Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail, transport committee meeting

[physics34]

Now on parliamentlive.tv. started 9.30.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2021 ==

Parliamentlive.tv

Transport Committee

parliamentlive.tv

 

[JonathanH]

Now on parliamentlive.tv. started 9.30.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2021 ==

Parliamentlive.tv

Transport Committee

parliamentlive.tv

The RDG representative really pushing changes to fares regulation in line with their policies - eg commercial freedom on fares outside concessions in urban areas.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's clear new railway legislation is not coming in this parliamentary session.
Shapps says it will be "in this parliament" which potentially means 2-3 years away.
Not this year anyway.

The DfT says the termination fees for all the pre-existing franchises have been agreed, so they are now negotiating the NRC awards.
That seems to suggest none of the TOC owners has walked away from the railway.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Nigel Harris forcefully made the point multiple times that DfT needs to get out of the way.

 

[physics34]

We didn't learn too much more, which is a shame. Maybe its too early to expect wholesale changes but i was hoping for more information on branding, the sectors and the possible improvement in seats

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

We didn't learn too much more, which is a shame. Maybe its too early to expect wholesale changes but i was hoping for more information on branding, the sectors and the possible improvement in seats

I suspect they are a long way from being ready to announce anything.
I'd give them the rest of the year before significant organisational changes are made.
I missed Peter Hendy's contribution - did he offer anything specific?

 

[JaJaWa]

We didn't learn too much more, which is a shame. Maybe its too early to expect wholesale changes but i was hoping for more information on branding, the sectors and the possible improvement in seats

Although it does not refer to the branding of trains themselves, Network Rail design guidelines have already been updated to reflect branding in terms of stations: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-predictions-speculation.217434/post-5135558

 

[flitwickbeds]

Shapps says it will be "in this parliament" which potentially means 2-3 years away.
Not this year anyway.

Depends what the fallout is from the other Committee Room meeting happening simultaneously with a certain other gentleman... ☺

 

[pdeaves]

We didn't learn too much more, which is a shame. Maybe its too early to expect wholesale changes but i was hoping for more information on branding, the sectors and the possible improvement in seats

I would expect that most of this is way, way down the line (no pun intended) once the fundamentals have been worked through. To an extent, branding can be a last minute, 'oh, this will do, slap it on' thing.

 

[physics34]

I would expect that most of this is way, way down the line (no pun intended) once the fundamentals have been worked through. To an extent, branding can be a last minute, 'oh, this will do, slap it on' thing.

True, although id think it was now pointless to be slapping paint and branding like EMR,SWR or Avanti WC on trains from this current date onwards. Rail Alphabet we do know will be used, but to what extent?.

From what i could tell the only thing weve learnt today (in the whole 2 1/2 hrs!) is that the 'regions' will be the current Network Rail ones.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

True, although id think it was now pointless to be slapping paint and branding like EMR,SWR or Avanti WC on trains from this current date onwards. Rail Alphabet we do know will be used, but to what extent?.
From what i could tell the only thing weve learnt today (in the whole 2 1/2 hrs!) is that the 'regions' will be the current Network Rail ones.

That's actually the most important fact, as it will drive the TOC groupings and possible consolidation.
So my guess is that the Regions would consist of the following TOCs:

Scotland = Scotrail + Caley Sleeper (as now)
Eastern = LNER + GA + c2c + EMR
LNW & Central = Avanti + WMT + Merseyrail infrastructure + Chiltern + EWR?
Western & Wales = GWR + TfW
Southern = Southeastern + SWR

Devolved Merseyrail and LO would be unchanged, and there will be autonomy for Scotrail and TfW.
Problematic are: Northern, TPE, XC and GTR, as these cross Regions extensively - will they stay or be broken up to fit into the Regions?
Crossrail also serves 2 Regions but presumably will live in TfL, like LO.
And where would HS1 and HS2 fit (if at all)?
It's unclear if the current TOC boundaries will persist, but it looks like they will at least during the NRC 2-year phase.
You also have the problem of deciding what a "long-distance" TOC is, to have greater commercial freedom than the rest.

 

[Cardiff123]

Shapps also said that the Scottish governmemt, can continue to use the "Operator of Last Resort" (his words) to run ScotRail services if they want to.
Presumably this means that the Scottish & Welsh Govts can have ScotRail and TfW Rail run by the public sector long term, instead of awarding concession contracts to private operators in Scotland & Wales. Of course this comes with the caveat of 'subject to change' by the time we get to the actual legislation getting through the UK Parliament.

