Rail Review

[dk1]

Did I hear them say they'd brought in some geezer from John Lewis to look at a similar partnership structure? Well the thought of an extra bonus to boost our salary would get my vote

 

[js1000]

The problem isn't so much privatisation but fragmentation.

The track is owned and maintained by the government, timetable requirements are drawn up by the Department for Transport, the service is operated by private sector companies and the passenger travels on trains (mostly) owned by banks.

I'd rather the whole railway is either fully nationalised (services operated by government and carriages owned) or fully privatised.

The lack of vertical integration and joined up thinking is killing it at the moment. Look at the recent timetable debacle - who was mostly responsible for that? No one knows because they can all conveniently point the finger of blame at each other. Who loses out the most? The passenger of course.

And I doubt that famous radical and imaginative Maybot will do anything to improve the railway system. She's utterly useless.

 

[KashmireHawker]

Did I hear them say they'd brought in some geezer from John Lewis to look at a similar partnership structure? Well the thought of an extra bonus to boost our salary would get my vote

That is correct and confirms the Tories love a John Lewis connected man, with Andy Street winning the West Midlands Mayoralty last May!

Despite there profit becoming nil in the first half of 2018, JL is still a strong company of whom it’s lead people know what it takes, to run such an organisation and the DfT needing its bosses help is probably the smartest move.

 

[dk1]

That is correct and confirms the Tories love a John Lewis connected man, with Andy Street winning the West Midlands Mayoralty last May!

Despite there profit becoming nil in the first half of 2018, JL is still a strong company of whom it’s lead people know what it takes, to run such an organisation and the DfT needing its bosses help is probably the smartest move.

I will go with that move then & see what it beholds. Thanks.

 

[GrimShady]

Regionalising it could work.

How about a
Intercity sector.
Freight sector
Regional Railways sector
Scotrail sector
Network SouthEast sector.

Oh yeah they did that and it worked.

Or even one big operator that is divided in to:
Southern Region.
London Midland Region.
Eastern Region.
Western Region.
Scottish Region.

Oh yes .. did that too and it worked but didn't make money for the mates of MPs.

We'll said! Go back to the old sectors. Far better to offer a standard product rolling stock wise and to stop these silly procurements of small multiple fleets that are all mostly incompatible with each other.

 

[Panupreset]

You don't order a review without telling the person who is doing it what the outcome needs to be.

Expect Drivers and Unions to be blamed for most of the current systems problems, with a recommendation of Driverless train technology (whatever the cost) and more anti trade union legislation.

 

[lordbusiness]

God help us if it ends with greater government control.
Without turning this into another nationalisation vs privatisation debate. Every dealing I've had with the DfT and the Civil Service in general give me no confidence on their ability to successfully manage anything.

 

[HH]

I think David Leeder has the right of it.

The announcement that the DfT is considering yet another "fundamental review" of the UK's rail architecture was, perhaps, an inevitable response to a summer of timetable problems amidst the populist appeal of Labour demands for full-scale renationalisation of the sector.

Should it happen, this will be the third such review since 2010. It is therefore worth re-visiting its predecessors to remind ourselves of their recommendations and to check progress.

Review 1.0 – McNulty

A product of the 2010 government's broad desire to control public spending after the 2008 crisis, and chaired by Sir Roy McNulty, the long-serving and respected former Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, the 2011 review was focused initially on the objective of reducing or at least containing the growth in rail costs.

McNulty's remit was quickly diluted, and the final report contained two key recommendations:

1. Less prescriptive franchises for TOCs
2. More decentralisation (to regional elected mayors, and within Network Rail).

In 2018, the TOCs find themselves in precisely the opposite position, with ever more closely specified contracts, that remove almost all cost flexibility, and leave TOCs as vessels of blame whenever operational or financial conditions are unfavourable.

Thanks to George Osborne, there has been substantial movement towards strong regional governance. Unsurprisingly, these newly empowered transport authorities now seek the kind of detailed control over rail services increasingly exercised by TfL.

