New Competitive Scheme

[SteveOfTheStow]

What is bonkers?
The idea of being able to bid for departure slots or that it's how it will work in Europe?
If the former, why is it "bonkers"?

To me, comparing airport departure slots with railway station departures is apples and oranges. When a plane takes off, it has a whole sky in which to go somewhere - it can go under or over other planes (with direction from air traffic control). A slot used for LHR to Paris could tomorrow be re-auctioned as a departure from LHR to Beijing.

That is not how the railway works. You do not have a departure slot - you have a path out of a station. A departure from Euston on the fast lines at xx:00 only has so many options for where it goes. Additionally, it will have to mesh in up north with traffic from other places. The whole system is coupled together and changing one path has a knock on effect on many other things, unlike with aeroplanes.

You could create a limited market for paths, for example with companies bidding to run a xx:00 path to a destination each (with the possible set defined by an authority) and DfT or other authority picking which one is considered best value/best business case, but multiply each of those bidding processes with the number of paths across the system and you've got a nightmare for Network Rail, who are already struggling to keep up with large timetable changes. It also causes an explosion of paperwork, with companies bidding for particular paths rather than overall franchises. That doesn't sound like an efficient use of money.

I'm not against privatisation (though I would like to see it move closer to a 'concession' model overall, as London Overground is run as), but this doesn't sound feasible in the slightest.

Edit: This model might work in continental Europe if there's a fair bit of slack in network capacity - I'm not informed enough to know if that's the case. But over here we are very good at maximising track utilisation.

 

[swt_passenger]

The other elephant in the room here is interavailable walk up ticketing. (IE not Advance fares.) The endgame would probably have to be even more fares valid for a named TOC only - otherwise you’d be stuck with the current concept of the main TOC on a route only being able to provide an ‘any permitted’ walkup fare. But surely they’d want to be able to offer a full selection of their own fares not valid on the competing trains?

 

[gerry9253]

Competition in North Kent between the what is currently operated by SET 'High Speed' (?) and 'Mainline' services through the Medway Towns on the same tracks to the Kent Coast might speed up the services a bit. We currently have to pay more on HS for a London service to St Pancras that takes almost the same time on the ML to Victoria....

Hmm

Gerry

 

[J-Rod]

Slight tangent - but touched upon somewhere upthread - is that this idea, if implemented will probably cause more confusion amongst the travelling public as it adds in an extra layer of complexity when buying tickets.

I had the misfortune of having to use the self-service machines at KX on Saturday and really had to think about what I was asking for as it was a proper Gordian Knot of tickets, operators, etc., and I consider myself vaguely educated in the Ways Of The UK Rail Network. Imagine having to use one where Joe/Jo B Public has to pick their ticket, train company, figure out what the 'best' fare was, peak/off peak, rabbit included, *Special Offer for TODAY only!*... imagine the queue when the ticket office was shut, or staffed by a single person...or worse, there were two ticket offices for different companies, one of which was shut leaving only the more expensive option open...

It does strike me a little bit of whimsy ("Oh, back in days of old, there were many train companies serving the same destinations..! Why can't it be like that again?"). Well, BR, Beeching/Marples, technology, accountants cutting costs... and on... and on.

Of course, it'll probably happen, therefore. And go hilariously wrong. Shall we start that thread now, steal a march on it?!

 

[xotGD]

What is bonkers?
The idea of being able to bid for departure slots or that it's how it will work in Europe?
If the former, why is it "bonkers"?

Bidding for departure slots is bonkers. It would just create a chaotic, shambolic system with no flexibility to shuffle stock in times of disruption or train faults.

Passengers want a reliable, consistent service, not a load of nonsense dreamt up by a right-wing ideologue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bidding for departure slots is bonkers. It would just create a chaotic, shambolic system with no flexibility to shuffle stock in times of disruption or train faults.

Passengers want a reliable, consistent service, not a load of nonsense dreamt up by a right-wing ideologue.

Agreed. We need a coordinated rail system that can put up a serious competition against the car, not a petty squabble about what, 5% of passenger journeys in the UK? Same with buses - they seem content to squabble among themselves for a tiny minority of passenger journeys while at the same time whining about congestion caused by cars which, if they did it right, might actually not be there because their driver would be on the bus instead. (The only bus companies that seem to take this seriously appear to be Trent and Transdev, and the thing in common appears to be Alex Hornby).

The co-ordinated aim of the UK public transport industry needs to be what Branson once said - to be such an attractive package that the M6 could be grassed over and domestic flights a thing of the past.

