What would be best structure for passenger railways under GBR?

[geoffk]

What would be best structure for passenger railways under GBR? Do we need to have more than 20 train companies? My solution would be just six

Inter-City
Network South-East
Regional Railways
Merseyrail
Scotrail (including Caledonian Sleepers)
Transport for Wales

These names will look familiar but alternatives are welcomed! The rationale would be that, in addition to the former three BR sectors, Scotland and Wales would remain separate for political reasons (although both would keep cross-border Inter-City routes) and Merseyrail is a self-contained urban network, a third-rail “island” having minimal interface with other lines. TfW would continue to run to Birmingham and Manchester as there is no commercial or operational sense in cutting these routes at Chester and Shrewsbury.

Bringing back Regional Railways would offer economies in management, rolling stock and probably train crews - economies which are going to be demanded by the Treasury in the near future.

Network South East could be defined as “everything from London termini which was not Inter-City”, hence its remit extended all the way to Weymouth, Exeter, Worcester, Peterborough and Kings Lynn. Since privatisation, there have been extensions of former NSE routes to Birmingham and Kidderminster, to Corby and Crewe. (The Network Railcard area still mirrors the old NSE area but stops just short of Ipswich, Peterborough and Rugby.)

Inter-City was defined as those routes which were profitable, hence nearly all London-based, plus the Cross-Country routes converging on Birmingham New Street. I would add the Manchester/ Liverpool – Scotland services of TPE while Gatwick Express has disappeared as a separate service.

I expect there will be some comments!

 

[507020]

What would be best structure for passenger railways under GBR? Do we need to have more than 20 train companies? My solution would be just six

Inter-City
Network South-East
Regional Railways
Merseyrail
Scotrail (including Caledonian Sleepers)
Transport for Wales

These names will look familiar but alternatives are welcomed! The rationale would be that, in addition to the former three BR sectors, Scotland and Wales would remain separate for political reasons (although both would keep cross-border Inter-City routes) and Merseyrail is a self-contained urban network, a third-rail “island” having minimal interface with other lines. TfW would continue to run to Birmingham and Manchester as there is no commercial or operational sense in cutting these routes at Chester and Shrewsbury.

Bringing back Regional Railways would offer economies in management, rolling stock and probably train crews - economies which are going to be demanded by the Treasury in the near future.

Network South East could be defined as “everything from London termini which was not Inter-City”, hence its remit extended all the way to Weymouth, Exeter, Worcester, Peterborough and Kings Lynn. Since privatisation, there have been extensions of former NSE routes to Birmingham and Kidderminster, to Corby and Crewe. (The Network Railcard area still mirrors the old NSE area but stops just short of Ipswich, Peterborough and Rugby.)

Inter-City was defined as those routes which were profitable, hence nearly all London-based, plus the Cross-Country routes converging on Birmingham New Street. I would add the Manchester/ Liverpool – Scotland services of TPE while Gatwick Express has disappeared as a separate service.

I expect there will be some comments!

I can’t see much wrong with this. I’m not sure why Merseyrail has to be it’s own sector like ScotRail and TfW. Would there still be scope for Merseyrail to expand and absorb the surrounding lines of Regional Railways? I would definitely include a bit more of TPE in InterCity because the definition of InterCity is travel between cities, of which Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York and Newcastle are therefore it is InterCity, however Redcar and Scarborough aren’t but have through services of the same standard over the core TransPennine route, a conundrum. Is there any mechanism in your plan for through ticketing onto isolated systems such as the Manchester Metrolink and Tyne And Wear Metro?

 

[alistairlees]

What would be best structure for passenger railways under GBR? Do we need to have more than 20 train companies? My solution would be just six

Inter-City
Network South-East
Regional Railways
Merseyrail
Scotrail (including Caledonian Sleepers)
Transport for Wales

These names will look familiar but alternatives are welcomed! The rationale would be that, in addition to the former three BR sectors, Scotland and Wales would remain separate for political reasons (although both would keep cross-border Inter-City routes) and Merseyrail is a self-contained urban network, a third-rail “island” having minimal interface with other lines. TfW would continue to run to Birmingham and Manchester as there is no commercial or operational sense in cutting these routes at Chester and Shrewsbury.