As to the Report's primary objective – a pathway towards a 20-30% reduction in the railway's unit costs, there has been no detectable progress. McNulty chose to leave the pre-existing economic architecture in place, and to rely on friendly exhortations for the industry to try harder and deliver more. Without any economic reform, the upward pressure on industry staff costs has continued and intensified, spilling over into disruptive strikes intended to bolster the political case for nationalisation, and [presumably] future pay increases to be met by the taxpayer. Far from reducing costs, Network Rail has presided over astonishing cost over-runs, but has met its objective of remaining a unified entity [although asset sales have now resumed in order to shore up the corporation's cash position].

Review 2.0 Shaw

The 2015/16 Nicola Shaw Review started more promisingly, with a commitment to examine serious structural reforms. This economics-based agenda was once again diluted, and the final recommendations were even more meagre than McNulty's - comprising motherhood-and-apple pie commitments to the centrality of passengers, and vague exhortations in the direction of further devolution. Once again, NR remained intact, and the TOCs remained holders of short term franchises, with diminishing flexibility and huge exposure to economic and political fluctuations.

Given the intellectual seriousness of the Shaw group, it was impossible not to see this as anther victory for the rail industry 'blob' – that coalition of change-resistant vested interests first identified by Michael Gove in the education sector. Within UK rail, the blob consists of the rail unions, parts of industry management, some incumbent companies and suppliers, and elements of the civil service. Equity investors and HM Treasury stand somewhat outside this group, but are also cautious about major change.

Both reports were undertaken by serious people, of good standing, and with relevant expertise. The ease with which any proposals for serious structural change were watered down, even before publication says much about the power of the rail blob, and the caution of politicians.

What's changed since 2016?

The previous reviews floundered on the DfT's unwillingness to carry out fundamental changes to the economic structure of Network Rail, or to amend the role of the TOCs. Indeed, political pressure on DfT has led to ever greater contractualisation of train operations, placing the TOCs into the position of becoming passive receivers of economic and political risk, with none of the flexibilities enjoyed by either 'normal' private businesses or regulated utilities.

Both McNulty and Shaw came down in favour of exhorting efficiency improvements, without the harsh medicine of structural change.

Even more alarmingly for the Tories, the huge investments in capital projects and intensified timetables they have funded have resulted in real and visible hardship for passengers. Whatever the medium-term benefits, Thameslink's shiny new trains, and Northern's recast timetable, are now associated with passenger disruption and Tory 'cuts' [when in fact, spending has occurred at massive levels].

This political problem goes far beyond the rather technocratic objectives of the first two reports.

Labour's plan suffers from no such caution. They have the advantage of clarity, and build on misconceptions that are shared much more broadly than Labour's newly radical base. These include:
1. A confusion between profit and dividend
2. The [largely false] idea that TOC owners have enjoyed high and or stable financial returns
3. The failure to see a linkage between the UK rail industry's difficulty in controlling unit costs, and the growth in passenger fares
4. The implied suggestion that fares will be subsidised much more heavily by taxes on a broader population [many of whom rarely travel by train]

This kind of woolly thinking is not confined to the quasi-Marxist left, which now makes up Labour's activist base, and polling suggests quite widespread support for a state-owned railway network. The implied leap in spending will surely be funded by the undefined 'rich' who will 'be asked to pay a little more in taxes'.

Grayling's second emerging problem is that rail demand is now showing the first significant secular weakness since the mid 1990s. No unambiguous trends are yet apparent, but one possibility is that technology changes, such as the ease of home working and shopping, are finally eroding peak demand. This could be fundamental, given that rail spending [and over-spending] has for some time been justified by the idea that constant increases in rail capacity are inevitable and desirable.

Grayling therefore faces problems on multiple fronts:

1. A change resistant industry, whose major actors are beneficiaries of the current arrangements
2. Sceptical equity investors, who now publicly wonder why UK-listed companies should participate in an industry in which returns have been meagre, but where investors are regularly accused of profiteering
3. A persuasive opposition, with strong support from trades unions and passenger groups who anticipate [probably correctly] that nationalisation would benefit both employees and passengers at the expense of the non-travelling tax-payer
4. A cautious Prime Minister, whose economic views, so far as they are known, lean towards centrist interventionism, rather than Thatcherite reform
5. Passengers, media and voters who allocate responsibility to the government, and not the industry

Given the government's meagre parliamentary strength, it would be unwise to anticipate proposals for truly fundamental reform, let alone much subsequent progress on the ground.

Change is only likely to occur if it is forced through, probably on a local basis, and probably over a protracted timescale.

