TOC contract expiry dates

[En]

Clement Attlee won a General Election in July 1945 and created the Welfare State by setting up National Insurance in 1946 and the National Assistance Act of 1948. It also nationalised about a fifth of the economy:

• hospitals;
• coal;
• railways;
• canals;
• docks and harbours;
• road transport;
• the Bank of England;
• civil aviation;
• external telecommunications (Cable and Wireless);
• electricity generation and distribution;
• gas; and
• steel.

All this in less than 3 years.

Why, in the name of your deity of choice, has GBR taken so long...?

primarily becasue we aren't coming out of a 6 years of major war time disruption,

 

[duffield]

Clement Attlee won a General Election in July 1945 and created the Welfare State by setting up National Insurance in 1946 and the National Assistance Act of 1948. It also nationalised about a fifth of the economy:

• hospitals;
• coal;
• railways;
• canals;
• docks and harbours;
• road transport;
• the Bank of England;
• civil aviation;
• external telecommunications (Cable and Wireless);
• electricity generation and distribution;
• gas; and
• steel.

All this in less than 3 years.

Why, in the name of your deity of choice, has GBR taken so long...?

Maybe because GBR was effectively abandoned by the previous government, with very little progress having being made, and also the "GBR" of the previous government and the "GBR" of the new government don't necessarily have much in common apart from the name?

So most aspects of GBR *as it is now happening* have only been in progress for a few months.

And yes, it's absolutely true that *the previous government* messed about and failed to progress their version of GBR. Perhaps because their hearts were not in it, since they were ideologically opposed to the state running the railways?

Anyhow, as far as I'm concerned the clock started for "new GBR" when parliament reconvened after the 2024 election, and I will judge any progress based on that date; I don't regard the actions of the previous government as having any real relevance to the current situation.

 

[coppercapped]

primarily becasue we aren't coming out of a 6 years of major war time disruption,

Eh? Why should that speed things up?

I would have thought that the disruption would have slowed things down.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Nov 2024 ==

Maybe because GBR was effectively abandoned by the previous government, with very little progress having being made, and also the "GBR" of the previous government and the "GBR" of the new government don't necessarily have much in common apart from the name?

I see no change in the concept that GBR = DfT's franchising group (the old OPRAF and SRA functions) + the Rail Delivery Group + Network Rail.

So most aspects of GBR *as it is now happening* have only been in progress for a few months.

And yes, it's absolutely true that *the previous government* messed about and failed to progress their version of GBR. Perhaps because their hearts were not in it, since they were ideologically opposed to the state running the railways?

Oh no - not more conspiracy theories.

Remember, it was the previous Government that commissioned the Williams report in 2018 and the SoS for Transport at the time it was published was so impressed that he added his name to it.

Network Rail was formed in 2002 as essentially a nationalised organisation and none of the political parties tried to re-privatise it. The Conservatives may be in favour of the 'small state' but it's not a battle they want to fight again at the moment.

Anyhow, as far as I'm concerned the clock started for "new GBR" when parliament reconvened after the 2024 election, and I will judge any progress based on that date; I don't regard the actions of the previous government as having any real relevance to the current situation.

Apart from the fact they came up with the idea.

 

[duffield]

Eh? Why should that speed things up?

I would have thought that the disruption would have slowed things down.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Nov 2024 ==


I see no change in the concept that GBR = DfT's franchising group (the old OPRAF and SRA functions) + the Rail Delivery Group + Network Rail.

Oh no - not more conspiracy theories.

Remember, it was the previous Government that commissioned the Williams report in 2018 and the SoS for Transport at the time it was published was so impressed that he added his name to it.

Network Rail was formed in 2002 as essentially a nationalised organisation and none of the political parties tried to re-privatise it. The Conservatives may be in favour of the 'small state' but it's not a battle they want to fight again at the moment.

Apart from the fact they came up with the idea.

It's not a "conspiracy theory" to think that a government which is entirely committed to private enterprise and was the original architect of rail privatisation would not be highly motivated to make a success of a state owned railway. And it's a fact that they ditched the GBR legislation (sorry "postponed indefinitely") *before* the pre-election period where all the other "non-priority" legislation was ditched. They virtually abandoned the whole GBR idea as anything other than a toothless token body. The very best light you could put on it was that GBR was way, way down their list of priorities in the last few years.
Also, the Williams report was delivered during Boris Johnson's term and many of his enthusiasms died in the government virtually at the point he left office. Perhaps if he had remained GBR would have progressed much further and faster; but that didn't happen, it was kicked into the long grass, and the current goverment in terms of solid progress has been effectively starting from scratch.

And as you've bought up the formation of network rail, it's worth mentioning Railtrack, the disastrous privatised predecessor whose neglect of maintenance for commercial reasons led to accidents and deaths. Perhaps that bit of history might have had an influence on the Conservative reluctance to privatise Network Rail? It's certain that the Railtrack business would have been (rightly) used against them had they attempted to repeat that fiasco. So the fact that they specifically made no attempt to privatise Network Rail is in my view irrelevant in judging their attitude towards franchising and GBR.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The problem with the last Government is that Shapps didn’t properly realise what he was agreeing to before the report was launched. He had been well and truly done by his civil servants, who were wanting to set the whole thing up so it go could go two ways, depending on who formed the Government. Shapps was politically inept.

