Radical thinking needed - lets sort out the railways!

[daccer]

It seems that we are at a crossroadswith regards to our railways and now would seem to be an opportune moment to review the way we do things in the Uk and to maybe come up with some radical changes so that we can ensure the continued growth and prosperity of our railway network. With NR facing a future with new leadership at the helm and a new broom at the Govt lets hear some suggestions as to what should be done to keep things moving forward and to prevent stagnation.

I have a couple to start with. The network needs to continue growing. Green concerns and fossil fuel shortages are only going to increase in importance and to have a period of complete stagnation now is going to hurt us in future years. I would personally look at opening discussions with all current franchisees to see what would be on offer for immediate extensions to franchise lengths (new legislation may be needed to offer extensions). This would transfer some of the costs in the short term to the private sector. For example offer Virgin three extra years in return for a rolling programme oif station improvements which they must fund or organise local govt funding for. Also offer EMT an extension for maybe looking at financing a continuation build of 172's to enable a cascade of DMU's.

It is too easy just to say we are cutting costs and funding but to not explore new ways of thinking and every avenue to keep growth going is a false economy. Another way of increasing the network size is to explore small subsidies for heritage lines to run regular services where connections to NR exist. Also many re-openings seem to fall under the 100 million pound barrier - maybe a two year delay for HS2 and take a small % of that funding and get a rolling re-opening programme - it wont be as dramatic as a high speed line but will result in continued growth until we can afford a high speed network.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Okay, lets be radical!

I suggest NOT thinking about trains or rolling stock. Not thinking about infrastructure and stations. Not thinking about franchises and TOCs. (is this getting radical enough ?)
Not thinking about subsididies, and not thiking about personalities.

Just one question: Look at why everything on the railways costs so much. And deal with that.

Everything else follows from that.

 

[ainsworth74]

Also many re-openings seem to fall under the 100 million pound barrier - maybe a two year delay for HS2 and take a small % of that funding and get a rolling re-opening programme

Interesting idea, but where is the rolling stock going to come from? There simply isn't any extra to be had anywhere, and there is no funding forthcoming. Personally I would rather defer the construction of HS2 for now and use the "money saved" (which hasn't been set aside yet anyway as we don't start construction till at least 2019 so actually doesn't exist yet) to build new rolling stock (and extend platforms for the new stock) to deal with overcrowding that exists currently on the network.

Just one question: Look at why everything on the railways costs so much. And deal with that.

You sir get a gold star, this is exactly what we need to deal with first before anything else. As you say everything follows on from this.

 

[142094]

Just one question: Look at why everything on the railways costs so much. And deal with that.

Hear, hear. Add to that, why does everything have to take so long as well? Too much red tape etc. Get rid of all that.

 

[paul1609]

Okay, lets be radical!

I suggest NOT thinking about trains or rolling stock. Not thinking about infrastructure and stations. Not thinking about franchises and TOCs. (is this getting radical enough ?)
Not thinking about subsididies, and not thiking about personalities.

Just one question: Look at why everything on the railways costs so much. And deal with that.

Everything else follows from that.

I agree we also need to look at whether some services can still justify their subsidy on social needs. I think there should be limited closures and service reductions. The network shouldnt be set in stone.

 

[Donny Dave]

To start with, the DfT can consolidate the existing franchises into 7 or 8 big franchises.

This will give each TOC a large pool of rolling stock which can then be used where needed, and some routes where there is a lot of competition (and fresh air carted around) to be properly diagrammed to release excess stock to where it's needed.

The cost savings there will be pretty big, and tied in with the lower number of ticketing options required, means there will be a lot less staff required to sort out the mess that is the ticketing system, and less admin staff overall.

For example, between Birmingham and London, you have 3 TOCs with a whole range of tickets, same with York to Newcastle. This can be reduced to 1 TOC with 1 set of tickets, so there will be a lot less confusion for the travelling public.

I'll let Old Timer deal with the infrastructer side of things .....