Whatever the results of the report, nothing fundamental will actually change.

 

[squizzler]

Attack of the "rail industry Blob" - that's a new one!

Whilst capturing that the railway acts sort-of self aware with no single brain in charge, I prefer the metaphor of an ecosystem to be managed in passenger's interest rather than some kind of alien to be destroyed - a metaphor that might have been crafted by the proponents of nationalisation.

 

[lordbusiness]

It will certainly make interesting reading. I suspect the Government rationale is partly to show that they are attempting to do something and partly to counter, or at least partly counter the clamour for nationalisation.
Personally, I think the industry suffers from an inability to manage expectations and given all the factors both within and outside the industry, actually delivers pretty well. Sure everyone wants a railway where everyone gets a seat, trains run on time all the time, trains or infrastructure never break, fares are cheap and they don't crash. Are all these things achievable?

It doesn't help that the industry makes promises it often is able to deliver.

Remember, 8 out 10 owners said their cats prefered it sold a hell of a lot of cat food.

 

[Mag_seven]

God help us if it ends with greater government control.
Without turning this into another nationalisation vs privatisation debate. Every dealing I've had with the DfT and the Civil Service in general give me no confidence on their ability to successfully manage anything.

When BR was nationalised there was little or no government control. BR negotiated a budget with the DfT and then was allowed to get on with it. Imagine what BR could have done if it had had the levels of funding that the so called private operators get today in the form of subsidy.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

When BR was nationalised there was little or no government control. BR negotiated a budget with the DfT and then was allowed to get on with it. Imagine what BR could have done if it had had the levels of funding that the so called private operators get today in the form of subsidy.

But it would never have had that level of funding in the public sector.
BR had to live within Treasury controls which meant things like pay restraint and a limited amount of capital - hence few new projects and a patch and mend policy.
The aim of the new money at privatisation was supposed to be a one-off injection to get the railway up to modern standards.
Unfortunately it (mainly NR) has found a way of consuming the same high level of funding (£8 billion a year) indefinitely, with regular fiascos over costs and operation.
The operators (public or private) essentially break even.
Network Rail (under 100% government control) is the elephant in the room.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

When BR was nationalised there was little or no government control. BR negotiated a budget with the DfT and then was allowed to get on with it. Imagine what BR could have done if it had had the levels of funding that the so called private operators get today in the form of subsidy.

Absolutely correct, and that point can never be repeated too often. The tragedy is that B. R. no longer exists so we can't bring it back, and even if we could, the politicians and civil servants would never agree to relinquishing control of the railways by handing it back to industry professionals.

 

[tbtc]

That is correct and confirms the Tories love a John Lewis connected man, with Andy Street winning the West Midlands Mayoralty last May!

Despite there profit becoming nil in the first half of 2018, JL is still a strong company of whom it’s lead people know what it takes, to run such an organisation and the DfT needing its bosses help is probably the smartest move.

My understanding is that they could have declared a profit but instead decided to take the opportunity to pay off debts (that weren't due for payment at this time). I wish other companies took that kind of approach.

If he's dealt with a company with large debts then wait 'till he sees the books at Network Rail!

We'll said! Go back to the old sectors. Far better to offer a standard product rolling stock wise and to stop these silly procurements of small multiple fleets that are all mostly incompatible with each other.

Good old nationalised British Rail had plenty of small fleets - we can't blame privatisation for things like the 81/82/83/84/85s can we?

When BR was nationalised there was little or no government control. BR negotiated a budget with the DfT and then was allowed to get on with it. Imagine what BR could have done if it had had the levels of funding that the so called private operators get today in the form of subsidy.

When BR was nationalised, construction was significantly cheaper (not just on the railways but across all industries). Look at how much it costs to do something simple for the (public sector) Network Rail to tart up the lightly used Breich station- what could two and a half million pounds have bought you in the '80s?

When BR was nationalised, Health And Safety was significantly cheaper/ simpler. Look at how you could electrify the ECML by closing one line and keeping the other in operation - couldn't get away with cutting corners now.