I don't have a massive issue with market segmentation (i.e. it being cheaper to travel on slower services with more capacity) - it's not unusual for nationalised systems to operate like that, and it occurs elsewhere e.g. Stagecoach "competing with themselves" by way of Magic Bus. But that isn't competition per-se, what that is is offering a service-price balance that suits the different parts of the market to get more of them out of cars. Think VTWC First Class appealing to the Mercedes driver, and LNR Standard appealing to the occupants of the beat-up old Ford Escort. They're complementary, not competing.

But having, say, First and Stagecoach both chasing each other down with a Pendolino each on the rush hour WCML is just a complete waste of capacity and of almost no benefit in the overall scheme of things.

 

[Meerkat]

It wouldn’t be pointless if it meant that operators with reliable, comfortable, well priced services prospered and this who didn’t would fail.
It’s effectively happening already on the ECML

 

[xotGD]

It wouldn’t be pointless if it meant that operators with reliable, comfortable, well priced services prospered and this who didn’t would fail.
It’s effectively happening already on the ECML

Are you referring to the cherry-picking cowboy operations that can't be relied on to provide any kind of service?

And then the poor passenger suffers when they discover that their ticket won't be accepted on the 90% of services that are still operating.

 

[Meerkat]

So the customer has a choice, as they do with airlines - you can have cheap but don’t expect a cuddle when things go bad.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I always suggested that instead of whole heaps of franchises on Intercity and Inter-Regional routes (e.g. Metro routes would need to just be run with the intention of carrying people and stopping everywhere with Metro stock and competition wouldn't work), the Government should actually have a situation where London to Manchester via Stoke, London to Liverpool, London to Birmingham and London to Glasgow are franchised; but the rights to London to Manchester via Crewe, London to Wolves (hourly) via New Street and perhaps also the Trent Valley which could go to Liverpool should all be open to tender. The operator that takes them on would have to operate all the services and the Government would tell Network Rail to timetable everything a certain way and the person who wants to try and make money against the franchisee would have to take the rough (the 05:30 off Euston and the 23:00) with the smooth (those sweet 08:00, 17:00 etc).

 

[al78]

Agreed. We need a coordinated rail system that can put up a serious competition against the car, not a petty squabble about what, 5% of passenger journeys in the UK? Same with buses - they seem content to squabble among themselves for a tiny minority of passenger journeys while at the same time whining about congestion caused by cars which, if they did it right, might actually not be there because their driver would be on the bus instead. (The only bus companies that seem to take this seriously appear to be Trent and Transdev, and the thing in common appears to be Alex Hornby).

The co-ordinated aim of the UK public transport industry needs to be what Branson once said - to be such an attractive package that the M6 could be grassed over and domestic flights a thing of the past.

Sounds rather too idealistic to me. The private car is too easy and convenient for public transport to take much more of the market share IMO, even if you made it free. The places where public transport is going to take a significant proportion of journeys is in areas where travelling by car is difficult, unpleasant or expensive e.g. central London (or rather more difficult, unpleasant or expensive than public transport). That is before you address the significant barrier which is that for a family of four, the cost of a single journey by car is little more than if just one person were travelling, yet an equivalent train journey for such a family will be significantly more expensive that for a single person, unless there exist family tickets/discounts that can bring the price down well below double the cost of a single ticket.

 

[LAX54]

So is this similar to the G.E when we had Anglia Railways and First Great Eastern ? all very well, but the passengers assumed their ticket was for a train, any train to London (or wherever), and got right jarred off when they got charged more, or told to get off !

 

[SteveOfTheStow]

It wouldn’t be pointless if it meant that operators with reliable, comfortable, well priced services prospered and this who didn’t would fail.
It’s effectively happening already on the ECML

You're referring to Hull Trains? Excuse me whilst I embark upon a laughing fit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sounds rather too idealistic to me. The private car is too easy and convenient for public transport to take much more of the market share IMO, even if you made it free.

Grassing over the M6 is idealistic, but it's not idealistic to suggest that rail should be able to improve its market share substantially by just not being so rubbish at times. The WCML improvements done in the 1990s caused a significant market share increase there, and other improvements should be able to do the same.

The places where public transport is going to take a significant proportion of journeys is in areas where travelling by car is difficult, unpleasant or expensive e.g. central London (or rather more difficult, unpleasant or expensive than public transport). That is before you address the significant barrier which is that for a family of four, the cost of a single journey by car is little more than if just one person were travelling, yet an equivalent train journey for such a family will be significantly more expensive that for a single person, unless there exist family tickets/discounts that can bring the price down well below double the cost of a single ticket.

You heard of the Family Railcard?

 

[Meerkat]

It wouldn’t be pointless if it meant that operators with reliable, comfortable, well priced services prospered and this who didn’t would fail.
It’s effectively happening already on the ECML

You're referring to Hull Trains? Excuse me whilst I embark upon a laughing fit.

Yes - Hull Trains will fail if it doesn’t get its act together.

 

[Starmill]

You heard of the Family Railcard?

