnight when no trains are running, opening of ticket offices several hours before the first train and staffing of barriers at 6 in the morning but not at 8pm.

As a long-term supporter of DOO I'm glad to see it's going to be expanded and surprised at the timescale which shows we should know the planned routes before the end of the year! Implementing this has been quite poor by the privatised Tocs due to the short-term nature of it so it's good to see the railway modernising in this way.

A big section on ticket gates but doesn't seem to mention the various problems with them; dumb-belling, leaving them open when no staff are about, double gating and other ways of getting around them.

 

[spionkop64]

I wondered when they would get around to the railways, they created a complete mess last time with their political ideology and now here comes round 2. Private=good, public=bad. They are blind to everything else.

 

[Zoe]

I wondered when they would get around to the railways, they created a complete mess last time with their political ideology and now here comes round 2. Private=good, public=bad. They are blind to everything else.

Hammond earlier blamed the rail disasters of the late 1990s and early 2000s on the legacy of under investment and disregard for safety of BR.

The hon. Gentleman is right that British Rail operated the railway on a shoestring at relatively low cost, but in doing so it built up a tremendous legacy of under-investment and disregard for safety risk, the terrible consequences of which we saw only too clearly in the late 1990s and the early years of this century.

 

[185]

All trains to be driverless and guardless.

Just passengers.

It's called Passenger Only Operation.

Or, POO.

 

[WatcherZero]

Just noticed it reccomends against forcing NR to raise its own capital and not rely on government backed debt. Doing so would have created 0.5% per control period or £100m savings from incentives but would have made it far more vulnerable.

As to efficency it notes subsidy is an outcome not an input, they dont decide how much they have to spend then spend it, instead projects are assessed on a BCR and if the BCR is positive then subsidy is provided. Mojo McNulty seems quite happy with NR's own cost cutting program praising it for increasing performance and lowering costs since it took over from Railtrack and particularly since 2008 when its progress against objectives measured by external auditors Adventix moved from 'remains an issue' to 'evident improvement'.

 

[Zoe]

It's called Passenger Only Operation.

Or, POO.

Then you'd need to have a member of staff at every station at all times to despatch the train. I don't think you can rely on the passengers to decide when to close the doors.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Excellent section on Information Systems (section 16).
The industry has 1700 systems of which 1500 belong to NR, with many completely out of date.
Massive running costs, not delivering anything like the benefits needed, and falling behind other industries all the time.

Definitely made worse by industry fragmentation.
Needs strong central industry IS policy and leadership to resolve.
(as long as they don't give the job to the NHS IT team...)

 

[Captain Chaos]

Then you'd need to have a member of staff at every station at all times to despatch the train. I don't think you can rely on the passengers to decide when to close the doors.

I'm sure that modern technology would catch up. Putting cameras on all doors and obstacle detection systems linked to the central computer to allow it to decide when to close doors and pull away? Can't be far off.

 

[WatcherZero]

Driverless systems manage, and I dont mean with a staff member on board to close the doors and send a proceed signal, I mean truly driverless with station/control centre based proceed control.

 

[starrymarkb]

Then you'd need to have a member of staff at every station at all times to despatch the train. I don't think you can rely on the passengers to decide when to close the doors.

Lille Metro is completely unstaffed apart from roving RPIs and Transport Police. Trains and door operation is all Automatic... A loud hooter sounds and the doors shut...

Mind you the whole system has PEDs

 

[swt_passenger]

Also reccomends some changes to the franchise map:

* Combining FCC/Southern

I reckon that was always on the cards post Thameslink, but I thought not so much a combined SN/FCC, but by combining SN & SE following the loss of significant numbers of services from both franchises to Thameslink.

But whatever happens, I think all three of the relevant franchises have had their lengths arranged to allow for an eventual remapping sometime around 2017/18.

 

[Zoe]

Well if we are going to have driverless cars then there's no reason why we can't have driverless trains. The only question is if the order to start from a station should be given manually or not.

 

[yorksrob]

Hammond earlier blamed the rail disasters of the late 1990s and early 2000s on the legacy of under investment and disregard for safety of BR.

If it's true then it's a damn cheek. But then again, what else would you expect.