We could nationalise today but it wouldn't be like going back to the 1980s. Look at how the Government wants to micromanage everything it touches, look at how it's turned things like the NHS into hundreds of separate business areas. The idea of the Government sitting down with Proper Railway Men once every five years, handing over a bucket of cash and letting them get on with it is an appealing one for a lot of enthusiasts but it wouldn't be like that - no Government would take that lassier faire approach. Instead, we'd have control by the people who many enthusiasts call "DafT" - is that what people want?

 

[lordbusiness]

When BR was nationalised there was little or no government control. BR negotiated a budget with the DfT and then was allowed to get on with it. Imagine what BR could have done if it had had the levels of funding that the so called private operators get today in the form of subsidy.

But could have that level of funding and budget be guaranteed year on year?
Would the level of funding from Government match the requirements of the industry?
BRB would be competing with all the other departments (health, social services, defence, roads etc) for a limited pot of money.
Dont get me wrong, there are many things wrong with the franchise/ privatisation system and it needs sorting. However I'm not sure relying totally on Govt money with no investment from the private sector will deliver.

I've often heard said that if you want to see an example of what would have happened if privatisation hadn't happened, look at the region covered by the current GA franchise about 4 years ago. Knackered trains, knackered infrastructure, limited capacity and investment.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

BR always apparently looks better the further one is from it. But to pick up just three areas:

1. BR was never 'left to get on with it' once its budget was negotiated. Its investment programmes were regularly scrutinised item by item (Networker authorisation took about two years), its procurement was watched very carefully by the politicians to make sure enough UK content was bought (step forward the Class 60 and BREL privatisation) and its budget could always be varied if HMG couldn't quite afford things (the early 90s recession, when track renewals were slashed on much of the network).
2. It regularly raised fares and often did so much faster than inflation. In the final period, they were consistently raised in real terms simply to generate cash for HMG, not to improve services (as is roughly happening currently).
3. The organisation was never renowned for customer service. It had to move forward. Although putting Prue Leith -- yes, the same one! -- on the Board and all the great steps taken by Messrs Bleasdale, Prideaux and Green to keep the intercity business looking clean and running smoothly, much of the network was far from customer friendly. Just have a look at those great 'Old, Dirty and Late' videos as a reminder!!!

 

[Kneedown]

I would personally go back to the regional system for passenger trains, ie LMR, WR, SR, ER etc.
I see no benefit in making Intercity services seperate to the regional services they connect with, and to do so would inevitably mean that the glamorous Intercity franchise would make all the profits, while the less glamorous Regional franchise would be operating at a loss unless extreme cost cutting were applied. If you're going to have a privatised network, then it is surely best to level the playing field and share the loss making routes among the profitable Intercity franchises.
Most freight services these days are interregional so keep the FOC's as they are.

 

[coppercapped]

When BR was nationalised there was little or no government control. BR negotiated a budget with the DfT and then was allowed to get on with it. Imagine what BR could have done if it had had the levels of funding that the so called private operators get today in the form of subsidy.

Your history is a bit vague...

BR was not nationalised, it was the private companies that were nationalised. The overarching entity created to run all the nationalised transport businesses was the British Transport Commission and its 'agent' responsible for the railways, known as the Railways Executive, traded as 'British Railways'.

You are correct that at the time of nationalisation there was little Government control. This was because the BTC as a whole made a profit and this was because its largest 'agent' was the Railways Executive and this was profitable. In turn this was because the constituent companies were still, in 1947, cash positive - in spite of all the claims made subsequently that they were nationalised because they were broke.

BR's profits then started to slide and by 1953 it no longer could cover its total costs and two years later, in 1955, it could no longer even cover its operating costs. At this point its sponsoring ministry, the Ministry of Transport, became closely involved in its funding covering both operating and capital expenditures and in fares setting.

There was never, ever, a time since then when the MoT, or its later equivalents, was not very closely involved with BR's finances. Where the idea came from, that BR was given a pot of money and then left alone, I have no idea. It is, quite simply, not true.

 

[Mag_seven]

Your history is a bit vague...

BR was not nationalised, it was the private companies that were nationalised.

Sorry I should have phrased that a bit better - what I mean't was "when we had a nationalised railway under BR"

 

[GrimShady]

Good old nationalised British Rail had plenty of small fleets - we can't blame privatisation for things like the 81/82/83/84/85s can we?

No but they were part of an evolutionary design resulting in the Class 87/90. They could still interface with all other coaching stock at the time. Masses of small multiple units now can't.

