Williams Review - Radical Ideas

[DerekC]

There is a thread currently running about franchise rearrangement after the Williams Review, but isn't all franchise juggling a bit like rearranging the deck chairs? I don't think the railway industry is heading for an iceberg, but I do think it will be increasingly unable to compete on customer convenience and cost except for inner urban transport and long distance freight unless we do something radical to allow it to change more rapidly.

The current structure makes everything except building new trains move at a glacial pace. I am hoping that Williams will come up with something more radical. I can't see that you can wind the clock back to BR, but how about five or six vertically integrated, geographically split railways with long term ownership of the infrastructure, full operational responsibility and free ability to buy or lease trains?

There are some problems with the idea. People usually start to talk about cross-country services, but these aren't hard to fix with running powers (or whatever the modern equivalent is). The tricky bits to me are working out how to inject subsidy in the right places without creating a complacent bureaucracy and how to overlay city-region transport domains (TfL, TfGM etc)

What do others think? Any other radical ideas?​

 

[Legolash2o]

There's a conference next Thursday in London discussing the Williams Review.

I agree something needs to change, but I disagree with splitting up the infrastructure. It may become complicated when it comes to boundaries or at least enforce standardised rules and workings. I believe at the moment, each region can have some different rules in areas which makes creating simulations a tad more complicated than it has to be.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Any genuinely radical thinking about the current structure and organisation of our railway system will include creating a new British Railways to take away day-to-day control from the DfT.

 

[PR1Berske]

Any genuinely radical thinking about the current structure and organisation of our railway system will include creating a new British Railways to take away day-to-day control from the DfT.

But what does that mean?

*Nationalised, so run through the DfT
*Nationalised but run as an arm's length company via the DfT
*Part-nationalised via a DfT quasi-contract
*Not for profit
*British Railways Company as a front for something else

 

[Bletchleyite]

Any genuinely radical thinking about the current structure and organisation of our railway system will include creating a new British Railways to take away day-to-day control from the DfT.

That's sounding a bit like the awful SRA?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

But what does that mean?

*Nationalised, so run through the DfT
*Nationalised but run as an arm's length company via the DfT
*Part-nationalised via a DfT quasi-contract
*Not for profit
*British Railways Company as a front for something else

It means exactly what it says; that any genuinely radical thinking will include thinking the unthinkable. One unthinkable concept is that the current set-up with DfT in close control is so awful that almost anything might be better, including going back to a nationalised railway run on a day-to-day basis by an organisation consisting of experienced professionals who each served a long and carefully arranged apprenticeship before being given management responsibility.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

That's sounding a bit like the awful SRA?

It was intended to sound like the B. R. before John Major stuck his oar in.

 

[Indigo Soup]

One unthinkable concept is that the current set-up with DfT in close control is so awful that almost anything might be better, including going back to a nationalised railway run on a day-to-day basis by an organisation consisting of experienced professionals who each served a long and carefully arranged apprenticeship before being given management responsibility.

That won't happen.

A nationalised passenger railway might. But management won't be chosen based on 'a long and carefully arranged apprenticeship', because that isn't the way that modern businesses work. Senior management will be the usual parade of accountants and lawyers who may or may not take advice from experienced railwaymen.

It might very well still be better than the current setup, on the principle that I'm not convinced that a cage full of spider monkeys drunk on over-ripe fruit would do a worse job running the railways.

How such a rail operator might be configured would could be any of the the options PR1Berske listed, and maybe even a few others. Renationalising freight operators won't be on the cards, no matter what happens with passenger operations, so recreating the Big Four (precise numbers may vary) isn't going to happen.

If we're thinking the unthinkable, though - why not split up the franchises further. Not just by line, but by diagram. If set no. XYZ123 works Euston-Manchester-Euston-Glasgow on a Monday (say), put out a tender for that working, separate from the working for set XYZ124 which does four return trips to Wolverhampton. And so on, and so forth.