 

[LE Greys]

To start with, the DfT can consolidate the existing franchises into 7 or 8 big franchises.

This will give each TOC a large pool of rolling stock which can then be used where needed, and some routes where there is a lot of competition (and fresh air carted around) to be properly diagrammed to release excess stock to where it's needed.

The cost savings there will be pretty big, and tied in with the lower number of ticketing options required, means there will be a lot less staff required to sort out the mess that is the ticketing system, and less admin staff overall.

For example, between Birmingham and London, you have 3 TOCs with a whole range of tickets, same with York to Newcastle. This can be reduced to 1 TOC with 1 set of tickets, so there will be a lot less confusion for the travelling public.

I'll let Old Timer deal with the infrastructer side of things .....

Or you could abandon the franchising system altogether, break Network Rail up into 4 companies based on the pre-1948 network and allow them to own and run their own trains. Potentially, there are huge cost savings, and there is the added benefit that there would always be 1 (one) company responsible for each route/network. It would be impossible for that company to pass on responsibility, and there would be no need for it to pay compensation to itself for maintenance overruns. Then, it cuts out several layers of management and provides a unified structure to work with. It also intensifies competition and allows the company to develop a route/stock combination that works effectively.

Personally, I believe they should have done this in the first place if they privatised at all (which was probably a bad idea). However, somebody thought that splitting things up was a good idea. Insane! :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Another way of increasing the network size is to explore small subsidies for heritage lines to run regular services where connections to NR exist.

Little addition there, I would like to see heritage and tourist lines with rail connections appear on national maps, in the National Rail Timetable and on websites like National Rail and Transport Direct. Ideally, add them onto the ticketing system as well. It would not spoil the appearance of a preserved station to have a portable ticket machine under the counter, and they could still use Edmundson tickets local journeys.

 

[the sniper]

For example, between Birmingham and London, you have 3 TOCs with a whole range of tickets. This can be reduced to 1 TOC with 1 set of tickets, so there will be a lot less confusion for the travelling public.

Bad example, it'd be a terrible idea to get rid of Chiltern by consolidating it with a West Coast main line franchise. This is one of the few places where the original concept of competition between TOC's has actually worked. If the two lines were run by the same TOC fares would be higher (certainly on the Chiltern line they would) and the Chiltern Main line would be treated like the poor relation of the West Coast.

If Chiltern Railways had to be killed off, I'd hope that the franchise would be consolidated with the Great Western franchise rather then a West Coast one.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree we also need to look at whether some services can still justify their subsidy on social needs. I think there should be limited closures and service reductions. The network shouldnt be set in stone.

The network is already somewhat smaller than it needs to be. Rather than thinking about cuts they need to be looking at whether there are too many fingers in the pie. Just how many companies can the railway support, and are we indirectly subsidising them rather than the railway itself.

 

[2030720310]

Or you could abandon the franchising system altogether, break Network Rail up into 4 companies based on the pre-1948 network and allow them to own and run their own trains.

Yeah the current TOCs would love that....

 

[RPM]

Okay, lets be radical!

I suggest NOT thinking about trains or rolling stock. Not thinking about infrastructure and stations. Not thinking about franchises and TOCs. (is this getting radical enough ?)
Not thinking about subsididies, and not thiking about personalities.

Just one question: Look at why everything on the railways costs so much. And deal with that.

Everything else follows from that.

That is amazingly pertinent. The other more recent cancer growing on our railway is the DfT and their policy of micro-management by morons.

 

[WatcherZero]

Okay, lets be radical!

I suggest NOT thinking about trains or rolling stock. Not thinking about infrastructure and stations. Not thinking about franchises and TOCs. (is this getting radical enough ?)
Not thinking about subsididies, and not thiking about personalities.

Just one question: Look at why everything on the railways costs so much. And deal with that.

Everything else follows from that.

Theres already a review in progress as to why Infrastructure in the UK costs 25-50% more than on the continent, not supposed to give its final report till early next year however the governments asked them to publish their early findings in the Autumn I believe.

