• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Rail Review

Status
Not open for further replies.

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,942
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 :D

Except I doubt John Lewis will be paying one this year, based on their first 6 months.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

SamYeager

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2014
Messages
339
Leaving aside some people's imaginations of how great BR was ( I still remember being stuck on a failed London-Manchester train for three hours back in the late 60s) what changes do people realistically think will come out of this review?
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
More decentralisation is currently being seen as a good thing. And so the wheel turns...
 

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
2,577
Location
North West
More decentralisation is currently being seen as a good thing. And so the wheel turns...

Just a thought. If everything serving Scotland or Wales were devolved to the Scottish government and Welsh assembly to join ScotRail and Wales & Borders respectively, and everything serving London were devolved to the Mayor and added to London Overground, how much rail would remain in central government control?
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,682
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Chris Grayling has announced the names of the challenge panel to work with Keith Williams on the Rail Review, and its terms of reference:
https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/rail-review
  • Dick Fearn, Independent Chair of Network Rail’s Western Route Supervisory Board and former Chief Executive Officer of Irish Rail
  • Tom Harris, former Transport Minister and Member of Parliament for Glasgow South
  • Margaret Llewellyn OBE, Chair of Network Rail’s Wales Route Supervisory Board and a non-executive director of the Development Bank of Wales, who has experience in the freight industry
  • Roger Marsh OBE, Chair of the Leeds City Region Enterprise Partnership and of the NP11 Board, and a leading advocate for the North of England
  • Dr Alice Maynard CBE, Transport for London board member and the former Chair of Scope, the disability equality charity, who has experience of passenger issues in the rail industry
  • Tony Poulter, non-executive board member at the Department for Transport and Chair of the East Coast Partnershi

Some of these will be well known on the railway, others not.
Dick Fearn is a long-time rail manager in the UK and Ireland.
Tom Harris was a (Labour) junior Transport Minister who seemed to know his brief.
This was in the 2 years immediately preceding Andrew Adonis' appointment, just after the Eddington Report was produced, and also just after the abolition of the SRA.

Terms of reference:
The Review will be independently chaired. 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

Apart from the list of things it will not review, I don't believe fares come into their purlieu either.
 

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,592
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
It sounds like major changes are on the way and its good GTR has improved since the timetable problems under new leadership

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/rail-review

Mr. Speaker,

I would like to update the House on the government’s Rail Review, which we will use to build on the successes of our busy railway, to deliver a network that is fit for the future and better serves passengers.

I will also update the House on the current performance of Northern and GTR.

For a generation before the 1993 Railways Act, British Rail was in seemingly terminal decline. Passenger numbers where falling. Stations were closing. Short term decisions were being made at the expense of the traveling public. The Railways Act brought investment, new services and better reliability.

A quarter of a century later, the situation is very different. Our UK rail network is at capacity in commuter areas, with many of the most intensively used lines in Europe. On many routes, it simply isn’t possible to squeeze more trains onto the network.

As we now know, the railways were not in terminal decline after all – they had simply been starved of investment. Privatisation has reversed the decades of decline and heralded the fastest expansion of our railways since they were built by the Victorians. It has also delivered billions of pounds of investment and radically improved safety. Our railways are now among the safest in the world.

But this welcome expansion has brought new, acute challenges. On major commuter routes across the country, trains are packed each morning. Network Rail, which represents a third (38%) of the industry (based on spend), is nationalised. It is also responsible for over half (54%) of the daily disruption.

But no matter whether it is a failure of the track, a fault with a train, or a customer incident, it is because there is little resilience or margin for error in the system that, when things go wrong, the knock-on effect can last for hours.

This problem is compounded because the railway is run by multiple players without clear lines of accountability.

When I took over as Transport Secretary in 2016 I said that change was needed. I started to bring together the operation of the tracks and trains, which had been split up in the 1990s, to be controlled by single operational teams. This is helping overcome the problems caused by fragmentation, and creating a railway that is more responsive to passenger needs.