Bringing back Regional Railways would offer economies in management, rolling stock and probably train crews - economies which are going to be demanded by the Treasury in the near future.

Network South East could be defined as “everything from London termini which was not Inter-City”, hence its remit extended all the way to Weymouth, Exeter, Worcester, Peterborough and Kings Lynn. Since privatisation, there have been extensions of former NSE routes to Birmingham and Kidderminster, to Corby and Crewe. (The Network Railcard area still mirrors the old NSE area but stops just short of Ipswich, Peterborough and Rugby.)

Inter-City was defined as those routes which were profitable, hence nearly all London-based, plus the Cross-Country routes converging on Birmingham New Street. I would add the Manchester/ Liverpool – Scotland services of TPE while Gatwick Express has disappeared as a separate service.

I expect there will be some comments!

Well, three of those are not "under GBR" anyway. Do you mean how should trains that are operated under GBR be presented to customers (branding, livery etc.)? Or how should trains that are operated under GBR be legally and contractually organised? Whilst the two could be the same, they do not need to be.

 

[JonathanH]

You wouldn't want to split up GWR, Anglia, EMR etc again having put them together. Having one 'Regional Railways' isn't a panacea either.

The current structure is fine for the purpose of operating units in any case. Each of InterCity, Regional Railways, Network South East had subdivisions in any case - decisions about local operations in Newcastle don't have to be taken by the same people who make those decisions about local operations in Plymouth.

 

[HST43257]

So I'd have Intercity and Regional (with sub brand Regional Express

Then local operators like these around the country
Network SouthEast
Manchester and Mersey
Cardiff and the Valleys
Scottish Central Belt

 

[SynthD]

The best is what takes the least restructuring. Why not the 20 ‘companies’, as the expertise has practise in what they do now.

 

[JonathanH]

Then local operators like these around the country
Network SouthEast
Manchester and Mersey
Cardiff and the Valleys
Scottish Central Belt

The size of these is somewhat different. The actual benefit of having one 'Network South East' operator is somewhat limited with the strategic decisions being made by GBR.

Arguably, Anglia, TSGN, GWR, South Eastern, SWR is sufficient with maybe Chiltern and LNR rolled into one super operator with EWR, is perhaps the way forward.

 

[Simon11]

What would be best structure for passenger railways under GBR? Do we need to have more than 20 train companies? My solution would be just six

Inter-City
Network South-East
Regional Railways
Merseyrail
Scotrail (including Caledonian Sleepers)
Transport for Wales

These names will look familiar but alternatives are welcomed! The rationale would be that, in addition to the former three BR sectors, Scotland and Wales would remain separate for political reasons (although both would keep cross-border Inter-City routes) and Merseyrail is a self-contained urban network, a third-rail “island” having minimal interface with other lines. TfW would continue to run to Birmingham and Manchester as there is no commercial or operational sense in cutting these routes at Chester and Shrewsbury.

Bringing back Regional Railways would offer economies in management, rolling stock and probably train crews - economies which are going to be demanded by the Treasury in the near future.

Network South East could be defined as “everything from London termini which was not Inter-City”, hence its remit extended all the way to Weymouth, Exeter, Worcester, Peterborough and Kings Lynn. Since privatisation, there have been extensions of former NSE routes to Birmingham and Kidderminster, to Corby and Crewe. (The Network Railcard area still mirrors the old NSE area but stops just short of Ipswich, Peterborough and Rugby.)

Inter-City was defined as those routes which were profitable, hence nearly all London-based, plus the Cross-Country routes converging on Birmingham New Street. I would add the Manchester/ Liverpool – Scotland services of TPE while Gatwick Express has disappeared as a separate service.

I expect there will be some comments!

What is not clear in your thinking is what activities and responsibilities these potential teams would have.

Are you viewing it as an operating company to run the services or more national strategic mind thinking?

Both scenarios have pros and cons.