 

[PTR 444]

That's actually the most important fact, as it will drive the TOC groupings and possible consolidation.
So my guess is that the Regions would consist of the following TOCs:

Scotland = Scotrail + Caley Sleeper (as now)
Eastern = LNER + GA + c2c + EMR
LNW & Central = Avanti + WMT + Chiltern + EWR?
Western & Wales = GWR + TfW
Southern = Southeastern + SWR

Devolved Merseyrail and LO would be unchanged, and there will be autonomy for Scotrail and TfW.
Problematic are: Northern, TPE, XC and GTR, as these cross Regions extensively - will they stay or be broken up to fit into the Regions?
Crossrail also serves 2 Regions but presumably will live in TfL, like LO.
And where would HS1 and HS2 fit (if at all)?
It's unclear if the current TOC boundaries will persist, but it looks like they will at least during the NRC 2-year phase.
You also have the problem of deciding what a "long-distance" TOC is, to have greater commercial freedom than the rest.

I’d say XC fits in best with LNW & Central as all of its routes serve Birmingham which is firmly in LNW territory. GTR would be best split between Eastern (GN routes) and Southern (SN and TL routes), while TPE and Northern would be best split between LNW and Eastern, with the Huddersfield and Hope Valley services going to the latter.

 

[zwk500]

And where would HS1 and HS2 fit (if at all)?

To avoid speculation I'll only address this point: HS1 is part of the Southern Region, Kent Route currently.
HS2 will almost certainly be included as part of the NW&C Region.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

To avoid speculation I'll only address this point: HS1 is part of the Southern Region, Kent Route currently.
HS2 will almost certainly be included as part of the NW&C Region.

Yes, but Eurostar doesn't fit, and HS1 infrastructure is contracted, not owned.
HS2 is fine in NW&C until it reaches the MML, and the DfT will want it to be different to regular NR.
The NPR route looks like being split too - not very clever.

 

[zwk500]

Yes, but Eurostar doesn't fit, and HS1 infrastructure is contracted, not owned.
HS2 is fine in NW&C until it reaches the MML, and the DfT will want it to be different to regular NR.
The NPR route looks like being split too - not very clever.

You asked where they fit in the regions structure. Comments on how suitable this is wasn't part of that. FWIW, Northern and TPE both currently operate on an East/West split internally anyway. GTR also split TL/SN/GN. So it may not be so hard to split operations as it seems by franchises.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A view from First Group about branding in the new regime:
Rail needs to be ‘relevant and wanted’ in an era of changed travel demand, says TransPennine Express MD | Rail Business UK | Railway Gazette International

Montgomery said there had been no indication that the Department for Transport was planning any remapping of services between operators as the concession model is rolled out.
However, more regional branding will be developed, and it is unclear what this means. ‘Do we see the demise of brands like TransPennine Express, or LNER?’, he wondered.
Montgomery felt people could align themselves with regional brands, and that TransPennine Express was a brand that customers recognised. ‘My own personal preference is that we should keep some local branding, but whether that happens or we get into regional branding is something for the future’, he added.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I see the transcript is now available.

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/2259/html/

 

[321over360]

That's actually the most important fact, as it will drive the TOC groupings and possible consolidation.
So my guess is that the Regions would consist of the following TOCs:

Scotland = Scotrail + Caley Sleeper (as now)
Eastern = LNER + GA + c2c + EMR
LNW & Central = Avanti + WMT + Merseyrail infrastructure + Chiltern + EWR?
Western & Wales = GWR + TfW
Southern = Southeastern + SWR

Devolved Merseyrail and LO would be unchanged, and there will be autonomy for Scotrail and TfW.
Problematic are: Northern, TPE, XC and GTR, as these cross Regions extensively - will they stay or be broken up to fit into the Regions?
Crossrail also serves 2 Regions but presumably will live in TfL, like LO.
And where would HS1 and HS2 fit (if at all)?
It's unclear if the current TOC boundaries will persist, but it looks like they will at least during the NRC 2-year phase.
You also have the problem of deciding what a "long-distance" TOC is, to have greater commercial freedom than the rest.