 

[daccer]

The country and Govt has a cashflow problem - revenue has dipped whilst expenditure has not. The key thing during periods such as this is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is easy to cut too deeply and then when economic growth returns it costs much more to put things right. The Govt has been saddled witha number of big ticket items by NR during CP4 which have started and as such to cull would result in much waste - Thameslink, Crossrail, New st etc. Therefore they have to look at the smaller items and also the structure of the industry to find savings.

For me the structure is not the problem. The problem lies in the intricacies within the structure. too many operators on too short franchises with a company such as NR that is not really accountable. Some fine tuning and stricter controls on NR and things can be made to work. A complete overhaul of the industry now might just result in restructuring costs at a time when we need to be frugal. If we are profligate in our spending then economies must be there to be found. Every franchising competition apparently costs tens of millions (each bid can cost 5 million per bidder apparently). So limit these with longer franchises and/or less franchises. NR have tried to adopt best practise but the members need more teeth - also the penalties need to be there for the individual members and managers for poor performance and financial misdemeanours. Whatever happens it is obvious the money tap is getting turned off and we need to adapt - who knows maybe in the long run it might be a boon just as long as the cuts arent short sighted and made without a thought to the future.

 

[Greenback]

A lot of the things that make the railway more expensive to operate than it should be can be traced back to the seperation of rail and wheel, the proliferation of companies all wanting a slice of the pie, and the creation of the abomination that is Network Rail.

For me the structure is the problem. Plus the whole philospohy of the form of privatisation that was chosen originally, and has pretty much been left by Labour.

I think that longer franchises, with TOC's owning and operating their own trains and track, would be better than what we have now.

 

[cuccir]

A lot of the thigns that make the railway more expensive to operate than it should be can be traced back to the seperation of rail and wheel, the proliferation of companies allw anting a slie of the pie, and the creation of the abomination that is Network Rail.

I initially thought this - hypothetically, would it be cheaper to do away with the ROSCOs? I realise that their existence seems to be demanded by the "free competition at all cost" ideology of the EU, but in an ideal world wouldn't it be cheaper to do away with them and absorb rolling stock ownership into either: a. The TOCs? b. Network Rail c. the State? I ask this as a genuine question as I'd have though that a or b in particular would improve efficiency (by reducing companies involved and thus costs/admin) - or are there some other considerations that I'm missing?

 

[Greenback]

I initially thought this - hypothetically, would it be cheaper to do away with the ROSCOs? I realise that their existence seems to be demanded by the "free competition at all cost" ideology of the EU, but in an ideal world wouldn't it be cheaper to do away with them and absorb rolling stock ownership into either: a. The TOCs? b. Network Rail c. the State? I ask this as a genuine question as I'd have though that a or b in particular would improve efficiency (by reducing companies involved and thus costs/admin) - or are there some other considerations that I'm missing?

There would be advantages and disadvantages to each of those organisations owning rolling stock. For instance NR owning trains would restore the interface between rail and wheel, but the company, indeed it;s very structure, is depply flawed.

TOC's would move stock around their operations in a way which might not always be in the best interests of the traveller, or the railway as a whole.

As for the government, well, we've seen what DfT micromanagement can do, trains sitting in Easltleigh whilst passengers refuse to pay fares because they are overcrowded!

It really very much depends on how the country wants to operate the railways, and whether we look at them as a vital public service or not.

 

[Aictos]

Talking of high costs, I've got told recently that in order for a simple red light to be replaced on a set of buffers from a BR era one to a newer LED one will cost about £35,000 I think as not only will they have to replace the light but also the buffers even if there's nothing wrong with the buffers.

That's just one example of the daft inflated prices on the railways today and why everything is just so damn expensive.

 

[krus_aragon]

Theres already a review in progress as to why Infrastructure in the UK costs 25-50% more than on the continent, not supposed to give its final report till early next year however the governments asked them to publish their early findings in the Autumn I believe.

I expect the investigation will be 50% over budget too. :P