I also said that change needed to be evolutionary and not revolutionary, to avoid destabilising the industry. So we have started to shape alliances between the teams running trains and track to create a more joined-up and customer-focused structure.

But the difficulties with the introduction of the new timetable over the summer and the problems we are experiencing with many major investment projects has convinced me that evolution is no longer enough. The collapse of Virgin Trains East Coast has also highlighted the need for radical change.

Simply, we need this change to ensure that the investment going into the railways, from both the government and the private sector, results in better services for passengers and delivers the improved reliability, better trains, extra seats and more frequent services we all want to see.

Last month, my department announced a root-and-branch review of the rail industry.

Keith Williams, deputy chairman of John Lewis and Partners and former chief executive of British Airways, is leading this work and I expect him to make ambitious recommendations for reform to ensure our rail network produces even greater benefits for passengers and continues to support a stronger, fairer economy. Keith Williams’s expertise in driving customer service excellence and workforce engagement will be incredibly valuable as we reform the rail industry to become more passenger-focused.

Keith will be assisted by an independent expert challenge panel from across the country, with expertise in rail, business and customer service.

The panel will ensure the review thinks boldly and creatively, challenging received wisdom, to ensure its recommendations can deliver the stability and improvements that rail passengers deserve. They will be supported by a dedicated secretariat and will now begin engaging with the industry, passengers, regional and business representatives and others across the country, drawing on their expertise, insights and experiences to inform the review.

It will consider all parts of the rail industry, from the current franchising system and industry structures, to accountability and value for money for passengers and taxpayers. It will consider further devolution and the needs of rail freight operators, and will take into account the final report of Professor Stephen Glaister into the May 2018 network disruption, due at the end of the year, which I will turn to shortly.

When we establish what we think is the right approach to mend our railways, it must be properly tested and scrutinised independently.

I have today (11 October 2018) published the Rail Review’s terms of reference, and have placed copies in the libraries of both Houses, together with the names of the Rail Review’s independent panel.

The review will build a rigorous and comprehensive evidence base, and it will make recommendations regarding the most appropriate organisational and commercial framework for the sector that delivers our vision for a world-class railway.

The private sector has an important part to play in shaping the future of the industry, but it is important that the review considers the right balance of public and private sector involvement.

Mr Speaker, some have called for the return to a national, state-run monopoly, and for us to go back to the days of British Rail. There is an expectation that taking on hundreds of millions of pounds of debt onto the government books will magically resolve every problem.

This fails to recognise that many of the problems that customers faced this year were down to the nationalised part of the railways.

It also creates the sense that a government-controlled rebrand would somehow make every train work on time. Those who make this argument fail to tell passengers that the much-needed investment that is taking place today would be at risk, and that taxpayers’ money would be diverted from public services to subsidise losses.

The review will look at how the railway is organised to deliver for passengers. It will look forensically at the different options, and then make recommendations on what will best deliver results in different areas of the country.

The review will conclude with a White Paper in autumn 2019, which will set out its findings, and explain how we will deliver reform. We expect reform to begin from 2020, so passengers will see benefits before the next election.

I have commuted by train for most of my career; over 35 years. I still do. I am proud to be in a government that is supporting a major programme of investment in rail, from Thameslink to the Transpennine upgrade, with new trains in the north, south, east and west.

But I can’t stand by while the current industry struggles to deliver the improvements that this investment should be generating. So it’s time for change.

The review will not prevent us taking every opportunity in the short term to improve passenger experiences. That is the government’s focus, and that is why we are committed to an investment of £48 billion in the railways over the next 5 years.

Mr Speaker, Professor Stephen Glaister’s interim report has provided us with an accurate account of the series of mistakes and complex issues across the rail industry that led to the unacceptable disruption that passengers experienced earlier this year.

We know that in the north, delays to infrastructure upgrades, beyond the control of Northern Rail, were a major factor in the resulting disruption. Richard George, the former head of transport at the London 2012 Olympic Games, is now working with the industry and Transport for the North to look at any underlying performance issues.