How effective a tool really is the Family Railcard?

If you look at, say, Birmingham to Newcastle returns for 2 adults and 2 children with Family Railcard discount, that's £280.05

Now consider the cost in a modern family car with fuel at just £1.25 ish per litre, it's a round trip of a shade over 400 miles. That's not going to come to anything remotely like £280.

For reference, the solo adult traveller pays £119.50 return (unless they need to arrive before 1240 on a weekday, in which case far more).

 

[Bletchleyite]

That just demonstrates fares are too high generally.

 

[Meerkat]

That just demonstrates fares are too high generally

Too high? Are the railways making a profit?

 

[simple simon]

Hopefully a new open access operator will operate on the Midland Mainline. EMT fares are driving many people (myself included) away from using their trains to London.

Their fares also make me think twice and often not travel when wanting to travel from London to Sheffield.

As for on-track congestion, if only there was an alternative route, perhaps also using different but nearby stations, such as Marylebone and Sheffield Victoria.

Such was possible, but the generation in power in the 1960s took action to deny the same possibility to our present-day generation.

 

[Starmill]

Too high? Are the railways making a profit?

Average revenue is quite unlikely to be directly proportional to profit.

One of the most basic concepts of Economics just so regularly missed on this forum.

 

[Meerkat]

Average revenue is quite unlikely to be directly proportional to profit.

One of the most basic concepts of Economics just so regularly missed on this forum.

Please explain. “Quite unlikely” sounds rather guesswork.

 

[gnolife]

Please explain. “Quite unlikely” sounds rather guesswork.

He seems to be alluding to the idea that reducing fares by 50% does not reduce the total fare revenue by 50% by the fact that lower fares will entice more people to travel.

 

[krus_aragon]

He seems to be alluding to the idea that reducing fares by 50% does not reduce the total fare revenue by 50% by the fact that lower fares will entice more people to travel.

And likewise, doubling fares won't double the revenue, as some people will choose not to travel.

 

[SamYeager]

At some point, some government with some competence needs to assess the network more widely, and someone needs to realise that the myriad of operators, regulators, maintenance companies, contractors, contracts, lawyers; have become part of the problem, not the solution. Streamlining and simplicity the key. See every successful public service or private enterprise, ever.

How about some honesty. Not one penny of subsidy. Not one penny of money back to the treasury. Charge a rail operators tax on a percentage of all income. Lock a fare ceiling of CPI until fares per mile achieve parity with our European neighbours. For routes deemed unprofitable, have them run directly by a company called “National Rail”. Introduce a national smartcard to encompass all discount cards. Make all ticketing electronic. Make all delay repay automatic. Setup an investment fund of X billion per 10 year period (funded by a mix of general taxation, operators tax and local development funds). Allow bids from councils, operators, government as to where money should be spent. Setup a rail users council to determine funding priorities in each region. In other words, allow cherry picking of profitable routes. But set an operators tax to pay for the rest of the network, strip away so much complexity and political meddling. Other countries show us clearly. Railways do not have to be this complicated.

How dare you come up wuth an idea like this! It even reads as though you might have thought about this! I'm sure loads will look at this and pick loads of holes in it. I mean it's not complicated enough for a start. What's the impact on DfT's civil servants? I hope you're not proposing we need less of them!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Their fares also make me think twice and often not travel when wanting to travel from London to Sheffield.
As for on-track congestion, if only there was an alternative route, perhaps also using different but nearby stations, such as Marylebone and Sheffield Victoria.
Such was possible, but the generation in power in the 1960s took action to deny the same possibility to our present-day generation.

BR couldn't afford to run duplicate routes and chose to close the GC main line (and many others in the regions).
There was even a phase when the MML was under threat, with all long-distance services rerouted at Market Harborough into Euston.
The national answer at the time was the M1 and M40. Today it is HS2.
Extreme nationalisation (no franchises or open access) would see us go back to a one system fits all network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Too high? Are the railways making a profit?

That is not the only measure of whether fares are too high on a subsidised network.

 

[Meerkat]

What is the measure then?

 

[xotGD]

BR couldn't afford to run duplicate routes and chose to close the GC main line (and many others in the regions).
There was even a phase when the MML was under threat, with all long-distance services rerouted at Market Harborough into Euston.
The national answer at the time was the M1 and M40. Today it is HS2.
Extreme nationalisation (no franchises or open access) would see us go back to a one system fits all network.

One system that fits all is a heck of a lot better than a dog's breakfast that suits nobody.

 

[plymothian]

I thought the panacea of rail on rail competition, ie one TOC able to overtake another TOC's services and so compete fares wise, was dead and buried even before privatisation was completed.

Unless the UK redefined the term "public transport" from 'run for the public to use' to 'run on behalf of the public' then we shall never truely have a proper transport system.