BR wasn't perfect in this regard, most of the modernisation plan was a complete waste of resources.

They could still do a national traction plan and moving stock between sectors was much easier then than now.

BR PLC is what's required.

 

[coppercapped]

Sorry I should have phrased that a bit better - what I mean't was "when we had a nationalised railway under BR"

OK! Point taken.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

BR did not negotiate with the DfT , they and LT , were summoned once a year to the offices and given a letter with the finance total given by HMG.

There was also a general letter giving "advice" as to what the general direction they should follow over the next 12 months or so.

There are a number of well written books giving the overall views of the (anti-rail) stance of the DfT and politicians.

 

[The Ham]

Imagine what BR could have done if it had had the levels of funding that the so called private operators get today in the form of subsidy.

There's a common misconception that the TOC's receive a net amount of money either directly or via the NR grant.

If you look at the headline of £4 billion given to the railway industry each year you can see why.

However of the money given something like £3.5 billion is given to NR for enhancements to the network with a further £0.8 billion spent on HS2.

To me that looks like that the TOC's, FOC's and the like for like maintenance NR undertakes is all covered by other income sources.

Even if there's some enhancements which would otherwise require maintenance the overall general picture is that most of the subsidy is spent on improving the railways. Much of which will result in lower costs, improved capacity or a combination of the two which will likely improve the picture in future years.

Part of the problem with the current franchise system is that there's no ability for there to be investment which can used to reduce costs (such as reducing the risk of delays and/or electrification) or improve capacity (such as grade separated junctions).

Now if this was done in such a way that resulted in TOC's paying a significant amount of future savings/future income to pay for it then the overall cost to the government would be fairly small (if not cost nutral) over time yet there would be much more improvements to the network.

For instance if SWT had been allowed to do something like this to build a grade separated junction at Woking the number of delays caused by the junction would have fallen (saving delay costs) as well as providing scope for the potential for extra services (increasing income).

That one project probably wouldn't have hada significant impact on the whole network, however if there was enough such schemes then the overall result could be quite transformative.

 

[plcd1]

And here is the official news article from the DfT announcing the much vaunted Rail Review.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-root-and-branch-review-of-rail

A sweeping review to transform Britain’s railways has been launched today (20 September 2018) by Transport Secretary Chris Grayling.

The review — the most significant since privatisation — will consider ambitious recommendations for reform to ensure our vital rail system continues to benefit passengers and support a stronger, fairer economy.

The review — led by independent chair Keith Williams, the former British Airways chief executive and deputy chairman of John Lewis Partnership — will build on the government’s franchising strategy — bringing track and train closer together to reduce disruption and improve accountability, and considering regional partnerships and how we can use innovation to improve services and value for money for passengers.

Keith Williams will be supported by an external panel and will report next year. The government will publish a white paper on the review’s recommendations, with the implementation of reforms planned to start from 2020.

The panel will consider all parts of the rail industry, from the current franchising system and industry structures, accountability, and value for money for passengers and taxpayers.

The panel membership will include Roger Marsh, who chairs the body representing the 11 local enterprise partnerships in the north of England and will bring his expert knowledge and experience of business and transport needs across the north of the country.

Privatisation has led to a level of growth never seen under nationalisation, and reversed the decline the railways saw under British Rail, where routes and stations were closing.

Passenger journeys have more than doubled -— from 735 million in 1994-5 to 1.73 billion in 2016-17. Private investment is at record levels, totalling £5.6 billion over the past 10 years, and the rail network has one of the highest rates of satisfaction and safety in Europe.

However, the industry has not kept pace with this significant growth, shown as the industry struggled to deliver for passengers following the May timetable disruption.

The government has already taken steps to strengthen future train franchises and improve reliability. However, we want to ensure the rail system continues to deliver benefits in the face of these challenges.

The review will analyse all aspects of the industry, alongside the country’s changing travel and work patterns. It will make recommendations to improve the current franchising model in terms of reliability, delivering better services and value for money for passengers, commercial sustainability and innovation.

The review has been launched ahead of the interim report by Professor Stephen Glaister into the timetabling issues in May. It will it take into account the findings of his final report at the end of the year.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said:

Privatisation has delivered huge benefits of passengers on Britain’s railways — doubling passenger journeys and bringing in billions of private investment.