In the 4 weeks ending 15 September, over 85% of services met their punctuality targets; the highest level delivered for Northern Rail’s passengers since the timetable introduction in May. Northern is now running 99% of the planned May timetable, and we are working with Transport for the North and the industry to plan further uplifts in services, while prioritising reliability.

In the coming months, passengers across the north will begin to benefit from the brand new trains that were unveiled last week. There will be over 2,000 extra services a week, all the Northern and TransPennine Express trains will be brand new or refurbished, and all the Pacers will be gone.

Mr Speaker,

I now want to turn to GTR which has new leadership and where the reliability of its services have significantly improved; since the introduction of the interim timetable in July, 85% of trains arrived at their station on time.

In addition to this, in the last week, the first of the new Class 717 trains that will run on its Great Northern routes begun testing.

GTR is now operating 94% of the weekday services it planned to run from 20 May, including all services during the busiest peak hours. By December 10 it plans to introduce all planned off-peak services. There is, however, more work to do to improve services at weekends.

Since the disruption in May there has been intense scrutiny from the government and its independent regulator, the Office for Road and Rail, on what went wrong and why.

GTR must take its fair share of the responsibility - its performance was below what we expect from our rail operators.

Officials in my department are taking action to finalise how we will hold GTR account for the disruption and the Rail Minister will keep the House updated.

Mr Speaker, our action demonstrates that when passengers experienced severe disruption, this government took action.

To help passengers plan ahead.

To reduce delays.

To reduce cancellations.

To properly compensate disrupted fare-payers.

The Rail Review that I have announced will continue this approach, ensuring the rail industry is always focused on the passenger first and that record investment delivers the services that passengers want and deserve.
 
Last edited:

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,265
Leaving aside some people's imaginations of how great BR was ( I still remember being stuck on a failed London-Manchester train for three hours back in the late 60s) what changes do people realistically think will come out of this review?

I don't imagine BR being great either. But neither do I imagine the current setup as being noticeably better, even after all the taxpayers' money thrown at it. If BR had continued the way it was going from the early 90s, but given the same amount of public money as our 'privatised' network things would be significantly better than they are now.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,265
I can't believe the ideological blinkers Grayling has. No matter what happens it's Public bad, Private good.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,224
Even Solomon would have been unable to answer some of the challenges this review has been given

  • commercial models for the provision of rail services that prioritise the interests of passengers and taxpayers
  • 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
 

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
Leaving aside some people's imaginations of how great BR was ( I still remember being stuck on a failed London-Manchester train for three hours back in the late 60s) what changes do people realistically think will come out of this review?
You can attempt (and fail) to prove anything with anecdotes such as this. When Virgin took over the WCML their performance went to bits to the extent that I started getting a train an hour before the one I wanted just in case. I also seem to remember that soon after the Pendolinos were introduced one failed somewhere near Cheadle Hulme and was stuck for about 7 hours .... but I can't find any proof of that to be fair. Does it prove that BR was better? No - but much of the criticism of BR was,is and always will be totally biased and generally ignored the lack of resources that they were given in comparison to the money that is doled out today in the annual grant to Network rail.
 

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
Never said they hadn't!!! (Although I dislike the Virgin group as a whole for reasons which have no place on this forum).
 

SamYeager

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2014
Messages
339
You can attempt (and fail) to prove anything with anecdotes such as this.

I was merely pointing out that BR was not the paragon of excellence that some posters have portrayed in this and other threads. Just like the existing TOCs they had equipment failures, process failures and customer service failures. However the TOCs is what we have now and frankly that's unlikely to change too much. At most I could see rail provison moving closer to the situation in Scotland with a limited number of TOCs compared to the current numbers.
 

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,592
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/...-got-a-real-rail-service-choice-a3991106.html
Twenty-five years ago one of the most unpopular and poorly planned privatisations passed into law. The subsequent failure to get rail policy right has amplified calls for re-nationalisation and consistently put ministers on the defensive. I have a solution which should work and is long overdue.