Operating contracts might be more appropriate than franchises for this approach. But it would allow for smaller operators with different ideas to do things - the Railforums Consortium could bid to run a S&C diagram with Mark 1s and a kettle without having to take on the entire Northern franchise, say. A failing operator could be quietly shuffled off and replaced without too much disruption, especially if you didn't rebid an entire package of routes at one time. There'd be disadvantages (lots more bidding, and lots more duplication of management, being the obvious ones) but it's an interesting possibility.

 

[option]

The Williams Rail Review was established in September 2018 to look at the structure of the whole rail industry and the way passenger rail services are delivered. The review will make recommendations for reform that prioritise passengers’ and taxpayers’ interests.

Its recommendations should support delivery of:

• commercial models for the provision of rail services that prioritise the interests of passengers and taxpayers
• rail industry structures that promote clear accountability and effective joint-working for both passengers and the freight sector
• a system that is financially sustainable and able to address long-term cost pressures
• a railway that is able to offer good value fares for passengers, while keeping costs down for taxpayers
• improved industrial relations, to reduce disruption and improve reliability for passengers
• a rail sector with the agility to respond to future challenges and opportunities

The review’s remit does not include the infrastructure and services that should be provided by the railway. It will therefore not reconsider public investment decisions made through existing franchise agreements, Control Period 6 commitments, High Speed 2 and other major projects, or spending decisions that will be made through Spending Review 2019.

The government is investing record levels in the railways. Recommendations should avoid negative impacts on the public sector balance sheet and / or creating additional government expenditure beyond reasonable transition costs. The review’s conclusions will be reached in the context of the Department for Transport’s settlement at Spending Review 2019.


The review team must effectively identify passenger, workforce and community priorities and concerns, including accessibility and the needs of freight and industry. It should consider how to improve transport services across UK regions and devolved nations, including exploring options for devolution of rail powers. It should engage with key stakeholders including industry bodies, national and local government, Parliament, and, where appropriate, the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales.

so no change to freight
no change to Network Rail being separate from operators

interestingly, no mention of franchises or TOCs
but there is the key word "delivered", not 'operated'.


no buying out of franchises

possible devolution of services to the various Tf's
(London Overground delivers rail services but doesn't operate them, they contract out that side. Same model was used on the T&W Metro, & could be used elsewhere)


There is an interesting connection in terms of personnel;
Keith Williams was at John Lewis at the same time as Andy Street, now WMCA Mayor

 

[Railwaysceptic]

That won't happen.

A nationalised passenger railway might. But management won't be chosen based on 'a long and carefully arranged apprenticeship', because that isn't the way that modern businesses work. Senior management will be the usual parade of accountants and lawyers who may or may not take advice from experienced railwaymen.

This is precisely why some genuinely radical thinking is required: to avoid the same mistake being made yet again and to energise our sleepy and negligent politicians into pressurising the Government to re-structure and re-organise the railways in the necessary way.

 

[The Ham]

Here's a radical thought, how about franchises but rather than the main focus being on income to the DfT there's a profit sharing mechanism for new rail projects.

For instance a TOC says, in exchange for £x in payments to the DfT it will do Y which should generate extra income, reduce maintenance and/or reduce delay repayments.

If the TOC gets its sums right and it makes money then (say) 75/25 split of money goes to DfT/TOC up to 110% of the value "lost" to the DfT before the profit splits then reverse.

DfT could get more money (which could be further invested in the railways) while TOC's have scope to make extra income.

Chances are we'd see more improvements than we do at present, and it could even increase the income to the DfT over time.

 

[Indigo Soup]

This is precisely why some genuinely radical thinking is required: to avoid the same mistake being made yet again and to energise our sleepy and negligent politicians into pressurising the Government to re-structure and re-organise the railways in the necessary way.

Radical thinking isn't going to extend to 'letting railwaymen play with their train set', which is how any such option will be perceived. Management philosophy has been, for some time, that the only people who are fit to run large enterprises are lawyers and accountants. That's not likely to be changing any time soon.

DfT could get more money (which could be further invested in the railways) while TOC's have scope to make extra income.

This would have to include a loss-sharing mechanism as well, of course - if the TOC makes less money than forecast, then the DfT pays them part of the shortfall. That incentivises risk-taking, but might also encourage overbidding.