But it is clear that the structure we inherited is no longer fit to meet today’s challenges and cope with increasing customer demand. Following the disruption this summer we took immediate action to improve services and ensure the industry compensated passengers.

We’ve been clear that the railway needs reform to prioritise its passengers, and we have set out plans for closer partnerships between operators of track and train, including on the LNER and South Eastern networks.

But as part of our vision for the future of mobility, we need to go further and more quickly, to get the best from the public and private sectors and deliver the railway we need for the 21st century. It is vital that this review leaves no stone unturned and makes bold recommendations for the future.

I am delighted that Keith Williams — who has significant experience leading businesses within the transport sector — has agreed to be the independent chair of this review. His expertise in driving customer service excellence will be incredibly valuable as we seek to reform the rail industry to become more passenger focused.

The review has a wide scope and will focus on:

• leveraging the commercial model to ensure improved services for passengers and taxpayers, and more effectively balance public and private sector involvement
• the roles and structures of all parts of the industry, looking at how they can work together more effectively to reduce fragmentation, improve passenger services and increase accountability
• how the railway can support a fares system that delivers value for money for passengers and taxpayers; and improved industrial relations to maintain performance for passengers

While the review is taking place, the government will continue with its ambitious programme of investment — £48 billion over the next 5 years.

Keith Williams said:

It’s clear that Britain’s railway has seen unprecedented growth and is carrying more passengers than it did a century ago on a network a fraction of the size. But it also clear it faces significant challenges.

I am looking forward to working with the industry and passengers to tackle these challenges.

While the review is underway, the department will work closely with industry to ensure that rail delivers the day-to-day performance and transformational improvements that passengers expect.

The government will set out the terms of reference of the review and the membership of the panel when Parliament returns. The Transport Secretary has asked that the review engages with a wide range of stakeholders in all parts of the country, including passenger representatives, businesses, and local and devolved bodies and governments.

The department has reviewed all ongoing franchise competitions and other live rail projects in the context of the rail review. Due to the unique geographic nature of the Cross Country franchise, which runs from Aberdeen to Penzance and cuts across multiple parts of the railway, awarding this franchise in 2019 could impact on the review’s conclusions.

It has therefore been decided that this competition will not proceed. Services will continue to be operated by the existing franchisee with options beyond this to be considered in due course. The department will consider the responses to the Cross Country public consultation in the development of future options for the franchise.

All other ongoing franchise competitions and other live rail projects are continuing as planned.

 

[Wombat]

The lack of vertical integration and joined up thinking is killing it at the moment. Look at the recent timetable debacle - who was mostly responsible for that? No one knows because they can all conveniently point the finger of blame at each other. Who loses out the most? The passenger of course.

Yeah. I'm not particularly bothered about nationalisation, I "just" want a single point of accountability that removes perverse incentives for anti-passenger behaviour.

 

[MML]

Just what the industry needs. More highly paid executives who talk the talk buzz words and all. Significant challenges never seem to prevent these parasites collecting their gongs and executive bonuses for a job well done. Even though in most cases, it's not well done at all. And so we have another enquiry so lessons are learned, more quangos and more overpaid executives.

If the CEO of Network Rail was really doing his job, he wouldn't put up with the mess of scrap metal, rails and ballast which is dumped line side by the organisation and its contractors. Shoddy maintenance and lack of leadership.

 

[HH]

Just what the industry needs. More highly paid executives who talk the talk buzz words and all. Significant challenges never seem to prevent these parasites collecting their gongs and executive bonuses for a job well done. Even though in most cases, it's not well done at all. And so we have another enquiry so lessons are learned, more quangos and more overpaid executives.

If the CEO of Network Rail was really doing his job, he wouldn't put up with the mess of scrap metal, rails and ballast which is dumped line side by the organisation and its contractors. Shoddy maintenance and lack of leadership.

Well, hopefully the new CEO will make some changes, but he has only been in the job a month...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The XC refranchising next year has been suspended.
So we can stop speculating about the future of Voyagers for a bit.
Arrival will continue until the rail review has reported.

 

[HH]

Who is this Arrival that everybody keeps talking about?

 

[krus_aragon]

Who is this Arrival that everybody keeps talking about?

I've found an answer for you here...