The then Prime Minister John Major’s plans for the railways had lofty ambitions — privatisation would deliver “more competition, greater efficiency and a wider choice of services more closely tailored to what customers want.”


Compared with the old British Rail behemoth it replaced, there have been some impressive achievements including record safety, a doubling in passenger numbers, new stations, and huge innovations in ticketing. However, real choice for passengers, and competition between train operators is still missing on any significant scale.

Faced with plunging passenger satisfaction and soaring complaints, ministers have announced yet another rail review, but this time it should be different. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling’s pledge to put its recommendations into a White Paper next year is welcome but this must be followed up with legislation in 2020.


The key to this latest review must be to leave alone what works and fix what doesn’t. Encouragingly, it will be led by Keith Williams, the deputy chairman of John Lewis and former chief executive of British Airways. This should mean passengers will, at last, be put at its heart. The benefit of strong competition for passengers in aviation is overwhelming — so why not in rail? It would not only provide choice for passengers but would also keep fares down and deliver a more modal shift from road to rail.

Take London’s mainline stations, most of which, apart from London King’s Cross, are the preserve of one large monopoly train franchise. King’s Cross is the only station where some direct on-track long distance competition has been allowed with clear evidence that passengers have really benefited.

By comparing walk-on standard single fares at 8am tomorrow for the same direct journey distance — 185 miles — from London Euston which has no competition, and King’s Cross, the fare differences are stark. From Euston to Manchester the fare is £169, but over the same distance between King’s Cross and York, the maximum fare is £131.50, with one as low as £50 from a rival train firm.

Competition here has led to lower fares and more choice. The successful model of train competition at King’s Cross is now well established and provides an aviation-style solution where high-speed train companies should bid for slots to run on the same tracks.

The new review is an opportunity to get it right, deliver choice and restore passenger trust.

What does everyone think? Isn’t direct competition really hard to do currently due to the rules by the Office of Rail and Road’s Non-Primary Abstractive
 
Last edited:

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,592
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46476431
Keith Williams, who is heading a year-long review of UK railways, has refused to rule out nationalisation as a possible recommendation to government.

Mr Williams is a deputy chairman of John Lewis Partnership and former chief executive of British Airways.

"I am independent, for me all options are on the table. I think we should look at everything," he told the BBC.

"Our job is to come up with a recommendation for government, of whatever persuasion, to take forward."

His review was established to suggest the most appropriate organisational and commercial frameworks for the rail network.

However, transport minister Chris Grayling does not entertain the idea of nationalising the rail network, preferring the review to "more effectively balance public and private sector investment".

Mr Williams' findings and recommendations will be published in a government White Paper in autumn 2019, with "reform of the sector" to begin in 2020.

'Flawed'
"What I see in the rail system is a loss of public confidence, a loss of public trust, and hence the need for the review, because at the end of the day the rail network works for the consumer, the passenger," Mr Williams said.

"What does the passenger want out of the railway system, how we deliver it, and then how do we actually structure [the railway] to do that?"

He said he did not want to point the finger at who, or what, might be responsible for the current unsatisfactory state of affairs, adding that the rail system "has been flawed at a number of levels".

Mr Williams added: "There is a measure of success in the railways. The number of passengers has increased, the investment has increased significantly, but that isn't leading to greater passenger satisfaction.

"I see an acknowledgement of a need for change. When I go and meet passengers, and interested parties in the railway, what I see is a huge passion in the railway, and a consensus that something needs to be better."

He said that Britain's railways had a great history, but that the network now needed to be fit to meet the demands of the 21st Century.

"My issue is not around the past, my issue is making sure we have something that works for passengers into the future," he said.

As well as passenger satisfaction he said the review also had to look at the rail network in a broader context, including economic and environmental issues.

"It is the engine of economic growth for the country," he said.

Nationalisation has not been ruled out. Grayling must be furious! Any thoughts?
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,045
Location
North Wales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46476431


Nationalisation has not been ruled out. Grayling must be furious! Any thoughts?
If nationalisation is ruled out at this point, critics of the final report can say "ah, but they weren't allowed to consider nationalisation as an option"! Whereas if it's still on the table, the eventual report can be used to make a case against nationalisation (assuming that the report favours any other approach).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,879
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Presumably also things like a Beeching or Serpell[1] can't be ruled out either, in that case?