The Owning Groups realised what was going on and lobbied the previous Government at the highest level and the whole thing was being slow played as the election approached. But the way the legislation was going to be framed, coupled with the CTED structure of the NRCs, gave Labour an easy in and they have taken it.

In the Lords debate, Hendy gave some detail as to how he sees the GBR structure going and integrated Regional and Route organisations seems to be what he is thinking of.

 

[eldomtom2]

I see no change in the concept that GBR = DfT's franchising group (the old OPRAF and SRA functions) + the Rail Delivery Group + Network Rail.

There's a very large change - Labour are bringing passenger operations under the direct control of GBR, rather than the concessions system envisaged by the Williams-Shapps report. So really, the franchising aspects of the DfT and the Rail Delivery Group aren't part of GBR at all.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's a very large change - Labour are bringing passenger operations under the direct control of GBR, rather than the concessions system envisaged by the Williams-Shapps report. So really, the franchising aspects of the DfT and the Rail Delivery Group aren't part of GBR at all.

I think it will take quite a long time to unify the terms on which individual TOCs operate, and there may never be a single "contract".
GBR/DOHL will have to start with the existing TOC/NR contractual basis, and somehow evolve them to a new combined structure.
NR's costs will also have to be factored into the new setup, and that has only recently been fixed by the ORR for CP7 (2024-29).
Contracts will also be necessary for open access, freight and concessions outside GBR (eg Elizabeth Line) and any devolved operations.
So there will need to be a team responsible for all that.
ORR is also the economic regulator and keeper of the level playing field - nothing has been said about where those powers will lie.

 

[En]

Eh? Why should that speed things up?

I would have thought that the disruption would have slowed things down.

many of the immediate post war nationalisations were becasue the government had taken control of the previously privately or charitably managed services , organisatiosn and infrastructure duringthe war , paying to repaitr and return these things to a pre-war condition was vastly more expensive than just buying people out or in the case of things like Hospitals pointing out that the EMS hospitals were actually better than the former county pauper lunatic asylums etc ...

 

[ollyexe2808]

Royal Assent scheduled for tomorrow. I wonder if there will be any news on plans for terminating TOC contracts afterwards?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Monday or Tuesday is the expected date for the statement from Louise Haigh.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Royal Assent scheduled for tomorrow. I wonder if there will be any news on plans for terminating TOC contracts afterwards?

Government announcements on private contracts (often incomplete) are usually made early doors before the Stock Exchange opens.
Maybe that means it will be Friday before any announcement from DfT, unless they have all their ducks in a row for tomorrow.
There isn't a posted statement from the SoS on the Commons calendar, but that can change.

 

[Goldfish62]

Royal Assent scheduled for tomorrow. I wonder if there will be any news on plans for terminating TOC contracts afterwards?

The SOS did say that Royal Assent would be followed by an announcement on the first TOC to be given three months notice.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I think it will take quite a long time to unify the terms on which individual TOCs operate, and there may never be a single "contract".
GBR/DOHL will have to start with the existing TOC/NR contractual basis, and somehow evolve them to a new combined structure.
NR's costs will also have to be factored into the new setup, and that has only recently been fixed by the ORR for CP7 (2024-29).
Contracts will also be necessary for open access, freight and concessions outside GBR (eg Elizabeth Line) and any devolved operations.
So there will need to be a team responsible for all that.
ORR is also the economic regulator and keeper of the level playing field - nothing has been said about where those powers will lie.

ORR needs to be removed from the equation no longer relevant in a nationalised railway.

 

[modernrail]

Its not going to be the rose tinted panacea people are wistfully wanting.

The big thing I am concerned about is general culture. Let’s face it, it wasn’t great under BR. Then there has been years of teaching everybody in the industry to play game after game within the increasingly complex contractual privatisation structure. Then we have the none stop merry go round of industrial disputes, like it is some sort of national sport.

How are we going to create a culture where the railway stops to breath for a moment and says, right - let’s do this better. Let’s make this a national asset and service to be properly proud of? Or is the reality that those that work for the railway are just not interested in doing that. Patriotism is dead etc.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Government announcements on private contracts (often incomplete) are usually made early doors before the Stock Exchange opens.
Maybe that means it will be Friday before any announcement from DfT, unless they have all their ducks in a row for tomorrow.
There isn't a posted statement from the SoS on the Commons calendar, but that can change.

They have their ducks in a row for next Monday or Tuesday.

Tomorrow is meant to be another transport announcement and apart from the expected Haigh statement to the House on Monday or Tuesday, at least one other (rail) transport announcement is due to be made next week.

 

[JamesT]

ORR needs to be removed from the equation no longer relevant in a nationalised railway.