Why not just split all South East england back into a single banner and revive Network South East with a similar branding (be easy for class 465s as just peel off the vinyls over the NSE paintwork as this will solve the issue of GTR, and why group LNER and East Anglia routes (GA and c2c) with Intercity Routes that run up to Scotland, then group the rest of the uk into separate sectors, so Intercity routes stay with their respective existing routes but absorb any long distance routes that arent open access operator (Ie Hull Trains and Grand Central) that run in their region, so a West Coast Concession, taking on all LNWR and WMR services into it, an East Coast Mainline Concession and the Great Western Concession, however would Chiltern fall into a NSE route again like in the past, so all commutter routes into London are run by a single operator again, with a separate identity however then the issue is GAs Norwich and Local routes (those using 755s) given they fall out of the old NSE region, that just my opinion, but will be good to see the BR logo back on trains, rather than money wasted on train liveries

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Well, anything can happen and it's the DfT playing with its train set until it fixes some boundaries, authority and budget for GBR.
But whatever they do there will be anomalies somewhere, as there were in BR days.
The old private companies got round the problem with joint lines, but whether GBR will be as sophisticated as that we'll have to see.
I doubt they will decide on anything like the old BR (in any of its 4 guises over 45 years).
Devolved powers will also be a big factor in organisation and authority in their areas, limiting the generic GBR brand.
GTR, XC, TPE and Northern don't fit the NR Regional map at the moment, not to mention Crossrail, EWR, and HS2 when it reaches the MML.

 

[lordbusiness]

I give it about 2-3 years, Shapps will have moved on, the money runs out, a few national rail strikes and there's a Government u-turn.

 

[Annetts key]

I give it about 2-3 years, Shapps will have moved on, the money runs out, a few national rail strikes and there's a Government u-turn.

A possible solution would be to make the Bank of England a subsidiary of GBR. Then GBR can print is own money as well as lending to the government

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I give it about 2-3 years, Shapps will have moved on, the money runs out, a few national rail strikes and there's a Government u-turn.

U-turn on what?
It isn't just Shapps, there's a whole lot of government pressure on getting the GBR change done.
Once the new framework is on the statute book, it will have legs (as it did in 1993, despite Labour coming to power in 1997).
Money running out won't actually improve things.

 

[physics34]

I think its clear the franchise system no longer works..OR/and had reached its peak...profit margins couldnt get any higher.... plus COVID and working from home trend, will see a switch back to the tax payer paying more... hence we have some kind of renationalisation.

 

[lordbusiness]

U-turn on what?
It isn't just Shapps, there's a whole lot of government pressure on getting the GBR change done.
Once the new framework is on the statute book, it will have legs (as it did in 1993, despite Labour coming to power in 1997).
Money running out won't actually improve things.

The country is skint and quite likely to be for a long time- our kids and grandkids will still be picking up the bill for covid long after we're gone.

WRT GBR, one can only hope someone has done their sums properly and worked out where the money is coming from to make it happen- and factored in the inevitable delays and cost overruns. Throw in the likelihood of some significant IR challenges, the already spiralling cost of HS2 as well and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the Treasury will turn round in a few years time and start demanding expenditure to be cut, especially if the income generated by the industry doesn't meet the projections. Regardless of what the government want- if the Exchequer says the money's not there things will change, especially if GBR is competing against the NHS, Education and welfare.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the industry has to change but personally I think it's too much, too soon. They should have stuck to fixing the things that needed fixing- franchising and ticketing. It's like having a 1000 piece jigsaw with a couple of bits in the wrong place and you decide to fix it by throwing it all up in the air and hoping all the bits will land the right way up and in the right place.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

This will be evolution not revolution but the industry will take the next 6-12mths to come up with an overall strategy with the DofT so doubt it will even be in next years Queens Speech. The NRCs First have signed for SWR and TPE run for two years with a two year extension so there giving themselves plenty of time. Perhaps the wider issue is whether everything from enhancements to rolling stock just stalls for the next few years while this works itself out.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The country is skint and quite likely to be for a long time- our kids and grandkids will still be picking up the bill for covid long after we're gone.

WRT GBR, one can only hope someone has done their sums properly and worked out where the money is coming from to make it happen- and factored in the inevitable delays and cost overruns. Throw in the likelihood of some significant IR challenges, the already spiralling cost of HS2 as well and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the Treasury will turn round in a few years time and start demanding expenditure to be cut, especially if the income generated by the industry doesn't meet the projections. Regardless of what the government want- if the Exchequer says the money's not there things will change, especially if GBR is competing against the NHS, Education and welfare.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the industry has to change but personally I think it's too much, too soon. They should have stuck to fixing the things that needed fixing- franchising and ticketing. It's like having a 1000 piece jigsaw with a couple of bits in the wrong place and you decide to fix it by throwing it all up in the air and hoping all the bits will land the right way up and in the right place.