[1] e.g. outright closure of all loss-making parts, and full privatisation of the remains.
 

J-Rod

Member
Joined
9 Nov 2017
Messages
147
Not that I'm advocating re-nationalisation but I'm not sure that harking back to How Things Were is a valid argument for NOT doing it. Time's moved on a bit since...
 

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,592
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
If nationalisation is ruled out at this point, critics of the final report can say "ah, but they weren't allowed to consider nationalisation as an option"! Whereas if it's still on the table, the eventual report can be used to make a case against nationalisation (assuming that the report favours any other approach).

Had not thought of that. I suppose it is probably to silence those who say nationalisation is the best way forward (which I am not convinced it is).
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,099
Location
Reading
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/...-got-a-real-rail-service-choice-a3991106.html


What does everyone think? Isn’t direct competition really hard to do currently due to the rules by the Office of Rail and Road’s Non-Primary Abstractive
The model of privatisation that was adopted was never intended to promote competition between TOCs on the same route - it was accepted very early on in the lead up to privatisation that the way the railway interworks made this impossible - with the exception of some small Open Access operators. This is why the TOCs were awarded what are essentially geographic monopolies - and because they were monopolies they were intentionally time limited to avoid the long term implications.

The pressure to reduce the net cost to the Government of train operation was intended to come from the competition between the bidders when the franchises came up for renewal. This never happened in the manner foreseen by the promoters of privatisation because by the time the first franchises came up for renewal the Government had changed and the emphasis swung back to more central control with the creation of the Strategic Rail Authority. Rather than running their own businesses the TOCs became more and more simply the executive arm of the Department for Transport.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,879
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Rather than running their own businesses the TOCs became more and more simply the executive arm of the Department for Transport.

But is that actually a problem? When a Council contracts out the bin emptying, they specify what service is going to be provided. The competition is on efficiency and cost.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
But is that actually a problem? When a Council contracts out the bin emptying, they specify what service is going to be provided. The competition is on efficiency and cost.
I think the "Welsh experiment" is interesting - give a price and then say, "What can you deliver for that?".
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,682
Location
Mold, Clwyd
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46476431
Nationalisation has not been ruled out. Grayling must be furious! Any thoughts?

As Chris Grayling set his terms of reference, I doubt it is a surprise to him.
In any case, Keith Williams is just producing a report and recommendations.
He won't be the one to implement them.
Governments rarely accept independent reports in their entirety (or at all).

There's a great deal of work to do to define an optimum structure for the rail industry, before deciding on ownership.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,099
Location
Reading
But is that actually a problem? When a Council contracts out the bin emptying, they specify what service is going to be provided. The competition is on efficiency and cost.
Yes.

Because the idea was that the TOCs would be left to their own devices, within the legal framework set, and arrange their own rolling stock, between each other and the ROSCOs, they would have been free to set timetables and so on. The whole concept was that because they were closest to the customer they would be allowed freedom to change things as they saw fit as long as they stayed within their financial framework.

Now the DfT sets timetables - eight years ago I was at an IMechE meeting about the IEP at which Stuart Baker of the DfT announced that the Western franchisee would be introducing an hourly non-stop train between London and Bristol. That was eight years ago - has anyone checked to see whether it is still (a) needed or (b) feasible without introducing more delays?

The DfT controls train fleets, timetables and infrastructure enhancements and rather than letting the bidders propose a premium or subsidy profile that they thought achievable the DfT now defines the profile. It's not surprising things go wrong.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,787
Location
Herts

The DfT controls train fleets, timetables and infrastructure enhancements and rather than letting the bidders propose a premium or subsidy profile that they thought achievable the DfT now defines the profile. It's not surprising things go wrong.

With very heavy dependency on shoals of consultants , who may be variable in knowledge etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top