Freight? Open Access?

 

[Goldfish62]

ORR needs to be removed from the equation no longer relevant in a nationalised railway.

I believe that is the plan. ORR would be abolished, or at least have its rail function removed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Nov 2024 ==

Freight? Open Access?

GBR. Remember it's to be *the* rail authority.

 

[physics34]

Royal Assent scheduled for tomorrow. I wonder if there will be any news on plans for terminating TOC contracts afterwards?

Good news. I hope my TOC, Southern, is one of the first to go over, in April. A new fresh start.

 

[JamesT]

I believe that is the plan. ORR would be abolished, or at least have its rail function removed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Nov 2024 ==


GBR. Remember it's to be *the* rail authority.

I don't see that removing the necessity for ORR. How would any open-access or freight operator be able to trust that someone from GBR isn't going to favour GBR services over theirs? The whole point is that ORR is independent and can take an objective view.

 

[Goldfish62]

I don't see that removing the necessity for ORR. How would any open-access or freight operator be able to trust that someone from GBR isn't going to favour GBR services over theirs? The whole point is that ORR is independent and can take an objective view.

The whole point of GBR is that it runs the railway. It will be responsible for everything like BR was. Add in another potentially conflicting body and you start back on the road of creating complex interfaces which is completely contrary to what is trying to be achieved. This is why Labour's policy paper earlier this year stated that the ORR would be abolished.

Open access operators will have to either put up with it or get out. That's the reality.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I can see the rail side of ORR migrating into GBR.
But if there are any non-GBR operators there will have to be an independent regulator of access and charges, separate from the operations side.
I should think the RSSB, as safety regulator, will also have to be independent of operations.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I think we already know the ORR is going to stay. I quote from Louise Haigh said last week;

“It (GBR) will be primarily regulated by the Office of Rail and Road, who will look at safety, efficiency and performance. We will also have the passenger standards authority that will ensure it is focussed on delivering for passenger outcomes”

In the absence of any regulated regime for access contracts, the OA and freight operators will rely on the Competition Act 1998 to stop any discriminatory behaviour by GBR, a protection they enjoy now and which is currently overseen by both the CMA and the ORR. If the ORR cease to have any Competition powers, it will be solely overseen by the CMA.

 

[Horizon22]

I believe that is the plan. ORR would be abolished, or at least have its rail function removed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Nov 2024 ==


GBR. Remember it's to be *the* rail authority.

I don’t think GBR marking its own homework is a good idea.

Still needs to be some sort of outside regulatory body, just with a clearly defined role and some teeth. Much like how the RAIB is an investigation organisation outside the traditional networks.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I don’t think GBR marking its own homework is a good idea.

BR marked its own homework and gave us the least cost railway the taxpayer has ever seen. The only thing that needs to be kept separate is the safety oversight and regulation aka Railway Inspectorate plus RAIB

Still needs to be some sort of outside regulatory body, just with a clearly defined role and some teeth. Much like how the RAIB is an investigation organisation outside the traditional networks.

 

[dk1]

GWR surely has to be in the firing line for the total breakdown of their Sunday timetable. In some ways it's worse than Northern due to the impact on long distance journeys.

I’m not quite sure what difference they can make to GWR with the change. The same problem will still be there.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Good news. I hope my TOC, Southern, is one of the first to go over, in April. A new fresh start.

What will change? Trains will be same, staff will be the same, majority of day to day mgt will still be there. You might get new uniform and a change of identity but whats the point of that just more wasted money.

OLR have proven themselves inept over Northern although the long arm of DfT interference probably hasn't helped. No more operators should be moved until shadow GBR has been setup and has its senior leadership team in place. The reason being is we need to head off in anew direction now if we are to seriously turn a corner over the poor state the industry has got itself in since Covid.

 

[Horizon22]

I’m not quite sure what difference they can make to GWR with the change. The same problem will still be there.

Yes without bringing Sunday into the working week - and someone paying to do so - you can call your railway service “Thomas The Tank Engine Railways” for all it matters and you’ll still get cancellations

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes without bringing Sunday into the working week - and someone paying to do so - you can call your railway service “Thomas The Tank Engine Railways” for all it matters and you’ll still get cancellations

If DfT aren't going to pay up it would be more sensible to shrink the Sunday timetables to something thats deliverable then at least passengers know where they stand and reputation doesnt get trashed.

 

[Goldfish62]

If DfT aren't going to pay up it would be more sensible to shrink the Sunday timetables to something thats deliverable then at least passengers know where they stand and reputation doesnt get trashed.

Logical, but think of the politics. All most people will see is more and more money pumped into the railways for a reduced scheduled service in return. Great ammunition for those in the Treasury who want to cut back funding for the railways.

 

[Horizon22]

Logical, but think of the politics. All most people will see is more and more money pumped into the railways for a reduced scheduled service in return. Great ammunition for those in the Treasury who want to cut back funding for the railways.

Then the Government cannot complain about woeful Sunday services at certain operators. There is literally not another option to resolve it.