Well all that's true, but as they say, what's the alternative?
The railway business model was pretty much broken before Covid, and HMG was already searching for a sustainable future for rail, via Williams.
Now they are committed to change, I don't think they will pull the plug on centralising the railway system, with integrated regions and concessions contracts.
Cost is still up in the air, but the White Paper expects £1.5 billion per annum out of the efficiencies.
Covid adds a layer of debt, but I think the view is that the hit will be temporary over maybe 5 years.
HS2, NPR and EWR will go ahead, they are capital spend and more than just railway projects - they are part of the national recovery plan.
The bigger problem is current railway spend, in both NR and the franchises (which is where the potential clash with schools and the NHS comes in).
The time is also ripe for reform of railway working practices, as both politicians and the industry knows.
None of the implications have been spelled out yet - it may be a year or so before the full detail emerges.

 

[Annetts key]

The country is skint and quite likely to be for a long time- our kids and grandkids will still be picking up the bill for covid long after we're gone.

Three points:

1. And how long ago was our government free of debt?
2. Most ‘first world’ countries are in a very similar situation, and that means that it is less significant that our country has a large debt. The only time there is a big problem is where a one or a small number of countries are significantly different. It looks like the U.S.A. will go for increased spending at the very least.
3. Government debt does not work like a mortgage, hence no, our kids and grandkids will not be paying any more than we will be paying. And what we will be doing is servicing the debt (paying the interest on the debt), not paying off the capital. Just like most government debt.

… and factored in the inevitable delays and cost overruns.

But with big projects there are a number of reasons why they experience delays and increased costs. Part of it is the optimistic plans that are put forward. If the cost and or the time frame was too long, they would never get the go ahead in the first place, due to the nature of politics. Secondly, the plans that are made do not appear to include pesky little things like the actual real life conditions or always taking into account the history, knowledge and experience of the people or organisations who currently or were in the past responsible for the infrastructure.
This is no different to the problems faced when the railway lines were first constructed in the 19th century. Many railway companies nearly went bankrupt. You can survey as much as you like, but until construction actually begins there will be unknowns. Of course a good survey is better than a bad survey.

The time is also ripe for reform of railway working practices

This subject keeps coming up. The working practices in use at the moment are not the same as those that existed when British Railways ran the railways. The bigger problem is not the working practices, but the poor planning and organisational structures combined with the needless amount of paperwork and it’s electronic/computerised equivalent. Also absolutely no consideration of positioning and design of infrastructure equipment with regards to how the maintenance staff can get to or be able to maintain said equipment. Go and look at historical photos of the railways and you will see trackside (cess) paths. Most of these have been lost due to being designed out, construction work, machine track maintenance, loss of control of the vegetation, embankment/cuttings slipping or scrap material being left behind. Hence infrastructure maintenance staff have to get line blocks in order to get to and to work on equipment. If the signaller says no because there are trains running, the staff have no option but to stand and wait.

Some of this is yet again down to plans and designs that are made that do not include taking into account the actual real life conditions or taking into account the history, knowledge and experience of the people or organisations who currently or were in the past responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructure.

Some of the above problems are actually caused by attempts at cost cutting…

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Some of the above problems are actually caused by attempts at cost cutting…

Some very pertinent points there.
It reminds me of the detailed report Chris Gibb did about a decade ago on the reliability of the southern WCML.
He said the efforts to upgrade the quality of the equipment used were being undermined by Network Rail's own procurement policy of always ordering the cheapest kit.
I do get the impression the WCML reliability has improved in the past decade, but whether NR's procurement policies have changed I don't know.
There were many other issues to resolve (including such tricky things as better security fencing to prevent access for suicides).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2021 ==



I see from the Telegraph that franchise termination payments have now been agreed by Abellio and its partners for Greater Anglia (£91m) and West Midlands Trains (£30.5m).
It also says Trenitalia paid £140m to terminate the c2c franchise.
The Telegraph calls them "penalty payments" which is rather unfair, hinting at poor performance, and also portrays them as payments by foreign governments to UK taxpayers.
Dutch hand UK taxpayers £91m to end rail funding row (msn.com)

The Dutch government is paying more than £90m to UK taxpayers to prevent its train company from being booted off Britain's railways.

It also helpfully illustrates its piece with a nice picture of a Tyne & Wear Metro train in the snow.
As far as I am aware, Metro has no foreign interest, DB Arriva's spell as operator having ended 4 years ago.
It isn't even a DfT franchise.